Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Mann and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

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.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Mann and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My point was not in relation to the amendment; it was in relation to the fact that a significant number of people in the Jewish community have said to me that they anticipate one of the key benefits of this Bill being that student unions will not be able to debate and pass BDS resolutions. My understanding of how the Bill is written and how it has been framed is that what the University of Essex student union has done, whereby it deemed its policy to be an educational tool rather than a procurement decision, explicitly would not be covered by the Bill. That is important, because the expectation is coming from multiple sources within the Jewish community that that is what would happen. Can the Minister clarify whether I am wrong on this, because my reading of the Bill suggests that I am right that—whether one calls it a good thing or a loophole—it would not be covered by the Bill?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord is right—student unions are not covered, and I think that I made that clear at Second Reading. It is private activity. Clearly, what matters is the influence on public bodies, which is what we are discussing today.

To come back on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, obviously the Government recognise the risks associated with economic and financial activities in those settlements. We do not support boycotts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such boycotts are inherently divisive and could lead inadvertently to negative effects on Palestinians as well as undermining the aim of this Bill, which is to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally. That does not change existing government guidance on doing business in those territories. The Government do not recognise the settlements as part of Israel, as the noble Lord knows, and we have already moved to ban those responsible for violence in the West Bank from the UK—there have been some recent sanctions.

I have tried to answer the probing amendments. I hope that this provides noble Lords with clarification and a rationale for the scope of Clause 1, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. These are difficult issues.

I turn briefly to Amendment 9, which would ensure that the prohibition in Clause 1 applied to decisions relating to the procurement of food prepared in line with religious practices, such as kosher and halal foods. The ban established by the Bill applies to all procurement decisions, including the procurement of food where this is part of a public function. Therefore, if a public authority made a decision not to procure kosher food and that decision was influenced by moral or political disapproval of the conduct of the State of Israel, the Bill would already prohibit this. However, I reassure noble Lords that nothing in the Bill would stop a public authority providing food that accommodated the religious beliefs of its employees or its service users. For example, it would not stop a public authority specifying in a tender that it was procuring halal products. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Civil Service: Digital Skills

Debate between Lord Mann and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I used to sit on the Competitiveness Council in Brussels, in the days when we were in the EU, and learned a lot from the Estonians—but of course they have a much smaller country and they were able to start everything digitally. I think people have admired us for the step we took, now 10 years ago, with GOV.UK, hosting all government paperwork and data. That now has 99% recognition across the UK, which I find very surprising. To answer the question, there are of course difficulties. Digital skills, which is the subject of this Question, is probably the biggest difficulty, but data sharing is also very important. We are finding this with all the various data initiatives we are doing—for example, I am working on borders—where being able to share data between companies, or to share individuals’ data between departments, is extremely important. We are gradually making sure that we are getting the right powers to do that in different areas as Bills come before your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what targets have been set to upskill Peers of the realm?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think that is a matter for the House authorities, but I will happily pursue it for the noble Lord.

Emergency Planning

Debate between Lord Mann and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the robustness of their system of emergency planning across the country.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

The Civil Contingencies Act sets out the framework for emergency planning in the UK, which the Government have a legal obligation to review every five years. The most recent review was published in March 2022, which concluded that the Act continues to achieve its stated objectives, but it also set out recommendations to strengthen the system and its planning. The resilience framework published in December sets out the Government’s wider approach to strengthening our resilience to all risks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

Considering the crisis in local government finance and the ongoing spectre of ambulances queuing at hospitals, how many emergency planning bodies have raised major concerns about our resilience in the event of a major disaster?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As the noble Lord suggests, we have a well-developed system of local resilience through the 38 local resilience forums. I have received no reports myself of particular concerns they have raised on this matter. It is more a matter for DLUHC than for the Cabinet Office, but I will look into it and get back to the noble Lord.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Mann and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I take great pleasure in following the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and his words of wisdom. I apologise for the discourtesy of pulling out of the last group because of a meeting of the EU Committee, but I agree with my noble friend the Minister about the invaluable contribution of rural communities and the vital importance of the various strands of work to accelerate digital connectivity on farms and in rural areas.

I wish briefly to express my concern with Amendments 223 and 237 to 246 on landlord-tenant issues. Some are more worrying than others. We need to be clear about how the landlords’ and tenants’ interests will be handled under ELMS and other schemes, but we need to be very careful. Those of us old enough to remember the introduction of hereditary tenancies by the Labour Government in the 1970s—without consultation, I may add—remember the devastating effect on the supply of tenanted land. The apparent attempt in Amendments 243 and 244 to widen this principle to less-close relatives is misguided. It is like trying to keep rents low by fixing them, then being surprised when the supply of housing dries up. I find it amazing that these amendments try to extend the hereditary principle in new areas. I thought the trend was to reduce it in modern Britain. In any case, the associated interference in the laws of property would be unjustified.

Moreover, I am highly dubious about trying to cover the detail in this already gargantuan Bill. Tenancy reform beyond the proposals already in the Bill should be the subject of separate legislation and preferably of parliamentary scrutiny in draft.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I am listening in to a fascinating discussion and points in relation to tenant farms and smallholdings. I certainly found the arguments and proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, very convincing.

Amendment 222 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, falls exactly within the scope of the intent and purpose of this legislation. It fits in with government changes in relation to the planning regime that attempt to kick-start building and the economy across the country.

Ever since the unwise proposals and legislation of the community infrastructure levy pushed through by George Osborne, it has been bedevilled conceptually by being flawed in its very attempts to put money into local authority infrastructure and has repeatedly led to people withdrawing from potential small-scale developments. In essence, the CIL has shifted the market even more towards the large housebuilder and the large developer. It has had a particularly devastating effect on small businesses and the householder who wishes to do something with either a small business or a small piece of land.

When it comes to agriculture, I echo concerns previously raised that conversion of farm buildings is absurdly hit by CIL money-raking by local authorities. When I first exposed it, in challenging George Osborne in the House of Commons—I got some changes over a period of two years—we had local authorities seeking extraordinary amounts from single properties. The maximum I could evidence was £178,000 in taxation to be paid in advance for a single property development. Even with that lowered to more manageable amounts and a requirement for an affordability test, the CIL prevents the microentrepreneur—the person who wishes to move with small amounts of finance—progressing. The demands by local authorities for the CIL to be paid up front is particularly pernicious. The level of the CIL is particularly anti-entrepreneurial.