Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Boles and Chris Skidmore

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Government we had apprenticeships that did not even involve an employer and that lasted a few months. This Government have introduced a 12-month minimum. They have put employers in charge of developing apprenticeship standards so that apprentices learn skills that employers value, and they are introducing an apprenticeship levy to ensure that there is funding for the 3 million apprenticeships that will benefit his constituents.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

T9. The current law allows for strikes to be called by unions on the basis of a mandate for industrial action that was secured up to two years ago. That is unfair on those whose lives are inconvenienced by strikes on which a vote was taken years ago. Does my hon. Friend agree —[Interruption.] The Corbynistas on the Opposition Benches should calm down. Does he agree that strikes should take place only on the basis of a current mandate?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has ever previously been so described.

Local Plans

Debate between Nick Boles and Chris Skidmore

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady has singled out another category of land where the preservation of current use is given great priority—the highest quality agricultural land. The national planning policy framework is clear that, to the extent that greenfield land has to be allocated for development—unfortunately, some does—less high quality agricultural land should be preferred and that grade 1 agricultural land, which is the highest quality, should be preserved for agriculture where at all possible.

To return to green-belt protections, the national planning policy framework is clear on the importance of those protections, the permanence of green-belt land and its role in preserving the openness of the countryside and in preventing settlements from merging.

[Chris Skidmore]

I want to reiterate what the Minister is saying about the green belt for my constituency of Kingswood. Before the 2010 general election, there were several applications to build on green-belt land. Since 2010, there has not been a single application to build on the green belt in Kingswood. It is clear that the NPPF is working well. I would, however, like the Minister’s comments on the possibility of a future Government’s “right to grow” policy, which would be disastrous for our local area. It would be the greatest threat to the green belt in 30 years if Bristol was allowed to ride roughshod over the wishes of south Gloucestershire residents.

[Nick Boles]

This Government’s policy is clear: we want to achieve locally arrived at, co-operative solutions to difficult problems, rather than having top-down Government imposition of solutions or one authority being able to ride roughshod over another. Everyone in our communities has a right to a voice, but that does not mean that any of us can entirely abdicate responsibility for difficult decisions, such as fulfilling the housing needs of future generations. We all deserve to have our voices heard and we all deserve to be part of that solution. We are keen to ensure that, so far as possible, the future development needs of our country are met without threatening the protection of the green belt, of grade 1 agricultural land and of our most beautiful countryside with other designations.

That said, it has always been the case—there is no change in this—that local authorities can revise their green-belt boundaries through a local plan process involving intense consultation with local people. There are a number of communities around the country that are doing just that. It is painful and difficult, and it is right that it happens through an intensely transparent, open and democratic process that takes into account all the opinions expressed by all the different communities affected.

When it does that exercise, the local authority has to pass a very high test: it has to be able to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances justify taking a particular site out of the green belt or redrawing a green-belt boundary, perhaps to swap land currently in the green belt for land that is not, but is of greater environmental importance. Those are the kinds of arguments that local authorities need to bring forward and the kinds of evidence they need to provide to satisfy a planning inspector that any such proposal is reasonable. I do not criticise any council that is going down that road, because it is right that it, as the duly elected local authority, should be able to. The local authority must, however, go openly and transparently into that process with evidence and after a great deal of consultation.

I turn to the particular issue of safeguarded land. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer that it is an often misunderstood concept. I have to confess that for several months at the beginning of my time in this post, I, too, was somewhat confused about whether it was “safeguarded for” or “safeguarded from”. He makes a good point about the terminology being—it is not deliberate—rather baffling to people. “Safeguarded” seems to suggest protection, rather than an allocation for future development needs.

I commit to my hon. Friend that we will go away and look at the simple question of the terminology and whether there could be better wording. When the national planning policy framework is reviewed, whether we can better clarify that wording will be on the agenda. The concept of safeguarded land as land that is reserved, as he put it, for the possibility of future development needs beyond the life of the plan being laid out has a good justification in some cases. It has a good justification for the following reason: if future development needs are likely to require further difficult choices about some sites in the green belt, it is better to be clear that certain sites might some day have to have their status reviewed, than to have the entire green belt under some abstract possible future threat.

The reason behind the safeguarding terminology is the idea that by clarifying where the future might lead it is made clear that there are some permanently protected places. In some sense, therefore, more reassurance is gained than uncertainty created about what is being protected for ever.

My hon. Friend is completely right, however, that safeguarding is not a requirement for every local authority with green-belt land. It is something that it can choose to do, but only if necessary. If the plan that it puts forward has provisions to meet housing needs in full and if other sites are available for potential future development beyond the life of the plan, it may well be that safeguarding land is unnecessary. He has asked me before, and I have been happy to confirm, that while we want all communities to embrace growth, a vaulting ambition is not a sufficient justification for threatening protected land. Need is an important factor and can be a contributor to the exceptional circumstances that might justify some potential revision of a site’s protected status. Ambition and the desire to grow faster than one’s neighbours or perhaps to build a small empire is not a sufficient justification for putting protections at risk. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is only if it is necessary that an authority should consider the possibility of designating some safeguarded land.

Given that local authorities must act carefully and with evidence; that safeguarding is not mandatory and authorities should use it only if necessary; that we are happy to examine the terminology to clarify that such land is not safeguarded for ever and is reserved because of an evidence base for potential future need; and that the rest of the green belt is not subject to such possibilities, I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to take back to his constituents.