Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Consideration of Lords message
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale) I can inform the House that
nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 70 Local authorities: hybrid meetings 3.20pm The
Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities (Rachel Maclean) I beg to move, That this House
disagrees with Lords amendment 22B. Mr Deputy Speaker With
this...Request free trial
Levelling-up and
Regeneration Bill
Consideration of Lords message
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages
Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 70
Local authorities: hybrid meetings
3.20pm
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities ()
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
22B.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion
to insist on disagreement to Lords amendment 45, and Government
amendment (a) in lieu.
As we know from proceedings on this Bill in this place, the
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is important to this country’s
future. It will ensure that this Government and future
Governments set clear, long-term objectives for addressing
entrenched geographical disparities. It will devolve powers to
all areas in England where there is demand for that, allowing
local leaders to regenerate their towns and cities and restore
pride in places. It further strengthens protections for the
environment, so that better outcomes are at the heart of planning
decisions.
In the course of the many debates on local authority remote
meetings during this Bill’s passage, the Government have
consistently expressed our strong view that councillors should be
physically present to cast their votes and interact in person
with citizens. Our position on this matter has not changed.
Therefore, the Government cannot support Lords amendment 22B,
which would enable any Government in future to go as far as
allowing all local authorities to meet virtually at any and every
opportunity.
Turning to climate change, I reiterate that the Government agree
that the planning system must support our efforts in meeting our
legal net-zero commitments by 2050 and tackling the risks of
climate change. However, we have heard the strength of feeling in
both Houses about making sure that national planning policy
supports our efforts in tackling the risks of climate change.
Therefore, the Government have now gone a step further in tabling
an amendment that will require the drafting of policies that are
to be designated as national development management policies
to
“have regard to the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate
change”,
taking into account the range of climate scenarios and risk
relevant to the policies being developed.
I will conclude my brief remarks by again expressing gratitude to
my colleagues here and in the other place for their continued and
dedicated engagement with this complicated and complex Bill
during its parliamentary passage. I am sure that hon. and right
hon. Members will agree that the Government have shown that we
have listened carefully to the views of Members from all parts of
the House as we seek to improve this nationally important piece
of legislation.
(Waveney) (Con)
I supported the two amendments that the other place has returned
to us in their previous guise last week, when I urged the
Government to accept them. It is welcome that we have the
opportunity to consider these two important issues again.
With regard to the holding of virtual meetings by councils, I
prefer the original Lords amendment 22, which provided local
authorities with the local discretion to pursue a common-sense
and pragmatic approach on the form and conduct of their meetings.
That said, the amendment in lieu tabled by my right hon. and
noble Friend, , is pragmatic,
conciliatory and takes into account the Government’s concerns
about council meetings being held solely online. I urge the
Government to consider it in the spirit in which it has been put
forward.
I also re-emphasise other considerations that were raised in last
week’s debate. Set in the overall context of a Bill that gives
local communities and local councils greater discretion and
greater autonomy and looks to devolve powers away from Whitehall,
it is perverse that the Government are dictating to local
authorities how they conduct themselves. There is, as we heard
last week, 90% to 95% support from local councils, clerks and
their representative bodies for this provision. They understand
best the challenges that they face, and they are responsible
people who will use wisely any discretion with which they are
provided. The provision will strengthen local democracy and will
make it easier for such groups as the disabled, parents with
young children, carers and those in full-time employment to
participate in decision making in their own local communities.
For those local authorities that cover large geographical areas,
such as Suffolk County Council and the Broads Authority, it is
sensible to hold some meetings virtually, rather than insisting
that councillors—some of whom are elderly—travel long distances,
often in inclement weather, such as we had last week.
When we debated this issue last Tuesday, there was widespread
disquiet on the Government Benches about the straitjacket
approach that the Government are pursuing. I would be grateful if
in her summing up my hon. Friend could outline the strategy that
the Government will be putting in place to address those
concerns, if they reject the sensible and conciliatory amendment
22B.
In the wake of Storm Babet, the Lords have asked us to look again
at amendment 45. The weekend’s events highlighted the need for
climate change mitigation to be fully and deeply embedded in
local and national planning policy. Although the Government are
proposing again to reject the amendment, they have proposed their
own alternative, which is to be welcomed. It is necessary to
consider, first, whether that will help deliver a more consistent
alignment of planning policy and development management with the
existing framework for tackling climate change and, secondly,
whether it will provide the certainty, consistency and clarity
required to deliver the enormous amount of private sector funding
required to achieve our net-zero obligations.
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend answered the following
questions in her summing up. Will the Government’s amendment
bridge the gap in planning policy due to the delay in the review
of the national planning policy framework? Will she give an
assurance that the review will start as soon as possible, and
ideally provide a timescale?
Secondly, there is presently an inconsistency in that a local
planning authority’s well thought-through and bespoke climate
change mitigation policies can be overturned by either the
Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate. In that context,
will my hon. Friend advise whether the Government’s amendment in
lieu removes that contradiction, which undermines proactive and
bespoke local planning?
I am grateful to you for your time, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is
welcome that the Lords have provided us with a further
opportunity to improve the Bill. While the two amendments are in
many respects very different, they both give local communities a
full opportunity to shape the future of the places where they
live and work and, in doing so, achieve meaningful regeneration
and levelling up.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.
3.30pm
(Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow that characteristically sensible
speech from the hon. Member for Waveney (). I put on record our thanks
for their lordships’ continued engagement on the Bill and all the
work they have done on it over many months. After considering an
extensive number of Lords amendments to the Bill last week, just
two issues remain for us to debate again. The first is remote
local government meetings.
Labour remains firmly of the view that while in-person council
meetings should continue to predominate, there are circumstances
in which virtual or hybrid local government meetings might be
either useful or necessary. We also maintain that permitting
their use in certain instances would have a number of additional
benefits, not least in helping to reduce barriers to public
engagement in the planning process, which is a goal shared across
the House. As has been previously noted, an extremely broad range
of organisations support change in this area, including the Local
Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government, the
Association of Democratic Services Officers, the Society of Local
Council Clerks and the National Association of Local Councils.
Indeed, as the hon. Member for Buckingham () pointed out during last week’s
debate, evidence from NALC suggests that support for it among
local councils is overwhelming, with 90% of town and parish
councils wanting the ability to hold virtual meetings in some
form to widen participation.
As we just heard, it is not just those organisations and
authorities and those on the Labour Benches who support greater
local discretion in this area. In last weeks’ debate, the right
hon. Members for Chipping Barnet () and for North Somerset
() and the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Waveney and for
Worthing West ( ) all expressed support for
a degree of flexibility so that councils could enable remote
participation in meetings in certain circumstances. No one is
arguing that we should require every local government meeting to
be virtual or hybrid. Doing so would clearly undermine the
principle that members of the public should have suitable
opportunities to interact in-person with their local
representatives. Instead, the case is being made for a degree of
local discretion so that such meetings would be permitted in
certain circumstances.
Lords amendment 22B addresses the Government’s understandable
concern that permitting councils to hold wholly virtual meetings
might have unintended and adverse consequences for local
democracy. The amendment would allow Ministers to determine by
regulations the range of circumstances in which hybrid meetings
could take place. For example, they might choose to enable parish
councillors in more remote parts of a given authority area to
attend meetings virtually while ensuring that most are still
required to be present in person. To take another example, they
might choose to allow members of the public—say, people with
mobility issues or those with children—to participate actively in
planning committees, while councillors would still be required to
attend in person. We believe that this is a reasonable and
proportionate amendment, and we will support it.
The second issue concerns the planning system’s role in
mitigating and adapting to global heating. The Government’s
amendment in lieu is noticeably weaker than Lords amendment 45 as
it applies only to national development management policies
rather than all national policy, planning policy or advice
relating to the development or use of land. It also excludes
precise statutory definitions of what constitutes mitigation and
adaptation. Nevertheless, we welcome that the Government have
made a concession on this issue by tabling their amendment.
However, while we welcome the fact that the Government’s
amendment in lieu would ensure consideration of climate
mitigation and adaptation in the preparation or modification of
NDMPs, it would not achieve what Lords amendment 45 would:
namely, to establish genuine coherence between the planning
system and our country’s climate commitments, not least by
requiring local planning authorities to have regard to climate
when making decisions on individual planning applications. The
planning system in its current form is manifestly failing to play
its full part in addressing the climate emergency. Indeed, one
might go so far as to argue that it is actively hindering our
ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change in myriad
different ways.
The Bill is a missed opportunity to fully align the planning
system with our climate mitigation and adaptation goals and
ensure that new development produces resilient and
climate-proofed places. The provisions in the Bill that require
local plans to be designed in such a way as to contribute to the
mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change are welcome, but
they are transposed from existing legislation introduced 15 years
ago, and, alone, they are not sufficient. The promised related
update to the national planning policy framework to ensure that
it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as
fully as possible is vital, but it will not take place until well
after the Bill has received Royal Assent if it materialises at
all during what remains of this Parliament.
As we have argued consistently throughout the passage of the
Bill, there is a pressing need for clear and unambiguous national
policy guidance on climate change, a purposeful statutory
framework to align every aspect of the planning system with net
zero, and an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local
planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan
making to achieve climate change mitigation and adaptation when
preparing plans and policies or exercising their planning
decision-making functions.
The Climate Change Committee recommended in its 2022 progress
report that
“Net zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the
planning reforms”
contained in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
As things stand, they have not been. In this week—of all
weeks—when we have seen once again the impact on communities
across the country of the more frequent extreme weather events
that climate change is driving, we should look to improve how the
planning system responds to the climate emergency. The Government
amendment in lieu is welcome, but it does not go far enough. For
that reason, we will support Lords amendment 45.
(Chipping Barnet)
(Con)
I would like to start by thanking the Minister for her
involvement in the very long saga that is the Levelling Up and
Regeneration Bill, which, finally may be drawing to a close. It
is good to see the areas of difference between the two Houses
reduced.
I appreciate that Lords amendment 22 on councils meeting
virtually is a significant issue, as it could set a precedent for
other parts of the public sector. I understand the Government’s
concerns and why they have resisted it up to now, but I hope
there is room for further compromise and at least some
flexibility to allow councils to deploy hybrid meetings. If the
amendment still goes too far, I hope that Ministers can come up
with something, perhaps specifically in the planning context or
in at least some circumstances, to make the life of our local
councillors a little easier. We must remember that they do a
difficult job; they work hard and many are trying to hold down
day jobs at the same time. A bit more flexibility for virtual
meetings could help to enhance democratic participation.
An amendment that we did not get back from their lordships was on
NDMPs. I have a certain amount of regret about that, because I
continue to believe that the replacement of local development
management policies with a single centralised diktat is the wrong
approach. However, I welcome the fact that, thanks to the
Government’s amendments in lieu, we now see in the Bill a
commitment to consult on NDMPs. That was an important part of the
compromise announced last December by the Secretary of State to
tackle problems outlined in the amendments package headed by new
clause 21, which I tabled. It resulted from concerns felt by many
on the Government Benches about problems leading to massive
pressure for blocks of flats in the suburbs and housing estates
on greenfield and agricultural land in rural areas. Now, we need
to see the remainder of that package delivered by the national
planning policy framework. Once again, I encourage and urge
Ministers to get that published.
We also need to see the new set of planning policy
guidance—another document that will be crucial to ensuring that
the reforms promised in the planning system deliver real change.
Concern remains among Back Benchers about the rush for volume of
units at all costs. We all accept the need for new homes and want
more homes built, but they need to be the right homes in the
right places. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, strongly agree
with that.
With that in mind, I can understand the rationale of Lords
amendment 45 on climate change mitigation and adaptation. We need
to do more to ensure that the developments that come forward for
approval are consistent with our net zero goals. I am not
necessarily saying that Lords amendment 45 is the right vehicle
to deliver that, but if we are to make that huge transition to
carbon neutrality, construction and development has an enormous
part to play, and significant change needs to be delivered. I
hope that the Government will make every effort to ensure that
the new NPPF reflects our climate goals, in terms of both
mitigation and adaptation.
In particular, as we have heard many times during the debate on
the Bill, we must take care in relation to areas prone to
flooding since, even if we deliver net zero on time, the climate
has already changed to make such episodes more serious and more
frequent. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record
my great sympathy to anyone who has been affected by the floods
of recent days. I hope they are back in their homes soon. I truly
understand what a miserable experience it is to be subjected to
these climatic episodes.
Returning lastly and briefly to the December compromise announced
on Report by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath
(), I reiterate what I have said
a number of times in this House: we need the compromise to be
implemented. The issues raised in new clause 21 on excessive
targets have not gone away. Back-Bench concern has not gone away.
We are all determined to defend our constituencies from
overdevelopment. We believe it is vital to shift the focus of
home building to big urban city sites like Old Oak Common,
Beckton and central Manchester. The Docklands 2.0 approach
outlined by the Secretary of State in his July speech and in his
long-term plan for housing reflects our climate commitments by
situating people close to jobs, services and public transport
systems. It helps to take the pressure off suburban and rural
areas, protecting green spaces and the green belt, and supports
our ambitions for nature recovery. So, please, let us make sure
that that change really happens.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesperson.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I would like to begin by expressing my disappointment, but not
necessarily my surprise, at the unelected other place’s refusal
to push for amendments that would protect devolution. Given how
unclear, unfocused and unfit for purpose the Bill is, I had hoped
the other place would advocate for some revisions to mitigate its
impact. I will keep my remarks relatively short. Both amendments
do not necessarily relate to Scotland and, unlike the actions of
the Conservative Government which would imply otherwise, it is
important that we respect the devolution settlement.
Lords amendment 22B sought to allow local councils in England to
conduct procedures in a hybrid environment. Throughout the covid
emergency, we saw how critical those procedures were in raising
participation and in opening meetings to different demographics
in society. We saw that virtual meetings can work well in
response to challenging circumstances. Actually, we saw that over
the last week. The storms that Scotland experienced— England also
experienced them—provided a perfect use case for hybrid meetings.
It is unlikely that a physical meeting could have taken place in
those storm conditions. Hybrid meetings also allow people from
different demo-graphics, who historically have been disengaged
due to the challenges of getting to and from physical meetings,
to participate. If Lords amendment 22B is accepted, it will mean
that groups such as lone parents and those with caring
responsibilities can engage. I am also concerned that the
resistance to hybrid meetings stems from a larger culture war
narrative being propagated by out of touch Tories who want to
remain in the 1800s. We have seen those culture wars being fought
in this very Chamber. It is a disgrace and a disrespect to
democracy that my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire
(), if we all remember, was
unable to participate remotely in this Chamber after she had a
brain haemorrhage. In February 2022, she attended Parliament
physically against her doctors’ orders to raise the plight of her
constituents, and she continues to attend today. While that is an
incredible depiction of her service to her constituents, it is
shameful that when solutions such as hybrid meetings exist, we
slam the door in their face.
Since the pandemic, Scotland has continued to allow local
councils the autonomy to hold hybrid proceedings. It is
particularly beneficial for local authorities that cover large
geographic areas, allowing those who live far away from council
headquarters to access democracy if they so wish. Such measures
only increase participation in local democracy. I think we can
all agree that that is essential to a healthy democracy.
Lords Amendment 45 relates to climate change duties on planning
authorities. Again, the amendment does not cover Scotland.
However, with the storm and the harsh weather conditions over the
last week, and the likelihood of such once in a generation
weather events seeming to happen on such a regular basis, it is
imperative that we take the necessary action to tackle climate
change.
In this place, we might not necessarily feel the impact of the
legislation we pass straightway. As Members, we have a duty
towards future generations. Now, I am only 31, so I count myself
in one of those future generations. I am not sure that some of my
more experienced colleagues can say the same.
One of my favourite quotations is an old Greek proverb which has
not been attributed to anyone in particular: “A society grows
great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never
sit.” When I think of that quotation, I often think of climate
change provisions. The reality is that the planet is on fire, and
we are simply not doing enough to help our future generations. We
need to pass legislation whose benefits we may not see, but the
generations to come will. I appreciate that the Government still
recognise the need to tackle climate change with their amendment
in lieu, but the measures that it outlines are simply not strong
enough. It is important for us not to get into the way of
thinking that these are binary choices: it is perfectly possible
to construct while maintaining our moral duty to tackle the
climate crisis.
The SNP will not be voting on these amendments, but we do hope
that our neighbours in England are able to participate in a
hybrid system, and engage in local democracy and have the ability
to take the climate emergency seriously.3.45pm
(West Bromwich West)
(Con)
I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I want to
refer specifically to Lords amendment 22B. Part of me wants to be
sympathetic towards it, especially after the measured speech by
my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (). However, I have a concern
about the understanding on which it is predicated, namely, that
councils do their job properly. Unfortunately I have experience
of Soviet Sandwell Council, which does not do its job
properly.
I remember the pandemic, and I remember the lack of
accountability that we saw when virtual meetings cut out halfway
through and the public were seemingly unable to access meetings
at which key decisions were being made. It therefore frightens me
that we might consider potentially giving a local authority—I am
sorry to say this—as corrupt as Sandwell Council any possibility
of hiding itself behind virtual meetings. The fact that my right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to intervene on this local
authority some 12 months ago because of the utter failure in its
governance processes is one reason why I hesitate to support the
Bill.
I recognise that local authorities broadly can and do get this
right, but where it goes horribly wrong, we have seen it and we
have lived it, and it terrifies me. Even today, when we are back
in physical meetings, let me give Members an example of what
might transpire if the amendment were passed. If a monitoring
officer fails to advise that a council is in breach of section 31
of the Local Government Act 2003, that effectively allows
councillors to vote on a pecuniary matter in which they have an
interest, which, as Members will know, is against the law. I
believe that this local authority would use the provisions in the
amendment to hide itself and mask itself, and to allow even more
of the inept and, in fact, borderline corrupt behaviour that we
have seen. Unfortunately, officers at a high level—I do not mean
all officers, but certainly the officers in the local authority
with whom I have dealt—seem quite happy to be complicit in some
of that behaviour at times. That is why it would terrify me to
allow this amendment to be passed.
The core of the amendment, however, involves accessibility. The
hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich () touched on that, and I
agree with him: I think we need to get better at accessibility,
and to consider broader ways of doing that. Although the
amendment may not be passed, I think it has drawn out something
that we have to do. Whatever the colour of our Government, we
need to get more people into council meetings to talk about their
experiences. However, I am terrified by what this amendment would
do to my constituents. Effectively, it would allow the authority
to mask itself even more.
I have come to one conclusion on this. I think there is a way in
which the amendment might work. Sandwell Council is, ultimately,
an embarrassment for the Black Country and a stain on local
government in the west midlands, and we are undergoing a review
of local government in the west midlands at the moment. The only
conclusion I can draw is that it is now time to abolish Sandwell
Council, and subsume the towns that make it up into other parts.
I am thinking particularly of my communities in Tipton and
Wednesbury. They need their identity back, but, more important,
they need that accountability. It is time for Sandwell to go,
because it has been an embarrassment for the last 50 years. It is
time to put it in the bin.
I support some of the underlying aims of the Lords amendments,
which I think we must take forward. I think we can all agree on
that, across the House. However, owing to the experiences I have
had for the last four years as a Member of Parliament, this
particular mechanism concerns me a great deal, and I can only
support it if there is some sort of guarantee that Sandwell
Council will be put in the bin.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
(North Shropshire) (LD)
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government
Association. I am going to make some brief comments because I
spoke in the debate last week. I reiterate the concerns about
this legislation, which has been poorly drafted. Lords amendment
22B would allow councillors to attend meetings virtually or
hybrid-style meetings. The amendment is a good opportunity to
increase participation in local politics and I think that we
should be encouraging it.
For many councillors, the reality of fulfilling their role means
working around another full-time job, working late into the
evening as well as at weekends, or balancing their parenting
commitments, so councillors’ time is under great pressure. Most
councillors are in their post purely because of their commitment
to their local community, and we should be helping them out by
allowing the occasional virtual attendance at a meeting if that
reduces the time burden on them. I have heard the argument that
our constituents rightly expect us to attend Parliament in person
and that elected members of the local council should therefore be
expected to do the same, but that argument misses the incredibly
important point that, for most people, being a councillor is not
a full-time salaried job. To expect them to sacrifice yet more of
their time to travel to meetings to offer contributions that
could otherwise be made online is simply unfair.
Travel brings me to a particularly pertinent point at the moment.
In my constituency and other rural parts of Britain, it is not
uncommon for council meetings to be held many miles away from the
ward or division that a councillor represents or from where they
live. In some cases, that will mean travelling 20 to 50 miles one
way to attend a council meeting. Clearly this is a problem in
poor weather, as we only have to look at the damage and chaos of
the last week to see. It also means that councillors usually have
to have their own car, not least because an evening meeting will
be held when most bus services have stopped running for the day.
That means that people are being excluded from becoming involved
in local democracy simply because they do not have access to a
car. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was supposed to put
greater devolution at its heart and encourage more people into
the democratic process. If we really want to engage people in
politics and widen representation and access, we should be making
it easier for people to represent their communities, not more
difficult.
I move briefly on to Lords amendment 45. It is the Liberal
Democrats’ view that the original amendment is superior to the
Government’s amendment in lieu. It would place duties on the
Secretary of State to mitigate and adapt planning policy to
reflect climate change. Planning is an integral part of achieving
net zero, and as such it is only right that it puts climate
considerations at its heart. At the moment, net zero goals are
inconsistently applied to planning applications. Local
development plans consider climate complications, whereas
individual planning applications do not and, without the
Government’s amendment in lieu, national development management
policies—NDMPs—will not either.
The Lords amendment would extend environmental duties to all
aspects of the planning system with a sharpened focus, ensuring
that new plans would contribute to specific climate and nature
targets. A dual approach is particularly important because
climate and ecological decline are closely intertwined, and
unfortunately both are accelerating. I do not think that this
amendment should be controversial. It is publicly backed by
environment businesses, local government and environmental NGOs.
The time has run out for looking at climate change simply as an
add-on or an afterthought, and given the Government’s recent
back-pedalling on their net zero commitments, this should be an
easy opportunity to put climate change at the core of the
planning process.
Without these Lords amendments, the Bill will miss two key
opportunities to encourage local democratic participation and
consider climate complications to planning applications. Both
these factors are surely at the core of what levelling up should
be about.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions
to the debate today and for their contributions throughout the
passage of this important Bill. I will address briefly the points
made by Members. First, let me turn to the comments made by my
hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (). He has spoken with his
customary good sense and practical bent, as have others,
including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (), who speaks for the Liberal
Democrats, and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms
Qaisar), who speaks for the Scottish National party, about the
real problems faced by people who wish to take part in local
democracy without being excluded because of where they live,
because they do not have a car or because of other barriers. This
is important, and the whole House recognises those barriers and
supports that admirable objective. We need our politics to be as
inclusive as possible.
However, I have also heard loud and clear the comments of my hon.
Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (), who alerted us to the
problems that could exist if we were to accept Lords amendment
22B. It is right that we consider all the possible consequences,
and it is the Government’s view that the amendment goes too far
and is too expansive. It would allow any future Government to
allow any local authority to meet virtually at every opportunity,
which is not something the Government can accept. It is a
long-standing principle that local democracy should take place
face to face.
I agree with some of the shadow Minister’s comments, and we are
looking very carefully at how we encourage more engagement from
the community, particularly on planning applications. We can do a
lot of that through technology and wider reforms to our system,
and it is right that we continue that work.
(Beckenham) (Con)
What is the Government’s view on how effective such arrangements
might be? Is remote working more effective or less effective? Do
the Government have a view on that?
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that point. He will
know that, with this Bill, we are pushing power down to local
people, local areas and local councillors, who are elected to
represent their communities. As I said, the Government have a
very clear view that local democracy should take place face to
face. Through our levelling-up work, we are in the midst of a
once-in-a-generation devolution of power to allow local areas,
such as the one he represents, to make the best decisions for
their local communities, notwithstanding this particular point,
on which the Government have strong views.
The vital issue of climate change was raised by my hon. Friend
the Member for Waveney and my right hon. Friend the Member for
Chipping Barnet (). It is important to
stress that the planning system already has considerable systems
for taking account of climate change and further work is under
way, as my hon. Friend knows. He specifically asked about how to
bridge the gap in planning policy. I make it clear that, as part
of our proposed changes to the planning system and as we
committed to in the net zero strategy, we were the first
Government to legislate for net zero. We stand by those
commitments both in the planning system and elsewhere, and we
intend to do a fuller review of the national planning policy
framework to ensure it contributes to climate change mitigation
and adaptation as fully as possible, following Royal Assent of
the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
Last but by no means least, I turn to my right hon. Friend the
Member for Chipping Barnet. She reiterated what is a vital issue:
the Government’s commitment to publishing the response to the
NPPF consultation after this Bill, with Godspeed, receives Royal
Assent. We remain committed to doing that, and I reiterate that
it remains the Government’s policy to ensure that we identify and
build on urban brownfield areas such as the ones she mentioned in
Docklands, Beckton, Silvertown and elsewhere. We need to see
housing delivered there. We have seen 30-year record highs in
housing delivery under this Conservative Government, and we
intend to continue delivering the right houses in the right
places, supported by local communities. I want to take this brief
opportunity to put on record, as my right hon. Friend the Member
for Chipping Barnet did, my thanks to councillors who represent
my communities in Redditch, Wychavon and Worcestershire, and to
all the frontline services involved in the responses to the
floods—to the emergency services, the Environment Agency and
others. We all wish everybody to be back in their home soon.
I hope that all Members, having seen that the Government have
listened and responded to their concerns, will feel able to
support our position. Our amendments are effective and
proportionate, and I hope that they are agreeable to all. I
commend them to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
22B.
[Division 347
The House divided:
Ayes
292
Noes
177
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 24 October 2023 at
4.00pm](/Commons/2023-10-24/division/AAD7E893-D226-4587-853C-489A46F681CA/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendment 22B disagreed to.
Clause 87
National development policies: meaning
Amendment (a) proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 45. —(.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
[Division 348
The House divided:
Ayes
292
Noes
176
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 24 October 2023 at
4.15pm](/Commons/2023-10-24/division/179BE567-C60C-4E39-8CDE-D85BA89467C9/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 45. Ordered, That a
Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the
Lords for disagreeing to their Amendment 22B;
That , Mr , , , , , and Ms Anum Qaisar be members
of the Committee;
That be the Chair of the
Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and
communicated to the Lords.
|
