(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I think it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
My Lords, I do not wish to put my noble friend in the position of having to repeat the mantra that she has had to issue several times already, but could she tell us whether, in any planning application which goes to Ministers for consideration, it would indeed be normal practice for the applicant to have made clear the use of all of the spaces in the application concerned?
We just reached an agreement that it was to be the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and then the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
I am obliged to the noble Lord. Is the Minister saying that, if the Cabinet takes the view that national security is being compromised, the Prime Minister is unable to overrule a decision by the Planning Minister?
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I will speak as Leader of the Opposition; I do not wish to interfere with this debate. I have no intention of moving the adjournment of the House, which has been suggested might happen. We will proceed to the end of the debate and my noble friend Lady Scott will respond to the Minister.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is now past 10 pm, the normal hour when the House rises according to the Companion. We had a discussion last Tuesday, on my initiative, about the sitting times of the House. We were told that it would be to the advantage of the House to meet at 11 am. That was not agreed by the opposition parties or the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. We find ourselves here at 10 pm, having sat in the morning for three hours, still with many groups to consider.
With all due respect to the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, this is not the proper way to conduct the business of this House. We have had Ministers here on duty since 11 am and we have had members of the staff here on duty for 11 hours. If the House chooses, as it chose last Tuesday, to meet at 11 am, we must end at the time when the Companion says that we should end. There is a better way of proceeding, which has to be done by agreement in the usual channels.
I have no doubt that, after my noble friend Lady Scott responds, we will move to a Division in the proper way of your Lordships’ House. However, I expect—and I think many other Members of your Lordships’ House would expect—the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms to come to the Dispatch Box after the Division to explain quite how long he expects the House to continue this evening. It would be to the improvement of us all if we could return to our normal ways of doing things. I therefore give him notice of that.
Let us proceed with and conclude the debate, and let us have our Division. Please let us then, outside this Chamber if need be, reach an agreement on drawing stumps at an appropriate time. Ministers have done enough; my colleagues have done enough; the House has done enough; and the staff have done enough.
I can very briefly come to the Dispatch Box now. Can I first say how much I respect the noble Lord? We are very clear: I know that the noble Lord and his party did not support the suggestion of starting at 11 am, but that was a decision of the House. My intention is that, when these votes are finished, we will rise. We have three votes, so after about 30 minutes we will be rising; I have no intention of going beyond that. We will have the votes and then go home.
I am also always very happy to discuss things in the usual channels, and obviously we will discuss things in the coming days and weeks. But we will have our votes and then we will adjourn the House.
My Lords, going back to the debate, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the Government’s record on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy; it is not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people: the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberWe need to have the Lib Dems go next on this one, please.
I have just been reading the newly published English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill; I have not yet got through the full 300 pages but I am puzzled by the term “community empowerment”. The Bill empowers mayors and strategic authorities and gives mayors the power to appoint up to seven commissioners, who will be responsible only to them; it cuts down the role of individual councillors; and the strategic authorities will be a very long way above local communities. Should we not cut “community empowerment” from that Bill?
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I thought it would be helpful to the House, before we move on to the Third Reading of the Holocaust Memorial Bill, to remind people of the usual procedures and courtesies. I am aware that some noble Lords may wish to speak, and any speeches should take place after Third Reading on the question that the Bill do now pass. It is customary that contributions at this stage should focus on brief thanks. I ask colleagues to minimise the number of contributions and keep speeches very concise. As set out on page 154 of the Companion:
“Any remarks should be brief and should not seek to reopen debates at previous stages of the bill”.
I hope all noble Lords will respect this as we complete the passage of this Bill through the House, but I have asked the Government Whips on the Bench to intervene if necessary.
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, before we start, I remind the House that a lot of people will be watching this debate, and of the importance of being mindful of the tone of contributions. This Bill, understandably, stirs passionate and strongly held views across the House from different perspectives, as has been seen at earlier stages. I am sure that noble Lords will continue to uphold the best traditions of the House to speak and argue freely, alongside courtesy and respect for those both inside and outside the Chamber. I wrote to all noble Lords in September, alongside the usual channels, to remind everyone of those courtesies. I ask noble Lords to be mindful, in particular, of our Standing Order to
“be careful to avoid personally insulting or offensive speeches, which offend the customary courtesy of the House”.
I am grateful in advance to noble Lords, and I look forward to constructive debates.
Clause 1: Expenditure relating to a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre
Amendment 1
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberWe will hear from the Cross Benches.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, the Minister herself referred to the sclerotic system. I declare my interest as president of the British Chambers of Commerce. One contributor to that system is the chronic lack of planners themselves. We are working on a project with Aviva to try to help build that capacity, but it will only ever deliver a fraction of the Government’s ambition. Is the Minister aware of the project, and what other creative plans do she and her department have to turbocharge the number of planners in the country?
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, it is now 11.41 pm. We have made good progress scrutinising the Bill this evening, having completed 13 groups of amendments. We have three groups remaining. Given the hour, and as agreed by the usual channels, I will now resume the House, and we will return to complete the remaining three groups after Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill tomorrow.
I am grateful to all the staff of the House who have stayed so late to support us tonight, and on Monday. I particularly want to thank the staff in the Public Bill Office for their work to facilitate proceedings. I greatly appreciate all the work they have done, along with that of the other staff of the House, including the clerks, doorkeepers, attendants, catering staff and Hansard reporters. I look forward to completing Committee on this important Bill.
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberWe will hear from my noble friend Lord Browne next, please.
My Lords, is my noble friend on behalf of the Government able confirm that projects such as east Biggleswade—highlighted within days of the general election by the Deputy Prime Minister as a priority and capable of delivering in the order of 10,000 homes—are being prioritised, and are tools such as local development orders-plus being employed to do this?
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberBefore we proceed, may I just remind colleagues that this is called Question Time for a reason. We want questions, so that the Minister can give an answer.
My Lords, the Government entirely understand concerns about the affordability of rents. We have inherited a private rented sector that is failing many low-income renters. The Renters’ Rights Bill will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, as well as taking practical steps to end the practice of rental bidding and prohibiting landlords from demanding large amounts of upfront rent. In addition, the Government are committed to building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England over this Parliament. This boost to supply is critical to improving housing affordability.
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberLet us hear from the Lib Dem Benches first—then we will hear from the noble Lord.
My Lords, high energy efficiency in new homes is clearly vital, but so is improving the home energy efficiency of existing homes, particularly the 2.6 million substandard homes in the privately rented sector. While the promised consultation is welcome, what plans do the Government have to speed up the retrofit programme to meet the target for 2030? In particular, what plans do they have to improve the situation whereby we have very few people currently available to do the necessary work?