← Back to House of Commons Debates
Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill - Clause 87 (National development policies: meaning)
24 October 2023
Lead MP
Rachel Maclean
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 8
At a Glance
Rachel Maclean raised concerns about levelling up and regeneration bill - clause 87 (national development policies: meaning) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Moves to disagree with Lords amendment 22B and insists on disagreement to Lords amendment 45, proposing Government amendment in lieu. Emphasises the importance of maintaining local discretion while addressing government concerns about council meetings being held solely online.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Acknowledges that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. Supports Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords amendment 45 and Government amendment (a) in lieu, appreciating its pragmatism and conciliation.
Peter Aldous
Con
Waveney
Supports the original Lords amendment 22, which provides local authorities with discretion. Acknowledges that the amendment in lieu is pragmatic and conciliatory. Emphasises that setting a Bill promoting greater local autonomy, it's 'perverse' for government to dictate how councils conduct themselves.
Greenwich and Woolwich
Supports the Lords amendment 22B, which allows Ministers to determine by regulations the range of circumstances in which hybrid meetings could take place. Argues that it is reasonable and proportionate.
Theresa Villiers
Con
Woodspring
Supports Lords amendment 22 for allowing councils to meet virtually, suggesting it could set a precedent for public sector flexibility and ease the burden on councillors. Acknowledges concerns over NDMPs but welcomes government consultation commitment. Emphasises the need to tackle climate change through planning reforms and calls for the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to reflect net zero goals.
Anum Qaisar
SNP
Glasgow North East
Expresses disappointment in the House of Lords' lack of amendments protecting devolution and highlights the importance of hybrid meetings for increasing democratic participation. Argues that virtual meetings are crucial for engaging different demographics, especially during challenging circumstances like storms. Stresses the need to take climate change seriously and pass legislation for future generations.
Shaun Bailey
Con
Hodge Hill
Bailey raised concerns about the potential misuse of virtual meetings by corrupt or incompetent councils, citing his negative experiences with Sandwell Council. He fears that such an amendment could exacerbate legal and governance issues. Despite supporting some underlying aims of the Lords amendments, he opposes this particular mechanism without assurances of Sandwell's disbandment.
Helen Morgan
Lib Dem
North Shropshire
Morgan argued for Lords amendment 22B to increase accessibility in local politics, noting the time constraints and travel challenges faced by many councillors. She emphasised that virtual attendance can reduce burdens on councillors who balance their roles with other commitments or live far from council meeting locations. Morgan also supported Lords amendment 45, advocating for climate considerations in planning policies, considering it essential for achieving net zero goals.
Rachel Maclean
Con
Wythenshawe and Sale East
She thanks MPs for their contributions, particularly praising those who spoke about inclusivity in local democracy but expresses concern over Lords amendment 22B proposed by Shaun Bailey. She argues that it would allow any future government to permit local authorities to meet virtually at every opportunity, which she believes is too expansive and against the principle of face-to-face local democracy.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.