John Hemming's Web Log

In Hansard you can find this interchange. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the local housing allowance will be extended from the nine Pathfinder authorities to all local authorities. [R] [146690] Malcolm Wicks: There will be a comprehensive evaluation of local housing allowance Pathfinders including interviews with claimants, landlords, local authority staff and stakeholder organisations, as well as an analysis of administrative data. This is already underway. The findings of the evaluation will inform decisions on the national extension of the allowance. It is envisaged that local housing allowance will be extended to all local authorities in 2006. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons the local housing allowance applies only to the de-regulated private sector. [R] [146691] Malcolm Wicks: We hope to implement a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector, similar to that an...

The text is here .

Lord Ashcroft has obtained opinion polls about the bills tabled by the tories to show what would happen were there to be an overall conservative majority. He wrote about them here . Quoting from that: Mr Bone’s favourite among this assortment of “true blue bills” is the proposal to name the August Bank Holiday “Margaret Thatcher Day”. Unfortunately it is also the least popular. Only 13% of voters thought this was a good idea (and only 9% of those who were told the idea had been put forward by Conservative MPs); two thirds did not. Even Tory voters disagreed with the policy by a margin of 23 points. The idea of allowing employees to opt out of the minimum wage was also strikingly unpopular, with only 23% agreeing. The suggestion of abolishing the Department of Energy and Climate Change won over a full quarter of the electorate, while privatising the BBC amassed the support of 28%. Less than a third also approved of scrapping the office of Deputy Prime Minister and ending subsidies t...

This is an interesting permission to appeal case for grandparents. It uses the argument that because grandparents have successfully brought up some children then they should pass an assessment. This is an argument I have used in the Family Justice Bill. I am not sure where the case went in the end, but this was a useful step.

A secret campaign has been launched against the Lobbying Bill. They have created a website www.stopthegaggingbill.com . They are encouraging people to send out emails against the bill (in which the website itself is misspelt). However, they don't say who they are. A whois search gives no information as they have decided to hid their identities (see below). In a sense the issue is being sorted anyway as the concern of NGOs that they might have to register their spending is being dealt with. I asked the government for a commitment that the bill would be changed in committee and it will be. However, I think it is a bit naughty not to reveal who is behind the campaign. There should be at least one named person identified. I don't think the law needs to be changed, but a bit of transparency would be nice. WHOIS information for stopthegaggingbill.com:*** [Querying whois.verisign-grs.com] [Redirected to whois.123-reg.co.uk] [Querying whois.123-reg.co.uk] [whois.123-reg.co....

This post by Rico Sorda goes into some further details on how the power of the state is being used in Jersey to stop the truth being told. This should really worry people, but I don't think it will get much attention.

To me what is interesting about This report by the BBC about the withdrawal of allegations about Labour Party activities in Falkirk is that the current MP Eric Joyce said: "As happens in Sicily from time to time a number of people seem to have withdrawn their evidence and said they never had a complaint in the first place. It comes across as something much more murky than it started out as. This important nuance is, however, completely missing from the BBC's written article. The implication of Eric Joyce's comments is that it looks like pressure was put on a number of people to withdraw their evidence with the quid pro quo of the withdrawal of Karie Murphy.

This case was added to Bailii yesterday more than three months after the hearing. The hearing was a month after the new rules came in. It is clear that some of the judges are not very good at following the rules in a timely manner. With the Derby case we knew about it and had raised it at a more senior level. Historically there were around 60 actual committals per year. The rate we know about is much lower than this. The government, however, refuse to record what number of people are sent to prison. Hence there is no proper accountability on this as it remains possible for someone to be imprisoned in secret and it not to be known. This, to be fair, is something the government should deal with. Before 3rd May in 2013 there were Garry Johnson, Mike Clarke (in public) - on the run in spain) and a grandmother in I think Barnsley that I know about that were actually given committals. Since then the published judgments are: (to the best of my knowledge) Conrad v Bignell [2013] ...

I am worried about the continuing pedestrian accidents on the Coventry Road. I will be working with constituents to highlight this in a petition, but in the mean time I have written to both the head of transportation and the coroner. Here is one of the letters

[2013] EWHC 2671 (Admin) is an interesting case where the Administrative Court has refused extradition on Article 8 grounds. Basically they refused to extradite someone essentially because the UK courts would not have imprisoned him whilst the USA system was going to lock him up and that this would have harmed people dependent upon him. I don't know if this has happened before (the refusal of extradition).

I am pleased that Obama has delayed the military action scheduled for around now. The delay has the major advantage of giving sufficient time for the UN inspectors to report and for international bodies to debate the issue. The Russian public position is still that the evidence is not there. I personally believe that the evidence is there, but that we need to be working to make the international bodies more effective. The fact that Obama is giving the reason of consulting Congress and that this results in a delay beyond 9th September is conveniently timed to enable the UN bodies to also report. It remains that I am not convinced that military action is the right action, but anything that gives the time for bodies such as the UN to get involved is positive.

In essence Ed Milliband's position on Syria was essentially the same as the government's. Hence he needed to lose to avoid people noticing that his position is tactical rather than based upon principle. There are a number of principled positions. However, his position was pure oppositionism. He now faces the real difficulty that although his amendment failed he also voted against the substantive and defeated that. How can he justify that?

It is worth looking at Labour's Amendment expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met that : (a) the UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, are given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that che...

It is, of course, an unusual situation to have both the opposition amendment fall and the government motion fall. I was concerned about the issue as to whether UK bases would be used by anyone attacking Syria without a motion in parliament. I, therefore, obtained an assurance from the government before voting for the motion. I voted for the motion on the following grounds: a) We were assured that there would be no UK involvement in any military activity in Syria without a further vote. I had this clarified to include UK bases not being used by other countries without parliament's consent. b) I do think we need a humanitarian response. We should not exclude any military action if this is required by the International Criminal Court or the Security Council. However, we should use the international bodies. c) In the absence of a motion there is nothing to bind the government. Happily David Cameron is not Tony Blair and he will not be using the Royal Prerogative without a mo...

This case is an interesting one that I know well. I know it well because I drafted some of the paperwork for the successful appeal earlier this year. A number of adoptive parents have contacted me about their concerns with the way the system works. I believe it is right that they should be allowed to warn people of how badly the system can go wrong. However, the judiciary have been resisting this. This is an example.

This story in The Times confirms that local authorities have a tendency to be complacent about the care of children in local authority care. This was also clear in A and S v Lancs CC [2012] EWHC 1689 (Fam) . The underlying problem is that it is not possible to challenge the way in which a local authority is caring for a child from outside the local authority. The Independent Reviewing Officer is an employee of the local authority and hence not independent . I proposed in my private members bill a system where the LA would be open to challenge. Unsurprisingly the Association of Childrens Services Directors opposed this. The government opposed the bill. The government believes in trusting local authorities implicitly in caring for children that they are responsible for. I do not.

The issue of David Miranda has obtained quite a bit of public attention. That of Leah McGrath Goodman is perhaps more important, but has not managed to get anything like the same attention. In both of these cases the questions are ones about whether agents of the state are abusing their position. In the Miranda case because "Reasonable Suspicion" is not needed then the actions were probably within the law. I don't think the same applies to the other case, but we still don't have the CCTV from that although it happened in 2011. There are many agents of the state that have compulsive powers under the law or can apply for them, the police, border agency staff, the security services, social workers, housing officers etc. In many cases the underlying intentions may in fact be beneficial to society. Preventing terrorist attacks has to be a top priority for the government. However, the wrongful use of such powers can not only be based on erroneous information or even...

This case is an interesting one on Bailii from Scotland. Basically the Local Authority COmmittee refused permission, but the letter written to the applicant said that permission had been granted. It is a long judgment that is worth reading and is relevant to English Law to some extent not least as to legal principles. The LA issued a notice in error saying permission had been granted. Then years later after building works had happened they issued a backdated notice purporting to supersede the original notice refusing permission. The court concluded that the second notice was invalid. I have for some time been interested the basis upon which estoppel can be used to stop misbehaviour by public officials. Often people are promised outcomes for a particular action, but then the LA does a reverse ferret. Still, an interesting judgment to read.

The government have allocated Sandwell 740K and as at end July they have spent 133K and allocated 93K. That is a third of the year. If you go by the spending they would spend 399K and spending plus allocation (which is toppy) it would be 678K. There is the uncertainty about the benefit cap, but otherwise Sandwell don't look like they are going to spend beyond the government allocation.

This is a judgment in accordance with the Practice Direction of 3rd May. The case was on 19th June and the initial view of the court was that they did not need to produce a judgment. I raised a concern with the office of the President, he produced the more recent circular and we pointed that at Derby County Court who produced a judgment. However, there would going by past history have been at least 10-15 contempt imprisonments between May and the end of July if not a lot more. However, there have been only two judgments produced, both at the instigation of Justice for Families activists. Where are all the other contempt cases? The government should track this, but have not been bothered to do so.