Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I agree that enforcement of legislation is almost as important as legislation itself.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her quest for lower fees for SMEs, even if that means that other fees must be a trifle higher. We worked on the problems facing SME builders and the dire decline in their market share when we sat together on the Built Environment Committee. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson on that subject. It is clear from the forensic contribution of my noble friend Lord Banner that the appeal system would also be a nightmare for SMEs.

In her summing up, I very much hope that the Minister will advise on what the Government are doing to help SMEs more broadly, and whether it is enough, and for those building houses on their own—which my sister did successfully in Vermont, USA, but which is extremely rare in the UK.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel obliged to declare an interest as the owner of a listed building with a lot of practical experience of listed building consent. I strongly endorse the words—and, I suspect, the amendment—of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I certainly endorse the spirit and the direction of the amendment. Without repeating anything that he said, I will elaborate on two points, one that he alluded to and one that he made.

The one that the noble Lord alluded to demonstrates in a lot of depth the main points that he made in relation to fees and listed buildings. He alluded to the style of politics that has come in over 10, 20 or perhaps more years of Governments choosing to use statutory instruments to add to legislation. He is far too young, though certainly not unstudious enough to have researched if he chose to, my first ever clash with the Government Whips in 2003. It was on a statutory instrument on listed buildings. The then Government, and a Minister who has long since disappeared into obscurity outside politics, had the great idea that they would introduce, I think for environmental reasons, a change in planning legislation, so that for listed buildings every single window would be required to have listed building consent for any change to it.

It was well motivated, it was technical nonsense and it was logical nonsense. I pointed it out and, bravely at the time, very publicly abstained, for which my Whip wanted to give me the sanction of banning me from ever sitting on a statutory instrument again. I thought then and think now that this was probably a reward for bad behaviour that should be gleefully accepted. However, there was no question. The civil servants and the Minister had not thought this through, but it was a statutory instrument, done on the green Benches, the Whips lining people up on both sides, not to speak but quickly to vote it through in as many seconds as they could so that people could get on with the rest of their Commons life. Somebody pointing out that the whole thing was total nonsense was a bit of a shock to the system. Of course, it was passed.

Therefore, the law in this country is that if you have 300 windows—which, because of the design of windows, our property does—then every physical alteration to any one window requires an individual listed consent. I am not sure that this is too logical, but if a fee is applied, the behavioural response is very straightforward. Nobody at any level within the country is going to start putting in listed building consent for any repairs to windows. If one wanted to change a wonderful traditional historic wooden window and put in some grotesque modern UPVC alternative, then it is right and proper that the planning authorities should be able to stop you. However, if you want to splice a bit of wood and replace a bit of a window, it is rather a nonsense.

That nonsense would be compounded if, for environmental reasons, some future Minister decided to add further legislation or keep this legislation. Then there is the cost to be paid. That is an unforeseen consequence. It is an absurdity, but the absurdity already exists.

Commission on Antisemitism Report

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said in answer to the previous question about education, we communicate the examples of good practice that we have seen—for example, in Winchester—across the whole schools community. I am sure that my noble friend the Education Minister will take those on board. I agree with the noble Baroness that urgent action here is necessary. We must not let the passing on of these tropes go on any longer. I hope that we can take urgent action to make sure that good practice is rolled out across our schools as quickly as possible.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the brilliance of the contribution of Dame Penny Mordaunt to this report. This is a report for the United Kingdom. Does not this cross-party collaboration, which the UK has long been the world leader in, re-emphasise the importance of every party getting involved in playing its role in tackling antisemitism, and that when we work together, cross-party, we are far more effective in not just giving a message but delivering outcomes which mean that communities, such as the Jewish community, can play their part in this country without any hassle or barriers?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot express strongly enough my agreement with my noble friend Lord Mann on that point. This is absolutely a cross-party issue and we must work together at the national level. There is also a clear role for mayors, council leaders and councillors in supporting Jewish communities, in education and in commemorating the Holocaust, so that the crimes against Jews in Europe are never forgotten. They can also facilitate the conversations and education and the work that needs to be done across communities and civil society. This is a role for all of us, not just one political party.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I reference my entry in the register of Members’ interests, and observe that it is a very British affair to spend 11 years discussing a planning matter. In that time, I have knocked on many doors, and I have yet to find anyone with a view on the matter, so it is not necessarily the heartbeat of the country. But I hope that we can have a degree of coming together.

I am very familiar with the different arguments that have been put, and put succinctly and clearly. There is only one issue that has not been raised, and so I will throw it to the Minister myself, because it is important to have clarity on this. I trust that the department has had appropriate discussions with the House authorities about any implications of the refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster, which I have seen described as becoming potentially the biggest building site in Europe. Whether that will ever happen in my lifetime, I also—in a very British way—wonder. However, it is a pertinent issue to have clarity on; the last thing that anyone would want, whatever their views, is to have a new memorial and education site built and then find that the portacabins from the refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster are suddenly occupying that green space, however temporary that might allegedly be.

I hope that we can shift the discussion to what is by far the most important issue. I am no expert, but both location and design are important. However, fundamental to tackling discrimination and anti-Semitism in this country is the effectiveness of the content within the centre. I hope that government and Ministers will take up the cudgel and outline in far more detail in the coming months—I am sure that the Bill will be passed, if the Official Opposition are in favour—what that content is, and what input people can have to that.

I work very closely with the world-leading centre at UCL, which has been referenced several times already. The observation made to me repeatedly by people at the centre is that, in their work with teachers on Holocaust education, they have to answer questions repeatedly about contemporary anti-Semitism and there is a void there. At the heart of the original report was the question of whether the Holocaust education that we have at the moment is working. That question has not been answered, because the external evaluation has not been done. UCL has a lot of research, but it is qualitative not quantitative. It is very good, and I recommend it—there is a lot of detail—but, at its heart, it needs to say that there must be more quantitative research. What is happening in schools and in the country with people’s understanding of history and of prejudice to all communities, including the Jewish community? The situation in those 11 years has worsened. Therefore, the educational content, and how good it is, is critical to the whole point.

I make one modest suggestion to the Government, although it is not my prerogative to do so. My observation is that there needs to be hands-on ministerial drive on this. If I have any criticism of the past 11 years, it is that the approach has been a little too hands off. I appreciate that the Minister has been in post for only a few weeks and that it may be daunting—and it may not be him who is responsible but someone else—but the content has to be top quality. We need to know what is happening in schools and why it is not all working. That evaluation has to be independent and external, and that is a vital part of this process.