Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Amendments 440F and 440G agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is an error in Amendment 440H on the Marshalled List. The text being left out of the Bill says “England or Wales”, not “England and Wales”.

Amendment 440H

Moved by

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the previous discussion highlighted some of the concerns we have about the contradictions between the matters that have been enshrined in the Bill, which some of us might think are not quite so important, and those which have been left out. Getting the balance right is clearly important. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Hayman all said, now really is the time for nature recovery and such issues to be a clear focus and for them to be put into the Bill.

We have had lengthy earlier discussions relating to the unwelcome and centralising shift represented by the introduction of NDMPs. I hope that the Government have been left in no doubt about the deep disquiet in the local government community about this provision. Further to the earlier comments made on those serious planning matters, we believe that the Bill is simply not clear enough about how conflicts between local plans and NDMPs are to be dealt with. Our amendments in this group therefore address these issues.

Amendment 185A in my name seeks to take out the lines from Clause 86 that give automatic primacy to the NDMP where a conflict arises between it and the local plan. It is simply unthinkable that this could happen by virtue of statute, with no dialogue relating to why the local authority or the combined county authority considered it necessary to depart from the NDMP. Let me be provocative and suggest that it would, in effect, mean there was almost no point in preparing a local plan at all, if any conflict arising is to be determined in favour of the NDMP—which is, after all, determined in Whitehall. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on this. Surely the provision goes against the key principles of devolution.

Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is similar but refers to “insignificant conflicts” between the local development plans and the NDMPs. If I know local government, I fear that this would involve considerable arguments, perhaps even resulting in legal arguments about what is and is not insignificant.

My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 187 aims to clarify the situation relating to how conflicts between local plans and the NDMP might be dealt with. It would add a further subsection to Clause 86, setting out how conflicts could be resolved in favour of the local development plan where a CCA had been handed powers over planning, highways, the environment and other functions of public bodies under the circumstances outlined in Schedules 16 and 17 or where the development plan comes under a joint spatial development strategy, or if it is in Greater London.

Amendment 192 is a probing amendment. It would insert a clause in the Bill setting out the primacy of the development plan over the NDMP, should there be a conflict. This amendment sits alongside other amendments to Clause 87 which aim to ensure—I want to be really clear about this—that the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives have the primacy in determining the development of local areas.

Amendments 193 and 195 probe if there is to be any role for parliamentary scrutiny of how conflicts between development plans and the NDMP are resolved and/or whether Parliament is to be informed of the Secretary of State’s intention to override the local process. They also probe what role there is to be for a CCA whose constituent member or members may find themselves in a conflict between their development plan and the NDMP.

In summary, what is the mediation process to be? Surely there will not be an automatic assumption in favour of the policies produced centrally with no reference to local people. There is not much in the way of devolution in that proposal. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 186, 187 and 187A because of pre-emption.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 186 and 187B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. When we concluded the debate last Wednesday, my noble friend the Minister explained the Government’s reason for the introduction of the national development management policies. I reiterate to my noble friend that I very much welcome and anticipate a further response to clarify how the NPPF and NDMP relate to one another, perhaps by particular reference to the example of the chapter on green-belt policies.

If I can paraphrase, my noble friend said that a key reason was to make local plans more local. She said that, when making a determination of a planning application, the local plan policies will “sit alongside” the national development policies. But what if they are not consistent? This group of amendments looks at that question. The present position is that applications for planning permission must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Clause 86 of the Bill inserts

“and any national development management policies.”

Therefore, applications must be made in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies. The material considerations would need to “strongly indicate otherwise”. We argued that point last Wednesday.

Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that, if a policy

“in a development plan … conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document”—

so it is simply a matter of which is the most recent. In future, that conflict may be between a development plan and the national development management policies. The Government, to resolve that question, state in Clause 86(2):

“If to any extent the development plan conflicts with a national development management policy, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”

We have heard from the noble Baroness moving Amendment 185A that it proposes that proposed new subsection (5C) created by Clause 86(2) be deleted. Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would give precedence to the development plan. This turns the Government’s intention on its head. However, I have to say that it runs a serious risk of undermining national policies by virtue of local plan-making and turning the whole problem the other way around.

My Amendment 186, tabled with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, would add the word “significant” to make the phrase, “if to any significant extent” there is a conflict. That would have the simple benefit of avoiding the disapplication of development plan policies because of an insignificant difference between that and an NDMP. It would run the risk—I have to acknowledge—of debate over what “significant” means. However, if the Minister were to object to the insertion of the word “significant” because of the risk of litigation, I will return to the question of the litigation that might arise through the insertion of the word “strongly”, which the Government resisted on those grounds.

Amendment 187, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would reverse the primacy of NDMP over the development plan where there is a substantial set of devolved responsibilities given to a combined county authority. These are, in effect, the planning powers of the constituent local planning authorities, so I have to confess that I am not at all clear why, if the powers are vested in a CCA, as opposed to a local planning authority, the primacy should be switched simply on those grounds.

Overall, we have a group of amendments here that illustrate the problem but do not offer a solution. The development plan should not be inconsistent with the NDMP. The new Section 15C of PCPA 2004, to be inserted by Schedule 7, states this. On page 294 of the Bill, it can be seen that the intention of the Government is that there should not be any inconsistency between the two. However, in practice, such inconsistencies will arise in relation to specific planning applications. That is where the problem emerges. When they do, as the Minister herself made clear, this is a plan-led system, and a decision should, so far as possible, be made in accordance with the development plan. As the NPPF makes clear, where there is no relevant plan policy or no up-to-date plan—our Amendments 187A and 187B are relevant here about the necessity of an up-to-date plan—then the decision should be made by reference to the national development management policies, which will continue to be given statutory weight, by virtue of this legislation, even if the plan is out of date.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to reflect on this question and whether the primacy of the national development management policies should be achieved through the plan-making process—that is, sustain that question of there being no inconsistencies—but also where no up-to-date plan applies. However, if there is an up-to-date plan, then that should be the basis of the decision. That would retain the principle that those seeking planning permission should do so in accordance with an up-to-date local plan. I hope that the Minister will consider whether, when we come back to this on Report, that might be the basis for amending the Bill.

Building Safety Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Grenfell Tower tragedy resulted in the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. On 14 June 2017, 72 people died and 70 more were injured. This was the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since Piper Alpha in 1988. The Government are determined to ensure that a tragedy such as this never happens again. The Building Safety Bill is the landmark Bill that delivers on that mission.

These are the biggest changes to building safety legislation in our history. The Bill not only addresses the total building safety regulatory system failure head-on but protects leaseholders who are the victims in a building safety crisis. This Bill helps to ensure that there is a more proportionate approach to building safety risk, introduces a cap on the historic building safety costs that leaseholders will have to pay and, finally, provides an extensive set of tools in law that will ensure that the polluter pays.

Fifteen of the 37 disabled residents living in Grenfell Tower died in the fire. That is more than 40% of the disabled residents. The Government are committed to supporting the fire safety of disabled and vulnerable residents. We are acutely aware of the need to ensure the safety of residents with mobility concerns. The Government ran a consultation on the issue of personal emergency evacuation plans—PEEPs—in July 2021. The consultation has made clear the substantial difficulties of mandating PEEPs in high-rise residential buildings around practicality, proportionality and safety. On practicality, how can you evacuate a mobility-impaired person from a tall building before the professionals from the fire and rescue service arrive? On proportionality, how much is it reasonable to spend to do this at the same time as we seek to protect residents and taxpayers from excessive costs? On safety, how can you ensure that an evacuation of mobility-impaired people is carried out in a way that does not hinder others in evacuating or the fire and service in fighting the fire?

Given these difficulties, the Government are committing to undertake a new consultation. While our response is still being finalised, this will include a proposal called “emergency evacuation information-sharing” or EEIS. The Government will publish our response to the PEEPs consultation and our new consultation on EEIS and commence the Fire Safety Act 2021 on the same day next month, which is as soon as practical after the pre-election period. I have discussed this at some length with the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton. I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the consultation will look to ensure as best we can that the golden thread exists between planning for the safe evacuation of a mobility-impaired person when needed and the response of fire and rescue services in the event that a building needs to be evacuated.

The Building Safety Bill leaves your Lordships’ House in a far better state than it arrived in. I welcome the clear cross-party support for the Bill. Both Opposition Benches have played hard but fair. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for using his considerable professional expertise and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for their redoubtable efforts with the Safer Stairs campaign. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for ensuring that the new regime is as proportionate as possible. Finally, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for helping improve the Bill in the interests of leaseholders.

On the Government Benches, I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for representing the interests of pensioners with pensions tied up in buy-to-let leasehold properties, my noble friend Lady Sanderson for ensuring that the voice of the Grenfell community is heard loud and clear, and last but by no means least, the dynamic duo of my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, who have brought decades of parliamentary experience to ensure that leaseholders are protected. I also thank my long-suffering Whip, my noble friend Lady Scott, and her understudy briefly on Report, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield. My heartfelt thanks also go to Hannah Ellis in the Whips’ Office.

Finally, I thank the army of officials in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Home Office and across government for their support and hard work over the last few months. I will name four who deserve special mention: the former Bill manager, Amy Payne, the current Bill manager, Catherine Canning, and the superb DHLUC government lawyers, Joanna Stewart and Katherine Bridges.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue, as well as a user of personal emergency evacuation plans, or PEEPs, as I am a wheelchair user.

I am very grateful to the Minister and his officials for the two meetings and our email exchange since Report. I particularly thank him for what he has just said this afternoon. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have repeatedly debated the problem that residents in high-rise blocks face in the event of an emergency, because disabled people are not currently covered by the PEEP rules.

Disabled people were encouraged by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and the Judith Hackitt report, both of which highlighted the necessity of the golden thread of planning, notification and practical support needed for vulnerable residents, whether disabled or with a mobility impairment. Last week’s evidence from civil servants and Ministers at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry exposed a real concern that, in the past, there was no real heart to make PEEPs work, as they were deemed too expensive and complicated. The department’s announcement of a third consultation on how to get disabled residents out of a high-rise building in an emergency is welcome, but we need a final answer.

The Minister rightly focused on emergency evacuation information-sharing, because it sits within the scope of this Building Safety Bill. He has argued publicly and privately that PEEPs are for the Fire Safety Bill, but it is vital that they are developed, planned and reviewed together. Otherwise, there will be disabled residents who believe that they will be looked after and removed from their flat in the event of a fire or another emergency only to discover—as the Grenfell disabled residents did—that sitting tight and waiting can result in injury or death.

I am really grateful for what the Minister has said. We in the disabled community will watch with great interest and hope to see that golden thread come into practice in just over a month’s time.

Building Safety Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 15 is about building regulations and safety measures. It would insert a new clause that states:

“The Secretary of State may amend the Building Act 1984 so that the duties imposed on the regulator by virtue of section 31 in respect of higher-risk buildings are imposed on local authorities that exercise building control functions in the area in which the building is located, in respect of buildings which are …under 18 metres in height, and … comprise more than one dwelling.”


I will give an overview of the amendment; we discussed this issue in detail in Committee so I will be fairly brief.

These two points will ensure that the more stringent building safety framework applies not just to buildings over 18 metres but to buildings under 18 metres where they are multi-occupancy dwellings. We believe that the Bill, in its original draft and as amended in Committee, fails to confirm robustly whether the gateway system will apply to buildings under 18 metres where they are multi-occupancy dwellings. The purpose of this amendment is to get that covered. If it is already covered, I would appreciate clarification from the Minister because we do not want to see a two-tier system where buildings under 18 metres have less rigorous safety regulations than those over 18 metres.

If the Government accepted this amendment then, to avoid issues with capacity that could arise for the building safety regulator—the Minister has discussed his concerns about this in previous debates—it would make the local authority the building control authority, not the building safety regulator. Local authority building control would then cover the operation of the gateway system at all heights below 18 metres.

The amendment also, importantly, removes developers’ ability to pick their own regulator for multi-occupancy buildings under 18 metres, because the local authority building control will then be the sole regulator, again preventing a two-tier system developing. It would also remove concerns raised by local authorities and others that the Government may fail, or take a long time, to expand the high-risk regime to include more buildings.

To sum up, the Hackitt report identified the ability of duty-holders to choose their building control body as a major weakness of the current regulatory regime. The Bill restricts the building control duties to the regulator for buildings within scope. The Local Government Association supports this amendment, which would address these issues. Prohibiting duty-holders of any residential building choosing their building control body would help to ensure a consistent standard, right across the board, and prevent conflicts of interest and a two-tier system. I urge the Minister seriously to consider the proposals in this amendment. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 254, laid by my noble friend Lord Foster, but shall do so very briefly to say that there needs to be consistency in preventing the sale of faulty electrical goods online, or those that do not meet the appropriate safety standards and may therefore be defective. My noble friend’s amendment would by regulation ensure that operators of online marketplaces take the appropriate steps to remove items that do not comply with safety legislation.

I remember some years ago discussing with an independent retailer of baby goods, including electrical goods, how vigilant he had to be when goods arrived that they met the safety standards needed. He and his staff knew what to look for: sometimes a fake EU safety logo had printing faults, but there were other warning signs too. He felt he had a particular responsibility to ensure that his customers always bought safe and regulated items.

The difficulty is that online marketplace operators do not feel that responsibility to check that items meet safety regulations. Many of the fires in high-rise blocks that have been referred to during the passage of the Bill and other debates in Parliament over the years were started by faulty or defective electrical goods. There is a particular worry with an ever-increasing percentage of electrical goods now being bought online. My noble friend’s amendment attempts to level the playing field to make sure that customers and consumers can rely on the safety of their products when they buy them.

Inclusive Society

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend introduces a broad topic: inclusion—religious, racial, social and economic. They are all important, but I will speak about economic inclusion. To me, economic inclusion means the ability to participate, to contribute and to share in the benefits of our economy.

Central to participating in the economy are skills, education, training, retraining and, yes, attitude. We have heard many fine words, particularly about further education, plus a White Paper pledging pioneering reforms to reshape the landscape. At the centre of this agenda are the colleges of further education. Many of them were in financial difficulties before Covid, and the decision by the Treasury to claw back funding from colleges which delivered less than 90% of planned courses—largely because of Covid—makes a mockery of the Government’s fine words. This action undermines the Government’s own policies and makes inclusion after Covid less likely.

When we had an industrial strategy council, it could have held the Government to account over this, but it was disbanded. An industrial strategy gives a sense of national purpose that we can all get behind, but this has been replaced with a plan for jobs, which some have described as mainly a list of existing policies with broad ambitions and few targets. This will do nothing for inclusion after the pandemic. Indeed, it will lead to a loss of skills, a continuing unproductive economy, and a resulting loss of competitiveness.

As far as participation in the rewards is concerned, we seem to be going backwards. Work is becoming more precarious, with some one in 10 workers facing losing their job and being rehired on worse terms. “Fire and rehire” is growing and will expand when the furlough period ends. This, along with bogus self-employment and employment through agencies after you have signed your rights away all make for a less inclusive society, which seems to be on the horizon, not a more inclusive society, especially regarding young people at work, where a special effort is needed. Fortunately, a growing number of companies believe that making employees feel they belong and are included makes for a stronger and better-performing business. There has been talk of an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech next month. Inclusion should be central to it. The IMF and others forecast an economic recovery, but one with widening and enduring inequality. Surely inclusion must be a major part of our response.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.

Members will be called to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment, other than the lead amendment in a group, to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make it clear when speaking on the group.

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

We now come to Amendment 2. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 2

Moved by

Towns Fund

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness on that point as I do not have those figures to hand.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

All questions have now been asked.