G20 and COP 29 Summits

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his recollections. Many people have similar, personal recollections of John. One of his great strengths was his ability to negotiate. Many felt that he would play up to his gruff exterior at times, but anyone who had watched him in a room of people disagreeing find some way to get some kind of agreement would have understood the brilliance of the man in that regard. That plays into COPs, in that people go in with their own objectives and do not always get what they want, but the worst thing they can do is walk out of the room, leave and make no progress. The lesson I take from John’s life is never to give up.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Ukraine war was a recurring theme at the G20, and it looks very much as though this appalling war of attrition will continue for the foreseeable future. Obviously, funding is a key matter, and I noted the point from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister elaborate on that and give the House some explanation of whether there will be a breakthrough there?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My apologies: I did not address that point in the time I had. Yes, there are ongoing discussions with others to make further progress on that.

Middle East

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, used to say repeatedly that sanctions are effective only if they are actioned in conjunction with our allies. The United States has imposed sanctions on those people—I hesitate to use the term “settlers”—in the West Bank who are determined to undermine and commit violent acts against Palestinian villages, and we have done the same. I agree that we need to work in concert with our allies. These sanctions under the global human rights regime are aimed at individuals, to show that their behaviour is totally unacceptable and that they would not be able to travel or do certain other things globally. We do look at their effectiveness, working with our allies, but they are not designed in quite the same way as sanctions against a state; they are against individuals.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister find time today to look at the Red Sea crisis? He will be aware that, this month, after a lull, a couple more vessels have been attacked by the Houthis: the tanker “Olympic Spirit” and the container ship “Megalopolis”. So far, 80 ships have been attacked. This has caused huge disruption to international trade, and many shipping companies have now diverted vessels from the Suez Canal, at great expense. Can the Minister say something about the role of the Royal Navy and what has been done to speed up the time it takes to service and refit destroyers and frigates?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is the sort of question that I would expect from my noble friend Lord West. The noble Lord raises an important point about the Red Sea. I have initiated government debates in this House on important subjects, because it is important that we hear views from across the House. That is why I initiated a debate on Sudan, which has a huge impact regionally. This afternoon, we have a debate on the Horn of Africa and exactly the issues that the noble Lord raises. I hope that he will have an opportunity to stay and participate in that debate. We need to hear views about how we can respond. The important thing in the whole region is to ensure stability, stop escalation and ensure that the free routes through are maintained. This is not just about the impact on the United Kingdom; it impacts on global trade. It is an essential route.

Sudan

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to his new post and congratulate him on the effort that he has so far put into the Sudan agenda. He has gone to New York and has recently attended the APPG on Sudan and South Sudan—he has commitment. It is a pleasure, incidentally, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne; to see an emphasis on the whole defence aspect of this, from him and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was very valuable.

I was fortunate enough to be appointed Minister for Africa exactly 14 years ago. The second country I visited was Sudan. I remember going there with a sense of considerable optimism. Khartoum is a city that always leaves an extraordinary impression. It is not a beautiful city, but it is a compelling one. I think that anyone who has seen dawn break on the banks of the Nile, to the background of prayers blowing from hundreds of mosques, will agree that it is an unforgettable experience. It is a great city, and it is a tragedy to see that half of it has now been reduced to rubble.

I want to take your Lordships back to why that 2010 optimism was created. It was mainly through relentless international pressure and work on Sudan. First, there was the comprehensive peace agreement, which led to the creation of South Sudan. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, I had the privilege of going to the celebrations in South Sudan and visited Juba on a number of occasions, and I saw a young country emerging from years of disaster and civil war with great hope. Unfortunately, that hope has also now been diminished, partly because of the strife between the different tribes, the Nuer and the Dinka, and the inability of Salva Kiir and Riek Machar to work together. However, one reason why there was optimism and hope at that juncture was because of the intervention by the UN and the UNMIS force, which is still in place but which at that time had 14,000 personnel.

I also underline the really good work done by UNAMID, the joint AU-UN mission to Darfur. When it was first launched, it had 26,000 personnel and enabled the World Food Programme to launch what was at the time the largest-ever aid operation. In fact, at that time Sudan was host to, I think, one-third of the world’s peacekeepers. Incidentally, between 2004 and 2014, there were 25 UN Security Council resolutions on Sudan. It really was the centre of a lot of world attention and influence. We were indeed making progress and, in spite of al-Bashir’s ruthless military rule, we started to build good relations with the Sudanese Government, so much so that I remember working with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on trade delegations from the UK and the EU to both Sudans at that point.

However, since the outbreak of this truly ghastly civil war, all that optimism has been replaced by a degree of despair. That has been made worse because, as so many noble Lords have mentioned today, this is indeed the forgotten war. With so much attention on Ukraine and Gaza, and on what is happening in the Far East with China, Sudan has been neglected. One of the differences is that, 20 years ago, Sudan was not neglected.

The scale of the crisis is truly mind-blowing. I will not repeat the facts that a number of people have mentioned already, apart from one: half the population is facing food insecurity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, pointed out, we had the first declaration of famine globally for more than eight years. A very large number of people are dying. I just underline one point: unlike 20 years ago, this conflict-driven hunger stalks the entire country.

People have talked about displacement and the refugee crisis. I do not really want to add anything to that apart from to underline the point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that it is our problem as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out just a moment ago, 60% of the refugees assembling in the villages and areas around Calais indeed come from Sudan. It is our problem, and it is one that we have every obligation to address, and urgently.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, also mentioned young people, and how young children and women are particularly at risk. Is it not appalling that in 2024 there are hundreds of people dying every day and thousands every week from diseases such as cholera, dengue fever and malaria? All are completely avoidable with the right vaccines and immunisation. Although UNICEF is doing its best, more still must be done. When the Minister goes to New York at the end of this month, will he emphasise that point to UNICEF? The work it is doing is incredible but it is not enough.

We should look at some of the predictions of the scale of tragedy that could be before us if action is not taken. A very depressing report was done recently by the Dutch Clingendael Institute that put the figure of potential deaths in Sudan at 10 million over the next two years. We need action on multiple fronts and, in spite of all the other distractions, we absolutely need relentless pressure and consistent energy to try to find a way forward.

I just want to make a number of suggestions, many of which have been made already, but I will add a little to some of them. Obviously, we need full, consistent, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access—that goes without saying. The Tine crossing into North Darfur from Chad has been open for a while and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, pointed out, the Adre border crossing has now been opened, but only for a limited period. Why cannot that crossing be kept open on a permanent basis?

Neither side should impede aid, and there is overwhelming evidence that both al-Burhan and Hemedti have used starvation as a weapon of war. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, this is a war crime, and it should be investigated and those responsible held to account.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have pointed out, we have seen rape used as a weapon of war and genocide taking place. There is overwhelming evidence that the RSF and its militia allies have committed genocidal slaughter of a Massalit tribe. This is ethnic cleansing in 2024, and it needs an urgent investigation. I ask the Minister whether our own war crimes unit can be given further powers of access and resources.

I will make one point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, touched on. Without a UN presence on the ground in Darfur, I do not see how humanitarian access will be guaranteed or a way forward will be found. It is a tragedy that UNAMID, having done so much over so many years, was wound down. I ask the Minister, when he goes to New York, to put re-empanelling UNAMID back on the agenda, as the noble Baroness suggested. It will require a massive leap of faith and substantial resources, but it is an absolute key priority to get that UN force back on the ground in Darfur.

We need to see the sanctioning of key individuals. I have never been a huge supporter of general sanctions but, as noble Lords who have experience of Zimbabwe know, targeted sanctions can have an impact. There are people out there who need to be turned into world pariahs by having targeted sanctions directed at them, so I ask the Minister also to look at that seriously.

Of course, we need more funding. I praise the incoming Government for making a real effort on this front, but more needs to be done. If one looks at the figures one sees that the UN Sudan appeal is only 41% funded.

My final point is that this tragedy is cascading into the regions around. It is going to cause untold issues around the Red Sea, in the Suez Canal and across the Sahel. The one area where we can add value is through our unique relationship with the UAE. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will use that special relationship to make representations to the UAE to ensure that it stops this meddling and stops this proxy war? The Sudanese people deserve better, and we must make sure that they have a brighter future.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I do not know all the details of what was discussed in the meeting, but yesterday I spoke to the Home Secretary, who told me that the meeting on migration lasted twice as long as was anticipated, such was the range of issues discussed and the willingness of countries to co-operate on that. This issue is quite complex and multifaceted in some ways. One of the reasons we want to ensure the £58 million for Africa and the Middle East that I spoke about is to tackle some of the root causes of why people flee their countries and seek asylum. We should address those issues—conflict, poverty or the effects of climate change—as they will have an impact on why people want to leave. I hope that some of them will be addressed. As I said, I do not have a full readout of the meeting, but it was very long and I am told that it was also very productive.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Leader of the House mentioned the restoration of funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency. Obviously, she and the Government will be aware of the level of infiltration by Hamas of that organisation. A number of its staff took part in the appalling evil of 7 October. A number of its schools have funded the storage of weapons. Furthermore, Hamas has been using tunnels under its headquarters for terrorism purposes. Can she assure the House that this organisation really has turned a new leaf and sorted out these problems, and has been properly investigated? Can we really be 100% sure that UK taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund terror and spread hatred?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I reiterate, and will do so, I am sure, on many occasions, that we utterly condemn Hamas—not just for the attacks on 7 October but for its terrorism and the way in which it behaves. That is an unequivocal attack on Hamas. On the allegations that were raised, there was an independent report from the UN, and we are reassured after that report that UNRWA is ensuring that it meets the highest standards of neutrality and strengthens its procedures, including on vetting, so that there is no contact. That does not for one moment take away from the seriousness of the allegations made. I will also say to the noble Lord that the experience that UNRWA has, its logistical capacity, knowledge and infrastructure are the best way of getting aid to where it is desperately needed— I know that he feels the same about the aid issue. Other countries have felt the same, and the EU and Japan have reinstated funding. I am in no way condoning anything that Hamas does—the noble Lord can be reassured on that—but we need to get aid in and have had assurances via the UN and that report.

Military Interventions Overseas

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I strongly agree with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord. I certainly agree with the first part—wherever possible, Parliament should be notified, involved and informed, and every Government of whatever colour should remember that they are stronger when they have the people’s Parliament behind them—but the second part of his intervention is paramount.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, during yesterday’s Statement, two noble and gallant Lords mentioned the situation regarding our aircraft carriers and security at RAF bases. Successive Secretaries of State for Defence have mentioned that the aircraft carriers are very much the Royal Navy’s spearhead, especially suitable for air strikes against terrorist targets. I do not expect my noble friend to tell the MoD what to do, but could he comment further and assure the House that the use of those carriers has not been ruled out?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as I said yesterday, I will never speculate about operational decisions and the House would not expect me to. However, I will say that there have been a number of erroneous reports in relation to the aircraft carriers, but the Government are deploying the resources that they think appropriate for the circumstances.

Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I support the Minister and what the Government are doing 100% because this action had to be taken. However, to reinforce the point, it is vital that every effort is made to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, because unfortunately the Houthi movement appears to be gaining credibility and support in the Arab world as a result of what has happened. The action must continue but can the Minister reassure me on that point?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in these strikes we have been very careful to take those matters into consideration. That the strikes took place at night also minimised the risk of civilian activity in these areas.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly support my noble friend. I signed this amendment originally and spoke to it briefly in Committee, and, as my noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out, it has been recast. I just put on record that I am a very strong supporter of regenerating high streets and trying to bring activity and wealth-creation into them. At the same time, from my constituency experience in North West Norfolk and representing the town on King’s Lynn, I am aware of examples where estate agents or shops that had the support of the community were converted into food outlets that led to a great deal of disturbance to local residents. We are not trying to hamper or hold back regeneration and the resurgence of activity in high streets, but to protect residents in a way that is doable and fit for purpose. I think this proposed new clause would do exactly that, so I very much support my noble friend.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said in advocating for Amendment 228. In doing so, I must join her by saying that I too must celebrate my return to the highly populated zone of LGA vice-presidents. There seems to have been a surge, and I have been carried forward in it.

The key point here is that we have to have a system where, when plans are submitted and developed, there is parallel investment in the infrastructure necessary to support the development that is proposed. The permitted development regime has provided a bypass to that process. With the arrival of the infrastructure levy, the risks of development being stranded without the supporting infrastructure have clearly risen a great deal.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 311 requires the British Standards Institution, the BSI, to publish electronically the text of at least some British standards without charge to readers. Secondary legislation and LPA’s planning policies frequently require compliance with British standards or employ definitions which refer to British standards. Examples include the building regulations, my local borough’s— the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s—definition of a basement and the Code of Construction Practice which, for example, requires compliance with

“BS 5228: Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites”.

However, it costs £330 to obtain a hard copy of a BSI document or to download it in PDF format. The cost is reduced to £165 for BSI members, which we imagine includes the council.

A local residents’ association of the RBKC asked the council to reproduce in or attach as an appendix to the code all, or just the relevant parts, of BS 5228 so that neighbours and residents’ associations can see what is required. The council replied that it cannot do so as copyright vests with the BSI.

I believe that all citizens have the right to see the relevant British Standards without disproportionate charge, and that the BSI should be instructed to publish these standards on the internet. The Minister in another place responded in a letter to Richard Drax MP on 31 August 2022, saying:

“The BSI are an independent organisation and we therefore cannot compel them to publish some, or indeed any, of their standards without charge”.


I believe there must be numerous independent organisations referred to in statute whose publications are routinely made available free of charge on the internet. For example, air source heat pumps are legally required to comply with MCS planning standards or equivalent standards. The relevant microgeneration installation standard—MCS 020—is the property of the MCS Charitable Foundation and is published on the internet, available for anyone to read without charge. Why cannot the BSI do the same?

If the issue is one of cost, one solution would be for the Government to negotiate with the BSI and pay it to publish. If this is not acceptable to either party, the Government should take powers to compel publication. As a matter of principle, our citizens should not have to pay to read the text of those obligations with which they are legally obliged to comply. I beg to move.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support my noble friend Lord Northbrook. It is a very simple and straightforward amendment, but it raises some important principles. As my noble friend pointed out, the BSI is a well-resourced organisation—a commercial, not-for-profit body established under royal charter. I had a look at its website, although I did not look at its accounts. It would be wrong to say that it is awash with money, but it has plenty of money to carry out the excellent work it does on behalf of many different parts of industry in our society. There is no reason whatever why it cannot publish these matters, and it would make a huge difference to residents to be able to know exactly what is going on.

Maybe the Minister can look at one particular point —my noble friend did not mention this, though he mentioned a number of other bodies that are mentioned in statute and different legislation that do make reports and other information available free of charge. I gather that in Ulster such documents are online completely free of charge, and that is a precedent that our Government could follow.

I hope that if the Minister cannot promise to accept the amendment, she will at least undertake to talk to the British Standards Institution about this, because it is a problem that could be solved very easily.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 311 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook would require the Government to make all standards that relate to all planning Acts, or local authority planning policy, online and free of charge.

Our national standards body, the British Standards Institution or BSI, publishes around 3,000 standards annually, and these standards are the product of more than 1,000 expert committees. The BSI is independent of government and governed by the rights and duties included in its royal charter. This includes the obligation to set up, sell and distribute standards of quality for goods, services and management systems. About 20% of the standards produced are to support the regulatory framework. This will include a minority of standards made to support planning legislation and local authority planning policy.

To ensure the integrity of the system and support the effective running of the standards-making process, the funding model relies on the BSI charging customers for access to its standards. As a non-profit-distributing body, the BSI reinvests its income from sales in the standards development programme. In some circumstances, the Government will fund BSI standards to make them available. For example, last year the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy made available 100,000 copies of one of the energy management systems standards to UK SMEs.

I hope that this provides sufficient reasoning for my noble friend Lord Northbrook to withdraw his amendment. I am very happy to discuss this further with noble Lords and the BSI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is another indication of why we believe it would have been better to bring forward a dedicated planning Bill rather than trying to amend some of the interconnecting pieces of legislation that have overcomplicated the planning scene in the last decade and have certainly had some undesirable effects because unintended consequences have not properly been taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, has eloquently described some of the impacts of widening the use classes so that local people and local authorities no longer have much control over what takes place in their own high streets. We get a proliferation of betting shops and things that people do not really want to see so much of in their high street.

I will give just two examples of permitted development. In Hertfordshire, over 750,000 square feet of economic and commercial space has been lost to permitted development. These developments are delivered with none of the community engagement and consultation that go on with standard planning applications, and they then often result in the infrastructure needs of the development being ignored. This has had the longer-term impact of alienating communities from development altogether, as they see housing developed in unsuitable locations and with no consideration of the proximity of any local facilities. One of the worst examples of this is in Harlow new town. Harlow, like Stevenage, has a commercial and industrial zone deliberately segregated from its residential areas. This was part of the master-planning for first-generation new towns. A permitted development saw a housing development conversion in the middle of this commercial/industrial area, leaving its residents feeling isolated from community facilities and other neighbourhoods.

The other example has been in relation to the creation of houses of multiple occupation from family homes in residential streets, putting unreasonable extra pressure on local resources and creating often far more transient populations, which has disrupted previously settled neighbourhoods.

There seems to be something very perverse in pursuing this permitted development regime at the same time as withdrawing the requirement to set housing targets. The former allows often substandard housing to be developed without the benefit of infrastructure funding, funding for social and affordable housing, or adequate consideration of the needs of the local area. It can put unnecessary pressure on public services in that area and create further pressures on housing as local people are priced out of reasonable developments or forced into poor conversions that are totally unsuitable for family living.

My Amendment 312F calls for a review of this permitted development regime to properly gather data on what it has delivered in terms of: achieving housing targets; importantly, the quality of housing delivered; the impact on heritage and conservation areas; the overall carbon impact since permitted development expanded to demolition; the relative costs to local authorities of dealing with processing permitted development compared with full planning consents; and how it is intended that permitted development sits within the role of the national development management policies.

We are also interested to learn from the review how the Government assess that a permitted development has contributed to levelling up. The feeling of the local government community is that permitted development has done the exact opposite of levelling up and driven a coach and horses through the rigour of the planning regime. That is why the Local Government Association’s comment on this issue was that

“if the Government is serious about strengthening the role of Local Plans, they should also urgently revoke permitted development rights”.

Amendment 312J refers to the totally inconsistent way in which Article 4 directions have been applied across the country. Such directions restrict the scope of permitted development in relation either to a particular area or site or to a particular type of development anywhere in an authority’s area. They can be used to control works that could threaten the character of an area of acknowledged importance, such as a conservation area. Article 4 directions are not needed for listed buildings, which are protected under different legislation, but noble Lords will remember the Harlow example that I gave earlier. Stevenage, which also has a segregated area for commercial and industrial uses, successfully argued that an Article 4 direction should apply to that area so that we were not faced with permitted development housing there, isolated from all our community facilities.

However, the Government have threatened to remove the provision of Article 4 directions altogether and have applied them inconsistently in different locations. Our Amendment 312J asks that a statement be laid before both Houses, setting out how the Government intend to achieve consistency in the application of Article 4 directions.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Northbrook and to reflect on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, from the Opposition Front Bench.

First, I want to say something about the high street because, during my time as a constituency MP in the other place, I campaigned tirelessly to put more life into the high streets of two local towns in my former constituency. One of the things that we looked at was trying to make sure that the flats and areas above shops were converted into units, modernised and taken on by the local housing association to make use of those potential dwellings. The local housing association had great success in doing this. It moved people into the high street so that, at all times of the day, there are people around and it is much more vibrant than it was in the past, when it went completely dead at about 5 pm.

Trying to put more life into the high street is incredibly important; supporting the enterprise and wealth creation agendas is equally important. That is why the Government made these changes to permitted development, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook outlined. I can see why they were keen to have more flexibility between the different classes—offices, cafés, restaurants and other businesses—so that, without having to go to the local planning authority to get planning permission, you could just use permitted development to change an office or a charity shop, for example, into a café, a restaurant or whatever.

However, as my noble friend pointed out, the problem is that that works perfectly well in a high street context—I do not think anyone would object to that—but it is different when you have a corner shop, an estate agent or a charity shop in a residential area. This occurs quite regularly; I can think of examples of it in East Anglia. When a small estate agency, for example, in a mainstream residential area closes down, it could easily become a café under these permitted developments. I do not think that anyone would object to a café but, if it was a restaurant such as a McDonald’s, you could have a great deal of extra traffic and disturbance. The whole ambience of that residential area could fundamentally change very quickly.

What the Government have done here has the right intentions but we are looking at unintended consequences for some residents in some parts of the country. This is why I think it was not good enough when the Minister in the other place said that everything was okay because if it was a restaurant selling alcohol, or a pub, the licensing laws would kick in in those specific areas that my noble friend outlined. If it is something like a McDonald’s or a Costa—not that I have anything against McDonald’s or Costa; in the right place, they are excellent retail outlets that bring a great deal of pleasure to different communities—we have to be on the side of the residents.

As the noble Baroness pointed out, making sure that we have the trust and engagement of local communities is incredibly important. We are all for—certainly this side of the House is passionate about—enterprise and the wealth creation agenda. At the same time, if we lose the support of communities and, through unintended consequences, make their lives miserable, it would be a step backwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply. I should like to say straightaway that I applaud the useful overall relaxation in permitted development rights. I take her point and that of my noble friend Lord Bellingham that there could be problems in high streets with my proposed permitted development BB1. I still believe that in residential areas it is important to propose change. I am noting some support from the Benches opposite. I should like maybe to recraft the amendment so that perhaps residents’ associations could have a say in residential areas.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment—once he has done so, I would be unable to speak again—I was disappointed when the Minister said that the amendment was flawed, whereas Amendments 312F and 312J were fit for purpose but not flawed. Just because she does not agree with it does not mean that it is flawed. The amendment was well drafted and perfectly sustainable.

There is a possible compromise to be had here because we do not, as my noble friend pointed out, want to do anything to curb enterprise investment and wealth creation in the high street, but we want to try and protect those residents in a small number of residential areas where there might be this particular problem. Perhaps some adjustment could be made so that, if there is a potential permitted change of use and permitted development in a residential area that could lead to all sorts of disturbance and people’s quiet livelihoods being put at risk, maybe there could be an argument for local residents going to the council and asking for the proposal to go through the planning system. Perhaps my noble friend and I can come back to this on Report and have a meeting with the Minister in the meantime so we can go through it in more detail.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Bellingham. It may be that we can craft a new amendment whereby, if there is a recognised residents’ association, some consultation process should be able to take place on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

This is an important and excellent group of amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 504 in this group, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Nothing is more exasperating and debilitating for residents than to suffer prolonged disturbance, noise, vibration, lorry movements, dust, aerial pollution, and traffic jams et cetera from developments in their neighbourhood. As I know from my time as a constituency MP, life can be made an absolute misery for residents.

Some local authorities set extremely high standards, and impose planning condition requirements on developers to mitigate all those nuisances that I mentioned. For example, most of the councils in Norfolk and East Anglia will have in place the practice of imposing these high standards and making sure that the planning conditions are imposed.

It came as a surprise to me when I researched this that some councils do not adopt the same practice, and that includes, for example, many London councils, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea being one. Councils that do not adopt this practice rely on what I would describe as a hopeless and outdated system whereby developers are encouraged to submit applications for prior consent under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which was enacted a long time ago. Failing this, councils can issue a Section 61 notice, and consents then create legal obligations on developers, and councils can take action. However, they can do so only if they have been notified, and often the system is completely useless if consents and notices are not published on their websites. How, therefore, do local residents find out? The answer is that, unless a local board member tells them or unless they hear from other sources, most residents very often do not find out what is going on, so they cannot take action.

My and my noble friend Lord Northbrook’s solution is very simple: under our amendment, local planning authorities “must”—at the moment under the legislation, they “can”—publish such consents and notices on their websites and not then remove them. Back in the days of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the internet did not exist and councils did not have websites. My noble friend and I are simply updating the law to make life a lot easier for residents who suffer this appalling nuisance. I really do not see why the Government could have any objection to this amendment. It would be an improvement for many local residents and residents’ associations up and down the country and make their lives a great deal easier, at no cost whatever to the local planning authorities. I commend it to the Committee.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. He says that he cannot see any reason why the Government should not agree to his amendment. I say the same thing in every speech and it has never worked yet, but let us see if we can get a change today. I hope that proves his case.

I rise to speak to Amendment 309, but first I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on including biodiversity in his work. I very much hope that, on Report, he will support the local nature recovery strategy amendment of my noble friend Lady Parminter; indeed, I am sure he will. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, regarding adaptation. As the Environment and Climate Change Committee—I still want to call it a sub-committee, but it is no longer that—has said so often, we are way behind on adaptation. As the National Infrastructure Commission has said in respect of flooding, we need to invest in adaptation and take it into consideration in the planning procedures.

I turn to the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. London is an issue in terms of fires, as we saw so graphically on the television, but I still come back to the peatlands that he mentioned. While we in the south-west try to revive our peatlands, we still have those fires every summer, as I am sure is true in Scotland as well. They degrade our carbon stock in this country.

This group of amendments—given that I speak particularly on climate change, I would say this, wouldn’t I?—is one of the most important. Why? Because, as the Committee knows, climate change is one of the fundamental challenges that not just this country but the whole planet faces, along with the threat to biodiversity. That is why, when the IPCC report on updating climate change came out at the beginning of this year, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said that we need to do everything everywhere, all the time, right now. Clearly, the planning regime has to be a core part of that, which is why all the amendments in this group are particularly important.

I understand entirely that, as the Minister I am sure will say, we have had a planning duty in legislation since 2008 and that this Bill rolls it forward. It does not ignore it or try to take it away; it is still there. Since 2012, climate change and net zero have effectively been in the National Planning Policy Framework as well. However, the point is that they have had hardly any effect, and this is why these amendments are so important. That is the problem.

I looked up how many local authorities now have climate emergency resolutions. Not all these local authorities will be planning authorities, so I do not have an exact number, but 75% of local authorities now have climate emergency resolutions within their council—that is 308 of them. Some of those may be greenwashing, I do not know, but I know that certainly in the south-west they are for real. There are councillors of every stripe and party, and independents, and ratepayers who want to move ahead on this agenda but find it very difficult.

We have had the example in West Oxfordshire, in Lancaster City Council, where the Planning Inspectorate has pushed back against local authorities trying to take control and move forward on some of these policies. Because of the cost of going through planning inspectors and appeals, the effect is that local authorities, cash-strapped as they always are, tend to be very cautious about the policies that they then try to implement. That is why I think there is a golden opportunity in this Bill to up the ability to deliver at a local level—not just at the top level of UK Government and beyond but at the grass roots of our communities—and to move ahead and implement real policies that produce a major contribution towards net zero.

As members will be well aware, a number of recent reports have looked at this. We had the excellent Mission Zero report, and I congratulate the Government on getting Chris Skidmore to produce this report. He said:

“The planning system should be an essential tool in delivering the changes needed for net zero”.


He went on to say that

“the planning system is undermining net zero and the economic opportunities that come with it”

and that there should be

“a test for all developments to be net zero compliant”.

I will come back to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about decision-making as opposed to policy.

The Climate Change Committee in its 2022 report to Parliament—including, obviously, this House—said that the Government should:

“Make clear the importance of ensuring that all developments consider how best to minimise lifetime emissions and adapt to climate change as part of the planning process”.


This is absolutely in line with government policy on net zero and the various other routes to decarbonisation that the Government are committed to.

Amendment 209, put forward from these Benches, builds on the duty in legislation at the moment. It stresses both mitigation and adaptation, as the noble Baroness made clear. It makes the climate and net-zero obligations real and certain, so that local authorities and planning authorities can, with confidence, move forward on their decisions in this area.

I do not believe the amendment would get in the way of development. In fact, planning and taking into account net zero, as the Chris Skidmore report said, actually helps development. It helps economic growth and is something we should aspire to; it does not get in the way. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right that this amendment affects not just policy-making but planning decisions. That makes it a hard amendment, but that is what this is about. We are talking about a real crisis; we need action and we need to make sure it takes place. I believe this amendment would not get in the way of development.

I particularly thank the Better Planning Coalition and the We Are Here campaign for working with me to put this amendment together. This planning Bill can be a cornerstone of this Government’s and this Parliament’s policy and route map towards net zero, which is why this amendment, and all these groups, are important. I hope that the House can come together on Report to find a way forward, with the Government’s consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

That is my understanding; if that is wrong, I will certainly put it right on the record.

I turn to Amendment 504 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Bellingham. It aims to amend the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to create a legal duty for local authorities to publish—promptly, permanently and in all events on their planning websites—the consents and notices around any works to which Section 60 of the Act applies. I share the view of how important it is to ensure that construction noise is managed effectively. However, I question whether a duty to publish consents and notices on a website and in all events will be the appropriate action in all circumstances.

Current noise management legislation allows local authorities the discretion to publish notices and consents as they see fit within a local context. Legislating for information to be published in a specific way would remove their ability to make decisions at local level, for little additional benefit. The Government have provided a range of legislation giving local authorities powers to manage construction noise, including specific measures in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 along with statutory nuisance and planning regimes. I point to British Standard 5228, setting standards for noise and vibration from construction work, which local authorities must take into account in managing the impacts of construction noise. Therefore, the Government believe the proposed amendment is unnecessary and cannot support it.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, I am very grateful for her full explanation on this amendment, but can she give some comfort and satisfaction to these residents about problems in future, as on many past occasions they have not been informed about these nuisances, and state clearly that future concerns will all be taken care of?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Since this is a Defra lead, I will commit to write to my noble friend and share the answer with the rest of the Committee.

Amendment 504D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, addresses the need for transparency when decisions are being made against the advice of the Environment Agency, which provides important expert advice on matters relating to flood risk. I reassure noble Lords that its advice is taken very seriously. In July 2021, Defra published the findings of a review of planning applications in which the Environment Agency commented on flood risk. It showed that, from 2019 to 2020, 95.4% of these planning decisions were made in accordance with the Environment Agency advice.

Where there is a difference of view, existing powers in the Town and Country Planning Act enable the Secretary of State to issue directions to local planning authorities restricting the grant of planning permission or to consult with such authorities as may be prescribed before a decision is made. Our consultation direction requires that local planning authorities consult the Secretary of State where they intend to grant planning permission for major development in a flood risk area to which the Environment Agency has made an objection that it has not been able to withdraw, even after discussions with the local planning authority.

Local planning authorities are also required to publish all their planning applications and decisions on their planning register. This includes representations where a government department or an agency such as the Environment Agency has expressed the view that the permission should not be granted as it is unacceptable or should be granted subject to conditions to ensure that the development is acceptable.

As part of our digital agenda, we want to ensure that these decisions become more accessible so that it is easier for all to identify where development is coming forward against advice, whether that be the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive or a local highway authority. We believe that this is best addressed through open access to data rather than further statutory obligations to produce reports.

Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked about planning fees. We are not changing fees through this Bill, but we are consulting on proposals to increase planning fees to ensure that local planning authorities are properly resourced to improve speed and the quality of their decisions.

I hope that, with these reassurances that I have been able to give today, my noble friend Lord Lansley will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my two esteemed former parliamentary colleagues, who both made superb speeches. We have heard many remarkable speeches, but I want to make a few short, personal reflections.

When I was first elected for North West Norfolk, in 1983, my predecessor, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler, gave me some advice. He did not give me much advice, because he was pretty angry that I had beaten him, but he did say, “You will on occasion have the privilege of meeting Her Majesty at different events. You might even, if you are very fortunate, be invited to Sandringham. My strong advice is to make sure that you are extremely well briefed on everything to do with the Sandringham estate, including the four or five villages on the estate. Above all, you must go round the two studs and learn what you can about the horses, because those are the things that Her Majesty may well ask you about if you are honoured enough to meet her”. That was very good advice indeed. We had a remarkable speech from the Master of the Horse. I was not aware that last year was Her Majesty’s best season ever as an owner/breeder. I imagine that every one of those winning horses was bred by her—a huge achievement in an age when she is up against giant racing organisations from around the world.

During Her Majesty’s visits to Sandringham every year, she invariably went to visit the local WI and would invite into Sandringham House the recipients of various royal prizes. She would also pay at least three or four visits every year to local organisations, hospitals and factories. She would open village halls. She really did make an effort. We in north-west Norfolk were very fortunate to benefit from this. I remember that, on so many occasions, she was very pleased to meet the dignitaries in the chain gang, but I could see her impatience and enthusiasm to get on and go round the factory or hospital. Once, one of her ladies-in-waiting said to me, “Well, of course, Her Majesty does always like to meet real people”. What she had in mind about the chain gang, I do not know.

Her Majesty loved coming to our local town hall and paid a number of private visits to King’s Lynn town hall—obviously, King’s Lynn was once a borough in its own right; it is now part of a borough council. The mayor was taking her round with some other people on a private visit and was showing her some of the cabinets full of quite remarkable treasures that are part of Lynn’s history. The Queen spotted the original mayoral chain, which was a good deal more elaborate and valuable than the one the mayor was wearing, and said to the mayor, “Do you ever get to wear that chain?” The mayor said, “Well yes, your Majesty, when we have special visitors.” I do not know what it is about seaside air and royal visits that can throw the mayor of a borough, but as that mayor has, sadly, long since passed away, I am not embarrassing either him or his family.

The Queen once came to visit the Construction Industry Training Board at the National Construction College, which was in my constituency. However, because it was a major regional event, quite a few MPs were there as well. Her Majesty arrived, on this occasion with Prince Philip, and the Lord Lieutenant said to her, “Isn’t it really good news to see all these MPs here?” Before Her Majesty could reply, Prince Philip said, “I suppose you could say that if you wanted to, but I don’t know why on earth they are not at work.” We felt a bit deflated by this, but Her Majesty turned to the Lord Lieutenant and said, “Timmy, of course it’s marvellous to see the MPs here”, and we felt a great deal better after that.

The Queen once came to my rescue—I will never forget this—on a purely personal level at an event to mark the 75th anniversary of the RAF at RAF Marham. It was a big event and I got a VVIP invitation; I had never had a VVIP invitation before in my life, and as a young MP I felt rather chuffed. I was assembled with these other people in an enclosure in this very large room in the mess, and I said to the group captain, “Isn’t it good news that we’re going to meet the Queen?” He said, “I wouldn’t count on it.” I said, “I thought we were VVIPs” and he replied, “Oh no, there’s a VVIP group and a VVVIP group, and then of course we’ve got the Chief of the Air Staff and the marshals of the Royal Air Force, so you’ll be lucky to meet the Queen, Henry.” Anyway, about 20 minutes later the Queen appeared, and across the mess, about 20 feet away, she caught my eye and I did a little bow. She turned to the group captain and said, “I’d like to go and talk to my MP.” I think he was slightly thrown. However, Her Majesty then came across to the two groups of VVVIPs and VVIPs and said hello and shook my hand. She then said, “I hope you’ll be joining us later.” I said, “I very much hope so, ma’am, but I’m not counting on anything.” Anyway, the seating plan at lunch was suddenly changed within the next five minutes and I was promoted to the top table. That was only a small example of the extraordinary warmth that she shows to people. So many noble Lords have mentioned that ability to put people at ease and to make the recipient feel so much at ease and feel so special, as the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Shipley, pointed out.

We live in turbulent times, both internationally and within this country. So many crises are taking place at the moment, and there is the ugly growth of separatism and republicanism in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but in the midst of all this stands our monarch, who shows that continuity, that exceptional example of service and dedication which the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, mentioned, and that constantly reassuring presence. I believe that a result of that is that, at the end of this quite remarkable jubilee year, the union and the monarchy will be that much the stronger, and so the country really owes a huge debt to Her Majesty. We pay that respect to her, honour that debt, and long may she reign over us.