Labour should stop prevaricating and vote in the Lords for Jenny Jones' 'Fatal Motion' to stop government power grab

 

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership MoU to be investigated by Lords committee

 The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has today launched an inquiry into the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the UK and Rwanda on an Asylum Partnership and is issuing a call for evidence.  

The committee is particularly interested in the implications of using an MoU as a vehicle for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and whether the MoU is consistent with the UK’s obligations under both domestic and international law.  

Questions the committee is seeking evidence on include:  

• Is an MoU the appropriate vehicle for this Agreement?

• What are the implications of an agreement that asserts that it is not binding on either Party in international law?  

• Is the MoU consistent with current UK domestic law, or does UK legislation require any amendment to implement the MoU? 

• Is the MoU consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law, including  the 1951 Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings?  

The deadline to submit evidence is Wednesday 20 July 2022, with the full call for evidence available on the committee’s website.  

Baroness Hayter, Chair of the International Agreements Committee said:  

The UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership was agreed as an MoU, rather than as a treaty, and is therefore not covered by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, meaning it doesn’t have to be laid in Parliament for scrutiny or debate. While it is not classed as a treaty and may not be legally binding on the Parties, it has significant human rights implications, and there are questions over its compatibility with the UK's obligations, particularly under international law. 

Although the MoU has not been formally presented to Parliament for scrutiny, it is nevertheless my committee’s duty to scrutinise such an important international agreement. We are therefore launching our inquiry today, calling on witnesses to submit written evidence.

Green Party responds to Lords Committee report 'Building More Homes'

I thought readers would be interested in this release from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and the Green Party's response

In their report, Building More Homes, published today LINK, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee criticises the Government’s housing policy for:

· Setting a new homes target which will fail to meet the demand for new homes or moderate the rate of house price increases.

· Restricting local authorities’ access to funding to build more social housing.

· Creating uncertainty in the already dysfunctional housing market by frequent changes to tax rules and subsidies for house purchases, reductions in social rents, and the extension of the Right to Buy. All of these changes reduce the supply of homes for those who need low cost rental accommodation.

· A narrow focus on home ownership which neglects those who rent their home.

The Committee makes wide-ranging recommendations to address the housing crisis, including:

· Restraints on local authority borrowing should be lifted. Local authorities should be free to borrow to fund social housebuilding as they are other building programmes. This would enable local authorities to resume their historic role as one of the major builders of new homes, particularly social housing.

The current historically low cost of borrowing means local authorities could make a large contribution to building the houses we need for the future. Further, the new Prime Minister has announced that the Government will abandon their fiscal target. This paves the way to increase local authority borrowing powers.

· Council tax should be charged on development that is not completed quickly. The Government’s reliance on private developers to meet its target of new homes is misguided. The private sector housebuilding market is oligopolistic with the eight largest builders building 50% of new homes. Their business model is to restrict the volume of housebuilding to maximise their profit margin. To address this the Committee recommend that local authorities are granted the power to levy council tax on developments that are not completed within a set time period.

· Maximise the use of public land. The Government must take decisive steps to build on the very substantial holdings of surplus publicly owned land. The Committee recommends that a senior Cabinet minister must be given overall responsibility for identifying and coordinating the release of public land for housing, with a particular focus on providing low cost homes. The National Infrastructure Commission should oversee this process.

· Local authorities should be given the power to increase planning fees. Local authorities should be able to set and vary planning fees to help fund a more efficient planning system and the upper cap on these charges should be much higher than the current limit.

Commenting Lord Hollick, Chairman of the Committee, said:

We are facing an acute housing crisis with home ownership – and increasingly renting – being simply unaffordable for a great many people.

”The only way to address this is to increase supply. The country needs to build 300,000 homes a year for the foreseeable future. The private sector alone cannot deliver that. It has neither the ability nor motivation to do so. We need local government and housing associations to get back into the business of building.

Local authorities are keen to meet this challenge but they do not have the funds or the ability to borrow to embark on a major programme to build new social homes. It makes no sense that a local authority is free to borrow to build a swimming pool but cannot do the same to build homes.

The Government are too focussed on home ownership which will never be achievable for a great many people and in some areas it will be out of reach even for those on average incomes. Government policy to tackle the crisis must be broadened out to help people who would benefit from good quality, secure rented homes. It is very concerning that changes to stamp duty for landlords and cuts to social rent could reduce the availability of homes for rent. The long term trend away from subsidising tenancies to subsidising home buyers hits the poorest hardest and should be reversed.

If the housing crisis is to be tackled the Government must allow local authorities to borrow to build and accelerate building on surplus public land.

Responding to the House of Lords Economic Committee’s report ‘Building More Homes’, Green Party Housing Spokesperson Samir Jeraj said:

Many of the committee’s recommendations -  on breaking the monopoly on developers, enabling council house building, and the misguided nature of the government’s focus on home ownership - reflect long-held Green Party positions.

However, they do not go far enough in some areas, particularly on Right to Buy. This damaging policy has rightly been scrapped in Scotland, and is on the way to being scrapped in Wales - it must be abandoned in England too.

To make council tax genuinely fair, it should be replaced by a Land Value tax, which would return to the community the value added to a property because of improvements that have been paid for by the public purse.
 

Tackling the housing crisis must be at the top of the new Prime Minister’s priorities, and taking on this report’s recommendations would be a positive first step.

By reducing our freedoms the Government is doing the extremists' job for them - Jenny Jones

This is the text of the speech Jenny Jones, the Green Party member of the House of Lords, gave on Tuesday:

My Lords, I wish to speak about two proposed Bills: the Investigatory Powers Bill and the extremism Bill. I am not sure whether noble Lords know that the States, which has had similar legislation to this in the past, is now rolling it back partly because of privacy concerns but also because it has been found not to be very effective.

I have a little experience of the police and can tell noble Lords that they cannot cope with the data they have at the moment, so giving them vast amounts more data is very counterintuitive and is likely to worsen their work rate. This legislation, if adopted in its current form, would have devastating effects on people’s right to privacy and on other human rights. It seems to me that the surveillance activities proposed in this legislation go way too far, far too fast. Vast powers to monitor communications, access personal information and tamper with computers, phones and software are provided for. These powers are vaguely described, disproportionate and lack critical safeguards, including proper independent judicial scrutiny. I hope this House will examine these proposals carefully, some of which are technical and difficult. I am not very technically minded but I aim to follow the proposals closely, as they could have a serious impact on the privacy of all of us.

Turning to the extremism Bill, as others have said, the definition of “extremism” will be very difficult to pin down. This has caused problems in the past. Noble Lords may or may not know—I have mentioned it before—that I am an accredited domestic extremist as far as the police are concerned. It seems to me that if they can judge me an extremist, they are experiencing some mission creep. The minute you give powers to people, they will abuse them. They may not mean to. Indeed, they may think that they are doing their job properly. However, the fact is that I and several other senior Green Party people have been described as domestic extremists. That is absolutely ludicrous. We are elected and obey the law. I very much hope that at some point I may get an apology from the police, but none has been given so far.

I have some specific questions about the Bill and the proposal. I do not expect an answer today but they may inform the debate later as I shall certainly raise them again. Will I and other people on the domestic extremism database be banned from talking to schools, for example, under the new counterterrorism and safeguarding Bill, because that is one of the proposals? Will the list of banned people be separate from the list of those monitored on the domestic extremism database? Will there be categories? Will the proposed definition of an extremist be legally binding, or will it merely provide the police with “guidance” and thus enable them to include whoever they like on whatever list they like? Again, I refer to my comments about mission creep. Will the Bill allow the Home Office to include categories of people on the list in the way that the police currently include elected Greens? Will the definition of extremism be restricted in any way to those advocating violence—as I feel it should—or to those convicted of a serious crime, or will it bear absolutely no relation to whether the person is innocent of any crime, or even under investigation for a specific crime? How will a person appeal against being on the list and challenge the Government’s view that they are an extremist? I have tried to get to the bottom of who originally labelled me a domestic extremist and who decided that it was worth monitoring me. It has been impossible to get that information out of the police. They decline to talk about specific cases, even when they involve the person asking for the information.

If the Government reduce our freedoms, they are doing the extremists’ job for them. They are doing the terrorists’ job of changing our culture and our society. That is extremely damaging.

From Panama to Kilburn - time for some questions to be asked

I was a little surprised when last year the Brent and Kilburn Times reported a House of Lords celebration of the achievements of Kilburn Grange Free School before it had opened.

This aroused my curiosity but it has been sharpened even further by a report on the  Panama off-shore funding controversy which appears to link  Kilburn Grange, funded by the DfE and with just 53 pupils, according to their website, with Mossock Fonseca.

Kilburn Grange Free School is part of a Multi Academy Trust, Bellevue Place Education Trust (BPET) and according to their website LINK:

Bellevue Place Education Trust (BPET) is a multi academy sponsor and we sponsor seven primary Free Schools across London and the South-East. Bellevue Place’s core purpose and responsibility is to establish, maintain and manage state funded Free Schools.

All Bellevue Place schools are focused to deliver high quality education provision in areas where there is a shortage of primary school places.

Bellevue Place is a new model for education delivery in the state sector. The Trust is a joint venture between two organisations who are passionate about providing high quality education provision. They bring together the very best of the fee-paying Independent sector – Bellevue Education Ltd – experienced in running 15 independent schools in the UK and Switzerland; with a highly-regarded education consultancy – Place Group – with experience in the state sector for efficiency of supply in setting up new schools and converting academies, along with driving value for money and compliance.

The BPET accounts are posted on the Rutherford School website LINK

The Bellevue Education Group Limited part of the Trust is of interest to the Sarawak Report LINK:

One of the clients of the off-shore incorporations firm Mossack Fonseca, exposed in the so-called Panama Papers this week, was PetroSaudi’s Tarek Obaid.

Using a web of off-shore vehicles, he and fellow director Patrick Mahony secretly invested some of the millions they obtained in illegal backhanders from Malaysia’s Development fund in a private education company that bought up some of the UK’s poshest private schools.

Documents acquired by Sarawak Report reveal that the two men are the secret funders behind the self proclaimed entrepreneur, Marwan Naja, who acts as Chairman of Bellevue Education, a fast growing business, which has acquired 12 lucrative schools since 2010.

The Bellevue Education Group, previously named The Really Great Education Company Limited, is officially run from Geneva, although its UK registered company address is the PetroSaudi headquarters in Curzon Street. In fact, the business is primarily owned by two vehicles named Plato One and Plato Two based in Hong Kong, which are in turn controlled by Mahony together with an off-shore company owned by Obaid called Maplehill Property Limited (BVI).

In the course of setting up the complex ownership structure in 2010 Marwan (who has just one share) reported he had:

 “taken specific tax advice from a firm of internationally recognised accountants which has confirmed to him in writing that no Tax will be payable.. as a result of any dividends, distributions or other returns..whether during the Investment or following an exit from the Investment”

The revelations will be an embarrassment to the high profile educationalist, Mark Malley, who set up the company, after what he claims was a highly successful stint as a headmaster, turning around failing schools.

He is the Chief Executive of Bellevue Education Group and owns shares in the fast expanding venture, which plainly seeks to cash in on a perceived burgeoning market for private early years schools in and around London.

  See LINK for Directors etc

Click to enlarge

It appears that the DfE is funding a free school  with taxpapers' money which has some slightly worrying connections.   We know according to some reports that eventually free schools and academies may be allowed to become profit making  but it would be worth the authorities checking where the money is going at present.

The staff, governors and parents of Kilburn Grange may have little idea of the ins and outs of the Trust and the school itself may do a wonderful job but perhaps they should be asking some searching questions about the Trust and its partners.

 

LORDS ECONOMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TO QUESTION SIR HOWARD DAVIES ON AIRPORT COMMISSION FINDINGS

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee will next week hold a one-off evidence session with Sir Howard Davies, Chairman of the Airports Commission, following the recent publication of the Commission’s report.

The session, which will be Sir Howard’s first appearance in front of a Parliamentary Committee since the publication of the report, will focus on the Commission’s economic modelling which used a bespoke model rather than the traditional method of undertaking aviation transport appraisals which consider the direct impact of a scheme on users, providers and government revenue.

Questions the Committee are expected to put to Sir Howard include:

• How confident was the Commission that there is sustained demand for additional runway capacity at Heathrow?
• Can the UK meet its climate change obligations at the same time as increasing aviation?
• Given that the Commission’s own calculations estimate that the return on investment for a new runway at Heathrow is 8x investment and Gatwick’s is 13x investment why did the Commission recommend Heathrow as the preferred option?
• Why was the Commission so confident that an expanded Gatwick could not serve as a hub airport?
• Given that many other hub airports have four runways why is the Commission asking the Government to block Heathrow at three?
• How will a ban on night flights work with the aspiration for more long haul flights particularly flights from Asia? Can the local community be confident the ban will be maintained?

The evidence session will start at 4:05pm on Wednesday 15 July in Committee Room 3 of the House of Lords.

The evidence session is open to the public. If you wish to attend you should go to Parliament’s Cromwell Green Entrance and allow time for security screening,

Greens condemn Lib Dem support for illiberal 'gagging bill'

Last night the Lobbying Bill passed the House of Lords.One of the votes was tied 245/245 but that procedurally means the government won.

What this means is that the Liberal Democrats have helped pass another illiberal bill (one that they no doubt hope will limit the impact of students who were greatly betrayed by them). Now are we going to see the government take the Royal British Legion, Oxfam or another NGO to Court if any organisation challenges this? Meanwhile the real danger to politics, the corporate lobbyists, will remain largely unaffected.

As Home Affairs spokesperson for the Green Party,  Peter Cranie issued this response:

The coalition has tried to legally gag those who would challenge their appalling record on poverty, the environment, tuition fees and civil liberties. The Green Party will voice those concerns and we urge former Liberal Democrat voters to help us kick out the legs from under the coalition at the European Elections, by voting Green and making completely clear this attempt to end freedom of political speech for charities and campaigning groups was a step too far.

Green Party accepts Jenny Jones' life peerage

I'm not happy about adding credibility to a rotten system but the Green Party made a democratic decision on this:

Today's announcement from the Green Party
 

The Green Party today accepted the nomination of London Assembly Member, Jenny Jones to the second chamber in the Palace of Westminster.  Ms Jones was chosen as the Green Party nomination by a ballot of all members of the Green Party of England and Wales. 

She has been a London Assembly Member for 13 years, which has included being Deputy Mayor of London, and prior to that was Chair of the National Green Party Executive.

Ms Jones said:

"It is an honour and a privilege to be chosen as the Green Party representative in the Second Chamber. My holding the Metropolitan Police to account for over a decade has shown me that issues around policing are a constant concern UK wide and there's a clear need for strong voices protecting civil liberties and the right to protest. I am looking forward to a new battlefield for green ideas and policies and I shall do my best to fulfill the trust and expectation that my party has shown in me."

The appointment of Ms Jones to the Second Chamber restores the Green Party back to its previous level of representation prior to 2008. Ms Jones will be using the post to support the many worthy changes to legislation put to the Second Chamber by Green MP Caroline Lucas.

Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader, said: "I'm delighted that the Green Party has provided the second chamber of the British parliament with its first elected representative*.

"We can only hope this can act as a spur towards wider reform of this house, for which reform has been promised for more than a century.

"Reform was included in the manifestos of the three largest political parties in Britain in 2010, and it isn't too late for action within the term of this parliament."

Natalie added: "Jenny will be an excellent addition to the second chamber, and one small step towards political balance there. Of course a full-elected chamber, on the basis of a proportional vote, would produce a body entirely reflecting the democratic wishes of the British people."

* Jenny was selected as the Green Party's top candidate for the House in an open ballot of all Green Party members.

House of Lords should be wholly elected, say Greens

The Green Party said today that it  believes that the House of Lords should be a wholly elected Second Chamber and as such the Appointments Commission should be abolished.  Stuart Jeffrey, Policy Coordinator on the Green Party Executive said, “Whilst we are content with the proposed size of 300 members, consideration should be given to a ten year term, with 50% of the House elected each time.  This would ensure a more proportional result.”

The Green Party would wish to see a fully proportional electoral system using an open list system with the Sainte-Laguë system used to allocate seats as is used in many countries around the globe.¹

Stuart Jeffrey continued,” An open list system ensures that the electorate can override the list order selected by the party, which places more power in the hands of the electorate.  Should smaller constituencies be used then we would wish them to be multi-member constituencies large enough to ensure that elections are proportional, for example current Euro region boundaries and that the Single Transferable Vote is used.”

The Green Party wishes to see an elected House introduced following the 2015 election.  300 members should be elected in 2015 with 100 serving for 15 years, 100 for 10 years and 100 for 5 years. 

The Green Party does not wish to see Bishops or hereditary peers as of right in a second chamber.  Britain is a multi-cultural society and should Bishops or any member of other leading religions wish to represent the electorate, they should seek election via the ballot box.

The Green Party does not the support the proposal that the Government should be able to appoint extra members to serve as ministers.  Stuart Jeffrey said, “This would override the result of the election by giving the governing party extra members who had not been voted in by the electorate.  This would be open to abuse and accusations of cronyism, precisely the sort of things that these reforms are supposed to end.”

The Green Party believes that those that are elected should be entitled to same financial entitlements as current sitting members in the House of Commons.

:

1. The Sainte-Laguë method is one way of allocating seats approximately proportional to the number of votes of a party to a party list used in many voting systems. It is named after the French mathematician Andre Sainte-Lague.  The Sainte-Laguë method is quite similar to the D’hondt, but uses different divisors. In most cases the largest remainder method delivers identical or almost identical results. The D'Hondt method gives similar results too, but favours larger parties compared to the Sainte-Laguë method.

M'Luds won't you help me on welfare reform

Written, sung and produced by Sue Marsh, diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.com