Browse content similar to 10/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
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. | :00:00. | |
business in the Lords after the daily politics later tonight. We are | :00:00. | :00:09. | |
recognising what the Government has done and he talked about various | :00:10. | :00:15. | |
changes, going bankrupt and the declining footfall on our high | :00:16. | :00:18. | |
streets. In fact, footfall is increasing. Some high streets have | :00:19. | :00:24. | |
responded very well to the changing patterns of the high Street. The | :00:25. | :00:29. | |
ones that have responded well are seeing very good results. In my own | :00:30. | :00:34. | |
town of Altrincham, the market has almost completely revitalised the | :00:35. | :00:42. | |
town centre. The question dealing specifically with the issue of | :00:43. | :00:46. | |
turnover tax of online trading, what is the Government's response to that | :00:47. | :00:52. | |
suggestion? I think I have outlined the gamut response to the | :00:53. | :00:56. | |
suggestion, that high streets have found numerous ways of responding to | :00:57. | :01:00. | |
the different patterns on the high Street. -- government. And many | :01:01. | :01:05. | |
chains on the high street are benefiting from things like clip and | :01:06. | :01:15. | |
collect. Does the Minister agree local councils have done a great | :01:16. | :01:19. | |
deal to help revive local high street in that they are the centre | :01:20. | :01:24. | |
of communities and very important, particularly for poorer communities? | :01:25. | :01:28. | |
Could the Minister also say if the Government has considered giving | :01:29. | :01:31. | |
local councils, particularly combined authorities, more powers in | :01:32. | :01:36. | |
re-evaluation of and setting the business rate, as suggested in the | :01:37. | :01:41. | |
London Finance commission and the Citigroup commission? -- city growth | :01:42. | :01:50. | |
commission? The councils will be able to retain a 100% of their | :01:51. | :01:56. | |
business rates by 2020. And in fact combined authorities with Mayers | :01:57. | :02:04. | |
will be able to raise or reduce his rates in their combined authority | :02:05. | :02:08. | |
area. I concur with what the noble lady says. I can think of two local | :02:09. | :02:14. | |
authorities in Greater Manchester whether councils have been at the | :02:15. | :02:20. | |
forefront of that revitalisation of their local high street. Does the | :02:21. | :02:27. | |
Minister take on board the suggestion that in reducing the size | :02:28. | :02:32. | |
of town centres, taking into account online trading, making finance | :02:33. | :02:38. | |
available to local authorities to actually achieve that aim? The noble | :02:39. | :02:42. | |
Lord I think makes a very good point. One of the things that | :02:43. | :02:46. | |
councils observed is that we need more shoppers in local high street | :02:47. | :02:54. | |
and not more shops. Hence expanding into some of the excellent food | :02:55. | :03:00. | |
offers that markets are offering now and some of the conversions from | :03:01. | :03:04. | |
office into residential which help revitalise the footfall in local | :03:05. | :03:08. | |
high street. Particularly in the North of England where I am. My | :03:09. | :03:18. | |
Lords, I have been a nonexecutive director... Order. We have not heard | :03:19. | :03:33. | |
from the crossbenchers and I suggest we go to my noble friend. I have | :03:34. | :03:37. | |
been a nonexecutive director for eight and a half years. When I | :03:38. | :03:40. | |
started Internet sales were ?50 million. Today they have a turnover | :03:41. | :03:47. | |
of ?1 billion. Surely the answer is to have the high Street take | :03:48. | :03:51. | |
advantage of the Internet age. What is the Government doing to help | :03:52. | :03:55. | |
retailers take advantage of the Internet, whether it is payment, | :03:56. | :03:58. | |
winning customers and dealing with suppliers and the supply chain? The | :03:59. | :04:06. | |
noble Lloyd is absolutely right. The digital age -- noble lord is | :04:07. | :04:10. | |
absolutely right. I have mentioned click and collect. There is also the | :04:11. | :04:15. | |
point for the local high street businesses, they have got to compete | :04:16. | :04:22. | |
in the digital age. We have announced a digital pilot programme | :04:23. | :04:24. | |
across Gloucestershire working with partners in the private sector, | :04:25. | :04:29. | |
including Argos, IBM and Cisco. This was in close collaboration with the | :04:30. | :04:36. | |
business retail unit. Does the Minister think there is any | :04:37. | :04:38. | |
connection between the lack of customers in the high Street and the | :04:39. | :04:42. | |
to radical and punitive parking arrangements imposed in our streets, | :04:43. | :04:47. | |
which make it impossible to go to the high Street and spend money? My | :04:48. | :04:54. | |
noble friend is absolutely right. The government has recognised that | :04:55. | :04:59. | |
some of the punitive practices on the high streets have prevented, or | :05:00. | :05:04. | |
in fact discourage people from going shopping in their local high | :05:05. | :05:07. | |
streets. We have done something about it. Online trading, is it not | :05:08. | :05:16. | |
true online trading is going to grow, notwithstanding what might | :05:17. | :05:19. | |
happen in the high streets? And online trading is welcomed by many | :05:20. | :05:23. | |
people, but the result of the deficit would online trading, not | :05:24. | :05:27. | |
the least, the growth of the amount of traffic, the white vans are | :05:28. | :05:34. | |
everywhere now and they are creating congestion and creating poisonous | :05:35. | :05:37. | |
areas in the communities. What is the Government going to do about | :05:38. | :05:41. | |
that to at least make them papal the pollution they are creating? Whether | :05:42. | :05:45. | |
the car is going with its owner to the shop, or whether the van from | :05:46. | :05:50. | |
the distribution centre is going to the home, I'm afraid shopping does | :05:51. | :05:55. | |
in one way or another create use of carbon in the atmosphere. The noble | :05:56. | :06:00. | |
Lord is right. Online is increasing vastly. The high streets are ignored | :06:01. | :06:06. | |
in that and they are responding to it. They are creating different | :06:07. | :06:11. | |
offers, for example, leisure and markets in the high Street, these | :06:12. | :06:15. | |
are the high street that are doing well. | :06:16. | :06:26. | |
The government recognises that mass immigration can increase population | :06:27. | :06:31. | |
pressures. That is why we're seeking to reduce net migration to a | :06:32. | :06:35. | |
sustainable level from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of | :06:36. | :06:39. | |
thousands. The government is committed to a significant programme | :06:40. | :06:41. | |
of investment in our public services taken together these steps and | :06:42. | :06:47. | |
future measures will ensure that there is adequate provision. May I | :06:48. | :06:52. | |
thank the Minister for his somewhat sanguine reply. Will he also agree | :06:53. | :07:01. | |
that the million also refugees that Angela Merkel has accepted will soon | :07:02. | :07:06. | |
have the right to come here? The Turks will be the next? Adding to | :07:07. | :07:11. | |
the overload of our hospitals, schools, houses, greatly to the | :07:12. | :07:15. | |
detriment of our existing population? Is he also surprised | :07:16. | :07:23. | |
that the effect of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and the | :07:24. | :07:29. | |
stability of our nation and on the welfare of working people appears | :07:30. | :07:35. | |
not to be of concern in very few exceptions to the Labour Party? -- | :07:36. | :07:43. | |
with very few exceptions. My Lords, the government is completely | :07:44. | :07:47. | |
reforming the immigration system, cutting abuse and focusing on | :07:48. | :07:51. | |
attracting the brightest and best. Since 2010, reforms have cut abuse | :07:52. | :07:55. | |
and the student and family these assistants and raise standards in | :07:56. | :07:59. | |
the work roots. In addition our recent negotiations in Europe have | :08:00. | :08:06. | |
brought to fruition the provision for new settlement agreements and EU | :08:07. | :08:10. | |
migrants. With the requirement for a seven year emergency brake being in | :08:11. | :08:17. | |
place. He has told us how wonderful the government 's investment in | :08:18. | :08:20. | |
public services is, to meet all the concerns the noble Lord said but | :08:21. | :08:26. | |
could he explain why that is a shortage of primary school places | :08:27. | :08:30. | |
for example in London, why our health service in so many areas is | :08:31. | :08:33. | |
in crisis, why there is a problem with social care becoming unviable? | :08:34. | :08:40. | |
Why is that happening if the governance policies towards the | :08:41. | :08:45. | |
public services have been so benign? It takes time to recover from the | :08:46. | :08:48. | |
experience that we had up until 2010. The major steps had been | :08:49. | :08:54. | |
taken, the judgment is committed to invest 7 billion in school places by | :08:55. | :08:59. | |
2021. To increase NHS funding in England by 10 billion in real terms | :09:00. | :09:03. | |
by 2020, to invest 20 billion housing in the next five years | :09:04. | :09:06. | |
including 8 billion in affordable housing. That's all very well but | :09:07. | :09:14. | |
clearly as the noble Lord has said it's not sufficient. Can you tell is | :09:15. | :09:21. | |
why the government is not building more new hospitals, schools and | :09:22. | :09:25. | |
housing using the additional income the government is receiving from | :09:26. | :09:27. | |
foreign workers who are paying significant sums in income tax and | :09:28. | :09:36. | |
national insurance? A considerable sum is being expended in these areas | :09:37. | :09:40. | |
and we expect to deliver 600,000 new school places by 2021. | :09:41. | :09:48. | |
Can you tell me whether he has had any success in establishing a | :09:49. | :09:56. | |
bipartisan policy towards reducing immigration to tens of thousands? Or | :09:57. | :10:01. | |
is the opposition dedicated to an open door to let more and more and | :10:02. | :10:08. | |
more migrants in? With no idea how we shall pay not just of the schools | :10:09. | :10:16. | |
and hospitals but the roads, the waterworks, power stations and | :10:17. | :10:22. | |
everything else? Whose side does he think the opposition on? The British | :10:23. | :10:24. | |
people or the foreigners? I believe that all manners of this | :10:25. | :10:38. | |
house would recognise the importance of a controlled migration system | :10:39. | :10:44. | |
that brings us the best and is the best in this country. Only by means | :10:45. | :10:48. | |
of a controlled migration system can we have an effective workable | :10:49. | :10:53. | |
society that is integrated and settled. Today we have had the | :10:54. | :11:00. | |
opportunity to hear from the authentic voice of the Conservative | :11:01. | :11:03. | |
Party, from behind the noble lord the Minister, but the last Labour | :11:04. | :11:08. | |
government did put into place a migration impact fund. Local | :11:09. | :11:12. | |
authorities and health trusts could apply for some share of this funding | :11:13. | :11:16. | |
to support efforts at reducing the impact of migration and public | :11:17. | :11:20. | |
services. There wasn't a panacea to solve all problems but it did help | :11:21. | :11:24. | |
raise new funding to support infrastructure. However the fund was | :11:25. | :11:26. | |
scrapped by the Coalition Government within a few months and little was | :11:27. | :11:30. | |
then done to ensure that support was still given where it was needed. | :11:31. | :11:34. | |
We've also said that EU funding should be made available to areas | :11:35. | :11:37. | |
impacted by rapid migration. It'll help with public services such as | :11:38. | :11:43. | |
schools in GP services. Is this a step that is being will be supported | :11:44. | :11:48. | |
by the government? This government had to wrestle with the inheritance | :11:49. | :11:52. | |
of 2010 so far as migration is concerned. We found ourselves with | :11:53. | :11:59. | |
more than 900 bogus colleges arranging for the admission of fake | :12:00. | :12:02. | |
students into this country in the numbers of the hundreds of | :12:03. | :12:05. | |
thousands. 920 of those fake colleges have been closed since | :12:06. | :12:12. | |
2010. That itself has relieved pressure on our services. | :12:13. | :12:27. | |
It is the turn of the crossbenchers but someone who hasn't yet asked the | :12:28. | :12:37. | |
question. My Lords, as an Iranian born citizen, I have to say that not | :12:38. | :12:42. | |
all the buzz are a drain on the economy. Also I would like to remind | :12:43. | :12:46. | |
the house that the national health would not run if it weren't for | :12:47. | :12:51. | |
people from abroad with high qualifications who are willing to | :12:52. | :12:58. | |
work in the national health and help this economy. It is important to | :12:59. | :13:02. | |
recognise the contribution that they make the cars the caring services | :13:03. | :13:09. | |
and the NHS would not function without their contribution. That | :13:10. | :13:13. | |
important contribution is of course recognised. The government believes | :13:14. | :13:16. | |
that in the long-term it is necessary to train our own nurses in | :13:17. | :13:19. | |
this country and consequently the Department of Health has put in | :13:20. | :13:27. | |
place a clear plan to reduce the number of overseas nurses each year | :13:28. | :13:31. | |
until 2019 when we expect that sufficient nurses to meet demand. | :13:32. | :13:42. | |
I beg leave to ask the questions on the my name on the order paper. | :13:43. | :13:48. | |
We expect all sports bodies to adhere to the highest standards of | :13:49. | :13:54. | |
government and to fully cooperate in taking appropriate action against | :13:55. | :13:59. | |
those who damage the integrity of sport as a result, the government is | :14:00. | :14:02. | |
introducing a new governance code for sport in the UK later this year. | :14:03. | :14:07. | |
The code will be mandatory for all sports governing bodies in receipt | :14:08. | :14:12. | |
of public spending and noncompliance with the code will mean these bodies | :14:13. | :14:20. | |
will lose out on that funding. I thank the Minister for that reply. | :14:21. | :14:26. | |
Could however she give me an opinion about what happens when some of | :14:27. | :14:30. | |
these bodies reached the end of their authority and have the report | :14:31. | :14:36. | |
and to somebody else to achieve any action against somebody who has | :14:37. | :14:40. | |
broken the spirit of the code? For instance, a doping scandal that | :14:41. | :14:46. | |
suddenly ends out without authority. Will we undertake a review so that | :14:47. | :14:49. | |
action is taken across the board and doesn't end after artificial | :14:50. | :14:54. | |
boundaries there for historical reasons? The Lord is quite right | :14:55. | :14:58. | |
about the need for things to be joined up. That is why we've setup a | :14:59. | :15:07. | |
group Jersey called the gigs group, the government integrity group for | :15:08. | :15:13. | |
sport, drawing from across Whitehall departments and the key agencies | :15:14. | :15:15. | |
like the gambling commission and anti-doping and we will be putting | :15:16. | :15:20. | |
the governance code out to consultation so that the sort of | :15:21. | :15:22. | |
issues that he has identified are properly thought through and dealt | :15:23. | :15:31. | |
with. We have this week the anti-corruption Summit organised by | :15:32. | :15:35. | |
the Prime Minister. Will the Minister urged the Prime Minister to | :15:36. | :15:41. | |
put the subject on the agenda bearing in mind the news reports | :15:42. | :15:45. | |
we've had of government involvement in that such corruption and will she | :15:46. | :15:50. | |
support the aim of funding a body that is independent of governing | :15:51. | :15:57. | |
sports governing bodies? I can confirm that corruption in sport | :15:58. | :16:05. | |
will be on the summit agenda this week. It's very important that | :16:06. | :16:08. | |
international discussion should take place on this vital subject. As I | :16:09. | :16:15. | |
explained, UK sport and UK sport England are responsible for this | :16:16. | :16:21. | |
whole area and draw on government money which has the properly | :16:22. | :16:25. | |
accounted for and I'm not convinced that the direction he's going for is | :16:26. | :16:30. | |
the right one although having said we are looking at the whole area | :16:31. | :16:33. | |
including the question of criminal sanctions. Is my noble friend aware | :16:34. | :16:40. | |
that at the entrance to the stadium at Mount Olympus in ageing Greece | :16:41. | :16:44. | |
they erected a Roman statues of the great god Zeus to remind those | :16:45. | :16:47. | |
entering what the purpose of the exercise was? The statues were | :16:48. | :16:53. | |
actually paid for by fines levied on cheats. Do you think we can adapt | :16:54. | :16:58. | |
that idea and perhaps correct an avenue of statues of just ordinary | :16:59. | :17:04. | |
working men and women outside the entrance to the commission in | :17:05. | :17:10. | |
Brussels to remind them what the purpose of the exercise really is? | :17:11. | :17:13. | |
Given that its Brussels, with all that money sloshing around, they | :17:14. | :17:16. | |
should have too much trouble in finding the money for it but if | :17:17. | :17:23. | |
there's I would be happy to chip in. Our country and the whole of | :17:24. | :17:26. | |
European suppliers Asian has left a huge amount from the Greeks and from | :17:27. | :17:37. | |
the union and from the Romans. That has learnt a huge amount. I'm sure | :17:38. | :17:42. | |
Brussels has lots to learn. We turn to sport. Could the government say | :17:43. | :17:51. | |
how we as a government intervene in the affairs of these various | :17:52. | :17:53. | |
international sports federations where there is a could mend this | :17:54. | :17:59. | |
problem in autocratic countries, governments to fix what goes on and | :18:00. | :18:02. | |
in non-organ autocratic countries governance are more at arms length, | :18:03. | :18:09. | |
how is government working with British and other representatives | :18:10. | :18:11. | |
and such bodies just make sure that they don't go down the road that | :18:12. | :18:16. | |
sadly one or two have done in recent years? In Britain, we care a huge | :18:17. | :18:24. | |
amount about corruption in sport and cleaning things up and that is in | :18:25. | :18:28. | |
the mouths of all the people who represent is around the world. That | :18:29. | :18:31. | |
is one of the reasons the Prime Minister has put this important | :18:32. | :18:35. | |
issue on his agenda this week and we work I think it's fair to say they | :18:36. | :18:40. | |
are night through our bodies to try and clean up sport. There's always | :18:41. | :18:46. | |
more to do and obviously the vote to suspend Russian athletes are more | :18:47. | :18:49. | |
competition being unanimous was a very good move. Could not all those | :18:50. | :18:56. | |
in sport draw inspiration from the victors games this week? They could | :18:57. | :19:04. | |
indeed talk great inspiration from the games and from the Olympics and | :19:05. | :19:10. | |
the Paralympics and the fact that Prince Harry is involved next is all | :19:11. | :19:17. | |
delighted. With my noble friend take the opportunity when we send a team | :19:18. | :19:23. | |
to Rio to take the opportunity rather than looking at the negative | :19:24. | :19:26. | |
elements of sport to look at the positive side of sport and find time | :19:27. | :19:31. | |
either before the team goes to Rio or after to laud those who make such | :19:32. | :19:38. | |
a positive contribution rather than a negative contribution to society? | :19:39. | :19:45. | |
I think my noble friend makes a very good point. We can also lead the way | :19:46. | :19:50. | |
on the issue of corruption which is today's subject for debate. By | :19:51. | :19:54. | |
making sure that all our athletes are tested before they go and that | :19:55. | :20:00. | |
we have no problems or a reputational issues when we are in | :20:01. | :20:06. | |
Brazil. The Bishop of St Albans. I beg leave to ask the question on the | :20:07. | :20:13. | |
order paper. The Minister for immigration will shortly be writing | :20:14. | :20:17. | |
to local authorities to set out the new funding rates for unaccompanied | :20:18. | :20:21. | |
asylum seeking children. We are consulting with local authorities | :20:22. | :20:24. | |
across the United Kingdom to understand how many children they | :20:25. | :20:28. | |
can support and willing gauge charities with relevant expertise as | :20:29. | :20:32. | |
a part of that process. -- engaged charities. In all our debates and | :20:33. | :20:38. | |
statistics is vital we remember that the needs of the Child are paramount | :20:39. | :20:44. | |
but every point. A number of colleagues have signed a letter | :20:45. | :20:47. | |
published in the Times today calling on Her Majesty's Government to | :20:48. | :20:50. | |
ensure that the unaccompanied children living in the Calais camps | :20:51. | :20:55. | |
who have family here in the UK are reunited with them in time for the | :20:56. | :21:00. | |
new school term in September and furthermore calling upon the | :21:01. | :21:05. | |
government to act on the 300 unaccompanied children in Greece and | :21:06. | :21:11. | |
Italy to deal with that in the same time frame. In the light of this | :21:12. | :21:17. | |
profound humanitarian need, indeed crisis, with the laud the minister | :21:18. | :21:21. | |
assured your Lordships house of the government will act on these matters | :21:22. | :21:23. | |
I immediately? My Lords, the Government is already | :21:24. | :21:31. | |
acting upon these matters and has made provision in Calais for experts | :21:32. | :21:35. | |
to be present in order to help with the registration of unaccompanied | :21:36. | :21:39. | |
children who might have wrecked relatives in the UK and have a route | :21:40. | :21:44. | |
to the UK by way of the Dublin regulation. -- the wrecked | :21:45. | :21:49. | |
relatives. We will assist -- direct relatives. We are at the forefront | :21:50. | :21:57. | |
of attempts to secure as much as we can by way of relief to these | :21:58. | :22:04. | |
unaccompanied children. My Lords, in the last few days there has been a | :22:05. | :22:09. | |
BBC television programme showing seeks supporting the homeless in | :22:10. | :22:14. | |
London. This evening I will be meeting people to take that work | :22:15. | :22:25. | |
further forward. -- sikhs. May I assure the Minister that all of the | :22:26. | :22:34. | |
sikhs in the country will be not only willing to provide the free | :22:35. | :22:38. | |
food but every support and assistance to these children. What | :22:39. | :22:47. | |
he says, the men's the Government's effort is -- complements the | :22:48. | :22:55. | |
Government 's efforts. We have had an unequivocal statement that these | :22:56. | :22:58. | |
children coming into this country will have no pressure, or | :22:59. | :23:02. | |
requirement placed on them at the age of 18 to leave these shores. I | :23:03. | :23:11. | |
can give no such assurance. The position of these children when they | :23:12. | :23:14. | |
reached the age of 18 will be assessed and the right to remain | :23:15. | :23:17. | |
will be determined by reference to the country from which they arrived | :23:18. | :23:21. | |
and reference to whether or not it is fair, reasonable and safe for | :23:22. | :23:29. | |
them to return. Is the Government in communication with the Government of | :23:30. | :23:32. | |
Canada, which is working with civil society? It has private sponsorship | :23:33. | :23:38. | |
of refugees programmes, where sponsors can provide financial and | :23:39. | :23:42. | |
emotional support for a period, usually one year. As the joint | :23:43. | :23:47. | |
assistant programme is partnering with organisations to settle | :23:48. | :23:53. | |
refugees with special needs. I am not aware of direct contact with the | :23:54. | :23:59. | |
Canadian authorities but I will write to the label Navy -- noble | :24:00. | :24:05. | |
lady upon the matter. Bearing in mind the example of the community of | :24:06. | :24:12. | |
which we have just heard, is the Government planning an exceptional | :24:13. | :24:17. | |
education for the Muslims among these children? Teaching them for | :24:18. | :24:25. | |
example not to follow the tenets of abrogation and become leaders of | :24:26. | :24:31. | |
integration in our society? These children, we hope, will be fostered | :24:32. | :24:36. | |
along with British children. They will be educated alongside British | :24:37. | :24:41. | |
children and we believe that they will acquire the same outlook and | :24:42. | :24:49. | |
values. The question of the prelate. Will the Minister confirm that | :24:50. | :24:54. | |
citizen UK, cited in the letter referred to by the reverend has said | :24:55. | :25:00. | |
there are 157 children in Calais, in the jungle, in terrible conditions | :25:01. | :25:06. | |
of squalor, who do have a legal claim to come to the United Kingdom | :25:07. | :25:11. | |
because they have relatives here. Will the noble Lord confirm he will | :25:12. | :25:14. | |
speak to his officials to see that all possible things will be done to | :25:15. | :25:18. | |
extradite those claims and see if they have an understanding to come | :25:19. | :25:22. | |
to the United skin and then start the academic year in September in | :25:23. | :25:30. | |
our schools. -- United Kingdom. The French authorities are taking steps | :25:31. | :25:33. | |
to improve conditions in Calais, as your Lordships will be aware. With | :25:34. | :25:38. | |
regard to the number of 157, I cannot comment but I can say the | :25:39. | :25:42. | |
garment has made provision in Calais to make sure those unaccompanied | :25:43. | :25:45. | |
children who do have the wrecked relatives in the UK do follow the | :25:46. | :25:49. | |
appropriate part. -- direct relatives. And then they proceed by | :25:50. | :25:57. | |
the way of the Dublin regulation. It is no good getting these children | :25:58. | :26:02. | |
here two days before term stance and pitching them into strange schools. | :26:03. | :26:07. | |
They must have time to settle into a family, Tory home, before they | :26:08. | :26:11. | |
undertake that Berry stressful process. -- or a home. -- very | :26:12. | :26:19. | |
stressful. We must regard the capability of local authorities to | :26:20. | :26:24. | |
receive these children. Until Foster places are available for them and | :26:25. | :26:27. | |
there are suitable schools available for them, it would not the | :26:28. | :26:30. | |
appropriate to simply bring them here. I accept what the Lord is | :26:31. | :26:38. | |
saying. It was suggested in the House of Commons yesterday it could | :26:39. | :26:42. | |
be seven months before any chart is accepted here. How many more | :26:43. | :26:46. | |
children will go missing in seven months? How many more will suffer in | :26:47. | :26:52. | |
seven months? It is not the first time that we have said we need a | :26:53. | :26:58. | |
degree of urgency on this question. I believe everybody is aware of the | :26:59. | :27:03. | |
urgency. The government said we expected the first children would | :27:04. | :27:06. | |
arrive before the end of the year and not as was widely reported that | :27:07. | :27:10. | |
it would take until the end of the year before they arrived. Surely we | :27:11. | :27:16. | |
remember this proposal from Save the Children was last September? There | :27:17. | :27:21. | |
seems to be nothing to be said by the Government in order to make sure | :27:22. | :27:25. | |
these children are welcome to hear by people who have real hearts and | :27:26. | :27:30. | |
warm hearts, willing to welcome them. Is the Government is not | :27:31. | :27:34. | |
totally out of step with the thinking of caring people in the | :27:35. | :27:39. | |
United Kingdom? I do not accept that. This government has been at | :27:40. | :27:44. | |
the forefront of efforts to deal with the refugee problem, not only | :27:45. | :27:49. | |
in Syria but also in Europe. We are taking further steps to deal with | :27:50. | :27:51. | |
the question of unaccompanied children. But he will remember those | :27:52. | :27:56. | |
children now in Europe are in a relatively safe havens. It cannot be | :27:57. | :28:00. | |
suggested France is anything other than a safe country. We are taking | :28:01. | :28:05. | |
steps were children with a connection with the United Kingdom, | :28:06. | :28:08. | |
we will make sure that connection can be established properly and | :28:09. | :28:12. | |
these children brought to the United Kingdom, where they have direct | :28:13. | :28:19. | |
family links. Thousands of children have been sexually abused. They not | :28:20. | :28:25. | |
safe in Europe. We are talking about Europe. Where are they going and | :28:26. | :28:30. | |
what is happening to them? There needs to be much greater urgency | :28:31. | :28:35. | |
than there is currently now. We are all aware of the terrible reports | :28:36. | :28:38. | |
which have emanated from Europe about the condition of these | :28:39. | :28:42. | |
children and the fact that their whereabouts in many cases cannot now | :28:43. | :28:46. | |
be ascertained. It is a matter of concern. I reiterate that this | :28:47. | :28:50. | |
government is at the forefront of efforts to deal with these issues. | :28:51. | :28:55. | |
Third reading of the members fund Bill. Lord Naseby. I beg to move | :28:56. | :29:03. | |
this Bill be read a third time. The question is that this bill be read a | :29:04. | :29:10. | |
third time. Content? Contrary not content. The content is habit. I beg | :29:11. | :29:17. | |
to move this building now pass. The question is this building now | :29:18. | :29:22. | |
passed. As many of that opinion will say content. Not content? Content | :29:23. | :29:32. | |
habit. -- have it will stop -- have it. A further limit has been made | :29:33. | :29:38. | |
with which with a desire the agreement of the Lord. They don't | :29:39. | :29:42. | |
insist on another memo to which the Lortab disagreed and they agree with | :29:43. | :29:46. | |
MM and is made by the Lords to which a member state desire with the | :29:47. | :29:50. | |
agreement of the Lords. They agreed to the remaining a minute made by | :29:51. | :29:54. | |
the Lords to which the Commons have disagreed. | :29:55. | :30:01. | |
I beg to move the amendment be considered forthwith. The question | :30:02. | :30:12. | |
is motion a B agreed to. -- a is agreed to. I beg to move K one, | :30:13. | :30:24. | |
leaving out from house to end and do disagree with the House of Commons | :30:25. | :30:30. | |
in 84 C and insist on its amendment, 84. | :30:31. | :31:02. | |
With the lead of the clerks, my lords... I beg to move this House do | :31:03. | :31:14. | |
not insist on the at 84 and agree with the House of Commons in the | :31:15. | :31:19. | |
amendment 84 C and disagree with the amendment A1 in the name of Lord | :31:20. | :31:23. | |
Ramsbottom which seeks to reinstate amendment 80 four. I will also speak | :31:24. | :31:29. | |
in the name of baroness hand with which will amend 84 C and reduce the | :31:30. | :31:35. | |
time limit for automatic bail referrals from four months to two | :31:36. | :31:47. | |
mums. -- monthss. There can be no doubt that the spirited debate in | :31:48. | :31:51. | |
this House has added considerably to the quality of legislation. This | :31:52. | :31:57. | |
house has done its job and more. This is indisputably a better Bill | :31:58. | :32:00. | |
for it and does more to protect the interests of the most vulnerable. We | :32:01. | :32:05. | |
must make sure we deliver what the British public voted for last year | :32:06. | :32:13. | |
and pass this into law. The immigration Bill delivers important | :32:14. | :32:17. | |
reforms to the laws. It is right we make sure that there is proper | :32:18. | :32:19. | |
consideration and debate on the content. The achievement of the | :32:20. | :32:25. | |
House, including ensuring the detail of the important reforms in the | :32:26. | :32:29. | |
labour market and illegal working provide an effective mechanism to | :32:30. | :32:32. | |
clamp down on those exploiting vulnerable migrants. It has | :32:33. | :32:37. | |
delivered improvement to the provisions of criminal offences and | :32:38. | :32:41. | |
made sure the duty to safeguard the welfare of children is underpinning | :32:42. | :32:46. | |
all provisions in the Bill. It has pressed the Government with | :32:47. | :32:50. | |
amendments to do more to have refugee children and the Commons | :32:51. | :32:53. | |
yesterday accepted that amendment. On detention, the governor | :32:54. | :33:05. | |
recognises the strength of feeling on this issue and the need is to | :33:06. | :33:11. | |
make it the shortest period possible. And in particular the | :33:12. | :33:16. | |
proper provision is in place to make sure the vulnerable are only | :33:17. | :33:19. | |
detained when necessary and for the shortest possible period. On time | :33:20. | :33:25. | |
limits in detention, we do not agreed time limits are appropriate, | :33:26. | :33:31. | |
-- when we do not agree time it's our appropriate, we have listen to | :33:32. | :33:35. | |
concerns that some people may be unaware of their ability to apply | :33:36. | :33:39. | |
for bail and are not able to make an application. We have proposed an | :33:40. | :33:46. | |
amendment which makes sure that unless the detainee has already had | :33:47. | :33:49. | |
a bail hearing, there will be one after four months and every four | :33:50. | :33:56. | |
months thereafter. This is an important safeguard and this House | :33:57. | :34:03. | |
deserves credit for it. Amendment 84 places an upper limit on detention | :34:04. | :34:07. | |
for all those not being deported to a maximum 28 days in total. It may | :34:08. | :34:13. | |
only be extended by the tribunal on the basis of exceptional | :34:14. | :34:17. | |
circumstances. It might be hopeful to remind the noble Lords we will | :34:18. | :34:21. | |
only see to detain and in force the removal of those migrants with no | :34:22. | :34:26. | |
basis to remain in the United Kingdom, who are not willing to | :34:27. | :34:30. | |
depart of their own volition and if they are noncompliant. As I have | :34:31. | :34:34. | |
said before, the arbitrary time limit is frankly unworkable, | :34:35. | :34:39. | |
providing non-compliant migrants an easy target to aim for to secure | :34:40. | :34:43. | |
their release from detention and frustrate their removal. It would | :34:44. | :34:50. | |
lead to asylum claims being made, judicial review is without merit | :34:51. | :34:54. | |
being lodged and refusal to cooperate with the document process. | :34:55. | :34:59. | |
The aggregate limit of 28 days would cause difficulty if we needed to | :35:00. | :35:03. | |
read attain a person and a travel document is delayed or if a person | :35:04. | :35:07. | |
disrupts removal and needs to be taken back into detention until new | :35:08. | :35:14. | |
arrangements are put in place. It may help the understanding of this | :35:15. | :35:17. | |
House if I illustrate this with some real examples. A Visa was curtailed | :35:18. | :35:27. | |
when one person fails to in role at university. He was in Canada when | :35:28. | :35:31. | |
giving notice to a marriage of a British citizen, found to be a sham, | :35:32. | :35:36. | |
and he was detained. When he was supposed to be removed he is a human | :35:37. | :35:40. | |
rights claim and he was removed after 30 days in detention. Another | :35:41. | :35:47. | |
was encountered by police and subsequently detained after his visa | :35:48. | :35:51. | |
had expired. An emergency travel document was applied for. When he | :35:52. | :35:55. | |
lodged a judicial review he was released on bail. When the judicial | :35:56. | :36:01. | |
review was resolved he was detained again four Oval. He disrupted the | :36:02. | :36:04. | |
first attempt to remove him and removal had to be rescheduled for a | :36:05. | :36:10. | |
charter flight. -- for removal. It totalled 130 days. Neither example | :36:11. | :36:19. | |
is likely to qualify as exceptional circumstances, which would allow the | :36:20. | :36:21. | |
Secretary of State to apply for extended detention. | :36:22. | :36:29. | |
This would be a significant increase in the tribunal 's workload. | :36:30. | :36:39. | |
Perverting their work to lead leading to delays elsewhere in the | :36:40. | :36:43. | |
immigration system. It would also increase complexity and require a | :36:44. | :36:45. | |
new infrastructure to provide a process for the tribunal to be able | :36:46. | :36:50. | |
to review extended period of detention about requiring the | :36:51. | :36:52. | |
Secretary of State to make an application. In our previous debate, | :36:53. | :37:00. | |
the Lord Browne helpfully quoted from the recent decision of the | :37:01. | :37:04. | |
Supreme Court which supported a flexible and fact sensitive approach | :37:05. | :37:08. | |
the duration of detention. It was also noteworthy that the noble Lord | :37:09. | :37:13. | |
Ramsbottom clarified in response to comments from the Lord Browne and | :37:14. | :37:21. | |
Lord panic that I never said that immigration detention would be | :37:22. | :37:25. | |
limited to 28 days, what I said was that nobody would be submitted to | :37:26. | :37:31. | |
administrative detention, detention bites civil servants, without | :37:32. | :37:33. | |
judicial oversight that the tension within the time possible. The noble | :37:34. | :37:38. | |
lord bullies at 28 days is reasonable. -- believes that 28 days | :37:39. | :37:44. | |
is reasonable. We disagree. The government continues to believe that | :37:45. | :37:48. | |
we can best provide the required level of oversight over detention by | :37:49. | :37:51. | |
automatically referring cases to the tribunal at a set point which we had | :37:52. | :37:57. | |
initially set at six months from either the date of detention or the | :37:58. | :38:01. | |
date of the tribunal 's last consideration of release on bail | :38:02. | :38:05. | |
with referrals at further six monthly inflatables cut dilated from | :38:06. | :38:10. | |
the point of the last hearing. I am raked over the encouragement this | :38:11. | :38:15. | |
received from the Lord Browne who expressed his satisfaction that the | :38:16. | :38:19. | |
safeguard this provides in circumstances where detainees do not | :38:20. | :38:24. | |
themselves apply for bail properly addresses the problem of detainees | :38:25. | :38:26. | |
having to take the initiative in seeking release from detention. The | :38:27. | :38:31. | |
duty on this secondary state to refer a detainees case to the | :38:32. | :38:35. | |
tribunal for the bell consideration removes the onus from the | :38:36. | :38:38. | |
individual. They'll guidance issued by the president of the first to | :38:39. | :38:45. | |
year tribunal provides the judges will focus on several matters when | :38:46. | :38:48. | |
considering bail including the reasons for the tension, the length | :38:49. | :38:54. | |
of the tension so far, and it's likely future duration. As well as | :38:55. | :38:58. | |
the effect of detention and the individual and the likelihood of the | :38:59. | :39:00. | |
individual complying with bail conditions. This guidance explicitly | :39:01. | :39:05. | |
states that the tribunal will need to be shown and I quote substantial | :39:06. | :39:10. | |
grounds for believing that detention should be maintained. The noble Lord | :39:11. | :39:16. | |
also thought fully supported the governments position of a bail | :39:17. | :39:19. | |
hearing every six months was to use this term adequate. However, we have | :39:20. | :39:25. | |
taken on board the concerns expressed by a number of colleagues | :39:26. | :39:28. | |
here and in the other place. That six-month is still too long without | :39:29. | :39:34. | |
judicial oversight it is claimed. The government has therefore tabled | :39:35. | :39:37. | |
a motion in the other place proposing again a duty to arrange | :39:38. | :39:41. | |
consideration bail before the tribunal but this time reducing the | :39:42. | :39:43. | |
timing of the referral from 64 months. -- six to four months. The | :39:44. | :39:55. | |
reforms which the government is putting in place in response to the | :39:56. | :40:00. | |
report including the adults at risk policy will strengthen the existing | :40:01. | :40:04. | |
resumption against the tension of those who are particularly | :40:05. | :40:08. | |
vulnerable. This alongside the overall package of reforms to how | :40:09. | :40:12. | |
immigration detention is managed including the enhanced gatekeeper | :40:13. | :40:17. | |
role and the new system of quarterly case management reviews means we | :40:18. | :40:20. | |
fully expect to see fewer people being detained and for shorter time | :40:21. | :40:26. | |
periods. Nevertheless, these small proportion of people who are | :40:27. | :40:29. | |
detained for longer periods the government amendment ensures that | :40:30. | :40:33. | |
past judicial oversight may happen even earlier if a person apostle | :40:34. | :40:38. | |
bail themselves, for those who do not do so and do not opt out of the | :40:39. | :40:41. | |
process they will be guaranteed judicial oversight after at least | :40:42. | :40:45. | |
four months in detention and at future for monthly intervals from | :40:46. | :40:51. | |
their last tribunal consideration. However, we now need to press on | :40:52. | :40:54. | |
with delivering the important measures in this bill. The other | :40:55. | :40:59. | |
chamber has considered amendment 84 on two occasions now and has | :41:00. | :41:02. | |
rejected it. Yesterday without even pressing it to a vote. We should not | :41:03. | :41:08. | |
continue to insist on this measure. The government understands the | :41:09. | :41:12. | |
sentiment by limiting time in detention at the practicalities | :41:13. | :41:16. | |
involved means that amendment 84 is not realistic workable for the | :41:17. | :41:19. | |
reasons I have set up at length in previous debates. This is not just | :41:20. | :41:25. | |
of the government, Lord Browne both experienced lawyers in this field | :41:26. | :41:30. | |
supported the position. The other rightly pressed the government to | :41:31. | :41:33. | |
examine what more can be done to limit time spent in detention. The | :41:34. | :41:40. | |
government has listened. It is made significant concessions and | :41:41. | :41:43. | |
explained why it can go no further. The comment has twice agreed that | :41:44. | :41:48. | |
the government. I urge my laws now except that decision. Baroness | :41:49. | :41:54. | |
Hemingway amendment 84 D accepts the principle behind the at 84 and | :41:55. | :41:59. | |
automatic Bell referrals but proposes to reduce the timing from | :42:00. | :42:06. | |
42 months. The government has automated initial position from six | :42:07. | :42:10. | |
to four months except in is a case for more frequent judicial | :42:11. | :42:13. | |
oversight. With respect to the noble lady, I'm afraid we think any | :42:14. | :42:18. | |
further reduction is unworkable. In a last debate I noted that Labour | :42:19. | :42:22. | |
had repealed legislation for routine bail hearings at 836 days because | :42:23. | :42:27. | |
they were intractable. Likewise, with the frequency of referrals is | :42:28. | :42:33. | |
two months this was still impose a significant extra burden on the | :42:34. | :42:36. | |
tribunal and the Home Office diverted valuable resources away | :42:37. | :42:39. | |
from the consideration of asylum and human rights appeals, the management | :42:40. | :42:44. | |
of the removal centres and delivery of the removals programme at a time | :42:45. | :42:47. | |
when the effort should be focused on supporting faster and more cohesive | :42:48. | :42:55. | |
immigration and asylum processes. You have raised legitimate concern | :42:56. | :42:58. | |
to the government has listened and has made significant amendments to | :42:59. | :43:03. | |
this bill. The time I submit has come to implement it. I beg to move. | :43:04. | :43:08. | |
The question is that motion AV agreed to, amendment a one. I beg to | :43:09. | :43:15. | |
move amendment a one as an amendment to motion a from house to end and | :43:16. | :43:23. | |
insert jute disagree with their at age four see and do insist on its | :43:24. | :43:29. | |
amendment 80 four. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for | :43:30. | :43:33. | |
the care in which he has set out the government 's case. I've often | :43:34. | :43:38. | |
thought that the worst experience in life is to be associated with | :43:39. | :43:41. | |
something that you know to be fundamentally wrong but feel unable | :43:42. | :43:47. | |
to prevent. I'm experiencing that today because to our collective | :43:48. | :43:52. | |
shame this house could be about to section something that as a nation | :43:53. | :43:59. | |
we are roundly condemned and indeed fought against when practised by | :44:00. | :44:04. | |
others over the years, namely the arbitrary detention of innocent | :44:05. | :44:07. | |
people by administrative diktats rather than the due process of the | :44:08. | :44:12. | |
rule of law. During the passage of this dreadful bill, over 400 | :44:13. | :44:17. | |
government amendments suggesting that it hadn't been thought through | :44:18. | :44:22. | |
before it was introduced, the house has twice devoted to uphold the | :44:23. | :44:26. | |
recommendation of a committee of the all-party group on refugees and | :44:27. | :44:32. | |
migration of which I am the noble Baroness is my privilege to be | :44:33. | :44:37. | |
members, namely that administrative detention ordered by Home Office | :44:38. | :44:42. | |
civil servants should be limited to 28 days after which the Home | :44:43. | :44:45. | |
Secretary should be required by law to seek the approval of the first | :44:46. | :44:51. | |
chair of tribunal for any extension. Last night, the Minister and the | :44:52. | :44:53. | |
other place spectacularly missed that point when alleging that to | :44:54. | :45:00. | |
specify a maximum time for immigration detention would be | :45:01. | :45:05. | |
arbitrary was not take account of individual circumstances and would | :45:06. | :45:09. | |
have a negative effect on the governments ability to in force | :45:10. | :45:13. | |
immigration controls and maintain public safety by encouraging | :45:14. | :45:18. | |
individuals to seek to frustrate the removals process until this time | :45:19. | :45:24. | |
limit was reached. My Lords, over the past 19 years I have had | :45:25. | :45:29. | |
frequent calls to express my concern about the appallingly low standard | :45:30. | :45:33. | |
of casework and procedural oversight in our endless Gratian system. This | :45:34. | :45:39. | |
began when as Chief Inspector of Prisons I found over 20 people from | :45:40. | :45:43. | |
Bradford who had been in this country for over 20 years many of | :45:44. | :45:48. | |
them married with businesses of their own thread been arrested and | :45:49. | :45:51. | |
transported to Birmingham prison where not surprisingly because they | :45:52. | :45:57. | |
hadn't been charged with any offence they went on hunger strike against | :45:58. | :46:02. | |
the wholly inappropriate prison regime. Their right to remain in | :46:03. | :46:05. | |
this country had not been processed by the Home Office which is true | :46:06. | :46:14. | |
today of over 631,000 others. Whose officials saw them as easy pickings | :46:15. | :46:18. | |
for meeting performance indicators. I immediately complained to the | :46:19. | :46:23. | |
Minister responsible being asked to take on the inspection of all | :46:24. | :46:26. | |
immigration detention centres for my pains. This included inspecting | :46:27. | :46:33. | |
Campsfield house after a riot when I found that immigration centre rules | :46:34. | :46:36. | |
were also wholly inappropriate being based on prison rather than | :46:37. | :46:41. | |
detention rules. My Inspector is I set about revising them, inviting | :46:42. | :46:46. | |
Home Office officials to work with as. The outcome baby immigration | :46:47. | :46:50. | |
detention rules often quoted in this bill. Since retiring as Chief | :46:51. | :46:56. | |
Inspector, I have been a member of the Independent Asylum commission, | :46:57. | :47:00. | |
have chaired an inquiry into the unlawful killing of an Angolan Baiji | :47:01. | :47:04. | |
for S guard securing an enforced removal, have delivered a dossier of | :47:05. | :47:10. | |
deaths and injuries inflicted on others being returned and forwarded | :47:11. | :47:14. | |
reports on the inefficiency of the complaints system to the Home | :47:15. | :47:19. | |
Secretary and have lost count of the number of critical reports by | :47:20. | :47:21. | |
inspectors of immigration and prisons that I've read. In other | :47:22. | :47:27. | |
words, my 19 year experience of the immigration system entirely endorses | :47:28. | :47:31. | |
the view of its then titular head the noble Lord Reed who when Home | :47:32. | :47:38. | |
Secretary described it as not being fit for purpose. Indeed, it is these | :47:39. | :47:41. | |
experiences that have encouraged me to believe that only root and branch | :47:42. | :47:46. | |
surgery will enable it to have any hope of coping with today's | :47:47. | :47:50. | |
requirements let alone tomorrow's which will be exact debated not just | :47:51. | :47:55. | |
by civil wars in the Middle East but by other population movements and | :47:56. | :48:00. | |
the effects of climate change. I must admit that I was somewhat | :48:01. | :48:03. | |
surprised last week when my noble and loaded friends law Brown and law | :48:04. | :48:10. | |
panning focused on the periphery of theoretical access to the bail | :48:11. | :48:14. | |
system rather than the fundamental obscenity of the administrative | :48:15. | :48:19. | |
detention. There are intervention reminded me that over the years | :48:20. | :48:24. | |
successive ministers have preferred to listen to fudge presented to them | :48:25. | :48:29. | |
by their officials rather than facts immediately apparent to anyone who | :48:30. | :48:32. | |
like me has had cause to examine them in detail. As has been reported | :48:33. | :48:39. | |
time and again, conditions in our immigration removal centres are not | :48:40. | :48:44. | |
good for a whole variety of reasons, not least lack of Home Office | :48:45. | :48:49. | |
oversight. Four months is far too long for anyone to be condemned to | :48:50. | :48:54. | |
remain in such conditions, certainly when it seems to be primary for the | :48:55. | :48:58. | |
convenience of incompetent officials and is not sanctioned by a court of | :48:59. | :49:03. | |
law. I don't pretend that casework is easy, indeed one former head of | :49:04. | :49:07. | |
the UK border agency decreed that only graduates were to do it, but | :49:08. | :49:13. | |
its presence standard judging by the number of successful appeals against | :49:14. | :49:17. | |
it is appalling. I'm not surprised that first the noble Lord Bates and | :49:18. | :49:23. | |
then the noble and learned it Lord Dean should have announced new | :49:24. | :49:27. | |
arrangements though I must admit that having heard similar promises | :49:28. | :49:30. | |
many times in the last 19 years I will only believe them when I see | :49:31. | :49:36. | |
them. I now feel squeezed, not only is time running out before | :49:37. | :49:42. | |
Parliament ends but I fear that on the evidence of the amendment not | :49:43. | :49:45. | |
being pressed to a vote on the other place last night should the house | :49:46. | :49:50. | |
support my appeal to put pride in the reputation of our great nation | :49:51. | :49:54. | |
before party political considerations and vote for what in | :49:55. | :49:58. | |
their hearts they know to be right, namely that interested detention of | :49:59. | :50:04. | |
anyone anywhere is fundamentally wrong, it may not succeed. I'm | :50:05. | :50:10. | |
conscious that it easier for an independent crossbencher to speak | :50:11. | :50:14. | |
like that but I'm conscious to the constitutional position of this | :50:15. | :50:18. | |
house which I do not want to put at risk. My lords, the immigration | :50:19. | :50:23. | |
system in this country is so dysfunctional that even the Home | :50:24. | :50:28. | |
Office favourite reporter Steven Shaw has criticised it in detail. As | :50:29. | :50:33. | |
an optimist, I hope that the Home Secretary will read what he said and | :50:34. | :50:39. | |
has been said during our debates in this house before she wilfully | :50:40. | :50:43. | |
damages our global reputation for being a civilised nation by going | :50:44. | :50:48. | |
ahead with her alternative to limiting detention to 28 days. It is | :50:49. | :50:52. | |
with a heavy heart that I beg to move. | :50:53. | :50:59. | |
The original question was that the motion B agreed to, leaving out from | :51:00. | :51:10. | |
house on amendment 80 four. The question is the amendment A1 is | :51:11. | :51:16. | |
agreed to. If it is agreed to, I cannot call amendment A2 by reason | :51:17. | :51:24. | |
of pre-emption. Many of your Lordships will have negotiated a | :51:25. | :51:27. | |
variety of agreements and arrangements and been involved in | :51:28. | :51:32. | |
the towing and throwing of proposals and counterproposals. And will have | :51:33. | :51:38. | |
experience the feeling of, enough, let's move on. I do not equate that | :51:39. | :51:45. | |
with this issue. I am of course realistic enough to understand where | :51:46. | :51:49. | |
the Government has got to. But in my view it is not far enough. And from | :51:50. | :51:56. | |
my privileged position, compared with the asylum seekers, the subject | :51:57. | :52:01. | |
of these amendments today, I cannot leave it here. I do not feel, in the | :52:02. | :52:07. | |
words of the learned Lord, that I have done my job. I would like to | :52:08. | :52:14. | |
make it clear that I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbottom. To | :52:15. | :52:19. | |
deprive an individual of liberty for the purposes of immigration control | :52:20. | :52:23. | |
should be an absolute last resort. It should be comparatively rare and | :52:24. | :52:28. | |
for the shortest possible time. At the last stage but one I suppose of | :52:29. | :52:36. | |
this Bill, the Government introduced an amendment for automatic judicial | :52:37. | :52:41. | |
oversight. Then we heard references to detainees still being able to | :52:42. | :52:46. | |
apply for bail at any time, to access legal advice and so on. That | :52:47. | :52:53. | |
painted a picture which is of course technically correct but it did not | :52:54. | :52:56. | |
accord with the reality is described to me over the years. The learned | :52:57. | :53:03. | |
introduced the six months automatic hearing as a proportionate response | :53:04. | :53:09. | |
and said earlier referral might result in work for the tribunal and | :53:10. | :53:15. | |
Home Office at a time when an individual being removed from the | :53:16. | :53:19. | |
country was planned and eminent. I was pleased last night the minister | :53:20. | :53:25. | |
in the Commons moved reduction from six months. I quote again, after | :53:26. | :53:32. | |
careful consideration is to four months to reflect the fact the | :53:33. | :53:35. | |
majority are detained for less than four months. At the end of last | :53:36. | :53:43. | |
December, the latest figures we had, 2607 people were detained. Of these, | :53:44. | :53:55. | |
530, roughly 20%, had been detained for less than four months but longer | :53:56. | :54:01. | |
than two. These are the numbers might amendment is about but they | :54:02. | :54:06. | |
are 530 individuals, not just faceless numbers. The impact of | :54:07. | :54:13. | |
immigration detention, which is not a sanction, not punishment for | :54:14. | :54:17. | |
wrongdoing, is considerable. Reference has rightly been made to | :54:18. | :54:22. | |
the particular impact on mental health. I look forward to Stephen | :54:23. | :54:32. | |
Shore's further work. I hope it will alleviate conditions. There will | :54:33. | :54:36. | |
always be a significant impact. I do not know if I can speculate on the | :54:37. | :54:41. | |
Government's reason for moving from the proportionate six months down to | :54:42. | :54:46. | |
four. But it can move I suggest it can move further. In the mix of | :54:47. | :54:52. | |
assessing what is proportionate, the impact of administrative detention | :54:53. | :54:58. | |
must be a significant factor. Let us reduce it as much as possible. That | :54:59. | :55:05. | |
is why I propose two mums. I would like to take this opportunity to say | :55:06. | :55:08. | |
that in all of this, I do not want to lose sight of the objective of | :55:09. | :55:16. | |
improving the whole returns process. Alternatives to detention, with case | :55:17. | :55:23. | |
managers who are not decision-makers, are more humane, | :55:24. | :55:26. | |
less costly and more efficient and there is a lot of experience of that | :55:27. | :55:35. | |
in other countries. My Lords, that, and improve return system, would | :55:36. | :55:39. | |
reduce the burden on tribunal 's and the home Office. It might be trite, | :55:40. | :55:43. | |
but efficiency is much of the answer. I hope your Lordships will | :55:44. | :55:49. | |
be sympathetic to my proposal to reduce still further, take us | :55:50. | :55:55. | |
further on the journey the Government has led us on, regarding | :55:56. | :56:00. | |
the period when there must be an automatic judicial oversight of each | :56:01. | :56:07. | |
individual position. In the House of Commons last night, the Minister | :56:08. | :56:12. | |
confirmed the Government had accepted that there should be a | :56:13. | :56:16. | |
judicial oversight over administrative immigration | :56:17. | :56:20. | |
detention. And that is why they had previously tabled a motion, the | :56:21. | :56:24. | |
effect of which would be individuals would automatically be referred to | :56:25. | :56:29. | |
the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after the detention began, or | :56:30. | :56:33. | |
if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the | :56:34. | :56:37. | |
person in the first six months, months after that consideration. | :56:38. | :56:43. | |
That was not accepted in this House, which again carried a motion | :56:44. | :56:47. | |
providing for a 28 day period of administrative immigration | :56:48. | :56:51. | |
detention, after which the Secretary of State could apply to extend | :56:52. | :56:54. | |
detention in exceptional circumstances. The House of Commons | :56:55. | :57:00. | |
again rejected this amendment from this House and has instead passed a | :57:01. | :57:03. | |
government amendment reducing the timing of the automatic rail | :57:04. | :57:10. | |
referral from six down to four months as apparently the majority of | :57:11. | :57:13. | |
persons are detained in less than four months. Can the Government | :57:14. | :57:19. | |
confirm that bail hearing after four months will be automatic and will | :57:20. | :57:24. | |
not be dependent on the individual in a detention having to initiate | :57:25. | :57:32. | |
the application? This is an issue on which this House has already sent it | :57:33. | :57:35. | |
back to the Commons on two occasions. Consideration has to be | :57:36. | :57:40. | |
given to the role of the unelected house in the legislative process as | :57:41. | :57:46. | |
a revising chamber, inviting the House of Commons to think again. In | :57:47. | :57:51. | |
this situation, the elected House of Commons and the Government have made | :57:52. | :57:55. | |
some movement, albeit not enough to meet the views of this House, on the | :57:56. | :58:02. | |
length of administrative immigration detention without automatic judicial | :58:03. | :58:08. | |
oversight. Lord Ramsbottom made a powerful speech. May I just say a | :58:09. | :58:14. | |
word in response? I am sorry the noble Lord thinks Lord Browne, the | :58:15. | :58:19. | |
noble and learned Lord and I were focused on the periphery, as he put | :58:20. | :58:27. | |
it. And supporting a fudged state of affairs last week. Your Lordships | :58:28. | :58:34. | |
needs to focus on Lord Ramsbottom's amendment. What it does provide is | :58:35. | :58:41. | |
after 28 days, there would be no possibility of detention of a person | :58:42. | :58:45. | |
for immigration reasons, other than in exceptional circumstances. And I | :58:46. | :58:51. | |
found last week that was not something I could support. I still | :58:52. | :58:57. | |
cannot support it. The reasons for that is that a person can only be | :58:58. | :59:02. | |
detained for the purpose of removal and can only be detained for a | :59:03. | :59:06. | |
reasonable period of time for that purpose. There is nothing | :59:07. | :59:12. | |
exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days to remove a person who | :59:13. | :59:19. | |
has been detained for immigration reasons. There has to be discussion | :59:20. | :59:25. | |
with the country to which the individual is going to be removed. | :59:26. | :59:31. | |
And often persons being removed do not cooperate with the removal. | :59:32. | :59:35. | |
There is nothing exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days. Of | :59:36. | :59:40. | |
course, the individual concerned is also entitled at any time to require | :59:41. | :59:45. | |
a judicial assessment of whether it is appropriate for them to continue | :59:46. | :59:51. | |
to be detained for immigration purposes. I am pleased the | :59:52. | :59:58. | |
Government has moved to a four months hearing. I think that is the | :59:59. | :00:04. | |
right result. I also support motion letter a. I will make some brief | :00:05. | :00:13. | |
points. First has already been made plain, the Government has already | :00:14. | :00:17. | |
removed from the earlier proposal of six months down to four. Yesterday, | :00:18. | :00:23. | |
those who had read the debate in the other place, there was hardly a | :00:24. | :00:36. | |
voice against that proposal. Lord Ramsbottom has few greater admirers | :00:37. | :00:43. | |
than I am in this chamber. His amendment goes, as I have suggested, | :00:44. | :00:49. | |
too far. One defect on which I mentioned at report, but did not | :00:50. | :00:55. | |
think it necessary but I rather regret it in the last round, is that | :00:56. | :01:01. | |
it is internally inconsistent. On its face it refers sub-clause one up | :01:02. | :01:10. | |
to the detention under any of the relevant powers, these are defined | :01:11. | :01:15. | |
in sub-clause six, and they include, amongst other powers, two which are | :01:16. | :01:21. | |
dealing with the tension pending deportation. -- detention. And you | :01:22. | :01:30. | |
look at the sub-clause for the proposal, 84, it does not apply in | :01:31. | :01:34. | |
cases where the Secretary of State is determined that there should be | :01:35. | :01:40. | |
deportation. That is just an internal inconsistency in end. Four | :01:41. | :01:48. | |
months, I suggest, properly protects against what could seriously be | :01:49. | :01:53. | |
called arbitrary detention. It is a safe guard over and above the | :01:54. | :02:00. | |
intrinsic ability of those who are detained to seek bail. It is a | :02:01. | :02:04. | |
safeguard which I acknowledged to be appropriate and necessary in the | :02:05. | :02:09. | |
case not least of those with mental problems. The proposal in Lord | :02:10. | :02:17. | |
Ramsbottom's men and four exceptional circumstances justifying | :02:18. | :02:26. | |
detention beyond 28 days, he gave illustrations and again by Lord | :02:27. | :02:30. | |
panic today, it is just unworkable. It is a shorter period proposed by | :02:31. | :02:37. | |
the noble Baroness, who I greatly admire, frankly the impact on | :02:38. | :02:44. | |
tribunal is, they are already very busy and overworked and they really | :02:45. | :02:52. | |
must not be overworked. As a member of the all-party enquiry I would | :02:53. | :02:57. | |
like to voice my support for A1 and A2. The House of Commons only had | :02:58. | :03:03. | |
one how yesterday. Quite understandably they spent most of | :03:04. | :03:07. | |
that our teasing out the implications of the amendment. I do | :03:08. | :03:10. | |
not think we should read too much into that not much was said about | :03:11. | :03:16. | |
these amendments. -- into the fact that not much. I am obliged after | :03:17. | :03:27. | |
the current abuses with this debate. We have spoken about the detention | :03:28. | :03:31. | |
and the revising of the detention rules but I must take issue with | :03:32. | :03:34. | |
with the suggestion that an access to bail is nearly theoretical and | :03:35. | :03:40. | |
that there is an absence of judicial oversight. -- nearly. -- only | :03:41. | :03:50. | |
theoretical. A tribunal must be persuaded that their rather | :03:51. | :03:52. | |
substantial grounds for believing detention should be retained. It is | :03:53. | :03:59. | |
not a theoretical right. It is an obligation on the part of the Home | :04:00. | :04:02. | |
Office to persuade tribunal detention should the Britain. As far | :04:03. | :04:08. | |
as the period of detention, -- should be retained. After a period | :04:09. | :04:13. | |
of detention is extended into four months, which is very unusual, they | :04:14. | :04:18. | |
will be an somatic bail hearing. In these circumstances I renew my | :04:19. | :04:23. | |
motion to the House. -- automatic bail hearing. I'm grateful to all | :04:24. | :04:30. | |
those who have spoken. Not least to my noble friend 's, Lord Browne and | :04:31. | :04:40. | |
Lord Panic. It is rare for me to find myself in a disagreement and I | :04:41. | :04:45. | |
bow to their superior legal knowledge in this case. But my | :04:46. | :04:54. | |
Lords, I feel we have probably gone as far as we are going to be able to | :04:55. | :05:01. | |
go. I am pleased that in the passage of this will we have been able to | :05:02. | :05:08. | |
raise so many issues which I sincerely hope the Home Secretary | :05:09. | :05:14. | |
and her officials will focus upon. Not least when they concentrate on | :05:15. | :05:18. | |
the report they commissioned from Stephen Shaw. And the report which | :05:19. | :05:25. | |
they have subsequently commissioned from him and the report that they | :05:26. | :05:29. | |
get on the mental health arrangements which were commissioned | :05:30. | :05:35. | |
by NHS England. I am afraid the writing is on the wall as far as my | :05:36. | :05:39. | |
further hope of getting any further with this amendment in the passage | :05:40. | :05:46. | |
of this Bill is concerned. And with a heavy heart, I beg leave to | :05:47. | :05:52. | |
withdraw the motion. Is it your pleasure that amendment A1 is | :05:53. | :05:57. | |
withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. A2, Baroness? Not move. The question | :05:58. | :06:05. | |
is that motion baby agreed to. As many as are of the opinion say | :06:06. | :06:08. | |
"content." To the contrary, "not content". Content as it. | :06:09. | :06:25. | |
I beg to move that the house to agree with the comment in their | :06:26. | :06:37. | |
amendments 85 D to 805I. The government has continued to listen | :06:38. | :06:39. | |
carefully to the concerns expressed in both houses on the issue of the | :06:40. | :06:43. | |
taming pregnant women. Last night the other place agreed a member to | :06:44. | :06:48. | |
Jamaica clear that pregnant women will be detained for the purposes of | :06:49. | :06:52. | |
removal only if they are to be shortly removed from the United | :06:53. | :06:57. | |
Kingdom or if there are exceptional circumstances which justify the | :06:58. | :07:00. | |
detention and which place an additional duty on those making | :07:01. | :07:05. | |
detention decisions in respect of pregnant women to have due regard to | :07:06. | :07:10. | |
their welfare. The additional measures we are putting in place | :07:11. | :07:13. | |
alongside the 72 hour time limit on the detention pregnant women will | :07:14. | :07:19. | |
act as extra statutory safeguards which will complement the government | :07:20. | :07:23. | |
's wider package of in the early area of detention of honourable | :07:24. | :07:27. | |
people. This includes the new adults at risk policy which is given a | :07:28. | :07:34. | |
statutory basis in this bill. It includes a new crosscutting | :07:35. | :07:37. | |
gatekeeper function to help provide consistency in decision-making | :07:38. | :07:41. | |
across the business. It includes new safeguarding teams which will | :07:42. | :07:44. | |
provide an extra level of scrutiny of the cases that detained | :07:45. | :07:48. | |
vulnerable people. And as we previously announced we also intend | :07:49. | :07:53. | |
to ask Steven Shaw to carry out a short review in order to assess | :07:54. | :07:56. | |
progress against the key actions from his previous report. I hope the | :07:57. | :08:02. | |
noble Lords will accept the suite of measures is a clear and positive | :08:03. | :08:06. | |
demonstration of the government is absolute commitment and desire to | :08:07. | :08:09. | |
ensure that pregnant women are detained only when it is absolutely | :08:10. | :08:15. | |
necessary and as a last resort. With their health and welfare being a | :08:16. | :08:19. | |
foremost consideration, whenever a decision is made in respect of their | :08:20. | :08:23. | |
detention. These are solid measures which will have a practical impact | :08:24. | :08:28. | |
but which will also give life to the governments desire to end the | :08:29. | :08:32. | |
routine detention pregnant women as were set out in the written | :08:33. | :08:35. | |
ministerial statement on the 18th of April. The 72 hour time limit | :08:36. | :08:41. | |
announced in that statement was a clear exposition of the government | :08:42. | :08:45. | |
intends moving to a position of which in no circumstances will | :08:46. | :08:48. | |
pregnant woman be knowingly detained for longer than a week. That is a | :08:49. | :08:55. | |
major shift from a position in which theoretically at least and | :08:56. | :08:57. | |
occasionally in practice detention could persist for a longer period. | :08:58. | :09:02. | |
This will be backed up with the new duty, the clear statement pregnant | :09:03. | :09:06. | |
women will be detained only for the purposes of quick removal or in | :09:07. | :09:11. | |
exceptional circumstances. I reiterate that even when there are | :09:12. | :09:14. | |
exceptional circumstances detention will still be for only the limited | :09:15. | :09:19. | |
period set out in the bill. It will also be backed up with other | :09:20. | :09:25. | |
measures as I've described. All of this represents a new level of | :09:26. | :09:28. | |
safeguarding for pregnant women which was not going as far as | :09:29. | :09:32. | |
providing absolute exclusion from detention insures that it will occur | :09:33. | :09:36. | |
sparingly and only when it is absolutely necessary. Turning | :09:37. | :09:42. | |
specifically to amendment 85 J, table by the noble lady, the adults | :09:43. | :09:50. | |
at risk policy will effectively be replacing chapter 5510 of the Home | :09:51. | :09:53. | |
Office enforcement and instructions and guidance which is where the | :09:54. | :09:57. | |
existing policy is set out. They will represent a different and | :09:58. | :10:01. | |
better way of assessing circumstances that apply in any | :10:02. | :10:04. | |
given case of Abe honourable person including cases of pregnant women. | :10:05. | :10:09. | |
The amendments table in the other place automatically plays pregnant | :10:10. | :10:12. | |
women and a separate footing making it clear that particular | :10:13. | :10:16. | |
consideration least be taken in those cases. The 72 hour time limit | :10:17. | :10:21. | |
by virtue of its brevity will insure that detention is used as a last | :10:22. | :10:27. | |
resort. On that basis, I am of the view that the current formulation of | :10:28. | :10:30. | |
the bill combined with the other measures we are putting in place | :10:31. | :10:33. | |
provides a high level of safeguard for pregnant women. I beg to move | :10:34. | :10:39. | |
the motion be is accepted by this house. The question is that motion | :10:40. | :10:45. | |
BB agreed to amendment the one baroness Lister. I beg to move | :10:46. | :10:52. | |
amendments P1 as an amendment to motion be and insert anti-proposed | :10:53. | :10:56. | |
amendment 85 J as an amendment to amendment 80 5p. I wish I could | :10:57. | :11:03. | |
warmly welcomed the government amendments 85 D2 I given that they | :11:04. | :11:09. | |
go a small way towards meeting the concerns lodged in the house on the | :11:10. | :11:15. | |
26 of April but it is only a very small way and as I will come on to | :11:16. | :11:19. | |
explain the word very have some significance. I should firstly thank | :11:20. | :11:25. | |
the Lord for his attempt to reach a compromise that will satisfy both | :11:26. | :11:29. | |
sides last week, alas apparently it was not possible. It was the very | :11:30. | :11:35. | |
last attempt I therefore tabled this very modest amendment which would | :11:36. | :11:39. | |
mean that the circumstances justifying detention have to be very | :11:40. | :11:43. | |
exceptional rather than simply exceptional. This does no more than | :11:44. | :11:50. | |
mirror current Home Office enforcement instructions and | :11:51. | :11:55. | |
guidance which refer to very exceptional circumstances and we | :11:56. | :11:59. | |
have just learned that those guidance to be replaced. Indeed the | :12:00. | :12:03. | |
Immigration Minister in the Commons last night assured MPs that the | :12:04. | :12:08. | |
guidance also make it clear that they detention powers should be used | :12:09. | :12:15. | |
in very exceptional circumstances underlining our expectations and | :12:16. | :12:20. | |
regard the use this power. Surely if the government wants to underline | :12:21. | :12:24. | |
those expectations they should do so in the bill itself. Otherwise it | :12:25. | :12:30. | |
could be sending out entirely the wrong message. My fear is that as | :12:31. | :12:38. | |
welcome as the new time limit is unless the legislation states very | :12:39. | :12:42. | |
exceptional some might interpret the softening of language as a signal | :12:43. | :12:48. | |
that it doesn't have to be quite so exceptional now that it subject to a | :12:49. | :12:52. | |
time limit and I would remind noble Lords that in practice were public | :12:53. | :12:57. | |
talking about 72 hours plus because the clock starts ticking not that | :12:58. | :13:02. | |
the actual point of the Secretary Secretary of State is satisfied that | :13:03. | :13:06. | |
the woman is pregnant if that is later which it probably will be. | :13:07. | :13:10. | |
Given that too many pregnant women are already detained in far from | :13:11. | :13:15. | |
exceptional circumstances in contravention of the guidance was | :13:16. | :13:20. | |
made clear by Shaw and the all-party inquiry into detention this would be | :13:21. | :13:25. | |
highly regrettable. Experience shows we can't rely on the guidance alone | :13:26. | :13:31. | |
to underline expectations regarding degree of conditionality. I turn to | :13:32. | :13:37. | |
some questions raised by the government amendments. With regard | :13:38. | :13:41. | |
to amendment 85 the, I will repeat that in the Commons, to quote we | :13:42. | :13:48. | |
need to ask about the small word or in amendments be to the Lords at 85 | :13:49. | :13:53. | |
C. Why does it make the distinction between the sector of state is | :13:54. | :13:55. | |
satisfied that the woman will shortly be removed from the United | :13:56. | :14:00. | |
Kingdom or there are exceptional circumstances which justify the | :14:01. | :14:03. | |
detention? Surely pregnant women should be detained on the hour if | :14:04. | :14:07. | |
there are exceptional circumstances and they can be removed shortly. We | :14:08. | :14:13. | |
distinguishing between the two? Game detention is to remove people that | :14:14. | :14:16. | |
attention should be a last resort given this news on the two hour | :14:17. | :14:19. | |
limit and attention when will detention not be exceptional and | :14:20. | :14:24. | |
removal forthcoming? It is important the government clarify that. He | :14:25. | :14:26. | |
expressed the fear that the measure leaves the door open for the | :14:27. | :14:31. | |
excessive detention of pregnant women. That is my fear to, my laws. | :14:32. | :14:36. | |
Given it wasn't possible for the Immigration Minister to answer him | :14:37. | :14:41. | |
yesterday I trust the Minister will be able to provide an answer now. | :14:42. | :14:48. | |
Second, for the record, could the noble lord the Minister clarify the | :14:49. | :14:52. | |
purpose of the qualifying phrase in the second sub-clause of amendment | :14:53. | :14:56. | |
85 E apart from this section, fears have been expressed by those more | :14:57. | :15:02. | |
expert than myself that it would appear to be saying that the | :15:03. | :15:05. | |
Secretary of State doesn't have to have regard to the woman's welfare. | :15:06. | :15:09. | |
I'm sure that cover the case. I can't do why anyone should be | :15:10. | :15:14. | |
allowed to authorise detention without having regard to the woman's | :15:15. | :15:17. | |
welfare and of course I welcome the fact that that clause having regard | :15:18. | :15:22. | |
to the women's welfare is now in the bill. I hope that he can provide | :15:23. | :15:27. | |
reassurance. I turn out to the key sections of amendment 85 see that | :15:28. | :15:30. | |
the government has rejected out of hand. These aim to incorporate key | :15:31. | :15:35. | |
elements of the family returns process which successfully uses | :15:36. | :15:40. | |
engagement, try to resolve cases about the use of detention. | :15:41. | :15:45. | |
Ministers have repeatedly explained that in the words of the Immigration | :15:46. | :15:51. | |
Minister we are using precisely that model and approach to pregnant | :15:52. | :15:56. | |
women. Yet there rejection of this part of amendment 85 see out of hand | :15:57. | :16:02. | |
suggest an mindset that is not choose to the family returns process | :16:03. | :16:06. | |
in which it's not assumed that removal requires prior detention. I | :16:07. | :16:13. | |
asked the noble and learned it Lord if the government are using | :16:14. | :16:16. | |
precisely that model and approach why have they refused to countenance | :16:17. | :16:24. | |
writing key elements of it into the legislation? Will he commit now to | :16:25. | :16:29. | |
drawing up guidance that will ensure that the treatment of pregnant women | :16:30. | :16:33. | |
does indeed follow the family returns process model? Otherwise we | :16:34. | :16:38. | |
have no way of ensuring that this model will be followed. Hopefully | :16:39. | :16:43. | |
this will then reduce the need for the tension but where it does still | :16:44. | :16:46. | |
take place clear guidelines following the model will at the very | :16:47. | :16:52. | |
least ensure notice is given so as to minimise the stress involved in | :16:53. | :16:55. | |
the process of being taken into detention which can have a damaging | :16:56. | :17:00. | |
effect on the mental and physical health of pregnant women. My lords | :17:01. | :17:04. | |
it simply not good enough to talk about modelling the approach and the | :17:05. | :17:09. | |
family returns process without giving parliaments any idea of how | :17:10. | :17:16. | |
it plans to operationalise this. On the 26 of April the noble and | :17:17. | :17:19. | |
learned it Lord stated that as a matter-of-fact and practice all | :17:20. | :17:24. | |
persons who are subject to removal are given notice of liability for | :17:25. | :17:28. | |
removal and vulnerable women including pregnant women receive a | :17:29. | :17:32. | |
further notice by removal direction. That sounded reassuring but the | :17:33. | :17:37. | |
notice of liability for removal can be three months in advance of | :17:38. | :17:40. | |
removal and the further notice is sent after detention. There is no | :17:41. | :17:48. | |
notice sent of removal into detention as opposed to removal out | :17:49. | :17:51. | |
of the country and I fear that we been talking at cross purposes on | :17:52. | :17:55. | |
this. Will the Minister now commit to a full review of the process of | :17:56. | :18:01. | |
removal into detention including how the woman's medical and welfare | :18:02. | :18:04. | |
needs are taken into account during that process? When we last | :18:05. | :18:10. | |
discussing this I cited some dreadful examples of how pregnant | :18:11. | :18:14. | |
women were in effect treated like animals during the journey into | :18:15. | :18:19. | |
detention. Serious implications for potentially physical and mental | :18:20. | :18:24. | |
health. On the 20th of April the Minister seem to suggest that some | :18:25. | :18:27. | |
of our concerns were in effect resolved because only one pregnant | :18:28. | :18:30. | |
woman is currently held in detention. For those of us including | :18:31. | :18:36. | |
Steven Shaw and the all-party Parliamentary inquiry who believe | :18:37. | :18:39. | |
that pregnant women should not be detained on principle, one pregnant | :18:40. | :18:42. | |
woman in detention is one too many. Leaving that aside, the number of | :18:43. | :18:48. | |
urgent women in detention have always fluctuated and we don't know | :18:49. | :18:52. | |
the total number who are being detained so far this year. I find it | :18:53. | :18:56. | |
worrying that the Home Office is refusing to comply with FOIA request | :18:57. | :19:04. | |
submitted by women for refugee women for the publication of this at this | :19:05. | :19:07. | |
takes on the numbers detained, the length of detention and... On the | :19:08. | :19:14. | |
Commons debate on the 25th of April the Immigration Minister said he | :19:15. | :19:19. | |
reflect on how best to create greater transparency. I then the | :19:20. | :19:24. | |
jest it that one way would be commit to now making the statistics on the | :19:25. | :19:28. | |
detention of pregnant women available for public scrutiny on a | :19:29. | :19:31. | |
regular basis as called for by bodies such as women for refugee | :19:32. | :19:36. | |
women and the royal College of midwives. The noble Lord did not | :19:37. | :19:40. | |
respond on that point and I'll be grateful if he could do so now. I | :19:41. | :19:46. | |
know there's a reluctance to extend the process too far but when your | :19:47. | :19:53. | |
Lordships house passed amendment 85 C despite the technical and other | :19:54. | :19:58. | |
objections raised by the noble and learned it Lord the minister I took | :19:59. | :20:01. | |
that as acceptance of the need to write into the bill safeguards | :20:02. | :20:06. | |
necessary to ensure the protection of the welfare of pregnant women | :20:07. | :20:13. | |
would -- whatever our view of their principal of detention. I don't | :20:14. | :20:15. | |
believe those safeguards are strong enough. This is a much more modest, | :20:16. | :20:21. | |
even minimalist amendment. I hope that the government will be able to | :20:22. | :20:26. | |
accept it as it simply does what the Immigration Minister says is their | :20:27. | :20:31. | |
intention but with the force of primary legislative hacking. I beg | :20:32. | :20:40. | |
to move. -- backing. The original question was that it BA agreed to. | :20:41. | :20:45. | |
Since then amendment B1 has been moved as set out on the revised | :20:46. | :20:49. | |
list. The question therefore is that amendment B1 the agreed to. | :20:50. | :20:55. | |
I would like to express my support for the noble Baroness. There are | :20:56. | :21:05. | |
rules about transporting animals. In the House of Commons, as the noble | :21:06. | :21:13. | |
Baroness said, the Minister referred to the guidance providing for very | :21:14. | :21:22. | |
exceptional circumstances. To meet the expectations, as she has | :21:23. | :21:29. | |
mentioned, they have relied on it. Guidance can of course be changed | :21:30. | :21:33. | |
much more easily than primary legislation. Or more easily not | :21:34. | :21:43. | |
followed. I share the noble lady's concerns. The legislation must not | :21:44. | :21:51. | |
weaken the process. I was also puzzled to read that in the | :21:52. | :22:01. | |
Government amendment that the person who authorises the detention, I will | :22:02. | :22:04. | |
come back to that, must have regard to the woman's welfare. Not as was | :22:05. | :22:12. | |
said at the column last night, June regard for her welfare. As we have | :22:13. | :22:21. | |
heard, the current guidance, the equivalent guidance, if you like, is | :22:22. | :22:27. | |
not effective enough. I do not myself see that there will be any | :22:28. | :22:31. | |
impact from putting pregnant women into a separate category in the | :22:32. | :22:36. | |
guidance. I agree with the point made by David Rose and the noble | :22:37. | :22:50. | |
lady about a hand B and I had two points of concern about | :22:51. | :22:59. | |
interpretation. -- David Burrows. We referred to the phrase, apart from | :23:00. | :23:03. | |
this section. I read this as applying to the person with power to | :23:04. | :23:09. | |
authorise. But I do not know what that means either. A person apart | :23:10. | :23:14. | |
from this section. I hope the Minister can help. The other | :23:15. | :23:23. | |
question is the term" shortly" in paragraph a of 85 E. The Secretary | :23:24. | :23:29. | |
of State needs to be satisfied the woman will be removed from the | :23:30. | :23:35. | |
United Kingdom. My Lords, in this House, we are accustomed to the term | :23:36. | :23:42. | |
"Shortly". It is something of an Alice in Wonderland term. It needs | :23:43. | :23:46. | |
what it is meant to mean on the occasion when it is mentioned. -- it | :23:47. | :23:53. | |
means what it is meant. Can we have greater precision on the term in the | :23:54. | :23:59. | |
amendment? I wonder if I could detain the House for a couple of | :24:00. | :24:02. | |
minutes. I am most concerned about this issue. And I am afraid the | :24:03. | :24:07. | |
Government has completely overlooked a very important point. You're not | :24:08. | :24:12. | |
just detaining a pregnant woman. You are detaining the foetus inside. And | :24:13. | :24:17. | |
the effect is something science is increasingly concerned about. The | :24:18. | :24:25. | |
recent science tells us the foetus at certain stages in pregnancy is | :24:26. | :24:29. | |
very vulnerable to the environment of the mother. It is an area of | :24:30. | :24:33. | |
research in which I have been involved at Imperial College. I | :24:34. | :24:36. | |
would like to quote briefly research at Imperial College and also the | :24:37. | :24:41. | |
University of Singapore which I will be visiting later this week and | :24:42. | :24:45. | |
McGill University in Canada among other places. It turns out in | :24:46. | :24:51. | |
particular that at certain stages in pregnancy if a woman's stress | :24:52. | :24:56. | |
hormones are raised, the effect on the foetus may be profound. Michael | :24:57. | :25:01. | |
Meaney, working after the ice storm in on Taree oh years ago showed | :25:02. | :25:08. | |
subsequently on tests on infants at the age of five after effectively | :25:09. | :25:12. | |
being interned in their houses because of the darkness and lack of | :25:13. | :25:18. | |
electors do for a period of time, he found significant cognitive | :25:19. | :25:26. | |
impairment. -- in on Taree oh. Massive stepdad in Canada. It might | :25:27. | :25:35. | |
-- in Canada. It might become more aggressive. Unfortunately the signs | :25:36. | :25:40. | |
at this stage is not clear. -- science. The increasing evidence in | :25:41. | :25:49. | |
human work is really very much that stressing out a woman at certain | :25:50. | :25:53. | |
stages in pregnancy, for example, when the Peters can be identified in | :25:54. | :25:59. | |
the uterus, usually at around 22-26 weeks, that is a particularly | :26:00. | :26:04. | |
vulnerable time. That is when we may have the most severe effects. I | :26:05. | :26:09. | |
think the Government needs to recognise it may be responsible for | :26:10. | :26:14. | |
an effect on that child and possibly even on the grandchildren of the | :26:15. | :26:20. | |
mother. Until that is firmly worked out, I take the Government to | :26:21. | :26:25. | |
reconsider this need, if it must be done at all, it must be done under | :26:26. | :26:30. | |
the most serious circumstances. We cannot go back on women who have | :26:31. | :26:34. | |
been detained in prison in other places in the past. But in the | :26:35. | :26:39. | |
future we must make sure we make law which is humane and assessable to | :26:40. | :26:46. | |
the possibility of an amendment so we caused minimal damage to future | :26:47. | :26:49. | |
doom generation -- future generations. I support the amendment | :26:50. | :27:00. | |
and I have supported her on numerous occasions when we have debated these | :27:01. | :27:05. | |
issues. I am pleased to follow Lord Winston who has returned to an | :27:06. | :27:08. | |
aspect we did discuss at earlier stages. Members may recall the | :27:09. | :27:15. | |
remarks of the noble Baroness in the earlier debates where she focused | :27:16. | :27:20. | |
upon the effects of the unborn child as being detained in stressful | :27:21. | :27:23. | |
circumstances and I referred to work by the late eminent psychiatrist, | :27:24. | :27:29. | |
Professor Mccole, who has described the effects. The effects later in | :27:30. | :27:34. | |
life of children in the womb affected by traumatic events which | :27:35. | :27:39. | |
they had experienced. On the other side of that of course, the | :27:40. | :27:45. | |
world-famous violinist said that he believed that he had learned his | :27:46. | :27:49. | |
love of music in the time that he was in his mother's womb. The | :27:50. | :27:56. | |
Imperial evidence may need to be extended and more work needs to be | :27:57. | :28:00. | |
done. But probably common-sense and row knowledge of human development | :28:01. | :28:06. | |
does take us in that direction. It is not just about concerns for the | :28:07. | :28:12. | |
unborn child. The Baroness rightly reminded us about the | :28:13. | :28:14. | |
recommendations of Stephen Shaw which were at the heart of the | :28:15. | :28:17. | |
debate when we looked at it earlier in proceedings. He recommended there | :28:18. | :28:23. | |
should be an absolute ban. It is a long way short of his | :28:24. | :28:27. | |
recommendations. The noble Baroness Lister, I think in her phrase, very | :28:28. | :28:31. | |
exceptional, she is reminding the governed it cannot be right for us | :28:32. | :28:35. | |
to have rendered women in detention in this way. -- government. I read | :28:36. | :28:44. | |
the remarks of the Conservative member, David worries, the member of | :28:45. | :28:47. | |
Parliament for Enfield Southgate. He spoke so well in the other plays | :28:48. | :28:52. | |
yesterday. I hope when the learned and Lord replies he will respond to | :28:53. | :28:57. | |
the concerns he raised and will respond to the Barack 's at the | :28:58. | :29:01. | |
Royal College of Midwives referred to earlier by the Baroness, -- | :29:02. | :29:10. | |
respond to the remarks at Royal College of Midwives. What kind of | :29:11. | :29:16. | |
accommodation is going to be made available when a pregnant woman is | :29:17. | :29:20. | |
being held? Will he say anything about that? Will he talk about how | :29:21. | :29:27. | |
needs will be met? Can he please assure us that pregnant women will | :29:28. | :29:32. | |
not, as has happened in the past, be picked up in dawn raids and put in | :29:33. | :29:36. | |
the back of the van is and taken miles away into accommodation, with | :29:37. | :29:40. | |
appalling consequences for women in these circumstances. Accounts of | :29:41. | :29:44. | |
nausea, vomiting, people being incredibly distressed by these | :29:45. | :29:52. | |
experiences. This should be in very exceptional circumstances, has the | :29:53. | :29:56. | |
noble Baroness has said. I would like to underline finally the point | :29:57. | :29:59. | |
made by the noble Baroness and way and Lady Lister, referring to 85 E | :30:00. | :30:09. | |
and subsection B. This odd phrase has been included at this late stage | :30:10. | :30:13. | |
where we say a person who, apart from this section, as the power to | :30:14. | :30:18. | |
authorise detention and must regard the woman's welfare. The words, | :30:19. | :30:24. | |
apart from this section, are at best ambiguous and I cannot see what | :30:25. | :30:28. | |
point they have. Campbell murmured Lord in light on us when he replies? | :30:29. | :30:35. | |
-- can be learned Lord enlightened us? I hope the Minister will not | :30:36. | :30:45. | |
only respond to the questions which have been raised in this short | :30:46. | :30:52. | |
debate today in this House, but be doubly determined to do so, because | :30:53. | :30:57. | |
I find it extraordinary that when the amendments were discussed in the | :30:58. | :31:01. | |
House of Commons last night, although apparently they have a not | :31:02. | :31:06. | |
surprising procedure, that a government minister opens the | :31:07. | :31:11. | |
debate, there was no reply by a government minister at the end of | :31:12. | :31:17. | |
the debate. Although the judgment questions raised in that debate | :31:18. | :31:21. | |
after the minister had finished speaking were not answered at all. I | :31:22. | :31:27. | |
know very little about House of Commons procedures. That is quite | :31:28. | :31:31. | |
obvious. But it is certainly remarkable to have a debate where | :31:32. | :31:36. | |
questions are asked of the Government and no government | :31:37. | :31:39. | |
minister replies at the end. I hope that is a defect in the noble and | :31:40. | :31:44. | |
learned Lord will be able to rectify when he comes to reply to this | :31:45. | :31:49. | |
debate and the points that have been raised. We have accepted the | :31:50. | :31:54. | |
Government have moved on this issue into a position of not allowing | :31:55. | :31:59. | |
detention of pregnant women beyond 72 hours or up to one week with the | :32:00. | :32:04. | |
Secretary of State's approval. This has wanted the garment to go further | :32:05. | :32:10. | |
with additional safeguards reflected in the amendment sent to the House | :32:11. | :32:15. | |
of Commons. -- government. They said they had tabled amendments making it | :32:16. | :32:20. | |
clear pregnant women would be retained for the purpose of removal | :32:21. | :32:25. | |
only if they are shortly to be moved from the UK or if there were | :32:26. | :32:28. | |
exceptional circumstances justifying detention. The minister went on to | :32:29. | :32:34. | |
say that the guidance would also make it clear that the power to | :32:35. | :32:40. | |
detain must only be used in very exceptional circumstances. Why does | :32:41. | :32:46. | |
the Government amendment passed last night in the House of Commons refer | :32:47. | :32:52. | |
to exceptional circumstances and not very exceptional circumstances, | :32:53. | :32:57. | |
which is and continues to be used in the guidance? What in the view of | :32:58. | :33:02. | |
the Government in this context is the difference between exceptional | :33:03. | :33:07. | |
circumstances and very exceptional circumstances? It is the Government | :33:08. | :33:14. | |
that has decided not to use the same wording in the Bill as there is and | :33:15. | :33:19. | |
will continue to be used in the guidelines. And through her | :33:20. | :33:26. | |
amendment, my noble friend Baroness Lister is seeking a credible and | :33:27. | :33:29. | |
reassuring answer to that question and I hope the Government can | :33:30. | :33:38. | |
provide it. My Lords, can I begin by answering the question which was | :33:39. | :33:43. | |
opposed by the noble Lord? The provision does refer to exceptional | :33:44. | :33:48. | |
circumstances. The guidance as it exists today talks of only very | :33:49. | :33:53. | |
exceptional circumstances applying for the detention of pregnant women. | :33:54. | :33:59. | |
That will continue to be the policy applied in the context of this | :34:00. | :34:03. | |
provision. I reiterate, as was said in the other place last night, it is | :34:04. | :34:08. | |
only in very exceptional circumstances that it will be | :34:09. | :34:11. | |
considered appropriate for this provision on the detention to be | :34:12. | :34:16. | |
employed. Can I move on to deal with... I am sorry to into Rob. | :34:17. | :34:24. | |
There was a specific question. -- interrupted. White is it not very | :34:25. | :34:29. | |
exceptional circumstances put into the Dell? -- the Bill? It was not | :34:30. | :34:39. | |
considered that words such as most, much, or buried, would add to the | :34:40. | :34:42. | |
proper construction of the provision. -- or vary. -- very. In | :34:43. | :34:53. | |
the other plays it has been said the policy will apply in the contest of | :34:54. | :34:59. | |
very exceptional circumstances. -- context. It is a matter of English | :35:00. | :35:08. | |
language. There is the word, exceptional. It is perfectly clear. | :35:09. | :35:15. | |
What is the difference, in your mind, between exceptional and very | :35:16. | :35:22. | |
exceptional? I think the noble Lord makes the point for me. It is | :35:23. | :35:25. | |
questionable whether there is any distinction to be drawn between | :35:26. | :35:30. | |
exceptional, very exceptional, almost exceptional. That lies behind | :35:31. | :35:35. | |
the manner in which this has been drafted. In order to dispel doubts | :35:36. | :35:40. | |
in the mind of others, it has been said in guidance, but as a matter of | :35:41. | :35:45. | |
policy, the term very exceptional may be applied when approaching the | :35:46. | :35:48. | |
application of this provision to the detention of pregnant women. I would | :35:49. | :35:53. | |
like to pursue this issue with the leave of the House. There must be a | :35:54. | :35:58. | |
difference, otherwise it would not be necessary to use the distinct | :35:59. | :36:04. | |
phrases. Is the Government not in danger of falling foul of it own | :36:05. | :36:11. | |
legislation by applying policy, guidance, which is different from | :36:12. | :36:16. | |
the legislation? I do not accept that. The purpose of policy guidance | :36:17. | :36:19. | |
is to emphasise the test applied. That is what it is happening -- what | :36:20. | :36:22. | |
is happening here. The reference to the welfare of a | :36:23. | :36:35. | |
pregnant woman. In the sub-clause that was referred to. I just want to | :36:36. | :36:40. | |
emphasise that this provision is there is an additional safeguard. | :36:41. | :36:45. | |
I'm not going to claim that the trust midship of this particular | :36:46. | :36:49. | |
clause is distinguished by its elegance but its effect ultimately | :36:50. | :36:55. | |
is clear. In circumstances where it is thought that a pregnant woman may | :36:56. | :37:01. | |
fall to be detained, the party who may be exercising the right to | :37:02. | :37:05. | |
detain will also have the have the regard that pregnant women before a | :37:06. | :37:12. | |
final scissors made so for example in circumstances where the pregnant | :37:13. | :37:16. | |
woman has arrived at a remove the port and there is nowhere in the | :37:17. | :37:21. | |
passivity that could properly be utilised to detain her when she's in | :37:22. | :37:25. | |
a state of pregnancy that'll be a factor which must be taken into | :37:26. | :37:28. | |
account and indeed the determining factor in deciding whether or not to | :37:29. | :37:32. | |
detain her. You might have somebody who is in a state of pregnancy | :37:33. | :37:37. | |
arriving say at Heathrow who can and should be detained because of | :37:38. | :37:43. | |
circumstances are exceptional and whether where there are facilities | :37:44. | :37:46. | |
to detain her giving her state of pregnancy, and the other hand you | :37:47. | :37:49. | |
might have somebody arriving at a remote port in circumstances where | :37:50. | :37:53. | |
it is felt there were circumstances that are justified attention but | :37:54. | :37:57. | |
where there was no suitable place for her detention and therefore have | :37:58. | :38:02. | |
no regard for help welfare did tension would not take place. I hope | :38:03. | :38:06. | |
that assists in expended purpose of the provision. It is an additional | :38:07. | :38:13. | |
safeguard. Can I turn to the question of and or which was raised | :38:14. | :38:19. | |
in the context of whether or not detention should take place. Of | :38:20. | :38:24. | |
course the intended effect of these provisions so far as pregnant women | :38:25. | :38:27. | |
are concerned is that they will like all detainees only be detained for | :38:28. | :38:33. | |
the purposes of removal. Because there will be a time limit on the | :38:34. | :38:35. | |
detention of pregnant women all cases of the of the detention of | :38:36. | :38:40. | |
pregnant women will be necessary short some of these cases will have | :38:41. | :38:45. | |
exceptional circumstances attached are by definition not many. For | :38:46. | :38:49. | |
example, cases of the border are quite likely not have exceptional | :38:50. | :38:54. | |
features. The causes drafted therefore allows the detention of | :38:55. | :38:57. | |
pregnant women only when they can be removed quickly or when they can be | :38:58. | :39:02. | |
removed and exceptional circumstances pertaining to. It is | :39:03. | :39:06. | |
merely to allow for the two circumstances namely that they can | :39:07. | :39:09. | |
be quickly removed or that they can be quickly removed and exceptional | :39:10. | :39:15. | |
circumstances pertaining. I hope that goes to explain the way in | :39:16. | :39:22. | |
which that particular provision is drafted, the noble Baroness Lister | :39:23. | :39:27. | |
asked about the question of the further review but with respect we | :39:28. | :39:29. | |
have already had the review from Steven Shaw and he is going to be | :39:30. | :39:34. | |
instructed to carry out a further short review about the | :39:35. | :39:37. | |
implementation of these provisions. No additional or alternative view is | :39:38. | :39:44. | |
contemplated. Indeed, with respect to guidance, the policy guidance we | :39:45. | :39:49. | |
have is of course addressed already and no additional guidance is | :39:50. | :39:53. | |
contemplated. The noble Baroness also referred to in FI FOIA request | :39:54. | :39:59. | |
and I cannot reply directly with respect to that request or the | :40:00. | :40:02. | |
mothers matter of the relevant statistics but there is a process | :40:03. | :40:05. | |
that can be followed through to a conclusion in order to determine | :40:06. | :40:08. | |
that the FOIA request is responded to in shoe time and inappropriate | :40:09. | :40:19. | |
terms. -- Jew time. -- Jew time and appropriate terms. | :40:20. | :40:23. | |
The question of the treatment of pregnant women and the effect of | :40:24. | :40:31. | |
stress on them. Who can doubt how stressful it will be Fred person who | :40:32. | :40:37. | |
travels unlawfully to the United Kingdom in a state of pregnancy and | :40:38. | :40:40. | |
then a tense unlawfully to secure entry to the United Kingdom session | :40:41. | :40:44. | |
mark that alone is a source of stress. The question is how we deal | :40:45. | :40:49. | |
sympathetically and effectively with such persons particularly when we | :40:50. | :40:51. | |
find that they are either vulnerable or pregnant and what we have | :40:52. | :40:56. | |
developed here is a rational and reasonable approach to that very | :40:57. | :40:58. | |
difficult question. Finally, could I address the | :40:59. | :41:10. | |
question of facilities in the context of planned departure. Our | :41:11. | :41:18. | |
continuing view is that immigration removal centres remain the most | :41:19. | :41:21. | |
appropriate place to detain pregnant women. The Isles would provide a | :41:22. | :41:26. | |
high level of care for pregnant women, it has national health this | :41:27. | :41:30. | |
midwives available, general practitioners and nurses can be | :41:31. | :41:33. | |
accessed seven days a week. There are strong links with the local | :41:34. | :41:37. | |
maternity services and there is support provided by pregnancy | :41:38. | :41:40. | |
liaison officer. In addition, there is now a new care staff by new firm | :41:41. | :41:46. | |
female member of staff to tend to women who are pregnant. Very few | :41:47. | :41:52. | |
pregnant women are detained in the circumstances but suitable and | :41:53. | :41:56. | |
sufficient facilities are available and as I observed earlier where they | :41:57. | :42:00. | |
are not for some reason available the welfare of the pregnant woman | :42:01. | :42:05. | |
will be paramount. In these circumstances, I beg to move this | :42:06. | :42:12. | |
house. I'm grateful to him but you will recall he has been asked by | :42:13. | :42:15. | |
three others about those words that appear in the final section in the | :42:16. | :42:20. | |
penultimate line of the amendment apart from this section and I | :42:21. | :42:23. | |
wondered if he could tell is why they have been included and what | :42:24. | :42:29. | |
they add to this. I did say that the relevant provision was not | :42:30. | :42:32. | |
distinguished by its elegance but if you read the causes a whole it is | :42:33. | :42:38. | |
intended to refer back to the person with the detention in terms of the | :42:39. | :42:43. | |
bill. The way in which it is drafted at that point is the tainted by the | :42:44. | :42:47. | |
way in which that is described in an earlier clause of the bill. Forgive | :42:48. | :42:56. | |
me for intervening once more. I don't feel at all confident about | :42:57. | :43:03. | |
the question of incarceration. The difference between arriving on these | :43:04. | :43:08. | |
shores illegally and then being incarcerated is very different from | :43:09. | :43:12. | |
arriving on the shores with hope and what the evidence of the model shows | :43:13. | :43:16. | |
in Canada is that the incarceration in their own houses even that causes | :43:17. | :43:20. | |
distress to these women which resulted in the changes to the | :43:21. | :43:26. | |
foetus which was subsequently inherited. I beg the Lord to | :43:27. | :43:29. | |
consider that point when he finally at sums up. I had rather summed up | :43:30. | :43:43. | |
but if I can say this of course there are elements in the journey of | :43:44. | :43:46. | |
such a person that would cause stress, detention may be a factor in | :43:47. | :43:51. | |
that, but in the round we have to come to a reasoned conclusion as to | :43:52. | :43:56. | |
how we deal with unlawful entry into the United Kingdom. Can I make the | :43:57. | :44:04. | |
noble Lord on offer. He is obviously as uncomfortable as I am with the | :44:05. | :44:07. | |
drafting of this section, can we find a way of getting it to mean | :44:08. | :44:12. | |
what whether we don't like it or not he is telling us we ought to | :44:13. | :44:16. | |
understand it to mean early in the next session. Lets packet onto | :44:17. | :44:19. | |
something that will come to us fairly shortly. -- tack it on. It | :44:20. | :44:27. | |
means what I say, it doesn't say what I mean. Maybe her lying but | :44:28. | :44:30. | |
that is one that which take into consideration. -- maybe her lying in | :44:31. | :44:33. | |
the. Thank you to all the noble Lords. It | :44:34. | :44:48. | |
has reinforced the sense that this house is very concerned about this | :44:49. | :44:56. | |
issue and is not convinced that the welfare of pregnant women and the | :44:57. | :45:03. | |
foetus inside them is being protected by the concessions that | :45:04. | :45:11. | |
the government has made. I'm grateful to the noble and learned it | :45:12. | :45:15. | |
law the Minister for addressing all the questions that were asked. I | :45:16. | :45:18. | |
have to say that I don't think it was a question of elegance, it's a | :45:19. | :45:22. | |
question of content ability and I have to say I didn't understand a | :45:23. | :45:28. | |
word of one of his answers. -- comprehensible must. I will try and | :45:29. | :45:33. | |
understand it when I read it in Hansard. It does have residents of | :45:34. | :45:38. | |
that Humpty Dumpty and words saying what I say they mean and the | :45:39. | :45:43. | |
question is who is to be master and that is all and unfortunately it is | :45:44. | :45:48. | |
the government that is a master and who has the power to decide these | :45:49. | :45:53. | |
issues. Thee and I did understand from the Bernard Lord were very | :45:54. | :45:58. | |
disappointing. I still have not heard a good reason as to why the | :45:59. | :46:07. | |
word very was not... If it's good enough for the guidance and it means | :46:08. | :46:09. | |
something in the guidance I still have not heard a proper reason as to | :46:10. | :46:14. | |
why it's not good enough to be in the legislation and I'm still | :46:15. | :46:17. | |
worried that someone looking at both of them will think oh, well, the | :46:18. | :46:22. | |
legislation, the government has gone backwards to that extent. I'm very | :46:23. | :46:27. | |
concerned... I wasn't asking for a whole new review, I was asking for a | :46:28. | :46:33. | |
very focused review of the process by which a woman is taken from her | :46:34. | :46:39. | |
home into detention and as I understand it is already been a | :46:40. | :46:42. | |
commitment to look at the question of transport and I'm asking that | :46:43. | :46:47. | |
that is broadened to the whole process. It's not a big thing, I'm | :46:48. | :46:53. | |
very concerned that there is no... I'm still not heard any explanation | :46:54. | :46:59. | |
as to how this is going to be modelled on the family returns | :47:00. | :47:03. | |
process. The noble and learned it law the Minister has said there will | :47:04. | :47:07. | |
be no further guidance and that's so it is an empty claim unless someone | :47:08. | :47:14. | |
can show is otherwise. I hope that the noble Lord will take this away, | :47:15. | :47:20. | |
I hope that Immigration Minister will take this away that the Home | :47:21. | :47:23. | |
Secretary will take it away, will read what has been said in this | :47:24. | :47:29. | |
house and also the points made by my noble friend Lord Ross that the | :47:30. | :47:35. | |
really strange Commons procedure that don't allow the Minister to | :47:36. | :47:42. | |
respond to perfectly good questions put so that we at least have a | :47:43. | :47:45. | |
chance to do that in this house so I hope that the people in the other | :47:46. | :47:50. | |
place will all read what has been said in this house and will go away | :47:51. | :47:56. | |
and think about it and think how we can within the constraints of the | :47:57. | :48:00. | |
legislation as tears make this a more process than it is at present | :48:01. | :48:04. | |
because as we've heard there is a lot at stake here and my noble | :48:05. | :48:11. | |
friend Lord Winston talked about could be responsible for a affect on | :48:12. | :48:16. | |
the child. That is a very serious thing so I do hope that this will be | :48:17. | :48:23. | |
looked at further even if it can't be in the context of actual | :48:24. | :48:27. | |
legislation. That said, like the noble Lord Ramsbottom I recognise | :48:28. | :48:31. | |
when we're coming to the end of the road and so like him with a very | :48:32. | :48:37. | |
heavy heart indeed I beg leave to withdraw amendment B1. Is it your | :48:38. | :48:44. | |
Lordships pleasure that amendment B1 be withdrawn? The amendment is by | :48:45. | :48:47. | |
leaf withdrawn. The question is that motion be be agreed to. As many | :48:48. | :48:52. | |
years that will save content. The content habit. | :48:53. | :48:57. | |
I shall not repeat as a statement the answer to an urgent question | :48:58. | :49:02. | |
given today by my right honourable friend the Minister for immigration | :49:03. | :49:07. | |
and child refugee resettlement from Europe. The statement is as follows. | :49:08. | :49:13. | |
Mr Speaker, as I said last night, the government is at the forefront | :49:14. | :49:18. | |
of assisting and protecting vulnerable children wherever they | :49:19. | :49:23. | |
are and as the house is aware last week the Prime Minister said that we | :49:24. | :49:28. | |
will work with local authorities and plans to resettle unaccompanied | :49:29. | :49:30. | |
children from France, Greece and Italy. We have said we expect the | :49:31. | :49:35. | |
first children to arrive before the end of the year. We have not said | :49:36. | :49:40. | |
that it will take until the end of the year for them to arrive. As a | :49:41. | :49:45. | |
clear to the house, are working hard to see isolated children reunited | :49:46. | :49:52. | |
with family and children at risk of exploitation and abuse, to the UK as | :49:53. | :49:58. | |
quickly as we can. We have to be satisfied that they will be able to | :49:59. | :50:02. | |
receive appropriate care and support when they arrive. The revised | :50:03. | :50:07. | |
amendment to the immigration bill obliges us to consult with local | :50:08. | :50:12. | |
authorities, we must ensure we fulfil our obligations to children | :50:13. | :50:17. | |
who are already in the UK as well as ensuring we have the right support | :50:18. | :50:20. | |
for those who may be brought to the UK from Europe. The provisions in | :50:21. | :50:27. | |
the bill by their nature mean we have to consult others before | :50:28. | :50:32. | |
finalising our plans but that is not imply that we will delay getting on | :50:33. | :50:37. | |
with this. We will be contacting council leaders in the coming days. | :50:38. | :50:43. | |
I have already spoken to the local government Association on this | :50:44. | :50:46. | |
matter. We've all always been clear that we will do nothing that | :50:47. | :50:50. | |
inadvertently create a situation in which families see an advantage in | :50:51. | :50:54. | |
sending children ahead, putting their lives at risk, by attempting | :50:55. | :50:59. | |
perilous journeys to Europe. That is why only those present in the EU | :51:00. | :51:06. | |
before the 20th of March will be eligible for resettlement and even | :51:07. | :51:10. | |
then only when it is in their best interests to come to the UK. This | :51:11. | :51:15. | |
will avoid creating a perverse incentive for families to entrust | :51:16. | :51:18. | |
their children to people traffickers. We've already started | :51:19. | :51:27. | |
consulting relevant NGOs, Unicef and other member states and how best we | :51:28. | :51:31. | |
implement this legislation. Last Friday I met the Greek government in | :51:32. | :51:38. | |
Athens to discuss how best we can make progress quickly. Were already | :51:39. | :51:41. | |
working to identify those who we can help. | :51:42. | :51:46. | |
We have an ongoing plan with France to improve joint response to | :51:47. | :51:53. | |
children in Calais, accepting more than 30 transfer request since they | :51:54. | :51:57. | |
break, with more than 20 already arrived. We will be working with | :51:58. | :52:02. | |
France in the coming days and weeks to increase the identification of | :52:03. | :52:05. | |
children in France who have family here so we can bring them over. In | :52:06. | :52:11. | |
addition, the UK has played a full part in supporting European | :52:12. | :52:14. | |
neighbours to provide support to those who have arrived. We have | :52:15. | :52:20. | |
provided nearly ?46 million of funding for the European wide | :52:21. | :52:24. | |
response to halt the most honourable, including children and | :52:25. | :52:30. | |
infants. -- help. The ?10 million fund in addition announced on | :52:31. | :52:35. | |
January the 28th will support Save the Children and International | :52:36. | :52:39. | |
Rescue Commtitee 's to work with authorities to care and assist | :52:40. | :52:43. | |
unaccompanied, or separated children. Of course this is on top | :52:44. | :52:50. | |
of the Syrian resettlement programme and the Rhys Evans scheme designed | :52:51. | :52:55. | |
to resettle up to 3000 children from the Middle East and North Africa. -- | :52:56. | :53:03. | |
resettlement scheme. We are committed to making a full | :53:04. | :53:07. | |
contribution to the refugee crisis. We are already acting to implement | :53:08. | :53:12. | |
the amendment. We have started discussions with local government. | :53:13. | :53:19. | |
We have begun work with European partners and NGOs to support | :53:20. | :53:23. | |
effective implementation. We will bring refugee children to the UK as | :53:24. | :53:28. | |
quick as it is safe to do so. I am proud the commitment of this | :53:29. | :53:33. | |
country, this government, to help those in need in and outside of | :53:34. | :53:37. | |
Europe stands comparison with any other country in the world. That | :53:38. | :53:45. | |
concludes the statement. I thank the noble Lord for repeating the answer | :53:46. | :53:48. | |
to an urgent question earlier in the Commons today. We welcome the steps | :53:49. | :53:59. | |
the Government are taking. In the Commons yesterday the Government | :54:00. | :54:02. | |
confirmed they were accepting the amendment passed in this House, in | :54:03. | :54:09. | |
the name of my noble friend, Lord Duns. They said they would bring | :54:10. | :54:16. | |
forward more detailed proposals and there would be a meeting scheduled | :54:17. | :54:22. | |
for later this week. It appears ten Downing St has told the Daily | :54:23. | :54:25. | |
Telegraph the first children will be arriving by the end of the year, | :54:26. | :54:31. | |
which is a different tenor of response to that given in the | :54:32. | :54:35. | |
Commons, which was all about urgency and getting on with it as quickly as | :54:36. | :54:40. | |
possible. Can the Government tell us what the estimated timetable is for | :54:41. | :54:45. | |
implementing my noble friend's amendment, which they have accepted? | :54:46. | :54:50. | |
Can he say if it will be an objective to take in at least the | :54:51. | :54:54. | |
first 300 children before the start of the school year in September? It | :54:55. | :54:58. | |
will not assist the position of children if they had to join well | :54:59. | :55:05. | |
into the start of the school year. Finally, 157 children have been | :55:06. | :55:08. | |
identified by citizens UK as being in Calais and having family | :55:09. | :55:13. | |
collections here. -- connections here. I appreciate the Minister | :55:14. | :55:18. | |
could not comment on the figure of 157. But will the Government give an | :55:19. | :55:23. | |
assurance to make sure those children in Calais with valid claims | :55:24. | :55:29. | |
for reunification are reunited as a matter of urgency with families here | :55:30. | :55:36. | |
under the Dublin arrangement? My lords, I am most grateful to Lord | :55:37. | :55:44. | |
Rosser. The Daily Telegraph picked up the number ten statement and | :55:45. | :55:50. | |
misconstrued it. What number ten said was we would be proceeding with | :55:51. | :55:56. | |
this programme as quickly as possible and by the end of the year, | :55:57. | :56:01. | |
we will have seen children arriving in this country. That does not mean | :56:02. | :56:06. | |
it will be the 31st of December before any child arrives. The | :56:07. | :56:14. | |
estimated timetable is one which is difficult for me to define. Because | :56:15. | :56:21. | |
of the need, as the amendment specifies, to consult local | :56:22. | :56:26. | |
authorities before we are in a position to say how many can be | :56:27. | :56:32. | |
accommodated. All I can assure the noble Lord is that we need to take | :56:33. | :56:36. | |
the necessary time but not unnecessary time to do that. We are | :56:37. | :56:41. | |
already engaging with the French authorities to make sure the | :56:42. | :56:45. | |
vulnerable children which I know he would like us to prioritise our | :56:46. | :56:49. | |
identified as quickly as possible. We will do the same in Greece and | :56:50. | :56:55. | |
Italy. I cannot, as he will surmise, be specific about whether we will | :56:56. | :57:00. | |
take in 300 children before the start of the school year. The nature | :57:01. | :57:03. | |
of the announcement needs we must take the necessary time to consult | :57:04. | :57:08. | |
others before we bring in final proposals on in the mentation. All I | :57:09. | :57:12. | |
can say is that we will not -- implementation. We will implement it | :57:13. | :57:23. | |
in spirit and we will do so as wholeheartedly and speedily as we | :57:24. | :57:29. | |
can. Naturally, as I have emphasised, those children in Calais | :57:30. | :57:31. | |
are likely to be the first candidates. Save the Children, after | :57:32. | :57:38. | |
extensive research and consultation, concluded the UK taking 3000 | :57:39. | :57:43. | |
unaccompanied asylum seekers children from within Europe would be | :57:44. | :57:49. | |
a fair and proportionate number. I accept what the minister says. We | :57:50. | :57:53. | |
have to have consultation with local authorities. But we have also | :57:54. | :58:00. | |
already heard the fact that charities and other mechanisms can | :58:01. | :58:04. | |
be used in order to help find homes for these children. Can the Minister | :58:05. | :58:10. | |
tell the House how many of these children it does actually intend to | :58:11. | :58:16. | |
take? The smallest number it can get away with, or the UK's fair share? I | :58:17. | :58:24. | |
hope that I have indicated that we are pursuing this amendment in its | :58:25. | :58:28. | |
proper spirit. We have always been clear that we share the objective of | :58:29. | :58:33. | |
identifying and protecting vulnerable refugee children wherever | :58:34. | :58:37. | |
they are. Our efforts have been designed to do just that. We have | :58:38. | :58:42. | |
heard many times the measures the Government are taking in the Middle | :58:43. | :58:49. | |
East, in particular. We were very clear setting an arbitrary target, | :58:50. | :58:53. | |
particularly as high as 3000, was the wrong approach. It is necessary, | :58:54. | :59:00. | |
we cannot wade in and select some children we think would be better | :59:01. | :59:05. | |
off in the UK. Especially when some local authorities are already caring | :59:06. | :59:08. | |
for very high numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking | :59:09. | :59:12. | |
children, stretching services in some cases to breaking point. Which | :59:13. | :59:16. | |
is why we believe this approach is the right one. We must consult with | :59:17. | :59:21. | |
local authorities before we can determine the number we can | :59:22. | :59:26. | |
accommodate. We must observe the best interest principle as well. My | :59:27. | :59:34. | |
Lords, can I just say that I very much appreciate the way in which the | :59:35. | :59:39. | |
Home Secretary and immigration minister and Home Office officials | :59:40. | :59:42. | |
have put me in the picture in this process. It was gratifying, not in a | :59:43. | :59:49. | |
triumphalist sense, to see the name of the Home Secretary on the | :59:50. | :59:51. | |
amendment in the Commons yesterday evening. I think the minister put | :59:52. | :59:56. | |
his finger on the right phrase, if the Government does intend to accept | :59:57. | :00:00. | |
not only the letter but the spirit of the amendment, all I would say is | :00:01. | :00:05. | |
that given we now have officials working with French authorities, | :00:06. | :00:10. | |
that it would be possible to speed up the process of identifying | :00:11. | :00:15. | |
children in Calais who have relatives in Britain and help them | :00:16. | :00:21. | |
to get there in time for school term in September. That would surely be | :00:22. | :00:25. | |
the right thing to do. The Minister cannot make a promise but I hope he | :00:26. | :00:29. | |
will accept the spirit of what I am saying and that the Government will | :00:30. | :00:33. | |
do its best accordingly. I can give him that assurance. It would clearly | :00:34. | :00:38. | |
be desirable to make sure those children who are most vulnerable and | :00:39. | :00:42. | |
in need of help and support can arrive in this country in time for | :00:43. | :00:46. | |
the school year, but he will understand that at this stage in the | :00:47. | :00:50. | |
exercise I cannot give firm undertakings. I can only say we will | :00:51. | :00:55. | |
use our best endeavours in this direction. My Lords, does the | :00:56. | :01:01. | |
Minister accept that this is a national responsibility, to do what | :01:02. | :01:08. | |
we reasonably can to help those children who are single and | :01:09. | :01:13. | |
unaccompanied and already in Europe? Can he give an assurance that the | :01:14. | :01:20. | |
costs will not fall on individual local authorities and will be | :01:21. | :01:28. | |
accepted as a national burden? Secondly, the issue of children who | :01:29. | :01:32. | |
come into this country and eventually reach the age of 18 was | :01:33. | :01:40. | |
raised earlier at question Time. But we did not get a clear and very | :01:41. | :01:45. | |
acceptable answer from the Government. After we have invested | :01:46. | :01:55. | |
so much resources and care and education in these particular | :01:56. | :01:59. | |
children, surely they should be allowed to stay here and not have | :02:00. | :02:04. | |
the kind of sword of Damocles hanging over their head that they | :02:05. | :02:11. | |
might then be returned? The question of costs, as the noble Lord will | :02:12. | :02:15. | |
know, the local authorities who care for unaccompanied asylum seeking | :02:16. | :02:19. | |
children, there is no reason why the plantation should place unique | :02:20. | :02:24. | |
challenges on local authorities. -- implementation. Funding arrangements | :02:25. | :02:29. | |
will be discussed with the local authorities and the Home Office will | :02:30. | :02:33. | |
be engaging with local authorities in that sense as it goes forward | :02:34. | :02:40. | |
with the main question of how many children can be accommodated. But I | :02:41. | :02:45. | |
would say that any additional flow of unaccompanied children must be | :02:46. | :02:50. | |
aligned with existing schemes. Regarding making a pre-emptive | :02:51. | :02:56. | |
undertaking, giving a pre-emptive undertaking of what will happen to | :02:57. | :03:00. | |
children when they reach the age of 18, I think the only thing I can say | :03:01. | :03:04. | |
is that each case for asylum must be considered on individual merit. When | :03:05. | :03:09. | |
somebody demonstrates a genuine fear of persecution, protection will be | :03:10. | :03:14. | |
granted. But when somebody is found not to be in need of our protection, | :03:15. | :03:17. | |
in those circumstances we would expect them to leave the UK | :03:18. | :03:25. | |
voluntarily. Will he confirm that he is having close discussions with the | :03:26. | :03:30. | |
Welsh government on these matters? Many responsibilities lie here and | :03:31. | :03:33. | |
we in Wales are anxious to play our part in this programme. Given his | :03:34. | :03:37. | |
emphasis on cooperating with the French authorities, is he confident | :03:38. | :03:42. | |
that in the unfortunate event of Brexit that that corporation will | :03:43. | :03:49. | |
continue? The answer is yes and yes. We are in touch with the devolved | :03:50. | :03:55. | |
administration. Not only the Welsh authority but also Scotland and | :03:56. | :04:00. | |
Northern Ireland as well. I can of course give the noble Lord the | :04:01. | :04:05. | |
undertaking about our dialogue with the French which will continue, | :04:06. | :04:09. | |
whatever happens. Message from the Commons they disagree to pay | :04:10. | :04:13. | |
amendment which the Commons have made in the planning Bill, to which | :04:14. | :04:19. | |
they have a reason. They disagree with other amendments made in view | :04:20. | :04:23. | |
of an amendment to which the Commons disagreed, to which they have | :04:24. | :04:29. | |
assigned a region -- reason. They insist in an airman to to which the | :04:30. | :04:33. | |
Commons disagreed and disagree to an and to which the House of lords | :04:34. | :04:37. | |
disagreed for which there a reason. They insist on their disagreement | :04:38. | :04:40. | |
with the Lords in certain other amendment but they made other | :04:41. | :04:43. | |
amendments to which they decide the agreement of the House of Lords and | :04:44. | :04:47. | |
they agreed without an Emmons to the remaining amendment made by the | :04:48. | :04:50. | |
House of Lords in lieu of an Emmons to which the House of Commons at | :04:51. | :04:58. | |
disagreed. -- a motion. I beg to move the Emmons be considered | :04:59. | :05:03. | |
forthwith. -- at them and speak considered. The question is they be | :05:04. | :05:10. | |
considered forthwith. As many as are of the opinion say "content." To the | :05:11. | :05:14. | |
contrary, "not content". Content does have it. My Lords, I beg to | :05:15. | :05:22. | |
move motion hay that this House does not insist on ten B, to which the | :05:23. | :05:27. | |
House of Commons at disagreed for the reasons ten C. I would like to | :05:28. | :05:32. | |
be clear once more that it undermines the manifesto commitment | :05:33. | :05:37. | |
to build 200,000 starter homes by 2020. The requirement. The homes | :05:38. | :05:43. | |
becomes something -- the requirement for starter homes becomes entirely | :05:44. | :05:47. | |
different and not what was in the manifesto. It commits delivery at | :05:48. | :05:52. | |
least three times. Let me quote directly to show commitment could | :05:53. | :05:57. | |
not be more clear. As of the party of home ownership we want to go | :05:58. | :06:01. | |
further and faster. This will set out our plan. The objective is to | :06:02. | :06:07. | |
build affordable homes including 200,000 starter homes, sold at a 20% | :06:08. | :06:14. | |
discount and will be built exclusively for first-time buyers | :06:15. | :06:15. | |
under age of 40. The electorate will expect us to the | :06:16. | :06:23. | |
liver that commitment and we will do so. We have listened to the house | :06:24. | :06:27. | |
and a number of aspects of this policy including allowing for a | :06:28. | :06:31. | |
taper and repayment mechanism where the property is resold. The | :06:32. | :06:34. | |
government cannot compromise on starter homes requirement. It is | :06:35. | :06:39. | |
fundamental to delivering 200,000 starter homes within this | :06:40. | :06:44. | |
Parliament. Over 85,000 young people have now registered on our starter | :06:45. | :06:48. | |
homes register of interest. We want these young people from across the | :06:49. | :06:51. | |
country to have a chance of home ownership. The starter home model | :06:52. | :06:56. | |
will give them a chance, it will provide an opportunity for them to | :06:57. | :07:00. | |
own their own home and unlike many other home ownership products it | :07:01. | :07:04. | |
will enable them to move onwards and upwards over time. Collected and | :07:05. | :07:11. | |
members in the other place had been clear in their support for | :07:12. | :07:15. | |
delivering this commitment. They recognise the importance of starter | :07:16. | :07:19. | |
homes for the long-term health of their communities and are receiving | :07:20. | :07:21. | |
enquiries from interested constituents asking is to get on | :07:22. | :07:26. | |
with delivering them. As the honourable member for North Cornwall | :07:27. | :07:29. | |
said in the other place, we in this country have a right to own our own | :07:30. | :07:33. | |
home and this government delivering that through this bill. I am also in | :07:34. | :07:37. | |
agreement with the member for South Rebel when she said we need to get | :07:38. | :07:43. | |
more houses built and quickly. Developers and builders want | :07:44. | :07:46. | |
certainty and speed. We will give them certainty through the | :07:47. | :07:50. | |
straightforward national set starter homes requirement. We remain | :07:51. | :07:56. | |
committed to delivering shared ownership and other forms of | :07:57. | :07:59. | |
affordable homeownership products to help those who aspire to | :08:00. | :08:03. | |
homeownership but cannot afford the discounted purchase, they form part | :08:04. | :08:08. | |
of a diverse and thriving housing market. Our prospectus invite | :08:09. | :08:13. | |
Housing associations and other providers to bid for ?4.1 billion | :08:14. | :08:21. | |
worth of funding to deliver 135,000 shared home ownership homes and 200 | :08:22. | :08:25. | |
million to deliver 10,000 rent to buy homes. Local authorities will | :08:26. | :08:31. | |
also still be able to deliver these products alongside the starter home | :08:32. | :08:35. | |
requirement. It where it would be viable. We estimate that 50 to | :08:36. | :08:41. | |
70,000 affordable homes can still come forward alongside our starter | :08:42. | :08:44. | |
home requirement during this Parliament. This bill is focusing on | :08:45. | :08:51. | |
starter homes to ensure the scale of delivery that we need. We strongly | :08:52. | :08:55. | |
believe that a nationally set requirement. The homes is essential | :08:56. | :09:00. | |
to meet our manifesto commitment and we are consulting on the details for | :09:01. | :09:04. | |
its operation. The requirements will be put in place through affirmative | :09:05. | :09:08. | |
regulations so that Parliament will have a future opportunity to | :09:09. | :09:13. | |
scrutinise the details. We intend to deliver our manifesto commitment and | :09:14. | :09:17. | |
I must therefore invite the house not to insist on amendments ten B. | :09:18. | :09:21. | |
That amendment would fundamentally change the government manifesto | :09:22. | :09:25. | |
intention as proposed in the bill and it is therefore our view that | :09:26. | :09:29. | |
the Salisbury Convention is engaged. We have a clear manifesto mandate | :09:30. | :09:35. | |
deliver the policy and I invite the house to support motion a and reject | :09:36. | :09:40. | |
motion a one if it is moved. I beg to move. The question is that motion | :09:41. | :09:45. | |
a be agreed to. Amendment a one, Lord Kerslake. I beg to move | :09:46. | :09:54. | |
amendment a one as on amendments to motion a. Leave out from house to | :09:55. | :10:00. | |
end and insert do insist on its amendments ten B as an amendment to | :10:01. | :10:05. | |
amendments ten hey. , first declare my interest as chair of the body and | :10:06. | :10:10. | |
president of the local government Association. I stand before you as a | :10:11. | :10:19. | |
reluctant amend. As the bill has moved forward towards its final | :10:20. | :10:23. | |
stages, I have been very open to conversation and compromise. This | :10:24. | :10:30. | |
has been possible on a wide range of difficult issues and indeed was | :10:31. | :10:34. | |
close to being achieved on the second amendment that I will be | :10:35. | :10:38. | |
moving later today. However on this part of the bill, housing, there | :10:39. | :10:44. | |
remain to vitally important issues where I feel strongly that the | :10:45. | :10:49. | |
debate is to continue. The first of these concerns and the of amendment | :10:50. | :10:55. | |
a one is the so-called starter homes requirement. Under this, local | :10:56. | :11:04. | |
authorities will not be able to give approval to individual planning | :11:05. | :11:07. | |
applications unless they have included the specified number of | :11:08. | :11:10. | |
starter homes. This figure is currently set to be 20% or one in | :11:11. | :11:19. | |
five of the houses approved. The issues with this have been | :11:20. | :11:23. | |
previously rehearsed. There are three major concerns. Firstly, it | :11:24. | :11:31. | |
imposes a single top down requirement regardless of local | :11:32. | :11:35. | |
circumstances. Secondly, it does so with a product that is still in | :11:36. | :11:44. | |
design. It is not tried and tested. Thirdly, the percentage proposed | :11:45. | :11:49. | |
will squeeze out other kinds of affordable housing. They are | :11:50. | :11:55. | |
desperately needed. My amendment is not intended to be or is it a | :11:56. | :11:59. | |
wrecking amendments to the manifesto. It seeks only to give | :12:00. | :12:05. | |
greater local flexibility where they need can be demonstrated and allow | :12:06. | :12:13. | |
other types of all the low cost home ownership products to be counted | :12:14. | :12:15. | |
within the starter homes requirement. It will be for | :12:16. | :12:21. | |
individual local authorities to take a view on this within their overall | :12:22. | :12:31. | |
duty to promote starter homes. There need be no delay in getting starter | :12:32. | :12:36. | |
homes going. Indeed, I think local planning decisions would be quicker | :12:37. | :12:41. | |
as a result of this flexibility. The low-cost home ownership delivered | :12:42. | :12:46. | |
could quite reasonably count against the government 's 200,000 target. | :12:47. | :12:54. | |
They can as new low-cost home ownership products be targeted at | :12:55. | :12:58. | |
the same group of people, young first-time buyers, that the | :12:59. | :13:03. | |
government is seeking to help. From the point of view of the buyer, what | :13:04. | :13:08. | |
matters is the opportunity to own their own home. Before we locked | :13:09. | :13:16. | |
ourselves into a rigid, inflexible, national solution that risks setting | :13:17. | :13:22. | |
local authorities up to fail, I would ask ministers and this house | :13:23. | :13:28. | |
even at this very late stage to consider a more local list market | :13:29. | :13:36. | |
responsive approach. I beg to move. The original question was that | :13:37. | :13:40. | |
motion a be agreed to. Since when amendment a one has been moved to | :13:41. | :13:46. | |
leave out from house to the end and insert to insist on its amendment | :13:47. | :13:52. | |
ten B as an amendment to amendments ten a. The question therefore is | :13:53. | :13:59. | |
that amendment A-1 B agreed to. Having sat through most the | :14:00. | :14:02. | |
proceedings on this bill I recognised it as the most | :14:03. | :14:04. | |
controversial one in the last year and I understand the strong feeling | :14:05. | :14:09. | |
that have been aroused but I would like to make three brief reasons why | :14:10. | :14:12. | |
I think at this stage which allow the bill to go forward. The | :14:13. | :14:17. | |
government of order made very substantial concessions on this | :14:18. | :14:22. | |
bill. Principally in response to our dinners put forward by crossbenchers | :14:23. | :14:26. | |
and opposition members in this house, amendments and high-value | :14:27. | :14:30. | |
assets, exceptions to secure tenancies, pay to stay, starter | :14:31. | :14:34. | |
homes, rural exceptions sites where a case has been made that doesn't | :14:35. | :14:39. | |
conflict with the manifesto my noble friend is listened to the arguments | :14:40. | :14:43. | |
and made the necessary changes. No one can accuse the government of | :14:44. | :14:48. | |
inflexible at the. Secondly, we found the vote in another place last | :14:49. | :14:51. | |
night between 80 and a hundred but not one single does dissenting voice | :14:52. | :14:56. | |
on the government benches, roughly two thirds of in which MPs rejected | :14:57. | :15:00. | |
the amendments from this house and I think which think carefully before | :15:01. | :15:04. | |
we seek to second-guess them. Finally, the further amendment A-1 | :15:05. | :15:09. | |
seems to me to be against the spirit of the joint committee on | :15:10. | :15:12. | |
conventions, I quote if the Commons have disagreed to the Lords | :15:13. | :15:16. | |
amendments on the grounds of financial privilege it is contrary | :15:17. | :15:20. | |
to Convention for the Lords to send back something which clearly invite | :15:21. | :15:24. | |
the same response and ability you amendment A-1 does is with that. On | :15:25. | :15:29. | |
reflection it does seem to me that this house has performed its | :15:30. | :15:35. | |
traditional role of scrutinising, amending, revising, and asking the | :15:36. | :15:39. | |
other place to think again but we are moving into more controversial | :15:40. | :15:42. | |
territory, challenging the other players. If one looks at the debate | :15:43. | :15:48. | |
yesterday, the minister expressed surprise that your Lordships house | :15:49. | :15:53. | |
have chosen again to oppose one of our most important manifesto | :15:54. | :15:57. | |
commitments. He went on to describe one of the other amendments as a | :15:58. | :16:00. | |
wrecking amendment. I urge the noble Lord who has proposed the moment | :16:01. | :16:05. | |
they want to reflect on changes which have already been made, avoid | :16:06. | :16:08. | |
the risk of pressing this further and also think of the tenants of | :16:09. | :16:14. | |
Peabody who want the statute book to include this. Then they can exercise | :16:15. | :16:23. | |
their right to buy. I would like briefly to give strong support to | :16:24. | :16:26. | |
what my noble friend Lord Young has said. This house has performed an | :16:27. | :16:34. | |
extremely valuable role in a number of bills during this session which | :16:35. | :16:38. | |
comes to an end this week. I think this house has every reason to take | :16:39. | :16:45. | |
quiet pride and satisfaction in Pfizer as the train union Bill, I | :16:46. | :16:50. | |
concentrated my own endeavours but I have sat in on a lot of debates at | :16:51. | :16:55. | |
various stages of this bill, have listened to arguments persuasively | :16:56. | :17:00. | |
put and two answers sympathetically given. There is no doubt the | :17:01. | :17:08. | |
government has moved. Of course it hasn't moved as far as the noble | :17:09. | :17:15. | |
Lord Kerslake would like but in this life we very rarely get everything | :17:16. | :17:20. | |
we like. The noble Lord has had a very distinguished career in the | :17:21. | :17:25. | |
civil service finishing at its pinnacle. He was deservedly ennobled | :17:26. | :17:33. | |
and sent to contribute from his expertise and wisdom to your | :17:34. | :17:36. | |
Lordships house and that he has certainly done, no one would begin | :17:37. | :17:42. | |
to accuse him of not being an active member of your Lordships house. But | :17:43. | :17:51. | |
I would beg and entreat him to recognise as with his distinguished | :17:52. | :17:58. | |
civil service background to must that there are constitutional | :17:59. | :18:01. | |
propriety is in our system and we are in danger of transgressing. We | :18:02. | :18:08. | |
very rightly in this house pass various amendments and last week the | :18:09. | :18:14. | |
government was defeated five times, that may not be unprecedented but | :18:15. | :18:21. | |
there are very few precedents where Fred second time five amendments are | :18:22. | :18:29. | |
passed. On the bill is sent back to the House of Commons. The other | :18:30. | :18:35. | |
place has deliberated and whether we agree with its deliberations and I'm | :18:36. | :18:40. | |
bound to say I don't think this this is the most perfect bill, far from | :18:41. | :18:45. | |
it, but whether we agree with the deliberations or not they have | :18:46. | :18:50. | |
passed by substantial and significant majorities. The | :18:51. | :18:57. | |
amendments which are now before I was and we are seeking or the noble | :18:58. | :19:05. | |
Lord is seeking yet again to press. Of course he has every right to do | :19:06. | :19:16. | |
so but I would suggest the him very gently he doesn't have every | :19:17. | :19:24. | |
constitutional right to do so. The elected house as we say so often in | :19:25. | :19:30. | |
this house is the superior house when it comes to political power. We | :19:31. | :19:37. | |
should all recognise that. I believe most of us in all parts of the house | :19:38. | :19:43. | |
do recognise it. My Lords, I think we have been active on this bill, | :19:44. | :19:49. | |
the noble Lord has certainly been most active on this bill but I would | :19:50. | :19:56. | |
urge him not to press this today because the constitutional | :19:57. | :20:00. | |
repercussions would be great and we don't want, I certainly don't want | :20:01. | :20:09. | |
to tempt any Prime Minister to send another long list of peers to your | :20:10. | :20:13. | |
Lordships house merely to pick up the numbers. That is not what we | :20:14. | :20:19. | |
should be about. We should not be in the business of provocation, we | :20:20. | :20:23. | |
should be in the business of scrutinising and examination, we | :20:24. | :20:27. | |
have fulfilled our tasks in that respect and I believe the time has | :20:28. | :20:34. | |
now come for us to draw stumps and I hope that the noble Lord Kerslake | :20:35. | :20:39. | |
will find that there is some merit in my arguments and that he will | :20:40. | :20:47. | |
feel able to desist. I wasn't going to intervene and I don't know what | :20:48. | :20:50. | |
you noble lord Lord Kerslake will do with this amendments provide wanted | :20:51. | :20:57. | |
to follow up on the wise words of the Lord and just say that this will | :20:58. | :21:02. | |
is not a wise bill and the problem for as for those of us who've been | :21:03. | :21:05. | |
this house many years and have been here many times as I have to say in | :21:06. | :21:10. | |
process terms leaving attired the content in process terms of the | :21:11. | :21:16. | |
worst bill I have seen in 25 years. It is a skeleton bill in which we do | :21:17. | :21:21. | |
not know what the detail will be, they will be carried by a rigid | :21:22. | :21:25. | |
collations but we do not know and the minister does not know I do not | :21:26. | :21:28. | |
blame him at all but the minister does not know what will be in the | :21:29. | :21:32. | |
regulations because they will depend on consultation exercises. We do not | :21:33. | :21:37. | |
know what those consultation exercises will say because they were | :21:38. | :21:41. | |
only started two thirds of the way through the Parliamentary process. | :21:42. | :21:47. | |
The result is that this House has been trying all around this House to | :21:48. | :21:55. | |
scrutinise properly and fairly as we should a Bill in which there is huge | :21:56. | :22:01. | |
gap that we don't know the costs, statistics, land requirements, the | :22:02. | :22:03. | |
burdens on local authorities, we know none of this and yet we are | :22:04. | :22:07. | |
expected to be told that because we have scrutinised it at the Commons | :22:08. | :22:12. | |
in a very truncated debate last night, overturned the amendments, | :22:13. | :22:16. | |
they barely touched that the issues to be discussed. It leaves some of | :22:17. | :22:24. | |
us who do respect the conventions in a very difficult position. This is a | :22:25. | :22:30. | |
half baked, have scrutinised, quarter digestible Bill and we are | :22:31. | :22:34. | |
being asked in the name of constitutional propriety to allow | :22:35. | :22:38. | |
the Commons to have a final say on something frankly that is not fit | :22:39. | :22:41. | |
for purpose and should not have been introduced this year, should have | :22:42. | :22:44. | |
been deferred until next year until all the detail was in place so we | :22:45. | :22:48. | |
could scrutinise and amend the Bill is should be done by this House, and | :22:49. | :22:53. | |
then and in that context we would respect the will of the Commons. But | :22:54. | :22:57. | |
the Commons is sending through on a conveyor belt and a half baked build | :22:58. | :23:03. | |
that they have scrutinised. It puts many of us who really value the role | :23:04. | :23:09. | |
of this House in a very difficult position and I'm sure I speak for | :23:10. | :23:15. | |
many people in this House in including on the Commons benches who | :23:16. | :23:18. | |
share my concern is that the Lords is in a difficult position to | :23:19. | :23:21. | |
scrutinise the build is not fit for purpose. I endorse her remarks about | :23:22. | :23:29. | |
the issues raised and perfectly properly raised by the noble lord. | :23:30. | :23:35. | |
But one might have thought from the Minister's remarks that the | :23:36. | :23:42. | |
amendment was going to utterly sabotage the Government proposals | :23:43. | :23:47. | |
for starter homes. There is no evidence to support that is a | :23:48. | :23:51. | |
potential outcome if his amendment were approved. It compliments, it | :23:52. | :23:54. | |
doesn't replace the principle that the Government seeks to advance. He | :23:55. | :24:02. | |
seemed to be here invited to adopt the Government position on starter | :24:03. | :24:10. | |
homes, unless we're going to get some starter appears. We have | :24:11. | :24:12. | |
already had a few of those in the last few years and it is not really | :24:13. | :24:17. | |
a matter that ought to wait too heavy with us. All of us round the | :24:18. | :24:24. | |
House in government -- endorse the Government ideas to promote | :24:25. | :24:29. | |
ownership. Not necessarily exclude the younger people. This is a week | :24:30. | :24:32. | |
after all in which we are now talking about mortgages for people | :24:33. | :24:39. | |
up to 85 years of age. There are people who have been on the housing | :24:40. | :24:43. | |
ladder as it worked for decades. Above the age of 40 four which this | :24:44. | :24:50. | |
Bill will do very little indeed. A more relaxed approach, than the kind | :24:51. | :24:57. | |
is being advocated would be of assistance to them without damaging | :24:58. | :25:01. | |
the prospects of those 40 and under performed as part of the Bill seeks | :25:02. | :25:08. | |
to provide some hope and indeed some action. With that I agree. I do | :25:09. | :25:15. | |
sympathise with the noble Lords amendment and I am glad that the | :25:16. | :25:19. | |
Government does not appear to be willing to make any move towards | :25:20. | :25:23. | |
something which would make a modest difference to the provision of | :25:24. | :25:28. | |
housing for more people in a rather different way, but not one in which | :25:29. | :25:32. | |
in my judgment would damage the Government's intentions and would | :25:33. | :25:35. | |
not contravene the manifesto commitment. My Lords, may I thank | :25:36. | :25:45. | |
all of those who have spoken so clearly on this group. As I said in | :25:46. | :25:52. | |
my opening speech, and I have made completely clear through the passage | :25:53. | :25:57. | |
of this Bill in this House, a nationally set starter homes | :25:58. | :26:00. | |
requirement is essential to delivering over 200,000 starter | :26:01. | :26:04. | |
homes commitment. The amendment would mean that the requirement for | :26:05. | :26:09. | |
starter homes would become something entirely different, and this is not | :26:10. | :26:14. | |
what we promised to deliver in our manifesto. The Minister for Housing | :26:15. | :26:19. | |
and planning said last night, on the floor of the House in the other | :26:20. | :26:23. | |
place that we need to get on with helping those people to fulfil those | :26:24. | :26:29. | |
teams and get on to home ownership ladder. Some 86% of our population | :26:30. | :26:35. | |
want to be given a chance to do so. I am in complete agreement with him | :26:36. | :26:44. | |
and the noble friend Lord Young Ferrari are treating the point that | :26:45. | :26:47. | |
he said last night that it is beyond astonishing that the upper house | :26:48. | :26:51. | |
should try to amend a measure which has received such a clear message of | :26:52. | :26:54. | |
support from the selected chamber and in respect of which we had an | :26:55. | :27:00. | |
election manifesto mandate to help young people. Elected honourable | :27:01. | :27:05. | |
members have been clear in their overwhelming support for delivering | :27:06. | :27:10. | |
our starter homes commitment. Amendment ten B was rejected as my | :27:11. | :27:17. | |
noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has said with a majority of 83. I | :27:18. | :27:23. | |
think this House has done its duty. It has scrutinised and the | :27:24. | :27:27. | |
Government has revised as far as it possibly can, it is time to stop. | :27:28. | :27:34. | |
Time to recognise and respect the will of the electorate and the | :27:35. | :27:40. | |
primacy of a manifesto mandate. Lady Hollis made a point about | :27:41. | :27:44. | |
legislation being rushed through, Commons and scrutinising it | :27:45. | :27:48. | |
properly. I have to say at this point that I understand from the | :27:49. | :27:53. | |
Commons that timings were agreed, including by the Labour whips. I | :27:54. | :27:57. | |
have already made clear to the House that amendment ten B fundamentally | :27:58. | :28:03. | |
changes the Government manifesto intention proposed in the Bill and | :28:04. | :28:07. | |
that we consider the Salisbury Convention to be engaged. I would | :28:08. | :28:10. | |
like once again to reassure the House that the Government is | :28:11. | :28:14. | |
completely committed to ensuring a range of housing ten years to come | :28:15. | :28:18. | |
forward. These include shared ownership and other affordable home | :28:19. | :28:23. | |
ownership products. But we are legislating for starter homes alone | :28:24. | :28:28. | |
is a new product, designed to address a specific gap in the | :28:29. | :28:32. | |
market. We have a clear manifesto mandate to do that. I would also | :28:33. | :28:37. | |
like to reassure the House of the Government is consulting on setting | :28:38. | :28:41. | |
the percentage requirement. These proposals include exemptions where a | :28:42. | :28:45. | |
starter home requirement will not be expected. I would be happy to meet | :28:46. | :28:50. | |
noble Lords to discuss this further before the resulting regulations are | :28:51. | :28:54. | |
brought back to this House. The noble lord Kerslake made a point | :28:55. | :28:59. | |
that the percentage requirement was set at 20%, that is currently a | :29:00. | :29:04. | |
consultation proposal and is not yet fixed but we are consulting with the | :29:05. | :29:08. | |
sector on this and other aspects of the starter home regulations. He | :29:09. | :29:15. | |
also talked about current proposals being rigid and inflexible. We are | :29:16. | :29:20. | |
consulting on how the starter homes requirement will apply and this | :29:21. | :29:24. | |
includes setting out exceptions on the basis of viability and the types | :29:25. | :29:28. | |
of housing being built, such as housing for older people. Lord | :29:29. | :29:37. | |
Beauchamp suggested this is not a breaking amendment. We promised the | :29:38. | :29:42. | |
electorate we would deliver 200,000 starter homes by 2020. This is our | :29:43. | :29:48. | |
election mandate and this amendment will undermine delivering that. I | :29:49. | :29:53. | |
have listened carefully to the bait -- to the debate and I hope that our | :29:54. | :29:56. | |
commitment for starter homes mean there is no need to divide the House | :29:57. | :30:01. | |
and with these reassurances in mind I invite the noble lord to withdraw | :30:02. | :30:12. | |
his amendment. I am grateful for the contributions to this debate on | :30:13. | :30:18. | |
starter homes. I entirely understand and respect the constitutional | :30:19. | :30:21. | |
issues that are at stake here. This House is clearly a revising and | :30:22. | :30:27. | |
improving house and ultimately the other place will prevail. That is | :30:28. | :30:31. | |
the Democratic propriety and as it should be. I also recognise the | :30:32. | :30:38. | |
issues around home the conventions work. I would say in relation to the | :30:39. | :30:45. | |
2006 report that Lord Young referred to, this was of course not taken up | :30:46. | :30:50. | |
within the companion and my amendment fits within the rules I | :30:51. | :30:54. | |
set out in that companion. I absolutely respect the views were | :30:55. | :31:00. | |
put forward by the noble lord, Lord Cormack, he and I worked very | :31:01. | :31:04. | |
productively I think on the Trade Union Bill and so very substantial | :31:05. | :31:08. | |
improvements. The challenge you face on an issue such as this is making a | :31:09. | :31:17. | |
judgment about how it is proposed, an impact and how it will deliver | :31:18. | :31:22. | |
what we desperately need in this country, more homes, or whether it | :31:23. | :31:25. | |
will deliver what the Government seeks to achieve, 200,000 starter | :31:26. | :31:29. | |
homes. I personally have severe doubts whether it will deliver what | :31:30. | :31:34. | |
is intended and I believe it is notwithstanding what the minister | :31:35. | :31:39. | |
has said. It is in many ways eight rigid proposition. I also recognise | :31:40. | :31:44. | |
that it is a manifesto commitment and that ministers have expressed | :31:45. | :31:46. | |
their concern the amendment will undermine. The assurances around the | :31:47. | :31:54. | |
consultation and the flexibility that will be built into that, I am | :31:55. | :31:59. | |
aware of this, and I will reluctantly withdraw my amendment. | :32:00. | :32:09. | |
The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that motion a BA | :32:10. | :32:14. | |
agreed to. As many of those, say content. The contents have it. I beg | :32:15. | :32:24. | |
to move motion be that the cells do not insist on the amendment to which | :32:25. | :32:28. | |
the Commons have disagreed with their reasons. We now turn to | :32:29. | :32:33. | |
another manifesto commitment which is high-value, vacant local | :32:34. | :32:39. | |
authority housing. Let me start by reminding the lordships house what | :32:40. | :32:44. | |
the manifesto said. We will fund the replacement of properties sold under | :32:45. | :32:47. | |
the extended right to abide by requiring local authorities to | :32:48. | :32:51. | |
manage their housing assets more efficiently with the most expensive | :32:52. | :32:54. | |
properties sold off and replaced as they fall vacant. The Bill delivers | :32:55. | :33:01. | |
a manifesto commitment. It will increase housing supply through the | :33:02. | :33:05. | |
delivery of affordable homes and extend homeownership by funding the | :33:06. | :33:08. | |
discounts for the ground-breaking voluntary right to buy agreement. | :33:09. | :33:13. | |
But let me be clear, the manifesto says that the homes sold will be | :33:14. | :33:18. | |
replaced with new homes. It does not say that there will be like for like | :33:19. | :33:22. | |
replacements. We want to make sure that the new homes serve the needs | :33:23. | :33:27. | |
of communities today. We do not see a reason to commit ourselves to be | :33:28. | :33:32. | |
producing exactly the same type of home when communities have changed | :33:33. | :33:36. | |
and the need for housing may be different. We want to retain | :33:37. | :33:40. | |
flexibility in the legislation is that the Government working with | :33:41. | :33:43. | |
local places can facilitate the development of the type of homes | :33:44. | :33:48. | |
that we need today. Noble lord 's have used their scrutiny role to | :33:49. | :33:52. | |
great effect. The House has helped to improve the Bill in many ways. By | :33:53. | :33:57. | |
proposing that the Bill is amended in a way that would prevent us from | :33:58. | :34:01. | |
delivering a manifesto contentment is not something that we can accept. | :34:02. | :34:06. | |
As a Minister for Housing and planning explained to the Commons | :34:07. | :34:11. | |
yesterday, the Government could not accept Lords amendment 47 B and 47 C | :34:12. | :34:15. | |
because they would significantly reduce the funding available for the | :34:16. | :34:19. | |
voluntary right to buy. The other place has been clear that it does | :34:20. | :34:22. | |
not agree with the fundamental changes that have been proposed to | :34:23. | :34:29. | |
the agreement process. Twice they have emphatically rejected | :34:30. | :34:35. | |
amendments from your lordship, by 288 votes- 272 last Tuesday and then | :34:36. | :34:44. | |
yesterday 291-203. This does show their strength of feeling. In | :34:45. | :34:48. | |
addition to this the House of Commons have a second time offered a | :34:49. | :34:52. | |
financial privilege reason for rejecting the amendment on this | :34:53. | :34:58. | |
issue. I respect and would defend the right of this House to propose | :34:59. | :35:02. | |
an amendment in Luke the Commons who have rejected our original amendment | :35:03. | :35:07. | |
on grounds of financial privilege. I should remind the Lords that the | :35:08. | :35:11. | |
joint Committee on conventions reported in 2006 at the Commons | :35:12. | :35:16. | |
office agreed to Lords amendments on the grounds of financial privilege, | :35:17. | :35:20. | |
it is contrary to convention by the Lords to ??Transmit amendments in | :35:21. | :35:23. | |
Luke which clearly invite the same response. We have already sent back | :35:24. | :35:32. | |
one set of amendments which invited the same response of financial | :35:33. | :35:36. | |
privilege. 47 B and 47 C which we sent to the Commons last Wednesday. | :35:37. | :35:43. | |
Motion be won in the name of Lord cause before the House today invites | :35:44. | :35:50. | |
the House to amendment 47 E in lieu. At first glance that amendment once | :35:51. | :35:55. | |
again has a major implications for how voluntary right to buy | :35:56. | :35:57. | |
commitment will be funded and therefore could invite the same | :35:58. | :36:02. | |
response. I hope the House will be mindful that convention as we debate | :36:03. | :36:05. | |
and decide on the motions before us today. The Bill has always enabled | :36:06. | :36:11. | |
the Secretary of State to enter agreements with local authorities. | :36:12. | :36:15. | |
We have made amendments was clarify our intentions around replacements | :36:16. | :36:19. | |
and these were insured that where a local authority has entered into | :36:20. | :36:23. | |
agreement, at least two new affordable homes will be provided | :36:24. | :36:27. | |
for each home expected to be sold in London and a similar approach will | :36:28. | :36:31. | |
now work outside of London also, with local authorities that choose | :36:32. | :36:35. | |
to enter an agreement required to provide at least one new affordable | :36:36. | :36:38. | |
homes for each one expected to be sold. Let me be clear that the term | :36:39. | :36:46. | |
affordable includes a range of different types of housing, meaning | :36:47. | :36:50. | |
holds that will be made available for people whose needs are not | :36:51. | :36:53. | |
adequately served by the commercial housing market, from new homes for | :36:54. | :37:00. | |
submarket rent, to homeownership products such as shared ownership | :37:01. | :37:04. | |
and starter homes. Receipts will be used to support the delivery of our | :37:05. | :37:08. | |
manifesto commitment to support the delivery of rate to buy discounts to | :37:09. | :37:13. | |
housing association tenants and the delivery of additional homes. We | :37:14. | :37:17. | |
will of course compensate local authorities for the transaction | :37:18. | :37:21. | |
costs and the debt associated with the housing. After that, we have | :37:22. | :37:25. | |
been clear receipts will be used to fund both right to buy discounts for | :37:26. | :37:29. | |
housing association debt to the back tenet and the delivery of new | :37:30. | :37:33. | |
affordable housing. We are not intending to use them for any other | :37:34. | :37:39. | |
purpose. By Boris, I beg to move. This is that Mushin BB agreed to, MM | :37:40. | :37:44. | |
and to be one, Lord Kerslake. I beg to move amendment be one to an | :37:45. | :37:53. | |
amendment to Mushin be and insert and to promote amendment 47 E in | :37:54. | :38:02. | |
lieu. Molloy 's, this amendment seeks to do two things. Firstly, it | :38:03. | :38:08. | |
seeks to boot beyond doubt that sufficient funding will be available | :38:09. | :38:13. | |
to local authorities to deliver at least one new affordable home for | :38:14. | :38:17. | |
each higher value property sold. In London, this would be at least 241. | :38:18. | :38:24. | |
Secondly, it gives a local authority the opportunity, where it can | :38:25. | :38:29. | |
demonstrate a need, for social rented housing in the area to make | :38:30. | :38:34. | |
the case to the Secretary of State to consider. My Lords, there are a | :38:35. | :38:41. | |
few parts of this bill that have caused such concern at local level | :38:42. | :38:47. | |
and, indeed, where the impacts are so serious. Even today, I have | :38:48. | :38:51. | |
received an open letter, tenants setting out their serious concerns. | :38:52. | :38:59. | |
Even at this very late stage, we still do not have the vital detail | :39:00. | :39:03. | |
needed to properly assess the impact. This is a point made very | :39:04. | :39:11. | |
strongly in the recent Public Accounts Committee report. Shelter | :39:12. | :39:19. | |
have calculated that, to deliver the estimated ?4.5 billion receipts | :39:20. | :39:32. | |
identified by the Government, some 23,500 vacant council properties | :39:33. | :39:35. | |
would need to be sold. This equates to nearly one third of all stock | :39:36. | :39:40. | |
that will become vacant, nearly one third of all such stock. It follows | :39:41. | :39:46. | |
from this that it is absolutely vital to be clear on the face of the | :39:47. | :39:53. | |
bill how replacement homes sold will work in practice. How we will | :39:54. | :39:57. | |
deliver this replacement in practice. A huge amount depends on | :39:58. | :40:03. | |
getting this right. My Lords, under clause 72, the Secretary of State | :40:04. | :40:07. | |
may enter into an agreement with a local authority to reduce the amount | :40:08. | :40:13. | |
it has to be under the higher value sales levy. The bill now makes clear | :40:14. | :40:17. | |
that, where such an agreement is entered into, the manifesto | :40:18. | :40:24. | |
commitment of at least 141 replacement must be delivered. What | :40:25. | :40:30. | |
is glaringly absent from the bill, however, at present, is that the | :40:31. | :40:36. | |
local authority will be able to retain sufficient of the levy to pay | :40:37. | :40:42. | |
for this replacement. So we have the ends but not the means within the | :40:43. | :40:49. | |
bill. My first section in the amendment seeks to put this point | :40:50. | :40:56. | |
right. Seeks to a line ends with means. It has been argued previously | :40:57. | :41:02. | |
this is unnecessary. Ministers have given a commitment. If that is the | :41:03. | :41:05. | |
case, it ought not to be controversial. My concern about the | :41:06. | :41:11. | |
Minister's argument that was put in the other place was that it | :41:12. | :41:16. | |
precisely raises the issue of whether the funding will be | :41:17. | :41:21. | |
adequate, because it suggests that, to agree with this and name it, or | :41:22. | :41:24. | |
something close to it, with Coppermine is the delivery of the | :41:25. | :41:28. | |
right to buy policy. My Lords, we need to be clear one way or the | :41:29. | :41:32. | |
other whether the funds will be there to deliver the policy that is | :41:33. | :41:39. | |
within the bill. Given this huge uncertainty about how the sums will | :41:40. | :41:45. | |
actually add up, it seems to me a very reasonable precaution for this | :41:46. | :41:49. | |
house to take to seek to get clarity on the face of the bill that the | :41:50. | :41:53. | |
funding will be there. What else would be the purpose of reaching an | :41:54. | :41:57. | |
agreement if it doesn't have the underpinning funding to support it? | :41:58. | :42:05. | |
The second part of my amendment significantly revised from the | :42:06. | :42:10. | |
previous form we had a debate on, simply seeks to give the opportunity | :42:11. | :42:16. | |
to a local authority to make its case on grounds of need to replace a | :42:17. | :42:22. | |
social rented home with another social rented home. It does not | :42:23. | :42:28. | |
require a local authority to make a case, if it decides that it already | :42:29. | :42:32. | |
has sufficient social rented housing. If it wishes to go for a | :42:33. | :42:40. | |
different mix of affordable housing, it can do so. Nothing in my | :42:41. | :42:45. | |
amendment prevents the flexibility to which the Minister referred. It | :42:46. | :42:51. | |
simply provides an opportunity. Equally, it does not require the | :42:52. | :42:55. | |
Secretary of State to agree with those representations. It only asks | :42:56. | :43:01. | |
that the Secretary of State consider the case on its merits. It therefore | :43:02. | :43:08. | |
fits completely with the Government's intention to do this | :43:09. | :43:15. | |
book local deals. The discretion is therefore the local authority to | :43:16. | :43:19. | |
make its case -- bespoke. The power is therefore the Secretary of State | :43:20. | :43:23. | |
to say no if he is not persuaded by the case. It is hard to see how you | :43:24. | :43:27. | |
could be more flexible and responsive than that. My Lords, I | :43:28. | :43:33. | |
understand the reluctance that some of this house will have about | :43:34. | :43:36. | |
pressing this issue. I have bought long and hard about these issues. I | :43:37. | :43:42. | |
would not put this forward unless I thought it was of such vital | :43:43. | :43:47. | |
importance. Unless we get this replacement policy right now, | :43:48. | :43:55. | |
funding and discretion, we will inevitably see fewer genuinely | :43:56. | :43:58. | |
affordable homes available. The consequences of that would be rising | :43:59. | :44:04. | |
numbers of low-income families living in temporary accommodation. | :44:05. | :44:11. | |
There are now some 54,000 homeless families with children currently | :44:12. | :44:16. | |
living in temporary accommodation. That number is rising. Unless we get | :44:17. | :44:23. | |
this right, it will carry on rising. We will have missed a major, major | :44:24. | :44:29. | |
opportunity. I asked the House to support this amendment and, my | :44:30. | :44:34. | |
Lords, I beg to move. The original question was that motion B B agreed | :44:35. | :44:44. | |
to. It has been moved to insert amendment 47 E in lieu. The question | :44:45. | :44:50. | |
is that amendment B1 B agreed to. Before the noble lord sits down, | :44:51. | :44:54. | |
perhaps I can ask in having sat down, could he explain to the House, | :44:55. | :45:02. | |
given that his previous amendment was subject to a claim by the other | :45:03. | :45:10. | |
place, that it was financially privileged, why this amendment does | :45:11. | :45:14. | |
not actually meet the same obstacle and why, therefore, it would be | :45:15. | :45:17. | |
inappropriate for him to press the matter? My Lords, as I indicated in | :45:18. | :45:23. | |
my speech, I have taken on port the comments that were made in the | :45:24. | :45:29. | |
previous debate and amended my amendment significantly. In | :45:30. | :45:32. | |
particular, this is the crucial point, it doesn't seek to impose a | :45:33. | :45:38. | |
requirement on the Secretary of State as regards social rented | :45:39. | :45:42. | |
housing. It is clear, beyond doubt, and perhaps the previous amendment | :45:43. | :45:47. | |
was not as clear as that, this is the matter the Secretary of State is | :45:48. | :45:49. | |
asked to consider but doesn't necessarily have to agree. It is a | :45:50. | :45:54. | |
choice for the Secretary of State and, as such, would not have | :45:55. | :45:57. | |
financial publications. The second point I would make is the first leg | :45:58. | :46:06. | |
of my amendment simply says that if you reach an amendment it has to be | :46:07. | :46:15. | |
funded. -- an agreement. I would like to speak in support of the | :46:16. | :46:19. | |
noble lord Lord Keswick's amendment. I am the vice president of a local | :46:20. | :46:25. | |
Government Association. I want to support two principles. First the | :46:26. | :46:28. | |
council should be able to keep sufficient funds to replace each | :46:29. | :46:31. | |
hole may have to sell and secondly, negotiations between local | :46:32. | :46:37. | |
Government and central Government must allow councils to take into | :46:38. | :46:40. | |
account the housing needs in their area -- home. If there is demand for | :46:41. | :46:45. | |
social homes for rent, the council should be enabled by the Government | :46:46. | :46:50. | |
to replace those higher value homes sold with another home for rent. | :46:51. | :46:55. | |
This is what Lord Leslie's amendment seeks to do and it seems to me, my | :46:56. | :47:02. | |
Lords, to be entirely reasonable. However, indeed the Minister Elliott | :47:03. | :47:06. | |
reminded us what was said in the other place, where the Minister | :47:07. | :47:11. | |
yesterday said these proposals would significantly reduce the funding | :47:12. | :47:18. | |
available for the voluntary right to buy. That statement lies in column | :47:19. | :47:23. | |
461 in Hansard from the other place last night. This suggests the reason | :47:24. | :47:29. | |
the Government is refusing to accept, which on the face of it is a | :47:30. | :47:33. | |
very reasonable amendment, the reason is an admission that the | :47:34. | :47:39. | |
priority for the money released by the forced sale of higher value | :47:40. | :47:42. | |
council homes is not replacement council homes for rent. This | :47:43. | :47:48. | |
amendment remains vitally important because of that. We now have | :47:49. | :47:54. | |
one-for-one replacement on the face of the bill, although not like for | :47:55. | :47:58. | |
like. And diagnose the Government's limited movement on a form. -- I | :47:59. | :48:05. | |
acknowledge. The certainty of their funding will be available for that | :48:06. | :48:10. | |
one-for-one replacement is now needed, as the noble Lord has | :48:11. | :48:16. | |
pointed out. I would like to ask the Minister whether she would be able | :48:17. | :48:19. | |
to make a clear statement that the funding will indeed be available for | :48:20. | :48:26. | |
the replacement home? And that where that replacement home is a social | :48:27. | :48:32. | |
home for rent, it will be funded from the sum realised by the sale of | :48:33. | :48:37. | |
a higher value council home before the residue goes to the Government | :48:38. | :48:43. | |
to fund the voluntary right to buy? My Lords, when we last debated this | :48:44. | :48:51. | |
matter a few days ago, Lord Porter quoted the Conservative Party | :48:52. | :48:57. | |
manifesto and the press release which accompanied that manifesto. | :48:58. | :49:02. | |
That press release said that sold council homes would be replaced in | :49:03. | :49:10. | |
the same area with normal, affordable housing. I asked the | :49:11. | :49:15. | |
Minister in that debate if a definition could be supplied of what | :49:16. | :49:20. | |
a normal and affordable home was. The press release actually went on, | :49:21. | :49:27. | |
after funding, replacement affordable housing on a one-for-one | :49:28. | :49:30. | |
basis, the surplus proceeds will be used to fund the extension of right | :49:31. | :49:36. | |
to buy. In other words, a commitment by the Conservative Party in the | :49:37. | :49:41. | |
press release, accompanying its manifesto, that a replacement home | :49:42. | :49:51. | |
would come first. There is a clear implication in the wording of that | :49:52. | :49:58. | |
statement, after funding replacement affordable housing, that it is | :49:59. | :50:02. | |
actually of the same type. That is what a lot of people believed to be | :50:03. | :50:08. | |
the case and it becomes clearer that this is not the Government's | :50:09. | :50:14. | |
intention. That instead, it is a voluntary right to buy that has to | :50:15. | :50:18. | |
be funded first and that the available resource to supply a | :50:19. | :50:23. | |
replacement council home will, in practice, be extremely limited. My | :50:24. | :50:29. | |
Lords, Lord Kerslake give one or two figures. The rising number of | :50:30. | :50:35. | |
homelessness. A large number of people now living in temporary | :50:36. | :50:38. | |
accommodation, a figure that seems to be rising. We have more than 1 | :50:39. | :50:42. | |
million people on council waiting lists. It is anticipated that, under | :50:43. | :50:53. | |
the existing right to buy, by 2020 66,000 council homes are going to be | :50:54. | :51:00. | |
sold to tenants. The fact the Government has introduced a 1% rent | :51:01. | :51:04. | |
reduction each year for the next four years in the rent of social | :51:05. | :51:09. | |
housing will reduce the number of replacements that can be built. | :51:10. | :51:17. | |
Because the revenue stream matters in pain the bills. Finally, the | :51:18. | :51:23. | |
forced sale of higher value council homes is going to reduce the number | :51:24. | :51:29. | |
of social rented homes available and thus this amendment is accepted. In | :51:30. | :51:35. | |
my view, what Lord Kerslake has now proposed is an entirely reasonable | :51:36. | :51:38. | |
proposal. I hope the Minister will feel able | :51:39. | :51:48. | |
to accept this amendment and they need that it should be on the face | :51:49. | :51:54. | |
of the Bill, because in so doing the Government would remove the doubt | :51:55. | :51:59. | |
that is all too transparent around this debate. Can I respond to | :52:00. | :52:07. | |
lordship Lee's comment and thank him for mentioning me because there is a | :52:08. | :52:12. | |
competition who will get in next and because you put my name in the frame | :52:13. | :52:16. | |
my noble friend had given way to me, so thank you. I respectfully ask the | :52:17. | :52:22. | |
word Kerslake to withdraw his amendment. He knows yesterday | :52:23. | :52:28. | |
refused to work on it because she has already given us the assurance | :52:29. | :52:34. | |
that Noble Lord is required that we will be able to replace those | :52:35. | :52:38. | |
council homes sold and the Prime Minister expects us to do that if we | :52:39. | :52:43. | |
need to do that in our own areas. I should say again I have spoken about | :52:44. | :52:48. | |
a register of interests. One of those being the chairman of the | :52:49. | :52:51. | |
local government Association although I'm sure a few members on | :52:52. | :52:54. | |
the opposite benches will pull B be quite smiley at the moment because | :52:55. | :52:58. | |
it looks like I won't be saying that too many times in the future. The | :52:59. | :53:00. | |
dog sex will be passing happy days. -- chase it looks like | :53:01. | :53:10. | |
we will be passing. He is suggesting we will take on board, it will | :53:11. | :53:15. | |
damage the council ability to replace their housing stock. It | :53:16. | :53:19. | |
gives, at the moment, with the manifesto commitment, the Secretary | :53:20. | :53:23. | |
of State will be compelled to allow us to do something and under the | :53:24. | :53:29. | |
amendment he will be invited to allow us to do something so that | :53:30. | :53:34. | |
will weaken our position. I have complete and utter respect for the | :53:35. | :53:37. | |
current Secretary of State but who knows what future Secretary of State | :53:38. | :53:42. | |
may do. Even worse from a council by selective, when a Secretary of State | :53:43. | :53:46. | |
works out what type of units will be replaced and we did on bodies, one | :53:47. | :53:49. | |
of those things will be value for money. We all know that when council | :53:50. | :53:54. | |
builds a house it can do it for less real money then and our SL can build | :53:55. | :53:59. | |
a house. But we also know when the Treasury do the thing they do the | :54:00. | :54:03. | |
smoke and mirrors around public sector borrowing requirements, all | :54:04. | :54:06. | |
of a sudden a council house becomes more expensive. One of the adverb | :54:07. | :54:11. | |
unintended consequences of this amendment if it gets through would | :54:12. | :54:13. | |
allow the future Secretary of State to a resource from a local council | :54:14. | :54:21. | |
and give it to an RSL. I would hope that every single elected member on | :54:22. | :54:26. | |
the opposite side would resist this. I would like to thank the Noble Lord | :54:27. | :54:30. | |
Kerslake with the gracious way in which he withdrew the previous | :54:31. | :54:35. | |
amendment. You must have been a formidable... Is a formidable Sir | :54:36. | :54:44. | |
Humphrey, he would know when the time came to say yes, Minister. I | :54:45. | :54:49. | |
would say to him that he has moved this amendment with quiet passion | :54:50. | :54:59. | |
and with the most persuasive speech. But we have reached that stage where | :55:00. | :55:09. | |
we really should not be guessing the elected house and put all his wisdom | :55:10. | :55:14. | |
and experience I hope that he will once again recognise that. I also | :55:15. | :55:21. | |
hope that my noble friend, the minister, who has really done the | :55:22. | :55:24. | |
equivalent of running several marathons over the last few weeks, | :55:25. | :55:31. | |
and she deserves the thanks for her unflappable demeanour, but I hope | :55:32. | :55:36. | |
that she will recognise that there is worry that she has shared in all | :55:37. | :55:41. | |
parts of the House about what I would call the Henry VIII aspects of | :55:42. | :55:46. | |
this Bill. They were referred to in a very short but persuasive | :55:47. | :55:52. | |
contribution by the noble Baroness Hollis. What I would like to think | :55:53. | :55:57. | |
is that my noble friend could gather a few people around her including | :55:58. | :56:02. | |
the Noble Lord Kerslake and others to discuss the contents of some of | :56:03. | :56:06. | |
the regulations that will undoubtedly need to be tabled and | :56:07. | :56:12. | |
will be suspect -- subject to the resolution. If people like Lord | :56:13. | :56:16. | |
Kerslake can have an input that would only be helpful and could only | :56:17. | :56:22. | |
be for the benefit of all of us. But, my lords, I know that my noble | :56:23. | :56:30. | |
friend is not in the position, as was slightly mischievously suggested | :56:31. | :56:38. | |
to accept this amendment tonight, of course she isn't. This amendment | :56:39. | :56:41. | |
either goes back to the Commons yet again or we accept that | :56:42. | :56:48. | |
constitutionally we don't really have an authority to do it. All | :56:49. | :56:53. | |
these things we would like to get better. There are things we would | :56:54. | :56:59. | |
like to test the ultimate. My car, I am told, could go at 120 mph, but | :57:00. | :57:06. | |
would they do that? I would not only be a criminal but an idiot to | :57:07. | :57:11. | |
attempt. I believe we have taken this as far as we can in your | :57:12. | :57:15. | |
lordship's house. It is good that the arguments are being rehearsed | :57:16. | :57:20. | |
again. It would be good if there was a proper input from the Noble Lord | :57:21. | :57:24. | |
Kerslake and others when they regulations come to be devised, but | :57:25. | :57:30. | |
enough is enough, my lords, and I hope we will not divide on this. I | :57:31. | :57:40. | |
perhaps can I declare an interest as leader of local authority and | :57:41. | :57:42. | |
someone who has been sitting quite a number of hours on the proceedings | :57:43. | :57:47. | |
of this Bill. Anyone who has read Hanzard will know that my enthusiasm | :57:48. | :57:53. | |
for aspects of it was perhaps a little way short of ecstasy. But it | :57:54. | :58:00. | |
does also contain some fundamental and very important thing is that | :58:01. | :58:02. | |
this government promised in its manifesto in which people in this | :58:03. | :58:06. | |
country want like starter homes and right to buy and like many other | :58:07. | :58:14. | |
things. But this House needs to do is find a balance to take part in a | :58:15. | :58:19. | |
dialogue, Parliamentary dialogue, with the other House and then reach | :58:20. | :58:23. | |
an accommodation. In that accommodation I do speak as someone | :58:24. | :58:28. | |
who was elected albeit as leader of a local authority, there is no doubt | :58:29. | :58:34. | |
that the authority of election is something which is substantial and | :58:35. | :58:38. | |
different. And it does lie in the authority of the other chamber and | :58:39. | :58:46. | |
it doesn't lie in our chamber. The House of Commons in the course of | :58:47. | :58:51. | |
the last century has not succeeded as a parliamentary chamber capable | :58:52. | :58:55. | |
of legislating as well as it should. That is a problem for the other | :58:56. | :58:59. | |
place and a problem with the other place alone can resolve. It is | :59:00. | :59:04. | |
because it has failed in that respect that your lordship's house | :59:05. | :59:07. | |
of great distinction has developed this role is an advising and | :59:08. | :59:17. | |
revising chamber of which I think is shown to exemplary quality and | :59:18. | :59:19. | |
patients in the course of this legislation. But I do ask the Noble | :59:20. | :59:27. | |
Lord Kerslake not to press this matter further. This House cannot | :59:28. | :59:34. | |
construe, is not constitutional and is not capable of having the view | :59:35. | :59:41. | |
that the other place takes of its own financial privilege. That is a | :59:42. | :59:45. | |
matter entirely by the House of Commons. It is not for us to debate | :59:46. | :59:50. | |
whether they won't think this, we can get away with something else, | :59:51. | :59:55. | |
this is a matter of the other place. And twice the other place on this | :59:56. | :59:59. | |
has said to this chamber that the Commons disagrees because of the | :00:00. | :00:10. | |
asserting financial privilege. Lord Kerslake is perfectly within his | :00:11. | :00:16. | |
rights and no one on this side of the Government should say that a | :00:17. | :00:19. | |
member of your lordship's house is not able to propose an amendment in | :00:20. | :00:26. | |
lieu on the other place has courted and asserted its privilege. But | :00:27. | :00:29. | |
there does come a point when you have to say, batting back against | :00:30. | :00:34. | |
the will of the elected house on that is not a full course to follow | :00:35. | :00:41. | |
either as a collective, is a house or as an individual. I would give | :00:42. | :00:48. | |
some gentle advice, if I were seeking to persuade and get | :00:49. | :00:53. | |
admission to the Council of the Government, I wouldn't necessarily | :00:54. | :00:56. | |
keep shoving back the same thing time and time again. There are | :00:57. | :01:01. | |
perhaps better ways to proceed. So, I do beg the Noble Lord and would | :01:02. | :01:10. | |
appreciate it as a leader of local authority some of the points that he | :01:11. | :01:14. | |
has made and I obviously wish in some respects that the Government | :01:15. | :01:17. | |
had been able to listen on other things but we are where we are. It | :01:18. | :01:22. | |
is a much improved Bill. That has been acknowledged in the other place | :01:23. | :01:25. | |
by ministers who have welcomed amendments that have been made and I | :01:26. | :01:30. | |
really think that now the time has come to accept the will of the | :01:31. | :01:37. | |
elected house on this question. The Noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has had a | :01:38. | :01:45. | |
good run from the Today studio before he even became to this House | :01:46. | :01:54. | |
and it is now time for him to head with the greatest of respect to the | :01:55. | :02:00. | |
pavilion on this matter. I won't detain the House very long at all | :02:01. | :02:05. | |
but it is only a passing comment by Lord Hunt that caused me to race to | :02:06. | :02:13. | |
my feet to ask the Minister a basic questions about the issue of | :02:14. | :02:17. | |
financial privilege. The Minister has made very clear to your | :02:18. | :02:21. | |
lordship's house and even clearer today that when an affordable how | :02:22. | :02:28. | |
are value home is sold off, a local authority will be able to, should | :02:29. | :02:33. | |
they negotiate with the Secretary of State, to replace it with another | :02:34. | :02:39. | |
property, a 1-1 replacement, 2-1 in London. The Minister made it very | :02:40. | :02:46. | |
clear today that when that takes place, the transaction costs and | :02:47. | :02:49. | |
cost of building the new property will be made available from the sale | :02:50. | :02:55. | |
figures for the sale of the higher value affordable home. I hope the | :02:56. | :02:58. | |
Minister will confirm that that is very definitely the case and indeed | :02:59. | :03:06. | |
it covers the first part of the Noble Lord, Lord Kerslake's | :03:07. | :03:11. | |
amendment. If the Minister has agreed that the funding for a new | :03:12. | :03:17. | |
property to replace, not like-for-like, but 1-1, will be | :03:18. | :03:22. | |
funded, I am at a loss to understand why the discussion over what the | :03:23. | :03:29. | |
tenure of that property will be, makes any difference to the amount | :03:30. | :03:33. | |
of money that will then be left available to pay for the other | :03:34. | :03:37. | |
aspects of government policy. In the other place, the Minister Mr Brandon | :03:38. | :03:45. | |
Lewis said of these proposals that they would significantly reduce the | :03:46. | :03:48. | |
funding available with the voluntary right to buy, again preventing this | :03:49. | :03:54. | |
government from fulfilling their manifesto commitment. Let me be very | :03:55. | :04:01. | |
clear, this is a wrecking amendment. The Minister has repeated those very | :04:02. | :04:05. | |
words today, but I am at a total loss to understand where the loss of | :04:06. | :04:08. | |
money comes from, because she has acknowledged that the building of a | :04:09. | :04:14. | |
new property will be funded. What the tenure is doesn't alter the | :04:15. | :04:18. | |
building costs, so I do hope the Minister can give a very clear text | :04:19. | :04:24. | |
nation. The statement made in the other place and repeated by her | :04:25. | :04:30. | |
today. -- clear explanation. I don't wish to address any issues of policy | :04:31. | :04:35. | |
with respect to the Bill with the merits or otherwise of the proposals | :04:36. | :04:43. | |
either contained in the Bill. I am not elected like my noble friend | :04:44. | :04:47. | |
Lord true and I am not standing for election either, so perhaps my words | :04:48. | :04:55. | |
to Lord Kerslake would be a little less diplomatic than others have | :04:56. | :05:01. | |
put. I don't know how much time members of this has spent talking to | :05:02. | :05:07. | |
people in the other place, but we go about the work and I love this House | :05:08. | :05:11. | |
and I think it does a fantastic job, but there is increasing irritation | :05:12. | :05:16. | |
at the other end of the corridor about the activities of this House | :05:17. | :05:19. | |
and we should take account of that. There are proposals to reduce our | :05:20. | :05:26. | |
powers to which I am very strongly opposed. I believe there are major | :05:27. | :05:31. | |
issues concerning the use of secondary legislation and the | :05:32. | :05:35. | |
provision of Henry VIII clauses. No doubt that is a matter which we will | :05:36. | :05:42. | |
address in the next Parliament. I have always very strongly supported | :05:43. | :05:48. | |
the idea that the crossbenchers should have an important presence | :05:49. | :05:54. | |
and role in this House and traditionally the crossbenchers have | :05:55. | :05:58. | |
been composed of people with great expertise of which the Noble Lord | :05:59. | :06:03. | |
Kerslake is a notable example, but they have always known where to draw | :06:04. | :06:07. | |
the line and respected the conventions of this House. I think | :06:08. | :06:12. | |
we are in danger of crossing that line and I don't seek to argue | :06:13. | :06:17. | |
whether Lord Kerslake's views are correct for the Minister's views are | :06:18. | :06:22. | |
correct, what matters is that the other place has rejected this matter | :06:23. | :06:24. | |
and claimed financial privilege. As my noble friend Lord True has | :06:25. | :06:36. | |
pointed out, it is a matter for the elected house. We have always | :06:37. | :06:40. | |
respected the view that we do not put forward motions in lieu with a | :06:41. | :06:43. | |
had been rejected on the grounds of financial privilege in the past. | :06:44. | :06:49. | |
This is what we are in danger of doing this afternoon. So I hope the | :06:50. | :06:52. | |
noble Lord Lord Kerslake will show the same degree of sensitivity to | :06:53. | :06:59. | |
his position on the crossbenchers as he did on the previous amendment. He | :07:00. | :07:05. | |
did, and I supported him in some respects, although I regret the way | :07:06. | :07:07. | |
in which the Government finally came to the right conclusion on some | :07:08. | :07:14. | |
aspects, I have got a two-year, on some aspects of the trade union Bill | :07:15. | :07:20. | |
-- I have a line here. He is in danger of taking like a member of | :07:21. | :07:24. | |
the opposition, not a crossbench member, if the proceeds... If he | :07:25. | :07:31. | |
proceeds to push this amendment against the conventions which are | :07:32. | :07:36. | |
applied. The opposition may disagree. We know the liberal | :07:37. | :07:39. | |
position. They have made it clear from the start that having lost | :07:40. | :07:43. | |
their democratic position on the other play, they wish to raise their | :07:44. | :07:46. | |
standard here. I say to members of the House to think carefully. This | :07:47. | :07:51. | |
house has a great and important role which will be undermined if we | :07:52. | :07:57. | |
behave in a way which causes extreme irritation to the other place who, | :07:58. | :08:01. | |
after all, have been elected to do a job on manifesto commitments, with | :08:02. | :08:06. | |
which we are concerned today. I give way. I am grateful to my noble | :08:07. | :08:11. | |
friend. I just wanted to say that I think the argument is stronger than | :08:12. | :08:17. | |
you put in relation to financial arrangements, financial privilege | :08:18. | :08:20. | |
being claimed as the reason. Because that has happened twice. The second | :08:21. | :08:29. | |
time, last Wednesday, lured kid -- Lord Kerslake believed the amendment | :08:30. | :08:33. | |
would not provoke financial privilege but it did. I think in | :08:34. | :08:40. | |
that sense, the House has adversely sent -- inadvertently sent an image | :08:41. | :08:47. | |
in the back once in contradiction of the badger privilege argument and to | :08:48. | :08:50. | |
do that twice seems a serious breach of convention. My noble friend is | :08:51. | :08:56. | |
absolutely right, as he knows I always thought my punches, but he is | :08:57. | :09:01. | |
right to invite me to make my case strongly. When I intervened earlier | :09:02. | :09:05. | |
and asked Lord Kerslake if he would deal with the issue of financial | :09:06. | :09:10. | |
privilege he said that, in his opinion, his amendment didn't breach | :09:11. | :09:12. | |
that but that is what he said the last time. The House of Commons took | :09:13. | :09:17. | |
a different view. I hope very much, having made his argument, and my | :09:18. | :09:23. | |
noble friend the Minister who has shown enormous patience throughout | :09:24. | :09:26. | |
the passage of this bill, along with the rest of us who have been here to | :09:27. | :09:30. | |
support her with the division lobbies, I hope the noble Lord will | :09:31. | :09:36. | |
accept as my noble friend Lord Cormack said, he has taken this | :09:37. | :09:41. | |
matter as far as he can and it is a matter for the elected Government | :09:42. | :09:43. | |
and for the House of Commons to take things forward. My Lords, last night | :09:44. | :09:50. | |
the Commons spent all of 52 minutes debating the amendment is passed by | :09:51. | :09:53. | |
your logic's house. In the course of the debate, Brandon Lewis asserted | :09:54. | :09:58. | |
that this house had, I called, jewels and once again to oppose one | :09:59. | :10:03. | |
of the Government's most important manifesto commitments, namely the | :10:04. | :10:08. | |
commitment to ensure more homes are built, homes we need and that young | :10:09. | :10:12. | |
people are crying out for. To borrow a phrase from a somewhat more famous | :10:13. | :10:15. | |
Conservative, Winston Churchill, that is a gemological in exactitude. | :10:16. | :10:24. | |
It is perhaps less personal in the opinion of a Conservative | :10:25. | :10:27. | |
backbencher that the manifesto commitment was struck down and | :10:28. | :10:32. | |
circumscribed by those unelected in the House of Lords. I declare my | :10:33. | :10:36. | |
interest, and perhaps other of your Lordships do as well. The | :10:37. | :10:39. | |
Conservative manifesto commitment was to build 275,000 affordable | :10:40. | :10:47. | |
homes by 2020. All off, my words not theirs, 10,000 homes to rent at | :10:48. | :10:54. | |
below market rents. Nothing in the amendment moved by the noble Lord | :10:55. | :10:58. | |
Kerslake conflict with the manifesto commitment to build more homes. Part | :10:59. | :11:02. | |
of the problem lies in the repeated use of the adjective affordable. And | :11:03. | :11:08. | |
the field of the bill and ministers to define the term other than in | :11:09. | :11:12. | |
relation to starter homes, where the examples of affordability reach up | :11:13. | :11:19. | |
to ?450,000 for starter homes, those are recognised as unrealistic. The | :11:20. | :11:23. | |
particular difficulty is the evident and extreme reluctance of the | :11:24. | :11:26. | |
Government to acknowledge the need for affordable housing which | :11:27. | :11:30. | |
essentially means social housing for rent. Beyond identifying the massive | :11:31. | :11:37. | |
programme of 2000 houses a year at below market rents. That is for the | :11:38. | :11:44. | |
next five years. My Lords, the Government reports to address this | :11:45. | :11:47. | |
issue by the provisions of the bill which allowed but do not require the | :11:48. | :11:52. | |
Secretary of State to enter into agreements with councils to reduce | :11:53. | :11:56. | |
the amounts they would have to pay to the Secretary of State, | :11:57. | :12:01. | |
principally to fund the right to buy of housing association tenants was | :12:02. | :12:04. | |
not theirs to requirement to do so beyond the need in London, under an | :12:05. | :12:12. | |
agreement, for two to one replacement and one-for-one | :12:13. | :12:17. | |
elsewhere. There is nowhere that says like-for-like tenure, only that | :12:18. | :12:21. | |
replacement should be affordable. As we have had at some length over the | :12:22. | :12:26. | |
course of this passage of this bill, the Government is unable to produce | :12:27. | :12:30. | |
figures defining the meaning of high-value or the number of | :12:31. | :12:34. | |
properties affected, locally or nationally, or the likely rate of | :12:35. | :12:38. | |
vacancies, or the costs of administering the scheme, or the | :12:39. | :12:44. | |
amounts they will judge to require councils to pay upfront annually, | :12:45. | :12:47. | |
says the bill envisages such payment will be required whether or not | :12:48. | :12:54. | |
sales are affected. To misquote Karl Marx, -- Groucho Marx, not,, a child | :12:55. | :13:03. | |
of five good -- could understand this policy, bring me a child of | :13:04. | :13:06. | |
five. Perhaps in these days, a Government adviser. It is that there | :13:07. | :13:13. | |
are 60 million pieces of paper relevant to this issue and they are | :13:14. | :13:16. | |
unable to make any assessments. In which case, the answer is not to | :13:17. | :13:20. | |
legislate before any real assessment of the impact is made and not to | :13:21. | :13:26. | |
rely on an amendable secondary registration to ram through | :13:27. | :13:29. | |
controversial and untested policy six-pack legislation. Which brings | :13:30. | :13:34. | |
me to the claim that financial privilege prevented us from ending | :13:35. | :13:38. | |
the bill. The Government has accepted some amendments with | :13:39. | :13:41. | |
possible financial consequences but the point is financial privilege is | :13:42. | :13:45. | |
not some god giving formula by which this house is prevented from | :13:46. | :13:49. | |
amending legislation. We are not in the Moses room with tablets in | :13:50. | :13:53. | |
legislative stone. Governments can chose not to invoke or apply the | :13:54. | :13:58. | |
national privilege and we are entitled to invite them to do so. In | :13:59. | :14:05. | |
any case, as Lord Kerslake suggested, his amendment is do not | :14:06. | :14:09. | |
reach financial privilege. The amendment moved by the noble Lord is | :14:10. | :14:13. | |
a modest one. It seeks that, think I kill it in the financial adjustments | :14:14. | :14:19. | |
to be made on the forced sale of high-value properties -- calculating | :14:20. | :14:22. | |
-- council should be able to provide sufficient money for those two for | :14:23. | :14:28. | |
one replacement in London and one-for-one elsewhere. The Secretary | :14:29. | :14:36. | |
of State should... To admit that replacement for social housing for | :14:37. | :14:39. | |
rent with a can demonstrate need. It is not carte blanche, it is a matter | :14:40. | :14:46. | |
for the Minister to agree. It is the least they could reasonably be asked | :14:47. | :14:49. | |
for. It is consistent with the manifesto pledge to build more homes | :14:50. | :14:53. | |
and deserves the support of the House and indeed of the comments. In | :14:54. | :14:59. | |
no way does it override a manifesto commitment and, if the noble Lord | :15:00. | :15:02. | |
advise the host asked the Commons to think again, the opposition will | :15:03. | :15:09. | |
support it. My Lords, could I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so | :15:10. | :15:14. | |
eloquently on this particular moment. And particularly to my noble | :15:15. | :15:20. | |
friends who are such constitutional experts, more so than I am but | :15:21. | :15:25. | |
Forsyth, Lord True, and Lord Cormack. Lord, asked initially about | :15:26. | :15:34. | |
the regulars is working with noble Lords. I hope that whatever noble | :15:35. | :15:39. | |
Lords think about this bill they will agree that I have taken the | :15:40. | :15:43. | |
time, whenever needed, to engage with noble Lords from across the | :15:44. | :15:49. | |
House to discuss any aspect of legislation or regulation is the | :15:50. | :15:54. | |
might so wish. I fully intend to continue in that role. Amendment 47 | :15:55. | :16:01. | |
E proposed by Lord Kerslake in lieu of amendment 47 is not acceptable by | :16:02. | :16:08. | |
the Government. It would require that, where the Secretary of State | :16:09. | :16:11. | |
enters into an agreement, sufficient funding must be required to fund the | :16:12. | :16:16. | |
cost of the new home. I hope the noble Lords will not misinterpret me | :16:17. | :16:22. | |
when I say that the Government wants more housing to be built. I hope the | :16:23. | :16:25. | |
noble Lord will recognise that the arguments of this house has | :16:26. | :16:32. | |
recognised in this relation to last group, apply just as strongly now. | :16:33. | :16:36. | |
My Lords, we have listened and I have reassured this has strongly on | :16:37. | :16:41. | |
how flexible agreements will be. It is now time to stop undermining our | :16:42. | :16:47. | |
ability to proceed and let us deliver our manifesto commitments. | :16:48. | :16:53. | |
We support the involvement of local authorities in delivering new homes. | :16:54. | :16:58. | |
We value the creative partnership that across the sector to increase | :16:59. | :17:02. | |
housing supply but additional homes should not be funded simply through | :17:03. | :17:05. | |
retained payments from the sale of high-value vacant housing. And we | :17:06. | :17:09. | |
have discussed that at length throughout the course of this bill. | :17:10. | :17:15. | |
They should be opportunities for local authorities to contribute | :17:16. | :17:18. | |
their land or assets or funding and to work in partnership with other | :17:19. | :17:22. | |
providers in their area to build homes. My Lords, we also want to | :17:23. | :17:27. | |
ensure that value for money is secured and ensure the homes are | :17:28. | :17:29. | |
delivered as cost effectively as possible. In placing expectations on | :17:30. | :17:37. | |
receives, this would prevent the Government from bottling its | :17:38. | :17:42. | |
manifesto commitment because it would significantly reduce the | :17:43. | :17:46. | |
funding available for the voluntary right to buy -- receipts. Since the | :17:47. | :17:51. | |
demo last year, 29,000 Association Delyn Mac housing association | :17:52. | :17:54. | |
tenants had been asked to keep up-to-date with the right to buy | :17:55. | :17:57. | |
scheme the arrow website and it is not right we should the deny those | :17:58. | :18:02. | |
tenants their dream of home ownership. Lord Beauchamp talked | :18:03. | :18:13. | |
about the numbers. Let us reflect back to the Conservative lead | :18:14. | :18:23. | |
coalition being the first Government to end with more affordable homes | :18:24. | :18:27. | |
and we started with. Labour oversaw the loss of 240,000. This is about | :18:28. | :18:34. | |
our manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. Lord Beauchamp and | :18:35. | :18:40. | |
talked about financial treatment that the Government looks to be low, | :18:41. | :18:45. | |
that is not true. It is a matter for the Commons Speaker on advice of the | :18:46. | :18:50. | |
Commons clerks. It is not a political decision. I don't know a | :18:51. | :18:55. | |
lot about the constitution but I do know that, my Lords. The noble Lord | :18:56. | :19:00. | |
Lord Kerslake talked about increased homelessness. A key part of this | :19:01. | :19:08. | |
policy is to release the value locked up and vacant higher value | :19:09. | :19:13. | |
assets in order to build more homes. We are committed to supporting the | :19:14. | :19:16. | |
most vulnerable in our society to have a decent place to live. Since | :19:17. | :19:23. | |
2010, we have invested over ?500 million to help local authorities | :19:24. | :19:30. | |
prevent nearly 1 million people, nearly 1 million households, from | :19:31. | :19:32. | |
becoming homeless. Time spent in temporary accommodation in sure is | :19:33. | :19:36. | |
no family is without a roof over their heads. We have made common | :19:37. | :19:41. | |
sense changes to the law to allow local authorities to offer | :19:42. | :19:43. | |
accommodation in good quality private sector accommodation and | :19:44. | :19:48. | |
households leaving debris accommodation now spent on average | :19:49. | :19:52. | |
less time in to break on the chin than they did in 2010. Lord | :19:53. | :19:58. | |
Cipollini asked why we were not agreeing to Lord Kerslake's and them | :19:59. | :20:05. | |
and to enable homes to be built on a like-for-like basis. Our manifesto | :20:06. | :20:10. | |
made it clear we wanted to increase home ownership and drive up the | :20:11. | :20:14. | |
supply of new ones. The receipts from the sale of high-value assets | :20:15. | :20:17. | |
will enable us to deliver both of these commitments. The receipt will | :20:18. | :20:23. | |
be used to give up to 1.3 million housing association tenants the | :20:24. | :20:27. | |
right to the same level of right to buy discounts that has been enjoyed | :20:28. | :20:29. | |
by local authority tenants for decades. But, this is equally | :20:30. | :20:36. | |
important, it will provide receipts that local authorities that enter | :20:37. | :20:40. | |
into agreement with us will use to provide affordable homes. Where they | :20:41. | :20:43. | |
choose not to, and some will choose not to, the money will be returned | :20:44. | :20:47. | |
to Government to provide additional homes. As I have previously | :20:48. | :20:51. | |
explained, the discount from right to buy will contribute to the | :20:52. | :20:56. | |
funding the housing association will use to provide an additional home | :20:57. | :21:00. | |
for the one that has been sold, and additional two homes in London. Lord | :21:01. | :21:07. | |
Shipley also suggested the policy will result in fewer social rented | :21:08. | :21:12. | |
homes. My Lords, I will say this again, we have a national housing | :21:13. | :21:19. | |
crisis. We need more homes across different ten years and across the | :21:20. | :21:21. | |
country. At the heart of this policy is the building of more homes funded | :21:22. | :21:27. | |
by part of the receipts from the sale of high-value council housing. | :21:28. | :21:35. | |
The Secretary of State and local authority can enter an agreement | :21:36. | :21:39. | |
with the local authority to retained part of its receipts to the deep | :21:40. | :21:43. | |
lead the delivery of more homes that meet housing need. In the case of | :21:44. | :21:46. | |
London where we know there is an acute housing crisis, this must | :21:47. | :21:52. | |
result in the delivery of at least two more affordable homes for each | :21:53. | :21:55. | |
value a vacant dwellings that is taken into account under the | :21:56. | :22:02. | |
determination. My Lords, I urge your Lordships' House to respect the will | :22:03. | :22:06. | |
of the other place recognising that this is a manifesto commitment and | :22:07. | :22:10. | |
that is the Commons have offered a financial privilege reason for | :22:11. | :22:14. | |
rejecting our amendments, we should be wary of proposing an alternative | :22:15. | :22:18. | |
which would invite the same response. I therefore urge Noble | :22:19. | :22:23. | |
Lord is to accept the Commons reason and not support amendment 47 it. May | :22:24. | :22:34. | |
I thank my Noble Lord is for their contributions during this debate and | :22:35. | :22:37. | |
I have listened most intently to all of them. One of the things I have | :22:38. | :22:44. | |
discovered is a crossbenchers is that too put it bluntly you are on | :22:45. | :22:49. | |
your own. You have to make your own judgments based on the argument and | :22:50. | :22:54. | |
listen to them very carefully. Let me explain my underpinning dilemma. | :22:55. | :23:01. | |
We have two manifesto commitments. Once the Noble Lord Shipley spoke | :23:02. | :23:06. | |
about which is the commitment to fund the placement of a property | :23:07. | :23:10. | |
sold, the other with the Minister alluded to, the manifesto commitment | :23:11. | :23:14. | |
to fund the extension of right to buy. As we all sit here now, we do | :23:15. | :23:21. | |
not know whether those two commitments stand together. We do | :23:22. | :23:26. | |
not know that. Quite extraordinarily, in the whole | :23:27. | :23:29. | |
passage of this Bill we have still not been able to answer that | :23:30. | :23:34. | |
question. This leaves us with a real dilemma and I should say before this | :23:35. | :23:40. | |
I was an accountant. I wouldn't complain me as an accountant now but | :23:41. | :23:45. | |
that is what my pastels. -- employee. I like to see the numbers | :23:46. | :23:51. | |
adding up. We are faced with a real dilemma in this situation about a | :23:52. | :23:57. | |
proposal that simply doesn't enable two contradictory things do happen. | :23:58. | :24:01. | |
The judgment we had to make is where do we place positioning of the | :24:02. | :24:08. | |
amendment in relation to that? A very strong views and remains my | :24:09. | :24:12. | |
very strong view is that what I have put forward here simply seeks to say | :24:13. | :24:16. | |
that if you reach an agreement on one of her one replacement, not | :24:17. | :24:23. | |
like-for-like, it is not an unreasonable thing to say that the | :24:24. | :24:27. | |
funding should be there. I am perfectly comfortable with a range | :24:28. | :24:30. | |
of funding being brought in to do more, but at eight for a level it | :24:31. | :24:35. | |
should do what it says on the tin, -- court level. The second part | :24:36. | :24:42. | |
simply says the consideration to social rented housing. It is hard to | :24:43. | :24:46. | |
see how anyone could see that as objectionable in any part of this | :24:47. | :24:51. | |
House with the other place. So, having agonised and listen through | :24:52. | :24:57. | |
this debate very, very carefully, I have very reluctantly concluded that | :24:58. | :25:00. | |
I would to test the opinion of the House on this issue. The question is | :25:01. | :25:06. | |
that amendment B-1 B agreed to. As many of that opinion will save | :25:07. | :25:13. | |
"content". The country" not content". I think the" not content"s | :25:14. | :25:15. | |
a lift. Clearly bar. -- have it. My lords. The question is that | :25:16. | :28:34. | |
amendment B1 B agreed to, as many are of that opinion will say | :28:35. | :28:40. | |
"content". The contrary "not content". | :28:41. | :34:02. | |
My Lords. The question is that the question B1 B agreed to. -- B agreed | :34:03. | :34:12. | |
to. My Lords, they have voted. | :34:13. | :40:19. | |
"Contents" 256, "not contents" 245. Therefore the "contents" had it. -- | :40:20. | :40:25. | |
have it. Mushin C, Baroness Williams? My | :40:26. | :40:43. | |
Lords, I beg to move motion see that this house do not insist on this | :40:44. | :40:47. | |
disagreement with the comment on and them and 907A, in lieu of Lords and | :40:48. | :40:53. | |
97, and do not insist on Emmett of 97p in lieu of the Lords amendment | :40:54. | :40:58. | |
to which the Commons have disagreed for a reason 97 C. My Lords, the | :40:59. | :41:03. | |
Government places community that heart of the planning system. We | :41:04. | :41:06. | |
have gone further than ever before in giving communities the power to | :41:07. | :41:11. | |
develop neighbourhood plans that set the planning policies for their | :41:12. | :41:15. | |
area. The strength of feeling on the issue of a neighbourhood right to | :41:16. | :41:19. | |
appeal in this house was made very clear. However, with over 150 | :41:20. | :41:25. | |
adopted neighbourhood plans in England's and over 7000 more at | :41:26. | :41:29. | |
various stages of completion, the introduction of a right of appeal | :41:30. | :41:32. | |
could have far-reaching consequences. As I have reiterated | :41:33. | :41:37. | |
in these debates, we believe a third party right of appeal would add | :41:38. | :41:41. | |
complexity to the planning system and slow down housing delivery. We | :41:42. | :41:46. | |
trust communities to shape future development through neighbourhood | :41:47. | :41:49. | |
plans, we trust local planning authorities to take decisions for | :41:50. | :41:53. | |
sustainable development and to listen to their communities. We | :41:54. | :41:57. | |
cannot maintain a balance planning system if every decision to approve | :41:58. | :42:01. | |
a sustainable development is open for a lengthy and costly appeal. The | :42:02. | :42:07. | |
other place, the elected house, did not accept the Lords on Emmett | :42:08. | :42:11. | |
neighbourhood appeal, they have rejected it twice about even a | :42:12. | :42:14. | |
vault. That is not the time to be pushing any further, my Lords. -- | :42:15. | :42:19. | |
Karen MacGregor. I hope I can reassure you that you have been | :42:20. | :42:24. | |
heard. The Minister has been given an undertaking that he will look | :42:25. | :42:31. | |
into this matter further. I am disappointed the lordships house did | :42:32. | :42:34. | |
not previously support the Government's on Emmett in lieu, | :42:35. | :42:40. | |
which would have giving a clear expiration of why the authority can | :42:41. | :42:44. | |
justify recommending a decision that would conflict with the | :42:45. | :42:48. | |
neighbourhood plan. However, we have the opportunity to return to this | :42:49. | :42:51. | |
matter again now. The Government's amendment in lieu would require | :42:52. | :42:56. | |
local planning authorities to set out, in any reports to a planning | :42:57. | :43:00. | |
committee, that recommends granting planning permission, how any | :43:01. | :43:02. | |
neighbourhood plan has been considered. They will also be | :43:03. | :43:07. | |
required to identify in the report any conflict between the | :43:08. | :43:08. | |
recommendation and the neighbourhood plan. This will ensure the planning | :43:09. | :43:14. | |
committee cannot fail to appreciate how the development accords with the | :43:15. | :43:18. | |
neighbourhood plan and provides communities with the opportunity to | :43:19. | :43:25. | |
raise any further concerns to speak directly with their local | :43:26. | :43:30. | |
councillors or a tent and request to speak at the planning committee. It | :43:31. | :43:34. | |
also draws attention to the issues of conflict in the case of the | :43:35. | :43:40. | |
community wishes to request a call in by the Secretary of State. Let me | :43:41. | :43:46. | |
be clear, communities can request that these be requested for Colin | :43:47. | :43:52. | |
before a decision is issued. This added level of transparency will | :43:53. | :43:55. | |
ensure that local planning authorities will be clear how they | :43:56. | :43:58. | |
have balanced the neighbourhood plan against other concerns they are | :43:59. | :44:04. | |
required to take into account. This amendment is a proportionate and | :44:05. | :44:07. | |
appropriate response to ensuring neighbourhood plans are given the | :44:08. | :44:09. | |
respect and consideration that they deserve. My Lords, I beg to move. | :44:10. | :44:17. | |
The question is motion CB agreed we, and M one. With like to move on | :44:18. | :44:27. | |
M one as an amendment motion see and to instead that it insists on | :44:28. | :44:29. | |
the disagreement with the Commons and the amendment 907A, do not | :44:30. | :44:38. | |
settle 97p, and oppose 97 BMW of 907A. The Lords, I well, the | :44:39. | :44:44. | |
comments last wake the black night by the Minister in the other place | :44:45. | :44:48. | |
where you said that he intends to work with colleagues to ensure that | :44:49. | :44:53. | |
neighbourhood plans enjoyed the privacy we intend them to have in | :44:54. | :44:57. | |
planning the law. I wholeheartedly endorse and welcomer commitment. | :44:58. | :45:02. | |
However, I have prepared what I believe to be a significant | :45:03. | :45:09. | |
compromise on the proposal that was agreed by this house at our last | :45:10. | :45:15. | |
debate as a means to do just that. Our previous amendment included a | :45:16. | :45:21. | |
right of appeal, a limited right of appeal, but a light to the Mac right | :45:22. | :45:28. | |
of appeal nevertheless. I understand the governments that as a third | :45:29. | :45:30. | |
party right of appeal, which they did not wish to agree to. Therefore | :45:31. | :45:35. | |
the MMM before you lordships today does not push a third party right of | :45:36. | :45:41. | |
appeal. -- the amendment. It proposes the rates to be heard. The | :45:42. | :45:45. | |
proposals make it clear that local authorities should have special | :45:46. | :45:49. | |
regard to the policies in neighbourhood plans. It proposes | :45:50. | :45:52. | |
planning authorities must consult with neighbourhood plans and take | :45:53. | :45:58. | |
account of their views before decisions are taken. And, crucially, | :45:59. | :46:04. | |
it provides for a call and decision. I heard what the noble Baroness said | :46:05. | :46:15. | |
about Colin the Mac. -- call-ins. If the neighbourhood planning group | :46:16. | :46:18. | |
wish to take out a call-in before a local authority makes a decision. | :46:19. | :46:23. | |
Crucially, they do not have that right once local authorities have | :46:24. | :46:27. | |
refused an application which is contrary to that within a | :46:28. | :46:32. | |
neighbourhood plan. That, to me, is a major barrier to encouraging more | :46:33. | :46:37. | |
local groups to get involved in neighbourhood planning. That is what | :46:38. | :46:43. | |
this house and this current has said on many occasions, that we want to | :46:44. | :46:47. | |
achieve -- this Government -- because we know the neighbourhood | :46:48. | :46:50. | |
plans to deliver more homes. This bill needs to do all it can to | :46:51. | :46:54. | |
ensure local people invest the time and the effort in putting together a | :46:55. | :46:57. | |
neighbourhood plans so that we get the housing we need. Through | :46:58. | :47:04. | |
consensus. Giving this extra weight to the neighbourhood plans by | :47:05. | :47:07. | |
allowing for this right to be heard, not the right of appeal, will mean | :47:08. | :47:14. | |
their plans will not be ignored or easily overturned. That seems a key | :47:15. | :47:18. | |
to encouraging more neighbourhood plans to come into being, which is | :47:19. | :47:21. | |
what the Government and all the noble peers have made it quite clear | :47:22. | :47:25. | |
we want to achieve. This is a compromise amendment and therefore, | :47:26. | :47:32. | |
on that basis, I beg to move. The original question was motion CB | :47:33. | :47:37. | |
agreed to. In them and see one has been moved to set out on the revised | :47:38. | :47:41. | |
martial list. The question is that amendment is the one they agreed to. | :47:42. | :47:51. | |
My Lords, can I refer to my declarations of interest and it | :47:52. | :47:56. | |
clear I am a locally elected councillor in the London Borough of | :47:57. | :47:59. | |
Lewisham. We have discussed the right of appeal on an abrupt | :48:00. | :48:04. | |
occasions and I was convinced of the limited right of appeal. I was | :48:05. | :48:12. | |
convinced it was the right approach. But despite that and numerous | :48:13. | :48:16. | |
discussions, the Government have not been persuaded it is the way | :48:17. | :48:19. | |
forward. That is disappointing. The Government amendment does make some | :48:20. | :48:26. | |
moves in the right direction. As the noble lady told the House from the | :48:27. | :48:34. | |
4th of May, they set out in what you would expect any good buying | :48:35. | :48:38. | |
authority officer would be doing anyway. I am under no illusion that | :48:39. | :48:42. | |
what is before us from the Government is not particularly | :48:43. | :48:46. | |
significant concession. That is disappointing and we should be going | :48:47. | :48:53. | |
further. I generally think, I often reflect back on the localism act. It | :48:54. | :48:58. | |
appears to me the Government benches are less keen on local -- localism. | :48:59. | :49:10. | |
If they don't like it, we want to do as you say. It is a bit of a haughty | :49:11. | :49:17. | |
corgi, localism, I feel from the Government benches. That is | :49:18. | :49:22. | |
disappointing. I think the local Italy might noble lady has given the | :49:23. | :49:25. | |
possibility move your have a good news for the Minister. My Lords, I | :49:26. | :49:33. | |
think the noble lady for her amendment and the way she had worked | :49:34. | :49:37. | |
with me throughout the course of this bill. Perhaps she might think | :49:38. | :49:43. | |
not a very great effect but we have had extensive debates regarding the | :49:44. | :49:50. | |
neighbourhood right to appeal and I am pleased we are able to return to | :49:51. | :49:54. | |
this in a constructive manner. We agree on the importance of | :49:55. | :49:57. | |
neighbourhood plans and we wish to see the planning system working | :49:58. | :50:01. | |
without unnecessary costs and delays. We wish to see the planning | :50:02. | :50:05. | |
system deliver sustainable development and the homes our | :50:06. | :50:09. | |
communities need. I very much welcome the direction of travel of | :50:10. | :50:14. | |
the amendment focused on the call-in process, now is not that time to | :50:15. | :50:19. | |
pursue the matter. This issue was not part of the original bill and | :50:20. | :50:23. | |
the other place have made clear of the approval of the Government's | :50:24. | :50:28. | |
amendment in lieu. The Minister for planning and housing has made it | :50:29. | :50:32. | |
very clear he is willing to work with colleagues to return to this | :50:33. | :50:35. | |
issue in due course and I would hope that this is as encouraging to noble | :50:36. | :50:40. | |
Lord as it was to certain members of the other place, particularly to | :50:41. | :50:45. | |
organisations such as CPRE, who have lobbied on this matter. My Lords, | :50:46. | :50:49. | |
although the Government cannot support this amendment, I do | :50:50. | :50:54. | |
understand the advantage of an approach that is based on the | :50:55. | :50:57. | |
existing ayes system and the constructive manner -- call-in | :50:58. | :51:02. | |
system and deconstructed manner in which it was laid. I hope this | :51:03. | :51:08. | |
provides reassurance to the noble lady for her to withdraw her | :51:09. | :51:14. | |
amendment. Can I thank the Minister for those remarks? I am obviously | :51:15. | :51:19. | |
disappointed that, at this late stage, after she knows so many | :51:20. | :51:22. | |
compromises that have been brought forward from this side on this | :51:23. | :51:25. | |
issue, that the Government do not feel able to accept something that | :51:26. | :51:31. | |
will, as I say, deliver what I think the Government wants to achieve. | :51:32. | :51:34. | |
More homes because will bring about more neighbourhood planning. I thank | :51:35. | :51:38. | |
the noble Lord Kennedy for his comments and share his reflections | :51:39. | :51:45. | |
that localism sometimes doesn't always mean what we would wish it to | :51:46. | :51:49. | |
mean on the Government benches. On these benches, we trust local | :51:50. | :51:55. | |
people, we want them to get engaged in the process and we think that is | :51:56. | :51:58. | |
the way to do it with more homes and stable communities of the future. | :51:59. | :52:03. | |
I accept there is more than one way to achieve what we want to achieve | :52:04. | :52:09. | |
and then withdrawing this amendment I would say aye hope you Minister's | :52:10. | :52:13. | |
comment yesterday about working with colleagues applied to not only | :52:14. | :52:19. | |
colleagues in the other place but also colleagues in this House that | :52:20. | :52:22. | |
you're strongly that local communities need to be involved and | :52:23. | :52:26. | |
that would help us to deliver the sustainable homes that we need. | :52:27. | :52:37. | |
The amendment is withdrawn. The question is that motion C B agreed | :52:38. | :52:50. | |
to, as many as agreed say "content". The majority -- the country say "not | :52:51. | :53:00. | |
content". I beg to move that they agree with their Commons in the | :53:01. | :53:10. | |
amendment and 108 C in lieu. The review of minimum energy performance | :53:11. | :53:15. | |
standards in England. It should be noted there was very strong support | :53:16. | :53:19. | |
in the other place with this new amendment with a vote of 292 in | :53:20. | :53:25. | |
favour of rejection compared to 205 against. We share a common goal of | :53:26. | :53:32. | |
wanting new homes to be energy efficient and further arguments to | :53:33. | :53:37. | |
have low energy bills. That is why in the last parliament we introduced | :53:38. | :53:41. | |
tough but fair minimum standards that require home-builders to | :53:42. | :53:48. | |
deliver highly efficient -- high-energy homes. We have said | :53:49. | :53:58. | |
throughout the various debates that putting a minimum energy performance | :53:59. | :54:02. | |
for new homes in legislation without the benefit of any evidence that it | :54:03. | :54:07. | |
will work or consultation has the potential to push some small | :54:08. | :54:11. | |
builders out of the industry and make developing much more needed | :54:12. | :54:17. | |
homes in areas on viable. The home builders Federation, the voice of | :54:18. | :54:20. | |
the industry, completely agree with us about these concerns and they | :54:21. | :54:25. | |
said of amendment 108 that such a standard would the complexity of | :54:26. | :54:32. | |
costs for all size of home-builders but it small home-builders hard. | :54:33. | :54:37. | |
They draw attention to the specific challenges that are entailed in | :54:38. | :54:40. | |
delivering performance standards such as the carbon compliance | :54:41. | :54:46. | |
standard successfully at scale and the consequent risks to housing | :54:47. | :54:50. | |
supply of not getting the answers right. But we recognise that the | :54:51. | :54:54. | |
costs of energy efficiency measures and the industry's understanding of | :54:55. | :54:58. | |
them can improve over time. That is why we are proposing to place a | :54:59. | :55:04. | |
statutory duty on this government to undertake a review of energy | :55:05. | :55:08. | |
standards for new homes. It will seek evidence on the costs of energy | :55:09. | :55:12. | |
measures and the impact on housing supply and the benefits in terms of | :55:13. | :55:16. | |
fuel bills and carbon savings. It will identify what is cost-effective | :55:17. | :55:23. | |
and feasible. The HBF also fully endorse such a review and say that | :55:24. | :55:27. | |
given a wide range of technical and other challenges involved in this | :55:28. | :55:32. | |
field, the risks to businesses and housing delivery and further changes | :55:33. | :55:37. | |
to regularity -- regulatory requirements, such a review would | :55:38. | :55:42. | |
provide the opportunity for all relevant issues and considerations | :55:43. | :55:46. | |
to be properly weighed into determining the way the head. It is | :55:47. | :55:49. | |
essential that such issues are fully addressed. Prescribing an energy | :55:50. | :55:53. | |
performance standard without up-to-date evidence and analysis | :55:54. | :55:59. | |
risks slowing down or halting much-needed new homes and driving | :56:00. | :56:04. | |
small home-builders away from the industry. We shouldn't take such a | :56:05. | :56:09. | |
risk with homes and businesses and I beg to move. The question is that | :56:10. | :56:21. | |
motion D B agreed to. Amendment D1. To leave out from an hundred and | :56:22. | :56:25. | |
eight to the end, to disagree with the Commons in their amendment 108 C | :56:26. | :56:32. | |
and proposed amendment one await the in lieu. We return to the issue that | :56:33. | :56:37. | |
building the homes we need spotted sharing that we meet fully the | :56:38. | :56:44. | |
emission of greenhouse gas reduction targets and lowering fuel bills. I | :56:45. | :56:48. | |
am disappointed to see that the Government and other place did not | :56:49. | :56:53. | |
feel able to accept the amendment that we proposed and that in lieu | :56:54. | :56:58. | |
the Government are proposing a view. I would remind nobles that the zero | :56:59. | :57:05. | |
carbon homes standards were agreed during the time of the coalition | :57:06. | :57:10. | |
with industrywide support, so again we ask why is there a need for a | :57:11. | :57:15. | |
review. As Lord Krebs so powerfully said last week, how many more homes | :57:16. | :57:23. | |
are going to have to be built before this review and the implementation | :57:24. | :57:26. | |
date if any action comes forward from that review takes place? Given | :57:27. | :57:32. | |
that we are looking to build a million new homes, how many more of | :57:33. | :57:38. | |
those homes are going to have to be retrofitted at great cost to | :57:39. | :57:40. | |
individual homeowners because we have put on this requirement for a | :57:41. | :57:45. | |
review when we know what we need to do now. There is no guarantee of | :57:46. | :57:51. | |
action at the end proposed by the Government for this review. Indeed | :57:52. | :57:56. | |
the Government are anyway obliged to review the building regulations by | :57:57. | :58:02. | |
June of next year as a condition of the 2010 energy performance of | :58:03. | :58:07. | |
buildings directive. Finally on the particular point, given that it was | :58:08. | :58:12. | |
the Government and the Chancellor who scrapped the zero carbon homes | :58:13. | :58:16. | |
last year, and the Government throughout the process of this | :58:17. | :58:20. | |
debate have refused to engage on anything other than the viability | :58:21. | :58:26. | |
issues around the house-building industry and gained a minister to | :58:27. | :58:32. | |
quote only from the house-building industry, this evening, I think it | :58:33. | :58:36. | |
gives this House little confidence that the review will look equally at | :58:37. | :58:41. | |
they need alongside viability for house-builders to ensure that we | :58:42. | :58:44. | |
meet our greenhouse gas emission targets and that we lower the energy | :58:45. | :58:50. | |
bills are people so that we contribute to meeting our fuel | :58:51. | :58:56. | |
poverty targets. Now, given that a third of Lord Grade has gas | :58:57. | :59:00. | |
emissions come in this country come from buildings and two thirds come | :59:01. | :59:06. | |
from homes, my intention is to beat -- too important to lead to a review | :59:07. | :59:10. | |
but I accept at this late stage there is a need for compromise and | :59:11. | :59:14. | |
that is again what I have done today. The amendment before you is a | :59:15. | :59:20. | |
compromise. Of that stage we were proposing this carbon standards of | :59:21. | :59:26. | |
60% for a detached properties, 56% of attached properties and 44% for | :59:27. | :59:35. | |
floods. This comprises, it would set it on the basis of comparison with | :59:36. | :59:41. | |
the building regulations in 2016. The level which the Government | :59:42. | :59:46. | |
recommended during its time in coalition as the on-site zero carbon | :59:47. | :59:48. | |
standards which would take effect from this year. It is double | :59:49. | :59:54. | |
standards that are growing numbers of local authorities were setting is | :59:55. | :59:59. | |
a condition of given planning permission up until they were | :00:00. | :00:01. | |
scrapped by the Secretary of State Eric Pickles last year. I wish to | :00:02. | :00:07. | |
point out to the House that between 27 and 2014, 17,000 homes in England | :00:08. | :00:13. | |
and Wales had been built to the standard. -- 2007. In Scotland they | :00:14. | :00:20. | |
have introduced the standard last October and the volume of houses to | :00:21. | :00:25. | |
the standard are growing. I would content therefore that the standard | :00:26. | :00:28. | |
is proven to be both effective and achievable. As I told the Minister, | :00:29. | :00:35. | |
I trawled through the Conservative manifesto this morning to study | :00:36. | :00:39. | |
exactly what their commitments were in regard to this area. In the | :00:40. | :00:45. | |
Conservative manifesto they made it quite clear that they made a content | :00:46. | :00:49. | |
and to the legally binding climate change commitments and made a | :00:50. | :00:54. | |
commitment to tackling fuel poverty. They made no commitment about | :00:55. | :01:00. | |
rolling back on building standards. Whereas they made a very clear | :01:01. | :01:04. | |
commitment, some of us may not like it, to offer no public subsidy to | :01:05. | :01:13. | |
wind farms. It was in their manifesto and therefore this House | :01:14. | :01:15. | |
can understand that but they made no commitments on the issue of going | :01:16. | :01:18. | |
back on building standards yet they made a commitment to deliver on the | :01:19. | :01:22. | |
greenhouse gas targets and to tackle fuel poverty. Throughout this debate | :01:23. | :01:26. | |
we have challenged endlessly from all sides of this House with the | :01:27. | :01:31. | |
Government to make it quite clear they are intending to meet their | :01:32. | :01:34. | |
greenhouse gas targets, if they are not prepared to accept an amendment, | :01:35. | :01:39. | |
-- accepts this amendment, how are they going to meet these targets? | :01:40. | :01:44. | |
This gives us the opportunity to provide us with the sustainable home | :01:45. | :01:48. | |
we need. This will put us back on track on the red trajectory to get | :01:49. | :01:55. | |
more zero carbon homes. This will help deliver our greenhouse gas | :01:56. | :02:00. | |
targets and will help ensure that fuel bills are lower and at the same | :02:01. | :02:05. | |
time deliver what we need. I beg to move. The original question was that | :02:06. | :02:11. | |
motion deed was agreed to, since then D1 has been moved. The question | :02:12. | :02:16. | |
therefore is that amendment D1 B agreed to. I wish to speak in | :02:17. | :02:26. | |
support of the amendment and I'm very sorry the Government hasn't | :02:27. | :02:29. | |
accepted the compromise that has been brought forward from the | :02:30. | :02:37. | |
previous discussion on this. The Government's reason for rejecting | :02:38. | :02:40. | |
the amendment and I quote by that would increase burdens on | :02:41. | :02:44. | |
house-builders and threaten delivery of large number of new homes. But as | :02:45. | :02:51. | |
she already pointed out, how then this be true if 79,000 homes have | :02:52. | :02:57. | |
already been built to this standard? The Scottish Government has adopted | :02:58. | :03:03. | |
this standard, it is lower than the standard adopted in London and it is | :03:04. | :03:06. | |
already being adopted by an increasing number of local | :03:07. | :03:09. | |
authorities in their local plans. All that evidence seems to pie in | :03:10. | :03:13. | |
the face of the Government's objection and is filed at that this | :03:14. | :03:20. | |
is a burden that the House building industry won't be able to cope with | :03:21. | :03:23. | |
and that it would threaten the delivery of new homes. The evidence | :03:24. | :03:27. | |
does not stack up -- does not stack up on that. We have offered instead | :03:28. | :03:38. | |
a review. As Lady Parmenter said, the problem with a review, we have | :03:39. | :03:41. | |
got the evidence anyway but if we do agree a review, we don't have a | :03:42. | :03:48. | |
clear date for completing the review were a clear set of actions that | :03:49. | :03:52. | |
will arise and it does not add to what is required under the energy | :03:53. | :04:02. | |
performance directive. I hope that in response the Noble Baroness will | :04:03. | :04:05. | |
give us some tighter commitments on the nature of this review that the | :04:06. | :04:09. | |
Government is proposing. When will it be completed? Who will take part | :04:10. | :04:13. | |
in it? What actions will flow and how does it go beyond what is | :04:14. | :04:17. | |
required in the 2010 energy performance buildings directive? | :04:18. | :04:24. | |
Finally, I want to reiterate -- I do not wish to reiterate the arguments | :04:25. | :04:29. | |
before but we have not heard any arguments that says this is not the | :04:30. | :04:33. | |
right thing to do. We know that it is the right thing to do to cut our | :04:34. | :04:37. | |
greenhouse gas emissions and should help to resolve the issues of fuel | :04:38. | :04:42. | |
poverty. All the arguments against it are obstacles that say it will be | :04:43. | :04:45. | |
too difficult, the industry won't like it, it is all going to need | :04:46. | :04:50. | |
more analysis, paralysis by analysis as we often hear. We know it is the | :04:51. | :04:54. | |
right thing to do. We know if we don't do it now we will have to come | :04:55. | :04:58. | |
back to those houses that are being built and retrofit them with | :04:59. | :05:01. | |
improved carbon standards in the future. I feel that the Noble | :05:02. | :05:09. | |
Baroness should give us as much hope is possible in her response that the | :05:10. | :05:14. | |
Government is really committed to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions | :05:15. | :05:17. | |
through buildings as well as other sources, but in this case through | :05:18. | :05:21. | |
buildings, and that she will go further than simply offering yet | :05:22. | :05:30. | |
another review. I bow to the zeal of the Noble Lord on these matters. I | :05:31. | :05:35. | |
would only say to him that this is a Bill about housing and planning and | :05:36. | :05:40. | |
I hadn't actually seen it necessary to have a great national debate | :05:41. | :05:45. | |
about energy policy. So far as this amendment is concerned, it seems to | :05:46. | :05:51. | |
me to be very little different. It is a matter of minor detail. Some | :05:52. | :05:58. | |
44% applies from a base rather than a higher base relating to detached | :05:59. | :06:02. | |
houses and detached houses. It is very little different from the | :06:03. | :06:07. | |
amendment that the other place considered and voted on. As my noble | :06:08. | :06:14. | |
friend from the front bench has said, that decision can be of the | :06:15. | :06:17. | |
pace was conclusive and I see no reason to suspect it would be any | :06:18. | :06:21. | |
different in this case. Having been a long observer of this Bill, those | :06:22. | :06:26. | |
benches over there and had a fair number of concessions and have been | :06:27. | :06:28. | |
heard on quite a few things. The Minister has shown in her speech | :06:29. | :06:36. | |
from the front bench and the Government with its offer of a | :06:37. | :06:42. | |
review, I think that is a seer and good response. I am sure she will be | :06:43. | :06:48. | |
able to provide my noble friend will be able to be five more details to | :06:49. | :06:52. | |
satisfy Lord Krebs. I hope this house will not send back and a | :06:53. | :06:57. | |
member that is broadly the same as that which has already been rejected | :06:58. | :07:01. | |
by the other place. I do urge my noble friends to stand firm on the | :07:02. | :07:14. | |
matter. My Lords, I was surprised at the Government's rejection of this | :07:15. | :07:16. | |
amendment on the other place last night and I am pleased Baroness | :07:17. | :07:20. | |
Parminter has brought back another amendment to be considered. A | :07:21. | :07:25. | |
resistance to this measure is puzzling, to say the least. | :07:26. | :07:31. | |
Delivering a zero carbon homes is an important standard we should be | :07:32. | :07:35. | |
striving to achieve. It helps reduce our carbon blueprints and it gives | :07:36. | :07:39. | |
people living in these properties cheaper fuel bills at the same time. | :07:40. | :07:50. | |
As I have said in previous debates, they have relied quite a number of | :07:51. | :07:54. | |
times on the Federation of Master builders and their opposition to | :07:55. | :07:59. | |
this, despite there being examples of them supporting it. I ask for a | :08:00. | :08:07. | |
list of other organisations that support it, I have not had that. I | :08:08. | :08:11. | |
wonder if the noble lady can tell me when I can get that, it would be | :08:12. | :08:14. | |
useful to see what those organisations are. It is important | :08:15. | :08:19. | |
to remember, the zero carbon homes target was actually created by the | :08:20. | :08:23. | |
Coalition Government in the last Parliament. As the noble Lord Krebs | :08:24. | :08:32. | |
refers to, we hope to have these expensive measures done, when you | :08:33. | :08:37. | |
could have had the work done during the initial of the construction at a | :08:38. | :08:41. | |
fraction of their costs. Lady Parmenter also referred to in her | :08:42. | :08:47. | |
contribution this evening. The initial costs are not convincing. | :08:48. | :08:53. | |
When it be said it was part of the bill, I have never heard a | :08:54. | :08:55. | |
convincing or compelling case as to why this should not be supported. If | :08:56. | :09:00. | |
the noble lady wishes to test this in the House, we will support her. | :09:01. | :09:07. | |
My Lords, just to say to the noble lord Lord Kennedy, I will chase my | :09:08. | :09:15. | |
noble friend, the noble Viscount. I think you may have gone to get the | :09:16. | :09:20. | |
letter! My Lords, it is helpful that the noble lady, Baroness Parminter, | :09:21. | :09:27. | |
has revised the Carbon Compliance Standard in her new amendment but we | :09:28. | :09:32. | |
still do not know the risks it may have to the viability of | :09:33. | :09:36. | |
home-building in some parts of the country or the impact it may have on | :09:37. | :09:40. | |
the home-building industry, in particular some small builders. We | :09:41. | :09:43. | |
need to have a clear understanding of what is technically not a book, | :09:44. | :09:47. | |
viable and cost-effective to make any changes to energy performance | :09:48. | :09:52. | |
standards for new homes. That is why we are introducing a statutory duty | :09:53. | :09:56. | |
on this Government to undertake a full and comments of review of | :09:57. | :10:01. | |
energy standards based on cost effectiveness and the impacts on | :10:02. | :10:04. | |
housing supply. We will report back to the House on the outcome of the | :10:05. | :10:09. | |
review within the next 12 months. The other place has given its | :10:10. | :10:12. | |
considerable support to this review based on context to the Mac cost | :10:13. | :10:17. | |
effectiveness and it is supported by the home builders Federation, the | :10:18. | :10:20. | |
main Federation represents home-builders of all sizes. Also | :10:21. | :10:26. | |
pointed yesterday in the other place, was, I quote, we said in our | :10:27. | :10:32. | |
manifesto that we will meet our climate change commitments and we | :10:33. | :10:35. | |
will do so by cutting emissions as cost effectively as possible. The | :10:36. | :10:40. | |
electorate voted for that and the review will help to ensure we can | :10:41. | :10:49. | |
deliver it. Before committing to anything any other place, | :10:50. | :10:51. | |
home-builders and the electorate think we first need to find out what | :10:52. | :10:55. | |
is cost-effective. Is it writes to go against their views? I should | :10:56. | :11:01. | |
remind the House that it does not predict to set requirements like | :11:02. | :11:06. | |
this in primary education. If in the light of -- legislation. If we | :11:07. | :11:11. | |
needed to make adjustments, we would not be able to do so without further | :11:12. | :11:16. | |
primary legislation, therefore I ask Baroness Parminter to withdraw her | :11:17. | :11:26. | |
amendment. My Lords, can I say that I am deeply disappointed that the | :11:27. | :11:30. | |
Government do not feel able to accept this amendment? Whilst I | :11:31. | :11:34. | |
heard what the Minister said, we still had no clarity about exactly | :11:35. | :11:39. | |
how the Government will meet its binding climate change commitments | :11:40. | :11:43. | |
if it will not accept these amendments. It merely talks about to | :11:44. | :11:47. | |
do so in a cost-effective manner but there is no clarity about the | :11:48. | :11:51. | |
trajectory of the road map to do so if we do not propose a building | :11:52. | :11:58. | |
standards target. My Lords, the Minister also talks about the risks | :11:59. | :12:02. | |
that this may cause to building homes. We know there are local | :12:03. | :12:06. | |
authorities up and down the country now already who are insisting on | :12:07. | :12:12. | |
this standard as a condition for planning permission. We know that | :12:13. | :12:16. | |
London is going further and we know Scotland are taking it forward in an | :12:17. | :12:21. | |
effective way. My contention is therefore that the Government has | :12:22. | :12:24. | |
not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this amendment | :12:25. | :12:30. | |
will not either stop the houses we need, and it certainly won't meet | :12:31. | :12:34. | |
our greenhouse gas targets are a help us meet our fuel poverty | :12:35. | :12:39. | |
obligations. Now, even if we were to accept the case for a review, there | :12:40. | :12:43. | |
is absolutely no commitment on what the Minister has put before the | :12:44. | :12:47. | |
House today to Government reaction at the end of the review. Nothing | :12:48. | :12:52. | |
might happen. I'm afraid it was the Chancellor last year who cancelled | :12:53. | :12:57. | |
and scrapped the zero carbon homes and it was the previous Secretary of | :12:58. | :13:03. | |
State who cancelled the code for sustainable homes. That does not | :13:04. | :13:07. | |
give me enough comfort that there is a real commitment act. Similarly, | :13:08. | :13:11. | |
the minister talks about cost effectiveness. Yes, we need homes | :13:12. | :13:15. | |
that are cost effective but it must be at the same time as it meets our | :13:16. | :13:19. | |
greenhouse gas targets and contributes to fuel poverty. It is | :13:20. | :13:23. | |
those three things together, not just cost effectiveness. This | :13:24. | :13:26. | |
amendment is another compromise that we are proposing that should be | :13:27. | :13:32. | |
accepted at this time. I believe it will make a significant contribution | :13:33. | :13:35. | |
delivering the homes we need and meeting our greenhouse gas targets | :13:36. | :13:39. | |
and lowering fuel bills. It is with deep regret the Government will not | :13:40. | :13:43. | |
accept it. I wish to test the opinion of the House. The question | :13:44. | :13:49. | |
is amendment D1 be agreed to, as many of that opinion of the content | :13:50. | :13:52. | |
full stop content. To the contrary not content. Not content. Cleared | :13:53. | :13:55. | |
the bar. My Lords. Order, order. The question | :13:56. | :17:17. | |
is that amendment D1 be greeted us top as many of that then you will | :17:18. | :17:22. | |
say content. Content. To the contrary not content to stop the | :17:23. | :17:25. | |
content will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the left | :17:26. | :17:29. | |
by the bar. | :17:30. | :17:34. |