Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Commons Reason and Amendment
Welsh and Scottish Legislative Consent granted, Northern Ireland
Legislative Consent sought. 5.06pm Motion A Moved by Earl Howe That
this House do not insist on its Amendment 22B, to which the Commons
have disagreed for their Reason 22C. 22C: Because local authorities
should continue to meet in person to ensure good governance. Earl
Howe (Con) My Lords, with the leave of...Request free trial
Levelling-up and
Regeneration Bill
Commons Reason and Amendment
Welsh and Scottish Legislative Consent granted, Northern Ireland
Legislative Consent sought.
5.06pm
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22B, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22C.
22C: Because local authorities should continue to meet in person
to ensure good governance.
(Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I shall
also speak to Motion B. Your Lordships will remember that, during
our consideration of Commons amendments on Monday this week, two
amendments were carried by the House for further consideration by
the other place. The first, tabled by my noble friend Lady
McIntosh of Pickering, was on virtual attendance at local
authority meetings, and the second, moved by the noble Lord,
, related to consideration
of climate change within the planning system. I will take each of
these in turn.
Amendment 22B, tabled by my noble friend, has been decisively
rejected by the other place. I well appreciate that this issue
has elicited a range of differing views among your Lordships.
However, I have to tell my noble friend, whom I greatly respect,
that the Government’s position on the matter has not changed.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have not
wavered from their clear, strong and principled view that
preserving in-person debate is important for maintaining the
integrity of local democracy. My noble friend’s amendment is
quite clearly at odds with that position, as it provides the
power to any future Government to potentially make regulations
that go so far as allowing all local authorities to always meet
remotely, without any limitations.
Local authorities need councillors to be physically present, to
actively take part in democratic decision-making affecting the
citizens they represent, and to interact with their fellow
councillors at every opportunity to develop a sound understanding
of local needs and priorities. That understanding is clearly
vital for ensuring the strong local leadership that councils
depend on to deliver for the electorate. Perhaps most
importantly, councillors need to be physically present to
interact with citizens in a way that builds meaningful
relationships with their community and ensures that they are, in
the fullest sense, accountable to their electorate.
The Government stand by their opposition to this amendment. The
other place has agreed with that position. Therefore, again with
great respect to my noble friend, I suggest that we have reached
a point where it is right for us to draw a line under this issue.
I hope that, on reflection, my noble friend will agree.
I now turn to the other outstanding issue, which is the way in
which climate change is considered within the planning system.
The Government continue to be committed to ensuring that the
planning system supports our efforts in meeting our legal
net-zero commitments by 2050 and tackling the risks of climate
change. As I said earlier this week, we believe that there are
already strong provisions within the Bill and other legislation
that set the framework for this to happen. We have also committed
to developing national policy in a way that is consistent with
this.
But we have heard the strength of feeling that this commitment
should be further enshrined in law. Therefore, the Government
have gone a step further in tabling an amendment to require that,
in preparing any national development management policies:
“The Secretary of State must have regard to the need to mitigate,
and adapt to, climate change”.
As I have already made clear, we are fully supportive of the
intentions of the amendment from the noble Lord, , but we remain concerned
that the amendment, as drafted, would give rise to significant
challenge to how local councils fulfil their obligations to
consider climate change within their planning functions. Notably,
the combined effect of local authorities having to prove that
their plans and decisions have “special regard” to climate
change, while also proving that they are consistent with
strategic national targets on carbon reduction, will at the very
least create significant debate and deliberation on how to
demonstrate this, but will very likely also give rise to
litigation over the justifications presented.
The additional legislative provisions we have bought forward put
climate change considerations at the centre of the development of
new national development management policies, and in turn enable
those considerations to influence all local planning decisions. I
believe that this new provision takes us a lot closer to the
position the noble Lord sought to arrive at with his amendment. I
hope that both he and the House will be content to approve it. I
beg to move.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for coming to the Dispatch Box
in his charming and inimitable way to consider my humble little
amendment once again. It is almost 20 years to the day since I
joined a shadow team of which he was an eminent member; I hope
that our co-operation will continue long into the future.
I think that any primary school pupil who has been watching our
proceedings will be confused by our exhausting not just every
letter of the alphabet except the letter O but additional letters
of the alphabet. I am inclined to agree to disagree with the
House of Commons’s disagreement with Amendment 22B, and will
rehearse a couple of reasons why. The revised Amendment 22B was
very modest in its remit. I accept my noble friend’s premise that
local councils should primarily meet physically, but we went on
to state that limited circumstances specified in regulations
passed by the Government would permit a normally wholly physical
meeting to be attended virtually. I am a little baffled and
bewildered by the Government’s unwillingness to move a little
more along these lines.
5.15pm
The reason I say this is that we experienced during Covid the
situation whereby all council meetings were virtual to permit
local government business to continue. That was deemed to work
extremely well and kept the wheels of local government moving at
a particularly challenging time. To move from completely virtual
attendance during Covid to a situation where no virtual or remote
attendance is allowed seems baffling. Also, I think it is fair to
say that, if we in the Lords are permitted to serve on a
committee and to meet either in hybrid form, which is what we are
seeking in this amendment, or remotely, it seems incumbent on us
to extend the same ability to local councils to meet in these
circumstances.
I shall repeat the words of my honourable friend in the other
place, the Minister, , who said in responding to
an intervention from a Conservative Back-Bencher:
“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 … the Government have a very clear
view that local democracy should take place face to face”.
Where I agree with my honourable friend is when she went on to
say:
“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”.—[Official Report,
Commons, 24/10/23; col. 787.]
There is a slight irony that the Government are devolving powers
in this Bill to local authorities but not the power to decide to
permit certain councillors to attend when they have certain
difficulties.
We rehearsed at length what those circumstances might be, and I
will repeat them briefly here. It seems to me a sensible,
common-sense approach, for all the reasons my noble friend said,
to permit local government to meet primarily physically and to
permit virtual attendance in case of, for example, short-notice
difficulties in obtaining childcare provision—which does happen
and has led a number of councillors to leave local government—or
because of the distance to travel and the lack of public
transport, especially in the evening when councils normally meet,
and on those occasions, which we have seen in the past two weeks,
of inclement weather such as snowstorms, floods and high
winds.
In the constituency where I was the MP for my last five years,
one of the local councillors put to me that permitting virtual
attendance to allow hybrid meetings in those circumstances would
be a sensible way of working, it having worked so successfully.
She said that because, at the time, Ryedale council covered a
wide area. Take the example of Filey, in North Yorkshire, where
to reach council meetings in Northallerton it is a 1.5 hour
one-way journey and a total round-trip of between 60 and 80
miles. We are asking a lot of these councillors to achieve
physical presence on every single occasion.
I acknowledge almost universal support—90% to 95% of
councillors—for the amendment in lieu, Amendment 22B, which we
debated previously. I realise that this is late in the day on
this occasion, but I promise my noble friend that I will revert
to this; if there is any possibility in any of the legislation in
the King’s Speech, I will latch on to it. I give him early
warning of that.
I thank all in the House who supported the amendment in its
original and revised forms, and my colleagues in the other place,
including my honourable friend , my right honourable friend
, and others who spoke in
support of this. That this humble, modest amendment is the thin
end of the wedge, where all meetings would go from being totally
physical to totally virtual, is a little of an exaggeration.
While not wanting to test the patience of the House further by
pressing this to a vote, I express a little disappointment and
sadness that the Government have not seen fit to move on this
occasion.
(CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion B. I declare my interests as
set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman
of Ullock, the noble Lords, , and Lord Hunt, as well as the
noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, all of whom supported the amendment
at earlier stages.
I particularly thank the Minister for coming back with the
government amendment. Although it does not give us everything
that we asked for, it constitutes great progress in this area. It
ensures that climate mitigation and adaptation will be considered
in the national development management policies, and, looking at
the wider context of plans in the Bill, will ensure that it is
included and will then be a compulsory part of decision-making.
Therefore, it goes some way towards giving us what we were after,
and I am grateful to the Minister for coming back with that
substantive amendment.
I have one small point. In the absence of a definition of climate
change mitigation and adaptation in the amendment, perhaps the
Minister might consider including the targets, with reference to
the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act, in the
Explanatory Notes to the Bill.
I welcome the comments made by the Minister in the other place
that the Government intend to do a fuller review of the NPPF, to
ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and
adaptation as fully as possible, following Royal Assent. I hope
the Government seize the opportunity here to strengthen chapter
14 of the NPPF to specify that, in determining planning
applications, decision-makers must take account of climate change
mitigation and adaptation.
The government amendment embedding climate and the environment in
planning decision-making will have a great effect on getting
clean infrastructure and sustainable homes built right across the
country. Importantly, it will also do much to empower local
authorities and regions to play their part in the net-zero
transition, which they all want to do. We still see a need for
further legislative work in this area—particularly on a move
towards a statutory duty, as we propose—but, again, I am grateful
for the progress that has been made.
Lastly, I thank all noble Lords who voted for my amendment and
helped to get it over the line in a very close vote on
Monday.
The (CB)
My Lords, I shall comment on each of the amendments. First, I
commiserate with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
I do so as a past president of the National Association of Local
Councils, the parent of parish and town councils in this country,
which would dearly have loved to have had the facility to vary
the way in which it deals with meetings. I am sorry that the
Government have not seen fit to acquiesce to any of this. The
Minister suggested that the measure went too far and that it
would open the floodgates to local government holding virtual
meetings as a matter of course. Were that his fear, the
Government’s fear or that of the other place, it seems to me that
it would have been perfectly possible to come back with a proviso
that the Secretary of State would make regulation.
One matter that has never been explained to my satisfaction is
the juxtaposition—the fact that, by definition, accountability is
somehow measured by physical presence. I do not get that, and I
do not think there will be many Members of this House present
today who will get it. This issue will come back through sheer
force of practicality and necessity. We have to move into the
modern age, in that sense. I will leave my comments on that
there.
I congratulate the noble Lord, , on his success in getting
what I can only describe as the obvious provision into this Bill,
namely that we have to take climate change seriously and that it
underpins everything that we do. To that extent, it was
inevitable—if not in this Bill then in very short order—that
something would have to be included somewhere in primary
legislation, but I congratulate him on his persistence in getting
this far. Even if it is not the whole bun, it is certainly more
than a currant in the bun and he is to be congratulated.
In that context, there are other things in the Bill that have
been left on the cutting- room floor. I am sorry that the noble
Lord, , is not here at the moment. His
amendment on healthy homes is about something that is inevitably
going to come back. It is not going to disappear; this is going
to have to be the benchmark whereby society expects homes to be
created.
The series of amendments which I have been trying to get through
unsuccessfully was to do with building safety remediation. The
fact is that so many leasehold homes are unprotected yet are
faced with remediation costs and liabilities, without which they
will not get insurance at any sensible cost. These homes are not
excluded from the necessity of remediation by virtue of their
height, whether it be 11 metres and below or above 11 metres,
because the Building Safety Act 2022 says that it will cover all
these other buildings.
It is simply not correct that somehow these homes escape the
inevitable consequences of that. That is going to come home to
roost because there is an entire market sector—an entire
financial sector—that is dependent upon that being resolved. If
it is not resolved now in this Bill, as it clearly will not be,
then it will come back in short order because this is a matter of
an existential threat to leasehold tenure, or indeed whatever
tenure there might be instead of leasehold. If you have a
building in multiple occupation, where different parts are
apartments, this problem is going to come home to roost so long
as there are defects caused in the original construction and the
constructor and developer are able to walk away from that
liability.
In congratulating the noble Lord, , on getting his motherhood
and apple pie amendment passed, let me remind your Lordships that
other bits that have been left behind are also going to come back
and haunt us as things go forward.
(Con)
With the leave of your Lordships, I will touch on another small
point. In Monday’s Hansard, the heading for this Bill said that
legislative consent had been obtained from the Welsh Government
but that the Government were still looking for legislative
consent from the Scottish Government. In fact, a Scottish
Government paper relating all the trials and tribulations that my
noble friend had been through—it had 26 pages—was still
operating. Are we still looking for more consent from that
direction?
(LD)
My Lords, this Bill has been improved by the assiduous work of
this House over the last 10 months. Some significant and welcome
changes have been made during that process.
I turn first to the two Motions left on the Order Paper. I regret
that the Commons has failed to perceive the benefit of enabling
some meetings of councils to be in a hybrid form. Like the noble
Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I feel sure that this issue will
resurface as the Government move towards the creation of even
larger units of local government, which will put additional
pressure on those elected to attend meetings in person.5.30pm
I welcome the progress that has been made in the amendments so
determinedly pursued by the noble Lord, , on making sure that
climate change is at the heart of the planning process. If I have
understood correctly, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has committed
that climate change adaptation and mitigation will be included in
national planning policy guidance. But we would like to see it
included in what is at the moment a blank sheet of paper: the
national development management plans. It would be even better if
that were the case. That would make a very clear statement that
climate change has to be part of any planning
decision-making.
Having said that there has been progress, I acknowledge that
there are many other unresolved challenges. The noble Earl,
, has raised the importance of
support for leaseholders and further amendments to the Building
Safety Act 2022. These included what my noble friend pursued about regulations
within that Act. There is also an unresolved challenge in
creating inclusive transparent devolution settlements for county
councils and in providing any evidence and energy to effect the
agenda that begins the process of levelling up those parts of our
countries that are in desperate need of government help.
Yesterday, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report that
provided evidence to support the fact that 1 million children in
our country are living in destitution—not poverty but
destitution. On the day before that, this House decided against
making tackling child poverty a key mission of levelling up. I
hope the House learns to regret that decision. On these Benches,
we will continue to make the case for dealing with the
inequalities that scar our country.
I thank all who have taken part in proceedings and those who have
provided the essential support in different parts of this Chamber
and in the office supporting the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Finally, I genuinely look forward to seeing evidence of levelling
up in practice where it is needed most. Sadly, at the moment, I
cannot say that I am particularly optimistic on that score.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, significant
changes have been made to improve the Bill while we have worked
on it over the past 10 months—although I have to say that it is
beginning to feel like a lifetime.
However, we are mainly looking at the two amendments in front of
us—first, on whether local authorities should be allowed to meet
virtually with hybrid technology. I commend the noble Baroness,
Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on her assiduous work in pressing
this issue and continuing to bring it to the attention of your
Lordships’ House. We find the Government’s response deeply
disappointing. In many ways, I would like better to understand
why they have dug their heels in on this issue, because I
genuinely do not understand why there could not be a little
flexibility. Local councillors can see that, in your Lordships’
House, we are able to take advantage of hybrid technology, so why
is this refused to councillors? It could have been put in
legislation with fairly strict reasons for its use, so that is
disappointing. I genuinely do not understand why no progress
whatever was made on this.
Moving on to progress, we welcome the amendment in lieu of the
amendment of the noble Lord, , on climate change and
planning. I congratulate him on his work on this and on getting
the Government to recognise that this is an important issue that
needed an amendment to the Bill. We endorse the noble Lord’s
proposals on how we can continue to take this forward.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is disappointing
that, in a levelling-up Bill, neither child poverty nor health
inequalities were included, because they are central to levelling
up. On that, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister has
chosen to remove the cap on bankers’ bonuses.
I thank everyone who took part and the noble Earl for his
generosity in meeting to discuss these issues. We may be saying
goodbye to the levelling-up Bill, but there is still much to do
if we are to achieve levelling up in this country.
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, the noble Earl,
, and the noble Baronesses, Lady
Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, for their respective
remarks.
As I said earlier, I appreciate that my noble friend and other
noble Lords beg to differ from the Government’s position on
remote meetings of local authorities. However, the Government’s
position rests on an issue of principle that has served local
government well for over 50 years. The Local Government Act 1972
is clear that “attending” a council meeting means attending
physically in order to be “present” at such a meeting. I
appreciate that the Covid regulations saw us through some
difficult and exceptional circumstances, but the democratic
principle of face-to-face attendance of meetings at all tiers of
government is important. There is a long tradition of local
authorities meeting in person and, since the expiration of the
temporary arrangements put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic,
they have continued to do so without issue. Having said that, I
am grateful to my noble friend for giving us fair warning that
she expects to bring us back to these issues at a suitable point
in the future.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, , for welcoming the
government amendment. I suggest to noble Lords that we should not
underplay the effect of the Government’s amendment in lieu, which
will mean that all national development management policies will
give consideration to their impacts on climate change mitigation
and adaptation while they are being developed and designated. I
will take back for consideration the noble Lord’s suggestion
about including targets in the Explanatory Notes.
Finally, in response to my noble friend the , I can tell the House that
the Scottish Parliament granted legislative consent for relevant
parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill yesterday,
following the agreement with the Scottish Government that was
mentioned in the House previously.
Motion A agreed.
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 45 and do agree
with the Commons in their Amendment 45C in lieu.
45C: Clause 87, page 95, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the need to
mitigate, and adapt to, climate change—
(a) in preparing a policy which is to be designated as a national
development management policy, or
(b) in modifying a national development management policy.”
Motion B agreed.
|
