Peter Aldous writes for FE Week.
The 2017 reforms to the apprenticeship system were ambitious, and rightly so. They demonstrated two fundamental understandings: first that for apprenticeships to succeed they needed a long-term, sustainable funding source, and second that they had to be rigorous if they were to win the confidence of employers and learners. The apprenticeship levy was designed to deliver the former while a host of other measures would ensure the latter.
From my conversations with some of the country’s leading apprenticeship employers, it has become increasingly clear that several of the provisions within the 2017 reforms that were aimed at driving growth and quality are now proving counter-productive and restricting take-up.
A recent roundtable discussion on the topic hosted by Ofsted outstanding apprenticeship training provider, MBKB and attended by some of the country’s leading apprenticeship employers repeated many of the calls I have heard from industry.
What’s the rush?
While the levy has successfully driven employer-funded apprenticeships, there is a feeling among some in industry that the two-year expiration on levy funds is inadvertently encouraging the adoption of a ‘spend it or lose it’ mentality. This leads to rushed financial decisions rather than strategic workforce development.
We need a more nuanced and flexible approach to the levy. Extending the expiration period could encourage more thoughtful expenditure, aligning training initiatives with long-term business strategies.
Tailored to suit
There is also a common feeling that reform is needed to address the rigidity of apprenticeship minimum duration requirements.
The 12-month minimum length of apprenticeship, for example, while suitable for some programmes, does not necessarily align with the operational demands of others. For instance, I have heard that certain schemes, such as in retail and customer service training, would be more effectively delivered in shorter, more intensive programmes – to the benefit of apprentices, training providers and employers. Meanwhile, others are being completed too quickly.
A reform to the system that legislates for a more flexible approach to minimum length requirements would enable better tailoring of apprenticeships to specific job roles and industry needs.
Pay and progression
Poor retention rates in apprenticeships also demand attention. The feedback from industry leaders suggests that a combination of factors (including the apprenticeship wage structure and lack of clear progression pathways) contributes to high drop-out rates.
Some have argued that increasing the apprenticeship minimum wage could positively impact apprentice retention rates by providing financial stability and demonstrating the value of their contributions. In turn, this would enhance job satisfaction and commitment. This is an option, among many, that the government could consider to improve retention.
A changing world
The way forward is not to dismantle what we have built but to listen, adapt and refine. This refinement is not just about making minor tweaks; it is about ensuring our apprenticeship system remains relevant, responsive and effective in a rapidly changing economic landscape. Modifying our approach as the circumstances change is a cornerstone of good policymaking.
Continuous examination reforms in the UK since 1986 underscore a crucial lesson to policy makers: complex policies demand calculated, large-scale improvements over time, ensuring long-term benefits and stronger foundations for future generations. There is no reason this dynamic logic of policy making should not be applied to improving the apprenticeship system.
As we see a shift away from traditional emphasis on university degrees, apprenticeships stand to play a pivotal role in filling the skills gap. This will only happen if they are attuned to the evolving needs of learners and employers.
While the foundations of the 2017 apprenticeship reforms are robust, targeted amendments are necessary – and will continue to be. By refining the levy, introducing flexibility in programme lengths and addressing retention challenges, we can ensure that our apprenticeship system remains a key driver of skill development and economic growth.
And by continuously drawing on the wisdom of industry, we can sustain them as the pivotal and adaptive avenue for career advancement today’s ever evolving world requires.
Peter Aldous makes the case for the introduction of an energy social tariff to protect vulnerable households in an era of high energy bills and backs calls for a consultation on the form that the tariff should take to be undertaken straightaway.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this debate and setting out in comprehensive detail the evidence base for an energy social tariff. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate.
Everyone should have access to a warm and secure home. For the majority of people, that will be provided through the marketplace, although our energy market is imperfect and invariably, at all times, in the interest of fairness, there is a need for Government intervention. Before the current cost of living crisis, that intervention was provided predominantly through the energy price cap, which, while not perfect, performed an important role. The energy price cap has been increased today, although from what we have heard from the hon. Lady, and from the feedback that I am receiving, that will be of limited relevance to many of those who are struggling with their bills.
The dramatic increase in energy prices, primarily caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has necessitated a different approach, and to their credit the Government have stepped in with more direct support over the past 18 months to two years. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continued with that strategy yesterday in his autumn statement, and I particularly welcome the increase in the local housing allowance. I have also heard that, as the hon. Lady has outlined, there is some concern as to whether he has done enough. I think he has tried, and I hope he has done enough, but in many ways I am on tenterhooks to see whether he actually has.
That said, it is clear that in the medium-to-long term—when I talk about the medium term, realistically I am now talking about 2024-25 onwards—a different approach is required to protect the most vulnerable. The energy price cap on its own has run its course, and it is thus appropriate to consider a social tariff, which can provide longer-term, more targeted support for the most vulnerable households.
The fact that we need such support is clear from the evidence base we heard about from the hon. Lady and from the feedback that we all receive in our constituencies from those who come into our surgeries, often with heartbreaking stories of the challenges they face. Those messages are reinforced by the briefings we all received ahead of this debate—as the hon. Lady said, we have received a great many of them—from such organisations as Citizens Advice, Mencap, Marie Curie, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and Scope. All those organisations have one thing in common: their clients—the people they look after, whom they support and whose needs they articulate to us as Members of Parliament—are the most vulnerable. They are the people who are the most challenged at this time.
It is also important to thank those churches and other faith groups, charities and volunteers, aided by local councils right throughout the country, who have reached out and are supporting those who are struggling with their energy bills. A network of warm rooms has now sprung up across the UK, which shows British society operating at its very best.
From my perspective, as I have said, the case for a social tariff is proven. It is now necessary to move on to the more complicated and difficult challenge: how to design that tariff and then introduce it. We have received a great many representations ahead of this debate; the one I found particularly interesting and relevant was the report of the Social Market Foundation from March this year, entitled “Fairer, warmer, cheaper”. That report is a good starting point for the discussion about the form that a social energy tariff might take.
As we have heard, the Social Market Foundation concluded:
“The current system of policies supporting households with high energy bills is inadequate for an era of high energy bills”—
one that is, I fear, likely to continue for the foreseeable future. It recommends a social tariff arrangement whereby households that spend an excessive proportion of their income on energy bills should receive targeted financial support to reduce those bills in the form of a social tariff. The Social Market Foundation also points out that the precise form of the social tariff warrants further consideration, but its own analysis suggests that the most progressive and fiscally efficient form is a lump sum payment. I will return in a minute to the precise form that the tariff might take.
The Social Market Foundation believes that the social tariff should be funded from general taxation—a view that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw articulated and with which I concur. It also rightly emphasises that at the same time as we introduce an energy social tariff, we need to significantly expand the energy company obligation scheme so as to improve the energy efficiency of homes. As we have heard, we have a very leaky housing stock; we have made some progress in improving it, but there is a long way to go. It is absolutely vital that we are not diverted from that pressing and crucial task, and we must significantly step up our efforts in that regard, with funding for the ECO continuing to be raised via on-bill levies.
As I have mentioned, the issue on which there is some dispute and where there is a need for discussion is the form that the tariff should take: whether it should be a social tariff or what is known as a block tariff. That is a complicated debate and I am not going to go into it in any great detail now—that is why we need the consultation that I am going to plead for in a minute, and which the hon. Lady already asked for. National Energy Action, which does great work in this field, favours a social tariff: it believes that a block tariff would be distributionally unfair and would create very vulnerable users. The counter- argument in favour of a block tariff is that it would incentivise energy efficiency, which should be a long-term goal and objective and is a challenge we must not shirk.
In conclusion, although I shall not go into any detail as to the design of the tariff, we need to get on straightaway and talk about it. It is ironic that, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, we are having this debate the day after this year’s autumn statement. If we go back a year to the autumn statement of 2022, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor undertook to
“develop a new approach to consumer protection in energy markets, which will apply from April 2024 onwards.”
That commitment was reiterated in the April just gone by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which set out the intention to consult this summer.
This is a very important task, as well as an incredibly complicated one, and we need to be getting on with it as quickly as possible. April 2024 is six months away, and I am not sure that that provides us with sufficient time to have an energy tariff in place for 2024-25. I know that there will be other distractions but, for an awful lot of vulnerable people, it is vital that we put that longer-term arrangement in place. I am not begrudging the support that has been given—the sticking-plaster approach of short-term support—but the longer-term approach is vital.
I would be grateful if, in her summing up, my hon. Friend the Minister, who does great work in this policy area, could provide us with details of when the consultation will get under way. Time is of the essence. We will not have it in place this winter—no way— but we do need it in place for 2024-25.
Peter Aldous highlights the success, after a challenging start, of the apprenticeship levy in creating higher-level apprenticeships in larger firms, but, he says, there is a need to provide more opportunities for younger people and new entrants to the labour market. He proposes a number of changes to the levy, including extending the expiration period for levy funds, making the minimum duration requirements for apprenticeships more flexible, and increasing the apprenticeship minimum wage to improve retention rates.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this debate, which is well synchronised with the Chancellor’s autumn statement.
If we are to unleash sustained economic growth and enhanced productivity, we need a fully functioning labour market. It requires an entry system that enables people to pursue their chosen career path and opens up opportunities in sectors that are vital to our future economic prosperity, such as low-carbon energy on the East Anglian coast. A vital means of achieving that goal is through the apprenticeship levy, which the Government introduced in 2017 as part of a package of reforms of the apprenticeship system. Those measures were rightly ambitious, and they were based on two principles. First, for apprenticeships to succeed, they must have a long-term, sustainable funding source. Secondly, apprenticeships must be rigorous, so as to gain the confidence of both employers and learners. The apprenticeship levy is designed to deliver the first of those objectives.
Six years on, I think that we can say that the levy is here to stay, but it has had a challenging start, and it has had to go through a great deal, including covid, the consequences of the war in Ukraine, and the cost of living crisis. There have also been outcomes that were neither intended nor foreseen. Now is the time to pause and refine the system.
The Association of Colleges provides the secretariat to the APPG on further education and lifelong learning, which I chair. It has identified the following challenges. There has been a dramatic decline in the number of people undertaking apprenticeships in recent years. It is now down to 60,000 young people starting apprenticeships each year. In the past six years, we have lost 160,000 engineering and manufacturing apprenticeship training places, at a time when those sectors are crying out for more staff.
The levy has been very successful in creating higher-level apprenticeships in larger firms, but there is a need to provide apprenticeship opportunities for younger people and new labour market entrants. Many small businesses are put off by the bureaucracy, as we have heard. Local skills improvement plans provide an appropriate local framework for meeting the needs of local labour markets, but we need a national strategy, so as to address such challenges as the technical skills gaps at levels 4 and 5. There is a worry that the budget allocated is nearly fully committed, though I accept that it is not necessarily all being spent. There is a need to consider how to either increase the levy and maintain growth through existing funding, for example by reforming the transfer mechanism, or look for savings that will not impact on quality.
As to how to improve the system, there should be a focus on new job starters, and consideration should be given to returning to the recommendations of the 2012 Government review, which stated:
“Apprenticeships should be redefined…clearly targeted at”,
and promoted to,
“those who are new to a job or role that requires sustained and substantial training.”
In addition, the following technical changes to how the apprenticeship levy operates should be given full consideration. First, there is a sense among some in the industry that the two-year expiration on levy funds is inadvertently encouraging the adoption of a “spend it or lose it” mentality, leading to rushed financial decisions, rather than strategic workforce development. A more nuanced, flexible approach is needed. Extending the expiration period could encourage more thoughtful expenditure, in which training initiatives are aligned with long-term business strategies.
Secondly, I am receiving feedback that the apprenticeship minimum duration requirements are too rigid. The 12-month minimum length for an apprenticeship, while suitable for some programmes, does not necessarily align with the operational demands of others. We need a more flexible approach to minimum length requirements that enables better tailoring of apprenticeships to specific job roles and industry needs. Thirdly, poor retention rates in apprenticeships require attention. High drop-out rates appear to be due to a combination of factors, including the apprenticeship wage structure and lack of clear progression pathways. Some have argued that increasing the apprenticeship minimum wage could help, by providing financial stability and demonstrating to apprentices the value of their contribution, thereby enhancing job satisfaction and increasing commitment. That is an option that, among many others, the Government should consider to improve retention rates.
In conclusion, the 2017 apprenticeship reforms, including the introduction of the levy, were good. However, the economic landscape is rapidly changing, both in the UK and globally. There is a need to listen, adapt and refine. The refinement is about more than making minor tweaks; it is about ensuring that our apprenticeship system remains relevant, responsive and effective. If we do that, people, whatever their background, can realise their ambitions and fulfil their potential, and the UK economy will be able to motor forward in fifth gear, not third.
Peter Aldous writes an article for the National Health Executive emphasizing the untapped potential of FE colleges in addressing the NHS workforce crisis.
Peter Aldous highlights concerns raised by the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce that anti-fraud measures implemented by HMRC have created an overly bureaucratic and time-consuming process for SMEs seeking to claim research and development tax credits which is causing delays and deterring businesses from investing in R&D.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Research and development tax credits have been remarkably successful in promoting investment by small and medium-sized enterprises. However, the Suffolk chamber of commerce has highlighted that the system has ground to a halt due to the sledgehammer approach of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tackling fraud. Will my hon. Friend liaise with HMRC and the Treasury to ensure that a more pragmatic approach is adopted?
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Andrew Griffith)
My hon. Friend is a champion of his constituency, and I am happy to speak to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on that important matter on his behalf.
Peter Aldous highlights the importance for the UK to secure high, sustained economic growth across the country which can be achieved by addressing the cost of living crisis, building more houses, investing in new jobs in the renewables sector, investing in infrastructure, recognising net zero as an opportunity to revitalise coastal communities and revitalising town centres.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is imperative that we secure high, sustained economic growth right across the UK. Some welcome policies are already being implemented and there are some good initiatives in the King’s Speech, although we face enormous challenges. The focus of my comments will be on coastal communities and on East Anglia.
I suggest that to deliver enduring economic growth, we need to address six issues. First, there is the cost of living crisis. Covid has a long and vicious tail, the cost of living crisis is still very much with us and this winter is likely to be very tough for many people. The household support grant has been successful and must continue, and other measures such as an increase in the local housing allowance must be given full consideration. Welfare reform must provide a clear and supported pathway for those who are some distance from the workplace.
Secondly, we must build more houses, particularly for social rent. The vehicles of delivery are primarily the housing associations, many of which are currently facing significant challenges, and Homes England. The recent announcement of funding to redevelop the former Sanyo site in Lowestoft is particularly welcome.
Thirdly, in coastal Britain, in places such as Lowestoft, there are exciting new jobs emerging in the renewables sector. Last week’s announcement of funding for local skills improvement plans, including for Norfolk and Suffolk, was welcome, but we need to ensure that trainers and colleges such as East Coast College in Lowestoft receive realistic revenue funding settlements. Progress has been made in recent years, but further education still receives a raw deal.
Fourthly, investment in infrastructure right across the UK is vital—in Lowestoft, construction of the Gull Wing bridge is well advanced—and there now needs to be an emphasis on improving regional connectivity, whether road, rail or the digital highway. Around the UK, to encourage investment and to protect homes, coastal communities must be made secure from the more prevalent extreme weather conditions we are now experiencing. With an eye to the opportunities arising from offshore energy and sustainable fishing, there must be fiscal incentives to encourage investment in port infrastructure.
Fifthly, net zero must be seen as an opportunity to revitalise coastal communities all around the UK. I can understand, and I support, the rationale for the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, but it must be part of a long-term strategy up to 2050 and beyond, to maximise private sector investment. Energy policy must be set in a 30-year, not a five-year, framework.
Sixthly and finally, we need to revitalise our towns, which for centuries have been hubs of economic activity all around the UK. Town deals, of which Lowestoft is a recipient, are welcome, as is the recently announced long-term plan for towns, but those initiatives can provide financial support for only a limited number of centres, and we need to put in place a growth framework for all towns that promotes their revitalisation and ensures they remain honeypots for setting up SMEs. That framework could include making it easier to set up banking hubs—at present, there is a very high bar to setting them up—and continuing the reform of business rates. We made a start in the Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023, which received Royal Assent last month, but it was only a timid move towards getting the business rates multiplier back down to between 30p and 35p in the pound. That is needed to ensure that businesses can plan with some certainty, rather than having to wait each year for the cliff edge of whether the Chancellor will extend business rates relief.
We should also consider the zero-rating of VAT for redevelopment in and around our town centres. Town centres across the UK have an awful lot of heritage that, properly realised and embraced, could help to promote them and get them back to being magnets and catalysts for economic growth.
Peter Aldous welcomes the Non-Domestic Rating Bill but stresses this must only be the start of business rates reform which must be more radical and carried out more quickly, particularly the uniform business rate multiplier must be reduced to an affordable level, the complex myriad of reliefs removed and annual valuations introduced.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
This Bill, unlike the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, on which we considered a further round of Lords amendments yesterday, has progressed through Parliament quickly. Second Reading in this place took place on 24 April, and the Bill will complete its passage today or tomorrow. It was a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment to carry out a fundamental review of the business rates system. This Bill is the start of that process, but it does not mark its completion, and on its own it cannot be described as fundamental.
The amendments before us are straightforward. Lords amendment 3 is a drafting correction to omit a requirement relating to Wales that is now obsolete. Lords amendments 1 and 2 relate to the new duty to notify. They cap the level of, and increase the burden of proof required for, penalties that will be applied for not complying with the obligation to give required information to the Valuation Office Agency. They are to be welcomed, but as highlighted on Report, this burden should have been much reduced and there should be reciprocal penalties on the VOA.
As I have mentioned, this Bill must mark the beginning of the reform of business rates, not the completion of the task. Business rates remain a heavy and uncertain burden on many businesses. They act as a brake on growth, disincentivise capital investments and are a barrier to levelling up. Reform must be more radical and must be carried out much more quickly.
I urge the Government to strive towards achieving the following goals. First, the uniform business rate multiplier must be reduced to an affordable level. The UBR currently sits at 51p in the pound. At such a high level, it deters investment and ultimately reduces the tax base. It should be reduced to the order of 34p, the level at which it was first introduced in 1990. Lowering the UBR would have the long-term effect of expanding the tax base. A failure to do this will ultimately see the Government increasing the UBR on an ever-shrinking tax base, and in doing so, threatening a vital source of local government revenue.
Secondly, as important as they are to so many businesses, we ultimately need to remove the myriad sticking plaster reliefs that are invariably lobbied for and announced at every spring Budget and autumn statement. They are an implicit admission that the UBR is too high. The Government have been forced to offer many of these reliefs as many businesses are unable to pay a UBR of 51p. By removing these reliefs and reducing the UBR, the Government would simplify the system and reduce the administrative burden on both ratepayers and the VOA. Instead of the annual cliff edges, as businesses lobby for and then nervously wait for a relief to be extended, such a reform would introduce an element of long-term certainty, which would encourage investment.
Finally, while the Government have taken a welcome step in the right direction by moving to three-year revaluations, they must keep going towards the ultimate goal of annual valuations. Shorter valuations are necessary to ensure that business rates respond to the dynamic and increasingly volatile movements of the market. It is vital that rateable values are assessed as frequently as possible to ensure that ratepayers are paying a fair amount.
My last point is to express regret at the curtailment in the definition of a “material change of circumstances”. This is a provision that gives ratepayers recourse to pursue a relief on their business rates bills when circumstances outside their control hinder their ability to run their businesses. Despite the Government’s protestations, the Bill in effect disapplies many common situations of material change that up to now have been acknowledged as such and are even described in the VOA’s own guidance.
In conclusion, this is the start of the reform of business rates, but it is not the finish. There is some way to go before we reach that Magnus Magnusson moment. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to my concerns during the passage of this Bill, and I am grateful to him for meeting me last month to discuss the situation. I have subsequently written to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury setting out some ideas as to how this reform process can be continued. I would be grateful if he and she committed to completing the task of the fundamental review of business rates that is so vital for businesses large and small all around the UK.
Speaking in a Westminster Hall debate on the future of horseracing, Peter Aldous highlights the importance of the supply chain which extends from racecourses to the countryside and on to licenced betting offices employing people on high streets everywhere around the country.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I have a confession to make: Fakenham was the first racecourse I ever went to. When I went, it had a chase course that went out beyond the point. Would my hon. Friend agree that the supply chain for British racing extends out of training centres and the courses we know about, into the countryside and studs? Its tentacles go right through towns in this country into those licenced betting offices that are features of all our towns. There are people employed in that wider industry on high streets everywhere around this country.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. It is not just about the betting offices in towns, but the restaurants and hotels that are supported by Fakenham race days.
In Prime Minister’s Questions, Peter Aldous highlights the ongoing national crisis in NHS dentistry and asks when the dental recovery plan will be published and seeks assurances that funding will be ringfenced to deal with emergencies and to help clear the backlog.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Q13. With the ongoing national crisis in NHS dentistry being raised here most weeks, can my right hon. Friend advise as to when the dentistry plan produced by the Department of Health and Social Care will be published? Can he ensure that any clawed-back unspent funds are ringfenced for NHS dentistry, so as to deal with emergencies and to help clear the backlog? (906726)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
We are investing £3 billion in NHS dentistry, and the reformed dental contract is helping to improve NHS access for patients. I am pleased to say that NHS dental activity in the past year increased by almost a quarter compared with the year before, but the forthcoming dental recovery plan, which will be out shortly, will include action to incentivise dentists to deliver even more NHS care.
As the Bill comes back before the House of Commons from the Lords, Peter Aldous urges the Government to consider the Lords’ pragmatic and conciliatory position in respect of allowing local authorities to hold virtual meetings, and welcomes the Government proposed amendment on addressing climate change mitigation in planning policies.
Peter Aldous (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, Baroness McIntosh, 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.