Building Safety

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

It is a basic requirement of a modern society that people should feel safe in their own homes. For too many people this has not been the case. It is not the responsibility of Government alone to keep watch and to ensure that homes are fit for habitation, and that people can sleep safely; it is the responsibility of the industry that builds them, too. For too long, we know, that responsibility was not upheld by all in the way that it should have been; too many people have suffered and continue to suffer as a result.



One year ago, we set about righting those wrongs with what should have been a statement of the obvious: the moral duty to pay the cost of replacing unsafe cladding belongs not just to Government but to those developers, product manufacturers and building owners that put unsafe materials on people’s homes and continue to profit from them—and not the innocent residents living inside them.



One year on, the laws passed by this Parliament and the actions taken by this Government have systematically broken impasses that were considered intractable.



Leaseholders have been given legal protections from unfair remediation bills for the first time, thanks to the Building Safety Act 2022.



Leaseholders can sell affected properties and move on with their lives, or know that they have the freedom to do so when they choose: earlier this month Colleagues across the House joined me in welcoming the statement from the six major mortgage lenders confirming that they would once again consider mortgage applications on properties that are covered by the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act, or where the building is eligible for a Government or developer remediation scheme.



The Building Safety Act created new powers to compel the owners of unsafe buildings to ensure properties are fixed, and to require those who are responsible for their defects to pay for their errors and corner-cutting. These powers are available not only to Ministers, but to fire services, councils, and most importantly to leaseholders. The Government are continuing to work closely with fire services and councils to ensure that building owners are being held to account for their actions, and that, where required, enforcement action is being taken against them. Developers and building owners responsible for unsafe buildings should be under no doubt: there will be significant consequences if they fail to comply with their legal obligations.

The developer contract

In April last year, I announced that the largest house builders had signed a non-binding pledge outlining their intention to fix all life-critical fire safety issues in buildings over 11 metres which they had a role in developing or refurbishing in England. I welcomed their constructive engagement, as I do again now.



I am today publishing the contract that will legally commit developers to delivering on their word; a commitment worth more than £2 billion that will protect leaseholders in hundreds of buildings.

Developers will also be required to reimburse the taxpayer where public money has already been used to make their buildings safe. While there is much more to do, today is a major step towards putting leaseholders’ minds at rest.



Once the contract is signed by these developers, leaseholders and owners in affected buildings will benefit from a common framework of rights and responsibilities that will get buildings fixed without cost to leaseholders. The contract confirms that the developers will inform residents in affected buildings how they will be meeting these commitments. I am grateful to those developers who have got on with assessing and remediating their buildings without waiting for the contract.



I expect developers to sign the contract within the next six weeks, by 13 March. This includes every company that signed the pledge, as well as several companies that have regrettably not done so. If you built unsafe buildings over 11 metres but did not sign the pledge, I am putting you on notice: expect to be asked to step up in the near future. Now is the time to make a binding commitment. In signing this contract, developers will be taking a big step towards restoring confidence in the sector and providing much needed certainty to all concerned. They will confirm that they are responsible companies. I know, from the positive discussions I have had, that many will be keen to do so. This contract will allow those developers to plan for the future in the knowledge that they understand the full extent of their legal obligations.

The Responsible Actors Scheme

Using powers provided in the Building Safety Act, I will lay regulations this Spring to create a Responsible Actors Scheme, and make sure that eligible developers that do not sign up are prohibited from carrying out major development, and from receiving building control sign-off for buildings already under construction.



The regulations will set out eligibility criteria for the scheme and will require members of the scheme to enter into and comply with the terms of the developer remediation contract we published today.



Major developers who have built defective buildings need to sign the contract and comply with its terms. This is not up for debate. Any eligible developers who refuse to sign the contract and join the statutory scheme will be subject to the prohibitions.



I am looking at expanding the scheme in due course. I want to capture all those who built unsafe buildings over 11 metres and should be paying to fix them. If that is you, you should expect to be invited to step up and join the scheme in the near future.

Holding wrongdoers to account

My department’s Recovery Strategy Unit (RSU) has spearheaded legal action against recalcitrant freeholders and is actively investigating the concerning conduct of various companies across the built environment, including contractors and construction product manufacturers.



To those freeholders holding back work to make buildings safe, even where the Government has made sufficient money directly available through its building safety fund: you must fix your buildings or we will take action, including through the courts. This legal action has already started, and leaseholders have already secured the first successful remediation contribution order. I would encourage others to use these new powers to challenge bad behaviour.



I have heard with great concern from residents and leaseholders about the actions of some property funds that are delaying vital remediation work. My message to them is clear: if you cannot fulfil your responsibilities and make these buildings safe, you should sell them to someone who will. We are also backing councils to boost their enforcement action against freeholders unacceptably delaying works to make their buildings safe, with more than £8 million committed to support local authorities in the areas most affected by building safety issues.

Building insurace

At my request, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) reviewed the buildings insurance market for multi-occupancy residential buildings. Its report highlighted serious issues relating to commissions and other payments being shared with property managing agents, landlords and freeholders by insurance firms, with such payments making up at least 30% of leaseholders’ insurance premiums on average. The FCA also identified concerning obstacles faced by some leaseholders in trying to understand or challenge their insurance bills. This is not acceptable, and we must act.



I can confirm today that I will take action to ban the unacceptable practice of managing agents, landlords and freeholders receiving commissions and other payments from insurers and insurance brokers. I will replace these payments with more transparent fees and over the coming year I will press insurance brokers, managing agents and freeholders to change their practices as a matter of priority. I will also arm leaseholders with more information, enabling them to better scrutinise costs. I will also ensure leaseholders are not subject to unjustified legal costs and can claim their legal costs back from their landlord. These steps will ensure that leaseholder insurance costs are fairer and more transparent and will rebalance the legal costs regime to give leaseholders greater confidence to challenge their costs.



I am pleased to see that the FCA has committed to investigating broker practices and consulting on regulatory changes to further protect and empower leaseholders. While this is a positive first step, leaseholders require meaningful change to ensure that they are better protected in the future. Leaseholders also need insurance premiums to reduce significantly and urgently, but it is clear that the quality of data in the insurance sector must improve to make this possible. I expect the FCA to ensure that industry implements its new data collection code for fire safety, to report on what actions it will take to ensure a fairer and more competitive market by the summer and to continue monitoring this sector.



I also welcome continuing work by the insurance industry on launching a UK-wide scheme to reduce the most severe premiums for leaseholders in buildings with significant fire safety issues, but I must stress the urgency: leaseholders need this support now.

Transforming the built environment

We are creating a culture of high standards that will transform the sector and ultimately the built environment, working closely with those who do that building. Together we will put standards and safety first, and must recognise that when these interests of those who live in homes and those who build them are aligned, everyone will benefit in the long run. The Government will play their part in that not only through clear regulation, but through leadership that holds wrongdoers to account.



The new Building Safety Regulator will oversee this culture of standards. The Government will be taking forward an ambitious programme of secondary legislation over the next year to set the regulator on firm foundations. Building owners and managers should already be preparing for the first requirement due to come into force soon—the requirement to register higher-risk buildings with the regulator. I will be working closely with the regulator to ensure that we have the world-leading regime that residents and leaseholders deserve, and I look forward to approving their first strategic plan in the coming months.



A copy of the contract will be deposited in the Library of both Houses and is available at: www.gov.uk.

DLUHC: Foundations for Growth

Lord Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

One of the Prime Minister’s top priorities is growing the economy, spreading opportunity right across the country. Levelling up is central to that mission. Today I am delighted to update the House on further progress being made to deliver the right foundations for growth through increased innovation, strong local leadership, and pride in place for communities.

First, on investment zones. This country has no shortage of growth industries, whether in advanced manufacturing, renewable industries or life sciences. And we have no shortage of world-class universities. But where we have underperformed is leveraging the success of these industries and research to support growth across the whole country. That is my guiding mission for investment zones. We will shortly begin a process to identify where zones will be located, guided by three principles. First, that Government cannot create clusters, but it can create the conditions for them to succeed. Secondly, success requires fiscal support, but also a wider range of interventions, whether land assembly, housing, transport, or skills, to tackle the specific barriers each cluster faces to growth. And thirdly, that can only happen in partnership with strong local leadership over the long-term.

Secondly, on nationally significant infrastructure projects. Working with BEIS, DEFRA, DFT and HMT we are modernising the approach to major projects and we will shortly publish an action plan setting out reforms to the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime that will streamline and speed up the consenting process. These important reforms will boost investor confidence in major infrastructure and help Government to improve energy security, achieve net zero and deliver the transport connectivity, water and waste management facilities this country needs.

Thirdly, on backing local leadership to regenerate their local areas. I am today announcing that I will shortly lay before Parliament secondary legislation setting up two new mayoral development corporations in Tees valley. These will drive a major regeneration of Hartlepool and Middlesbrough town centres and attract businesses and people back to these centres, making them vibrant, safe, and pleasant places in which to live and work. We are also in talks with both Greater Manchester and the West Midlands to strengthen the hands of both Mayors. We are exploring options to devolve more power, including in areas such as housing, to these combined authorities. Further details will be set out in the trailblazer devolution deals that will be published in due course. Alongside this, as part of our national reforms to ensure that all homes are free from the types of poor conditions and hazards that led to the tragic death of Awaab Ishak, I am today announcing £30 million to support the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined authorities to support improvements in the quality of social housing in their areas.

Fourthly, as we take steps to devolve more power to local leaders we are also backing this with clear accountability. We announced in the levelling up White Paper that we would establish a new Office for Local Government (Oflog), which will empower citizens to hold local leaders to account, while supporting local leaders to innovate and drive self-improvement. I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Lord (Amyas) Morse to the position of interim chair of the Office for Local Government. Lord Morse brings to the role a wealth of experience in public sector service delivery and performance, and will provide independent advice, support and challenge to Oflog’s strategic vision, functions and delivery. My Department will shortly recruit for a new chief executive for this important body.

Fifthly, to level up truly we must also ensure that people feel safe in their communities. We know that this is a real priority for our communities who want strong, practical action to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. Graffiti, vandalism, disorder and evidence of drug use makes daily life a misery. Indeed, for many, tackling this blight is a prerequisite to levelling up. This requires a multifaceted response. Working with the Home Office, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, we will shortly announce plans that will deliver for communities, giving them the confidence that the places they love can and will be protected and enhanced.

[HCWS519]

Levelling-up Fund Round 2 Outcome

Lord Gove Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

One of the Prime Minister’s top priorities is growing the economy, to create better-paid jobs and spread opportunity right across the country. This provides the foundations upon which to build stronger communities and safer streets. Levelling up remains central to these missions.

Today, I am delighted to announce the next stage of our levelling-up programme. This Government are committed to delivering three key priorities across the UK: supporting pride in place by funding culture projects in local communities; delivering economic growth with transport projects; empowering local leaders to regenerate their town centres. We are therefore allocating £2.1 billion of funding from round two of the levelling-up fund to drive growth and enhance communities. The successful bids were allocated following a rigorous official process, which took account of the geographic spread of need across the UK, ensuring the levelling-up fund reaches as many areas as possible across rounds 1 and 2.

The funding announced today builds on the £1.7 billion awarded to 105 bids in the first round, driving growth and regeneration across the UK. We received a tremendous response to this second round of the fund, with over 500 bids received, and a total value of £8.8 billion, a significant increase on the just over 300 applications in round 1. All bids for round 2 were assessed by officials according to clear criteria, and Ministers approved the funding selection without adding or removing bids. Further details of the process applied by the Government are published in our explanatory note on the assessment and decision-making process.

The levelling-up fund will play a key role in helping to reduce geographical disparities across the United Kingdom. To this end, the second round of the fund will see £456 million awarded in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, building on the £342 million awarded in round 1. This Government are committed to protecting and promoting the combined strengths of the UK. I strongly believe that, working as one United Kingdom, we are better able to tackle the individual challenges every region and nation across the country face.

We will have a further round of the levelling-up fund, alongside other complementary interventions which together will help protect community assets and level up areas of the country. We will outline more information on this in due course.

[HCWW503]

Green Freeports in Scotland

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

On 13 January, the UK and Scottish Governments jointly announced that the Firth of Forth, and Inverness and Cromarty Firth have been successful in their bids to establish two new green freeports.

Green freeport status will support the creation of over 75,000 new, high-skilled jobs, drive growth and level up areas that have been previously overlooked. These areas will be backed by up to £52 million in UK Government funding, and potentially hundreds of millions in locally retained business rates, to upgrade local infrastructure and stimulate regeneration. This is alongside a generous package of trade and innovation support for businesses locating there.

Inverness and Cromarty Firth, and the Firth of Forth are excellent locations for these new green freeports, ensuring the benefits are felt right across Scotland. I wish to share my congratulations with the successful locations. Their strong bids demonstrated how they will regenerate their local communities, deliver decarbonisation, establish hubs for global trade and pioneer industries of the future.

Freeports are at the vanguard of levelling up: driving growth, creating jobs and, in turn, transforming the communities that surround them. Green freeports in Scotland will build on the UK Government’s successful freeport programme in England, where all eight freeports are open for business, with sites in Plymouth and South Devon, Solent, Teesside, Liverpool and the east of England recently being granted final Government approval. Green freeports are a tangible example of what can be achieved and delivered when Scotland's two Governments work together.

This Government remain committed to ensuring that the whole of the UK can reap the benefits of our freeports programme. We will be making a freeports announcement relating to Wales shortly and we continue discussions with stakeholders in Northern Ireland about how best to deliver the benefits associated with freeports there.

[HCWS498]

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Gove Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

What a great Bill this is—put together by a great ministerial team, passed by great majorities and improved by the great contribution of many great Back Benchers. I hope that the other place has a great time when it reviews it.

Local Government Finance Settlement: England

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

Today the Government have published details on the Local Government Finance Settlement for the next two years for English councils, which prioritises protecting local taxpayers and vital core services. Local government has long called for greater certainty on funding following repeated one-year settlements, greater local control of finances, and a focus on social care. This two-year policy statement delivers on all of these fronts.

The Government estimate that on average councils will see an increase of around 9% in their funding next year. We have delivered on the sector’s requests for additional funding through the £2.8 billion announced at the autumn statement for social care. We are also ensuring that this year’s settlement provides support across all tiers of local government through a new, one-off funding guarantee that ensures all local authorities will see a minimum 3% increase in their core spending power before taking any local decisions on council tax levels. Councils are best placed to make local decisions to meet pressures and ensure that our most vulnerable in society get the support they need, and therefore it is for individual local authorities to determine the level of flexibility they use in setting council tax. The policy statement confirms a core referendum principle of up to 3% for both 2023-24 and 2024-25.

The Government’s manifesto commit to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases, and it is for the House of Commons to set an annual threshold at which a council tax referendum is triggered. This is an additional local democratic check and balance to avoid the repeat seen under the last Labour Government when council tax more than doubled. This package of referendum principles strikes a fair balance. The council tax referendum provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level.

Councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners, and local councils will rightly want to consider the financial needs of local residents at this challenging point in time, alongside the public’s support for action on keeping our streets safe and providing key services.

The Mayor of London has requested flexibility to levy an additional £20 on band D bills to the Greater London Authority precept to provide extra funding for Transport for London. The Government have expressed ongoing concern about the management of TfL by this Mayor, and it is disappointing that London taxpayers are having to foot the bill for the GLA’s poor governance and decision making. While the Government will not oppose this request, any decision to increase the precept is solely one for the Mayor, who should take into account the pressures that Londoners are currently facing on living costs and his decision to raise council tax by 9.5% last year.

This will be a settlement that also recognises the importance of funding adult social care by confirming significant additional funding for social care. Additionally, for social care authorities, the Government will consult on a 2% precept, for both 2023-24 and 2024-25. When taking decisions on council tax levels, local authorities should recognise the pressures many households are facing.

In addition, the policy statement has set out key assumptions behind the second year of the settlement. This includes confirming that the review of relative needs and resources and a reset to business rates growth will not be implemented in the next two years, to give councils more certainty for budget planning. For 2024-25, the policy statement refers to the significant new funding stream expected from the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme.

Finally, we are encouraging local authorities to consider whether they can use their reserves to maintain services in the face of immediate inflationary pressures, taking account, of course, of the need to maintain appropriate levels of reserves to support councils’ financial sustainability and future investment. The Government note the significant increase in some local authority reserves over the two years of the pandemic.

All of the proposals set out in the policy statement will be subject to the usual consultation process within the Local Government Finance Settlement.

This written ministerial statement covers England only.

[HCWS437]

Called-in Planning Decision: West Cumbria

Lord Gove Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following the decision I made yesterday to grant planning permission for a new metallurgical coalmine at Whitehaven in Cumbria.

I think it is important to stress at the beginning of my statement that I am speaking with regard to a planning decision that I have taken in my capacity as Secretary of State in what is a quasi-judicial process. Members of the House will be aware that the decision may, of course, be subject to a legal challenge, so I urge all Members of the House who are interested in the decision to read the decision letter, which was published yesterday, alongside the detailed report of the independent planning inspector who oversaw the public inquiry into the proposals. Any mature and considered response needs to take account of both my decision letter and the planning inspector’s full report.

I would like to refer in my statement to some of the arguments that the planning inspector has entertained and some of the arguments that he has made in the course of his report, but nothing that I say at the Dispatch Box should be taken in any way as a substitute for full engagement with the inspector’s report.

It is important to note that it is rare that any planning decision is an open-and-shut matter. There are almost always competing elements for and against any planning scheme—particularly a substantial one of this kind, which can raise serious and passionate debate—but the open and transparent public inquiry system allows all those issues to be fully explored. It also allows all parties to put their case before an independent inspector.

The decision that I issued yesterday was in line directly with the recommendation of the inspector, who heard all the evidence for and against the scheme and was able to test that evidence through the participation of interested parties. This was a comprehensive and thorough process, lasting over a month and hearing from over 40 different witnesses. It is summarised in a report of over 350 pages, which, again, I urge all hon. Members to read.

I think it important to restate—as I think is well understood—that the proposal granted permission yesterday for the production of coking coal for use in steel production is not an energy proposal. Our net zero strategy makes it clear that coal has no part to play in future power generation, which is why we will be phasing it out of our electricity supply by 2024. Coal’s share of our electricity supply has already declined significantly in recent years. It was almost 40% of our energy supply in 2012, and less than 2% in 2020.

I took account of the facts in reviewing the planning application, as did the inspector, taking into particular account the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy industrial decarbonisation strategy of March 2021, which explicitly does not rule out the use of coking coal in an integrated steel-making process, and makes it clear that, together with carbon capture and storage, that can be part of a net zero-compliant option.

It is important to note, as the inspector makes plain on page 239 of the report, that it is clear all the scenarios and forecasts for the future use of coking coal which were put before the inquiry demonstrated a continued demand for coking coal for a number of decades to come. It is also important to state that the European Commission, as the inspector noted, recognised the indispensable role of coking coal during the steel industry’s transition to climate neutrality.

It is also important to note, as the inspector did on page 238, that the UK is currently almost wholly dependent on imports of coking coal to meet its steel manufacturing demand. In 2017, 98.8% of the more than 3 million tonnes of coking coal used in UK steel plants was imported. The main exporters of coking coal at the moment are Australia, the USA and, of course, Russia. European metallurgical coal demand is forecast to remain between 50 and 55 million tonnes per annum for the next 28 years, and in the UK demand is forecast to remain at the current level of 1.5 million tonnes per annum.

The coking coal that will be extracted from the mine in Whitehaven is of a particular quality. Coking coal is usually a blended product of soft and hard high volatile coals and low volatile coals. The coal from the proposed mine would have a low ash content of below 5%, compared with between 7% and 8% for US coal and 10% for Australian coal. It would also have a low phosphorus content, lower than that of Australian coal, and a high fluidity. It is also important to note that, while the sulphur content of this coal has been referred to, and it is relatively high, the evidence before the inspector suggests that the coal handling and processing plant will produce coal with an average sulphur content of 1.4 %, and the applicant has stated its acceptance of the planning condition to ensure the product leaving the mine meets this level.

It is also important to note that the applicant is making it clear that this will be the only net zero metallurgical coking coalmine in the world. It is vitally important that all of us recognise—as the inspector does on page 255—that the proposed development would to some extent support the transition to a low-carbon future specifically as a consequence of the provision of a currently needed resource from a mine that aspires to be net zero. I think it is also important that we recognise that, in any change of land use, there will always be a potential impact on biodiversity and on the local environment as well. Again, it is important to note that, on page 278 of his report, the inspector makes it clear that this mine would not cause any unacceptable impacts on ecology or result in a net loss of biodiversity. The inspector also makes it clear in paragraph 22.9 that the proposed development itself would have an overall neutral effect on climate change, and as such there would be no material conflict with Government policies for meeting the challenge of climate change.

Taking account of all these environmental considerations, we should also bear in mind the impact on employment and on the economy, locally and nationally. As the inspectorate notes on page 279, the mine will directly create 532 jobs, which will make a substantial contribution to local employment opportunities because they will be skilled and well-paid jobs. The employment, and indirect employment, that would follow will result in a significant contribution to the local and regional economy, with increased spending in local shops, facilities and services. In addition, the exportation of some of the coal to European markets will make a significant contribution to the UK balance of payments. It is therefore the case that granting the application is compliant with planning policy, and the social and economic benefits should be afforded substantial weight.

The inspector’s report makes a strong case, in a balanced way, for the granting of permission. After reading the inspector’s report in full, I am satisfied, in my role as Secretary of State, that it is the right thing to do to grant this planning application.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The statement I received was the thinnest ever, but the Minister has gone long. Between that and what the Opposition and I have been provided with, there is something missing, which is not in accordance with the ministerial code. We do not work like that. The shadow Secretary of State has not been able to read what has just been said. I am going to suspend the House in order to try to find out what is in the statement.

Called-in Planning Decision: West Cumbria

Lord Gove Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I have one question for the Secretary of State: what on earth is he thinking? The decision to greenlight the reopening of the Woodhouse colliery is bad policy and bad politics. It is the latest in a string of absurd decisions from a Government in chaos, causing chaos in this Chamber and out there in the country. They are in office but not in power.

This mine will produce coking coal used for steel, not for electricity generation. So, as the Secretary of State has had to admit today, the claim it helps to safeguard our energy security is nonsense, but it gets worse. The two big steel producers, Tata and British Steel, are phasing out this coal in favour of lower-carbon production methods. By the mid-2030s, at best, the UK will use less than 10% of the mine’s output. Across the world, demand for coking coal is projected to fall off a cliff, by 88%, by 2050.

People in Cumbria deserve a long-term future, with lasting, well-paid jobs that power us through the next century. Instead, they are saddled with a weak, short-sighted and unambitious Government who, only two months ago, rejected a plan to bring new nuclear to Cumbria, which would have created not 500 short-term jobs but 10,000 jobs for the long term.

The right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is supposed to be the Secretary of State for Levelling Up. The Tories were once the party of conservation, and now they are the party of environmental vandalism. He can fiddle the figures all he likes, but the reality is that this mine is projected to increase emissions by 0.4 million tonnes a year, according to his own advisers. That is equivalent to putting 200,000 more cars on the road every single year.

This decision flies in the face of Britain’s net zero objectives, contradicts the aims of the UK’s COP26 presidency and undermines the 2019 Conservative manifesto. This is chaos. Successive Secretaries of State are contradicting each other and the Government’s independent adviser on climate change condemned the decision as “indefensible” even as the Secretary of State stands here trying to defend it.

The Secretary of State told us that coal has no part to play in future power generation. He cannot even agree with himself. No leadership abroad. No leadership at home. Unable to lead even in his own party. I hope he will at least reassure the House today that this bizarre decision, which he cannot even defend, was not part of a deal to buy off Back Benchers after his U-turn earlier this week on onshore wind.

People in Britain deserve better. Right across the country, communities such as mine in Wigan and across Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria are proud of our mining heritage and of the contribution we made to this country, but we want a Government who look forward and match our ambition so that, through clean energy, our young people can power us through the next century like their parents and grandparents powered us through the last. Where is the ambition? Where is the leadership? Where is the government?

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

Mr Speaker, thank you for your ruling earlier. I apologise to you and to the House. No discourtesy was intended. I appreciate the importance of maintaining the courtesies of the House, particularly with regard to statements.

As I mentioned earlier, the context of this statement is a quasi-judicial process on a planning application. I always admire the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and she asks, “Where is the ambition? Where is the leadership?” I think we all know where the ambition and the leadership is: it is sitting right across from me.

The hon. Lady will have her own views on future demand for coking coal, but I fear she elides the difference between coking coal used for metallurgical purposes and coal used for energy generation purposes. The inspector’s report makes it clear that coking coal is used not for energy purposes but purely for metallurgical purposes, for the manufacture of steel. Of course, we will need steel for decades to come, including in the renewables sector. How else will we ensure that we supply all the materials necessary for onshore wind and other renewable energy without using steel? If she or anybody else in the House has an answer, I and millions of scientists would love to hear it.

It is important to look at the inspector’s report, as I have in detail. The inspector makes it clear on page 239, in paragraph 21.37, that in all the scenarios and forecasts presented to him there was

“continued demand for coking coal for a number of decades.”

He also made it clear that, at the moment, imports of coking coal come from Australia, the USA and Russia. As I pointed out in the statement, and as the inspector makes clear, no evidence has been provided to suggest that any other metallurgical coal mine in the world aspires to be net zero in the way the Whitehaven development does. Again, the inspector makes it clear that the

“development would to some extent support the transition to a low carbon future as a consequence of the provision of a currently needed resource from a mine that aspires to be net zero.”

The European Commission is clear that coking coal is a critical part of steel and that steel is necessary to the future of Europe. We recognise that the demand for this coking coal, both in the UK and in Europe, is better supplied from a net zero mine than from other alternatives. As the inspector makes clear, this decision will also be responsible for high-skilled, high-value jobs in Cumbria, alongside other jobs in the supply chain elsewhere, and that is without prejudice to the other investment that the Government are making in clean green energy sources alongside it.

The inspector’s report is clear and, in responding to the questions from the hon. Member for Wigan, I urge every Member of the House to read the inspector’s report in full, alongside my decision letter. Those 350 pages lay out the evidence. They present the arguments for and against the decision. The inspector, an independent planning expert, has concluded that this development should go ahead and I agree with him.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown on this matter, cutting through the noise from the Opposition and implementing the planning inspector’s decision, which acknowledges the ongoing need for coking coal and the lack of alternatives to it in steelmaking. My constituents and I cannot understand why today’s Labour party feels the need to campaign against the UK supply chain and local jobs, and for further emissions through the importation of this necessary coking coal. Can he?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He draws attention to the importance of paying close attention to the inspector’s report. The inspector makes it clear that the industrial decarbonisation strategy, which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy produced and which has been endorsed across the House, explicitly

“does not rule out the use of coking coal in an integrated steel making process together with CCUS as a net zero compliant option going forward”.

On the basis of existing policy and the inspector’s recommendation, I have made my decision. As my hon. Friend points out, others—indeed, others from other parties—may make the decision on a party political ground. The decision we have made is purely on the basis of the evidence in front of us.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The decision has been condemned by the Chair of the Climate Change Committee. Chris Stark, chief executive of the committee, retweeted that this is

“climate vandalism and economic incompetence on a scale difficult to believe”.

The International Energy Agency previously stated that no further fossil fuel projects can be built if net zero is to be achievable by 2050 and OECD countries need to end use of coal by 2030, so why license this mine to 2049? Ron Deelan, a former chief executive of British Steel, called it

“a completely unnecessary step for the British Steel Industry”.

Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute research centre, previously advised that British Steel could not use this coal because it is

“not of the right quality”.

The reality is that 85% of this coal is going to be exported, so talking about cancelling imports is a complete red herring. What we are doing is increasing our carbon footprint to support industry in the EU. It is illogical and we know demand for coking coal will fall, as the EU is further ahead on the development of green steel. Where is the UK progress on green steel? Coking coal is not even identified on the UK’s critical mineral strategy or in the National Security and Investment Act 2021, although it is a critical mineral for the EU. But, clearly, this mine is not needed for the UK. Given this decision, what steps are being taken to rapidly accelerate the net zero pathway, for example, by changing the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster to track 1 status?

The Secretary of State hides behind the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate. Why did his Government override the Planning Inspectorate on Sizewell C? This coking coal is not critical for the UK. It is going to be exported, so why has he made this decision just to appease Tory Back-Bench climate change cynics?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He quotes a number of individuals and draws explicitly—he was good enough to acknowledge this—party political conclusions. I relied on the inspector’s report and on the evidence in front of me. As I explained in my decision letter, no evidence was provided to suggest that any other metallurgical coal mine in the world aspires to be net zero, so the proposed mine is likely to be much better placed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions than comparative mining operations around the world. On that basis, it is entirely in keeping with our net zero commitments, and indeed with the commitment to not only jobs, but the environment, to approve the inspector’s case.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

I speak as an ex-miner and a net zero champion in this place. I remember a time when the Labour party stood shoulder to shoulder, side by side with the coalmining communities in our great country, but Labour’s treachery has taken a new twist. It has turned its back on the red wall and the coalmining communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who is not in his place, when he said in 2015, when his local Hatfield colliery was due to be closed, that we should not be importing coal for the Drax power station from places such as Russia and Colombia, and instead should be mining it on our own doorstep?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The right hon. Gentleman’s comments are on the record in Hansard and are a valuable contribution to this debate.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is probably aware of the statement made yesterday by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that multinational corporations are making ecosystems into “playthings of profit”. The Secretary of State has prayed in aid the inspector’s report, and I accept what the inspector has said. However, the Secretary of State provides the framework for the Planning Inspectorate, so will he not now at least say that he will review the whole of our planning framework to try to protect wildlife, ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as the green belt?

[Michael Gove]

Let me set aside specifically the decision here, where the inspector’s report speaks for itself—I urge the hon. Gentleman and others to read it in full. On the broader point he makes about planning policy, we are bringing forward changes to the national planning policy framework explicitly to defend the green belt, safeguard biodiversity and introduce biodiversity net gain. Those changes that we brought forward were shared in a “Dear colleague” letter that I sent to every Member of the House of Commons. They attracted widespread support from Conservative MPs, but were denounced from the Dispatch Box yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I have enormous affection and respect for the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and I am grateful for his commitment to the environment. Perhaps he could have a word with the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and encourage him to take a greener approach towards planning and development overall.

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

I really welcome this news and the fact that the Secretary of State has found that he does agree with the views of the independent Planning Inspectorate. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) and others who have campaigned so effectively on this issue. I, for one, will sleep easier in my bed knowing that we have recovered a UK-based capability to supply an incredibly important specialist kind of coal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government must always keep in the forefront of their mind the importance of certain industries and materials for our national resilience and our strategic capabilities? He knows that, as always, I am talking about steel.

[Michael Gove]

On this side of the House, we have had iron ladies, but there is no better champion of steel than my hon. Friend. Whether in Scunthorpe or Port Talbot, jobs depend on the future of our steel industry. Steel is a critical strategic component of our future economy; it will be necessary as we make the transition to net zero. In that context, following the inspector’s report and following the need for coking coal, as he points out, according to experts, for decades to come, I have agreed with the inspector and am convinced that his recommendation for this mine is right.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In recent weeks, we have had the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change almost literally gaslighting the public by claiming that fracking and the new oil and gas licences for extraction in the North sea are green measures. Now the Secretary of State is trying to make the same claim about opening a new coalmine. He tries to claim that this is a net zero coalmine, but will he confirm that that does not take into account the actual burning of the coal?

[Michael Gove]

There are two separate points and the hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is both the operation of the mine itself and the future usage of the coal. The inspector analyses both, and the recommendations that he laid out weighed with me as I made the decision.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been clear about the distinction between metallurgical coal and coal for power production. Colleagues have spoken about the wisdom of using domestically produced products rather than imported products, as just highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050 and the rapid phasing out of coal for power production?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. We have succeeded, in the past decade or so, in dramatically reducing our reliance on coal for energy generation. It constitutes, I think, only around 2% of the current mix in energy generation, of which renewables constitute an increasing part. As he quite rightly points out, and as I know Members across the House appreciate, the coal that is being produced is metallurgical coal, which is specifically to be used in the steel-making process.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome this common-sense and economically sound decision. It is one that will create jobs, will ensure that we do not have to import necessary coal, and, as the inspector has said, will have significant national and regional economic advantages for our economy. Does the Minister agree that, where we have indigenous resources, which this economy needs, it is economically better and more honest to use those rather than import from countries with lower environmental standards and also that might not be relied on? Does he not find it ironic that some of those who are complaining today are the first to complain about not doing enough for poor regions of this country and would be the first in line to complain if steel jobs were lost?

[Michael Gove]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes his case very eloquently. He is quite right to point out that the inspector gives appropriate weight to the high-skill, high-quality jobs that will be created as a result of this development going ahead.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you know me to be a biologist and an environmentalist—I should confess to the House that I also get called a tree hugger by certain hon. Members of this House—but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the “net” in net zero that is the crucial thing here? We have heard today from the Opposition that this development is not green, but they are wrong. It is better to do this mining on our shores and in a responsible way. Does he agree that the north-west of England has the pride, the heritage, the skills and the future to deliver not only this coking coalmine, but the future industries of 4.0?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am tempted to say that any tree that is hugged by my hon. Friend is a very lucky tree.

On the substance of the very important point that my hon. Friend makes, yes, in order to ensure that we have a transition to net zero we do need to reduce our reliance on a variety of different materials. However, as the inspector makes clear, and as my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, the economic benefits that this development brings to the north-west are also entirely consistent with our broader environmental ambitions.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the former President of COP, says that 85% of this coal will be exported. Is he wrong?

[Michael Gove]

The inspector makes it clear in his report that, by sourcing coal from this mine, there will be a beneficial effect in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Cumbria planning committee, after careful consideration, approved this planning application. The Secretary of State then called it in for an independent review. The independent planning inspector, after careful consideration of all the evidence, recommended approval. Given my confidence that my right hon. Friend is a rational man, does he not agree that it would be completely irrational to override the recommendations of the planning inspector and refuse this planning application, which has great benefit to the United Kingdom?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend has a matchless knowledge of the planning process. Again, I urge all colleagues to read my decision letter and also the inspector’s report, which gives a full account of all the evidence that was placed before him. As I said in my statement, this planning application has given rise to strong feelings on both sides, but the inspector’s report lays out a particular case and, as I read the inspector’s report and saw the conclusions that he drew, so my decision letter followed. I hope that all colleagues will have the chance to read the report and make their own judgments.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

This decision makes a travesty of the word “transition”. It is a full-blown backward step to more fossil fuel in the UK. In June, the Government overturned a local planning decision not to allow drilling at Horse Hill in Surrey. Now we have mining in Cumbria. This is a trend, and as we have heard, most of the coal is for export, not for local or UK need or use. Industry needs to make a profit, hence the vast quantity that it wants to export for profit for the fossil fuel industry. If the issue is that the Government are stuck with a quasi-judicial planning decision, is it not high time for root and branch reform of the planning system to put net zero at the core of every decision, rather than bending to the fossil fuel industry?

[Michael Gove]

Again, I urge the hon. Lady, who I know takes environmental issue seriously, to look at the inspector’s report in full. She should look, for example, at paragraph 21.127, where the inspector outlines that there will be

“some, but unquantifiable, likely reductions in GHG emissions from transportation”

as a result of domestic production. Looking at the report in full and in the round, she will see that all the environmental arguments, which she takes seriously, are rehearsed, considered and then an appropriate conclusion is made.

Entirely separate to the planning inspector’s report, I would welcome her and her and party’s contribution to the consultation on the national planning policy framework that we have put forward. I am sure that she will find in that a number of measures that will meet the concerns that she and others have expressed in order to safeguard our environment more effectively.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Bassetlaw has a proud mining history. Along with many of my constituents, I praise my right hon. Friend for the leadership and the pragmatism that he has shown on this issue. There has been concern about importing our coking coal from countries with lower environmental standards than ourselves. We need metallurgical coking coal for making steel, as has already been said, but now we can mine to our high environmental standards, and, of course, also cut out the need for transportation halfway across the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from having a negative effect on our own net zero ambitions, this decision actually reinforces them?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend will know how rare it is that I quote from the European Commission approvingly. However, in the inspector’s report he quotes from the European Commission and says that it recognises

“the indispensable role of coking coal during the steel industry’s transition to climate neutrality.”

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, expertise cited by the inspector all points to the wisdom of allowing this mine to go ahead.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The world is currently meeting in Montreal for COP15 to deal with the pressing climate and nature crisis that we are facing. A common message from there is that coal should be kept in the ground. It will be incredibly difficult for the Government to convince the public at home and abroad that opening a new coalmine is dealing with that urgent climate crisis in a progressive way. His colleague, the former COP26 President, described this decision as an “own goal”, so may I ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks approving a new coalmine in the middle of a climate crisis will enhance or damage Britain’s reputation as a global green leader?

[Michael Gove]

Again, I stress the importance of looking at what the inspector says. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out that international partners are meeting in Montreal, alongside the UK, in order to uphold the importance of biodiversity and to help protect species. I should point out that in paragraph 21.163 of the inspector’s report the inspector specifically addresses the question of biodiversity and says that he

“is satisfied that the Supplemental Undertaking”—

given by the applicant—

“would ensure that the proposed development would provide for a minimum net gain”—

in biodiversity—

“of 10% prior to the commencement of production and further net gain to be achieved on restoration.”

The inspector took account of biodiversity in coming to his judgment, and so have I.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence before the inquiry pointed to the fact that blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace production is likely to continue in the UK and Europe until at least 2040 and probably 2050? If we need coking coal up to 2050, what on earth are other parties in this Chamber doing arguing we should import it from Russia rather than creating 500 high-paid, high-skilled jobs in Cumbria, transforming our economy, supporting the steel industry and delivering on our levelling-up promises?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As the inspector notes, new alternative technologies being developed will mean that reliance on coking coal can be reduced over time. However, on the evidence put in front of the inspector, there will be a need for coking coal for decades to come and it is better that it comes from a net zero metallurgical mine, of which this is the only one that the inspector is aware that exists in the world.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

This is a backwards step and hon. Friends have rightly laid out the regressive environmental impact and what that says about the Government’s seriousness on net zero. My party colleagues in the Assembly used the devolved powers they had to ensure a moratorium on fracking in Northern Ireland, but there is genuine concern about the potential for this Government to make similar unwanted and damaging decisions in our region, in the absence of the protection of devolution. Can the Secretary of State confirm that any extraction decisions are for devolved Ministers in Northern Ireland, where a majority of people want to keep fossil fuels in the ground and want instead to see investment in renewables and their huge potential for green jobs?

[Michael Gove]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s position. If she will forgive me, I shall not be drawn into the question of Executive formation in Northern Ireland. I know everybody wants to make sure we can make progress there and I take into account the importance she rightly places on devolved decision making; that is an aspiration I share.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

The Opposition have no concern over European and other countries burning lignite to power their industries and rarely distinguish between thermal and metallurgical coal. Will my right hon. Friend renew his commitment to evidence-based policymaking and the ongoing revival of British mining and manufacturing?

[Michael Gove]

Again, the 350-page report looks at all the evidence and the competing arguments before coming to that conclusion. I know my hon. Friend, like many colleagues, looked closely at that report before coming to his own judgment, and I urge all colleagues across this House to do so.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) talks about the ongoing revival of coal mines. Not only is this decision an act of climate vandalism, but steel industry experts say it is completely unnecessary and that the British steel industry needs green investment. We know that solving the energy crisis and securing good, local, well-paid jobs across the country are important, but is not investing in renewables and the national programme of housing insulation the real way to do that?

[Michael Gove]

The Government are investing in renewables, and the leadership that has been shown by the UK Government and partners across the UK in the provision of offshore wind is a demonstration of that. As I pointed out, when it comes to offshore and onshore wind, steel is a critical component in the manufacture of the turbines that we rely on. If we are to continue to produce steel in future, we will need coking coal for decades to come, and the inspector concludes it is better that it comes from a mine that is net zero.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I commend the Secretary of State on taking this bold decision, which will help to create hundreds of high-skilled, high-value jobs in a part of the country long forgotten by the Labour party. Does he agree that it would be foolish to leave strategic industries such as steel production reliant on materials sourced from our economic competitors, when we can source the materials we need here at home?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Again, I refer back to my decision letter, in which I acknowledge that the inspector makes the point in paragraph 21.121 that the effects of downstream emissions as a result of the extraction of this coal

“may well be considered neutral or slightly beneficial when compared with other extractive sources.”

He is referring to the foreign sources of coal that my hon. Friend refers to.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I think the Secretary of State has just admitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) that when he talks about net zero, he does not factor in the use of the coal extracted. Does he not respect the expertise of the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the former COP26 President? He said:

“Opening a new coal mine will not only be a backward step for UK climate action but also damage the UK’s hard-won international reputation, through our @COP26 Presidency, as a leader in the global fight against climate change”.

This is an important issue. People are really concerned about climate change. I ask the Secretary of State to think again.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her point. Again, the inspector makes clear that, whether we use coking coal from the UK or elsewhere, there will automatically be emissions. However, taking every piece of evidence in the round, given the continued reliance upon coking coal—the inspector makes clear that that is likely for decades to come—it is better that it comes from this mine rather than from other sources abroad.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his comprehensive and detailed statement. Can he confirm, and is he satisfied, that all steps will be taken and have been taken to protect the surrounding environment, that health and safety will also be paramount, and that local people living nearby have been closely and fully consulted?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making all those points. On one level I am sorry to keep returning to the inspector’s report, but it is important to return to it, and it deals with all those issues and more. I will use the opportunity of the hon. Gentleman’s question to say to the House and to other interested parties that of course I have sought to answer every question put to me as fully as possible, with reference to the inspector’s report, but nothing I have said in this Chamber in response to questions should be taken account of without also taking account of all the arguments in the inspector’s report and my decision letter. I am grateful to so many colleagues for taking this important issue seriously, and I urge all interested parties to read the full inspector’s report in order to understand the arguments that were put to him and that he eventually judged.

Devolution: England

Lord Gove Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

The levelling-up White Paper set out the Government’s ambition that, by 2030, every part of England that wants one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement. Stronger, more empowered, and more accountable local leadership is core to our levelling-up mission, to delivering on the ground, to growing our local economies and to improving public services.

In summer 2022, the Government concluded devolution deals with York and North Yorkshire, and that part of the east midlands which includes Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham, and Nottinghamshire. Subject to the ongoing local consultations and satisfactory completion of the statutory processes, including local consent by the councils and parliamentary approval of the secondary legislation to implement the deals, the inaugural mayoral elections are planned for May 2024. The east midlands deal is also dependent on the enactment of provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill necessary for the establishment of the proposed East Midlands mayoral combined county authority.

The Government have now concluded three more devolution deals with Cornwall, Norfolk and Suffolk. These are the first set of the new county deals that extend devolution to more of England. Each deal will result in the election of a Mayor or directly elected leader to champion the area with Government and business. These deals are subject to locally run consultations, resolution by each of Cornwall Council, Suffolk County Council and Norfolk County Council to change their governance models so that electors directly elect the council leader, and to the satisfactory conclusion of the statutory processes, including local consent from the councils and parliamentary approval to the secondary legislation to implement the deals. Inaugural elections for a Mayor or directly elected leader in each of the areas are planned for May 2024. They will have the choice of alternative titles to “Mayor” for these elections, subject to provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill being enacted.

These five new devolution deals will drive forward improved outcomes for the 5 million people that live in those areas. Taken together, they take the proportion of England now covered by a devolution deal to above 50% for the first time. They will deliver new funding including long-term investment funds to invest in local priorities that drive growth and levelling up, totalling over £3 billion over 30 years.

The Government are also in advanced negotiations on a north east devolution deal that will supersede the current North of Tyne combined authority that covers only Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland. A deal is expected to be concluded shortly and further details will be announced.

Negotiations on trailblazer deeper devolution deals with the west midlands and Greater Manchester combined authorities are progressing well and expected to conclude early in 2023. These deals seek to devolve further powers in areas such as skills, transport, housing and net zero, alongside potential department-style single funding settlements and stronger accountability focused on outcomes. They will act as a blueprint for other areas to follow. We are interested in other MCAs coming forward with ideas for new functions. We will begin talks with other MCAs on deeper devolution from next year. The Government will set out more on plans for those talks soon.

Effective devolution requires local leaders and institutions that are transparent and accountable. This is why the Government will be publishing the devolution accountability framework in early 2023, alongside a funding simplification plan, setting out the accountability mechanisms for MCAs, the Greater London Authority and other institutions that have agreed a devolution deal. It will set out how they are scrutinised and held to account by the UK Government, local politicians and business leaders and above all by the residents and voters of their area. This work will be supported by planned improvements to the broader local government accountability framework including the establishment of the office for local government.

The Government will step ahead in extending devolution in England further. We will continue to work with local government in England to roll out further mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities, and county deals. Discussions with places to identify potential candidates for the next set of new devolution deals will start in early 2023. The Government are particularly interested in exploring opportunities for devolution deals that will empower local leaders and communities where places want a directly elected leader, in line with the devolution framework published in the levelling-up White Paper.

The above demonstrates strong progress towards achieving the 2030 local leadership mission, which is essential to levelling up. In these areas across England, more of the decisions which matter to people—on transport, housing, and skills—will be taken by locally elected, democratically accountable leaders rooted in their place and empowered to level up.

[HCWS424]

National Planning Framework: Onshore Wind Development

Lord Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

By the end of this year, the Government will undertake a technical consultation on the national planning framework for onshore wind development in England. That consultation will conclude by the end of March next year.

The Government recognise the range of views on onshore wind. We believe that decisions on onshore wind are best made by local representatives who know their areas best and underpinned by democratic accountability. To deliver this, and our commitments in the British Energy Security Strategy, we will consult on a more localist approach that provides local authorities more flexibility to respond to the views of their local communities.

Through consultation with local authorities, communities and businesses, we intend to make changes to the National Planning Policy Framework by the end of April 2023 so that:

Permission is predicated on demonstrating local support for the project and satisfactorily addressing the project’s planning impacts as identified by local communities, learning from best practice and using new digital engagement techniques.

Local authorities can demonstrate their support for certain areas in their boundaries to be suitable for onshore wind to enable us to move away from the overly rigid requirement for onshore wind sites to be designated in a local plan.

In the consultation, we also want to consider how the planning framework best:

Supports communities to have a say on the necessary infrastructure to connect wind farms to the grid.

Encourages the upgrading of existing wind farm sites.

We will also consult on developing local partnerships for supportive communities who wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure in return for benefits, including lower energy bills.

Legislation from the Conservative Government in 2016 ensured that all onshore wind applications are considered by local councils rather than through the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime. This will continue to be the case.

We recognise the concerns expressed by local communities on the appropriate siting of onshore wind farms, which is why the Conservative Government in 2015 strengthened planning protection.

We should continue to ensure our valued landscapes are protected, particularly National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Green Belt. This will continue to be the case, and the combination of robust national and local planning policies will give sufficient weight to be able to rebuff unwanted speculative ‘development by appeal’.

[HCWS416]