Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am very grateful to the Minister for her introduction to this Bill. It had a speedy and uncontroversial passage in the House of Commons, but there are several matters which this House will need to discuss in Committee. I will identify some of them.

There has been a lot of concern about the business rates system in recent years. That relates partly to Covid, partly to the rise in internet purchasing and partly to the very high cost of business rates. There have been several reviews. Some of the conclusions of the recent one by the Government are now part of the Bill, which I welcome. I concede that business rating is not an easy issue. Business rates form a substantial element in a business’s costs and in a council’s income. There is a balance to be struck. I remember that when business rates were decided locally there was a campaign by major businesses—particularly high street retailers, notably John Lewis—for a national system. At the time, things were so chaotic, with some councils trying to increase business rates to make up a shortfall in government grant, that I supported that change. But that was 30 years ago and times have changed.

The Government have a proposal to lower the period between valuations from five years to three years, which certainly is better than the current five-year rule. I would prefer two years, and I look forward to seeing whether any other Members of your Lordships’ House feel similarly. Maybe we need to discuss this in Committee, but in an ideal world it might be better to have a one-year revaluation. However, for the time being I prefer two years. I hope that the Minister agrees that, even if we end up with three years, we could look in the medium term at that reduction. That would help.

The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised to reduce the burden of business rates by

“a fundamental review of the system”.

There has not really been a fundamental review of the system, and I suspect that is because any fundamental reform is inevitably long-term. The aim of the review started in March 2020 was to reduce the overall burden on businesses, improve the business rates system and consider more fundamental reform in the medium to long term. It is true that there have been reductions in the overall burden for some businesses and that, in some cases, what is being proposed in the Bill will improve the business rates system, but I do not think that the more fundamental reform is being delivered in the medium to long term.

Currently, local authorities keep 50% of business rates. Some have 100% retention and there are various pilots of different amounts taking place. As we know from the recent announcement, the West Midlands will retain its business rates for 10 years and that trend towards a return to devolved responsibility for business rates as a fiscal policy is welcome.

I have always felt that rentable value—and, hence, rateable value—is a sound method for assessing value. For the time being at least, it is important that it stays, because it seems to be the preference of all those who were recently consulted. I support rates relief for improvements to property and for heat networks, and welcome what the Minister said about that. I support the proposal to give businesses the immediate benefit of a rate reduction while keeping transitional relief for increases; that is helpful.

I wonder about the thresholds, and again we might test this in Committee. Business rates are not paid on properties with a rateable value of less than £12,000, and there are tapered reductions up to £15,000. I wonder why those figures are not being raised and whether the Minister, when she replies, could tell us what assessment has been made of increasing the threshold level. That could be very helpful to a large number of small businesses.

The Minister and the Bill say that there are all kinds of increased powers for the Valuation Office Agency. There is a question of whether businesses should have to notify the valuation office of changes that could impact a property’s rateable value, and my view is that they should. If it is simply as the Minister described a few minutes ago—taking a moment or two to sign off that nothing has changed—I cannot see a problem with it. As long as the publicity around that requirement is effective, all should be well. But, if it is not done that way, the Government need to be very careful about penalising businesses that have not understood the rule.

When I read the Bill and the relevant briefings on it, notably the Library briefing, it occurred to me that everybody else paying business rates had all kinds of obligations being placed on them, but I did not see many obligations being placed on the Valuation Office Agency to respond effectively within time limits and by doing the right thing by the person inquiring. I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government have plans to impose standards of performance on the Valuation Office Agency, because there have been complaints about it in the past, particularly about notifications of valuation level and the transparency of the decisions it has made. It is very important to be able to have a quick dialogue with a business rate payer. We need to test that the Valuation Office Agency is being open and transparent, and is applying quality standards. I hope the Minister agrees that that would be useful.

The Minister might also wish to comment on the small business multiplier, which is 49.9p in the pound at the moment. I wonder whether there is a case for having a slightly lower multiplier for small businesses. Taken in the round, that relates to the £12,000 threshold. In the end, the aim would be to encourage small businesses to thrive, and to generate jobs and greater economic activity. I would be interested to know how the Minister feels about that.

I read a suggestion that there should be a licensing, or maybe a regulatory, system for business rate advisers. There are apparently some setting themselves up to give business rates advice to small businesses. What steps might the Government take to license or regulate such advisers?

In conclusion—almost—I believe in the business rates system being composed of three elements, at least for the short to medium term. One is property, because a building may attract the fire service or police support if it were to be burgled, so property is one element. The second element is the value of the land on which a building is built, which is lower in some places than others, and this should be reflected in the business rate levy. The third element is online sales. I believe that that has been understated for some considerable time. I would like a high street retail outlet to pay equivalent business rate levels to an online company because, in 2019-20, only 5% of retail sector income was raised by online retailers; 95% was, broadly speaking, from high street locations. The Government said that they would make a fundamental change to the business rate system in the medium to long term; that is one of the fundamental changes that I think should be investigated.

I wonder whether we need a comprehensive register of freehold property ownership. Without it, it is difficult to locate ownership. I do not know what the Government think about that.

My last point relates to material change of circumstance. There is a debate about whether, if the Government legislate on something, that can or cannot be a material change of circumstance. As I understand it, that debate derives from the Covid pandemic. I have thought about it and think we need to test this in Committee, because there is a case for saying that, if the Government legislate on something, it may force some business rate payers to face a material change of circumstances. We need to understand better the Government’s thinking on an MCC. Overall, I welcome this move and what is happening, and all of what I have said is an attempt to make the Bill even better.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is absolutely right about the importance of the amendments on regeneration in this group. I want to bring together two of them that I think are very important. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, refers in Amendment 504GG to town centre investment zones. That is a highly original and very important suggestion, so I hope the Minister gives it government support.

The other is Amendment 503 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which is about Civil Service redistribution. It calls for a review into whether redistributing Civil Service jobs to different locations throughout the UK will support implementation of the Bill. That seems an important outcome that the Government should assess.

I suggest that, when Civil Service jobs are redistributed, they should be redistributed to town centres and locations close to high streets. We had a long debate earlier about the importance of investing in high streets, and here is a classic example of how the Government can use public money to bring jobs closer to where those employees will then shop. The Government have an active travel plan at the centre of their transport thinking. If they were to apply that rule to the relocation of Civil Service jobs, they would not relocate any Civil Service jobs to business parks out of the centres of our towns and cities. In other words, if there are proposals from those undertaking town centre investment zones and those in Whitehall who are redistributing jobs out of London to elsewhere in the UK, ensuring that they help generate jobs in high streets and town centres seems a very helpful way of proceeding.

This group contains a number of suggestions for regeneration. I just hope that the Government see the opportunity we have here and ensure that, when they redistribute Civil Service jobs, they do so in existing town centres and high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will add a very brief footnote to the speech we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Amendment 477 asks for a devolution Bill. In a sense that takes us back to the beginning.

In September 2019, at my party conference, the then Chancellor announced that there would be a White Paper on English devolution. The Queen’s Speech in 2019 said that the Government would publish a White Paper on

“unleashing regional potential in England”.

The following year the then Minister, Simon Clarke, said in answer to a Parliamentary Written Question on 9 July that

“our English Devolution and Local Recovery White Paper will set out our plans for expanding devolution”.

It was hoped to publish that in autumn 2020.

After that, the line went dead. In 2021, it was announced that the plans for strengthening local accountable leadership would be included in the levelling up White Paper—so what was initially going to be about devolution morphed into being about levelling up. There is inevitable tension between devolution, on the one hand, and levelling up, on the other. Devolution is about pushing decisions down to the local level; levelling up is about ironing out the differences between regions, which, inevitably, means more central control. This dilemma has gone all the way through the Bill, and indeed through the White Paper—it was not the White Paper on devolution, it was the White Paper on levelling up. There are some powerful words in the foreword by the then Prime Minister:

“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy”.


But we have not seen that.

To take a very small example, I proposed a very modest amendment that would enable local planning authorities to recover the costs of running the planning department—something that at the moment is set nationally. Far from ushering in new local democracy, that decision has to rest in Whitehall. Instead of pushing spending down to the local level and letting local people get on with it, we have all the pots people have to bid for: the levelling up fund, the pothole action fund—which, I think, has now been added to that list—the future high street fund and the towns fund. The thing about all those funds is that the final decision is taken centrally, not locally. So the question I pose to my noble friend is: when it comes to devolution, is this it? Is this all we are going to get?

We are approaching the end of a Parliament, and there may not be time for fresh thinking, but I agree with the thrust of what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said: we are overcentralised and need to push decisions down locally. To do that, we need a buoyant source of local revenue, which local government does not have at the moment. When I looked at Amendment 477, the word “devolution” caught my eye. I felt that somebody ought to draw attention to the tension between levelling up, on the one hand, and devolution on the other. To my mind, there is too much about levelling up but not nearly enough about devolution. I suspect that, at some point, whoever is in control in the next Parliament will have to come back to devolution.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for reminding us how we got to where we are. He was absolutely right on every single point he made. This is terribly important, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for giving us the amendment. If I have one criticism, it is that I am not sure we are yet at a Bill stage. Although it says “draft legislation” in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause—I understand that—I personally favour a royal commission or something that would actually look at the nature of local government and central government powers.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, has rightly identified the difficulty of devolving and at the same time levelling up, which, as he said, requires a greater element of centralised control. I have said several times over the course of this Bill, and before, that you cannot run England out of London; with 56 million people, we are steadily learning that. One of the reasons we are having these constant changes in the Government’s intentions for Bills is that they do not know either what they want to do—so, in the end, the Civil Service carries on and Ministers carry on trying to move forward.

There are elements in the Bill which are very important in assisting us down the road of greater devolution, and they lie in the combined county authorities. The more we have combined county authorities—much though I do not like the centralisation which can result, because they do not have, for example, a Greater London assembly; they do not have a structure such as that to underpin them—the more we will have a move away from Whitehall.

I do not want to say any more about that; I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has proposed in this amendment. I think we should note what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about the overall situation that we are in, but I hope that the Government and the Minister will see the importance of trying to bring all this together, because inevitably we are going to come back to this on Report anyway, as we look at the first parts of the Bill that, in Committee, we debated many weeks ago. I welcome the amendment and I hope the Government will see that there would be benefit in moving us forward, not just with structures like the combined counties but actually with real devolution of real things.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to place an obligation on a Minister of the Crown to publish draft legislation for a devolution Bill within 120 days of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. We support the principle behind this amendment—that combined county authorities can request further powers which would enable activity to help drive economic growth and support levelling up.

In fact, we have already gone further than this in the devolution offer set out in the levelling up White Paper. This sets out a clear menu of options for places in England that wish to unlock the benefits of devolution, whether that is moving towards a London-style transport system to connect people to opportunity, improving local skills provision or being able to act more flexibly and innovatively to respond to local need. Any area, including those considering a combined county authority, is welcome to come forward and ask government to confer local authority and public authority functions as part of devolution deal negotiations. The levelling up White Paper has confirmed that the devolution framework is not a minimum offer. These asks are typically made as part of devolution deal negotiations.

We recognise that our existing mayors are already playing a powerful role in driving local economic growth and levelling up. That is why the Government plan to deepen the devolution settlements of the most mature institutions. The White Paper committed to trailblaze deeper devolution deals with the Greater Manchester and West Midlands combined authorities. These agreements were announced on 15 March 2023 and include many areas which will support these regions to drive growth and prosperity, including on skills, transport, housing and net zero, alongside single funding settlements and stronger accountability focused on outcomes.

These deals will act a blueprint for other areas with mature institutions to follow. This will include combined county authorities, once established. Ultimately, our aim is to achieve the local leadership levelling-up mission: that, by 2030, all parts of England that want one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.

I say to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that, actually, devolution is what we want to deliver the local leadership that is required to level up this country. Devolution is part of the levelling up in the Bill, along with many other things to enable the levelling up of the United Kingdom. As such, I hope the noble Baroness agrees that this amendment is unnecessary and feels she can withdraw it.

Redcar Steelworks

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will just explain the investment of this site to the noble Baroness. It was always going to be a public/private investment. She is right that £246 million of public money has been invested in this site, and this has already secured £2 billion in private sector investment, with the prospect of 2,725 long-term jobs created as a result. To make the site investor-ready cost £482.6 million, already leaving a funding gap of £200 million; that has had to come from the private sector. It has always been the plan to kick-start the land remediation and then divest the site and risk to the private sector, which we are doing. As a result, the JV partnership—the demolition programme—which was due to take up to five years, concluded in less than three years. It is now up to the private developers to develop that site for these jobs, and for this area of our country.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I think anyone who read yesterday’s Financial Times full-page article on this matter would welcome a full investigation by the National Audit Office. Since we are almost between Committee and Report on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, there is an opportunity to make changes on Report in terms of audit, insofar as it might impact upon development corporations. Will the Government, through the Minister, agree to ensure that this is thoroughly checked out, to make sure that the processes being followed on Teesside are appropriate and in the public interest?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think I need to repeat it, but the Mayor of Tees Valley has said that he is very happy for an independent review. Whether that is an independent review or the National Audit Office doing a full review, I think he is quite happy. The department is looking into that and will reply to him shortly. I do not think I can add any more. Nobody is stopping a full review if that is necessary, but what is important is that we have millions of pounds of private sector investment in an area that desperately needs it, for jobs and for the people of Teesside. That is levelling up; that is the important bit of this.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, I rise in support Amendments 324, 329, 342, 346, 347, 351, 352 and 360 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and to which I have added my name. They concern planning reform and the emergency services.

A robust and effective planning process is essential for the flourishing of our communities. A key aspect of this is to ensure the adequate provision of emergency services. I welcome the fact that the Bill has included emergency services in the definition of infrastructure under Schedule 11, but, historically, this has not always been the case. It remains the fact that local authorities are not obliged to take into account the views and concerns of the emergency services.

Those living in new developments such as in Plymouth and Exeter, my own diocese, rightly expect to be provided with the same level of service and protection afforded to all citizens. The increased demands on the emergency services posed by new developments require additional funding. In this way, the emergency services are no different from any other infrastructure provider. However, the lack of recognition in legislation and national planning policy has made it extremely hard for emergency services to access funding from the infrastructure levy, Section 106 money and community infrastructure levy systems. The obvious result is that the services provided are diluted.

The Bill in its current form does not mitigate these problems and the thrust of these amendments seeks to address the historic disfranchisement of the emergency services in our planning processes. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in recognising the vital contribution that those who work in the emergency services make to our common life. It should therefore be incumbent upon us to ensure that in the planning and formation of new developments, the emergency services have an equal seat at the planning table. I gladly support this.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 331 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. It an extremely important amendment and I will be very interested to hear what the Minister says in reply. In that sense, this is, at this stage, a probing amendment. It would enable infrastructure levy-charging authorities to require a developer to pay their full IL liability, or infrastructure funded by IL associated with the development to be built before development may commence, and would enable developers to be required at the request of the authority to provide money for remedial work. Under current systems, of which across this Chamber there is huge amount of experience, there are constant delays in the delivery of infrastructure and remediation and failures to deliver the affordable housing needed in an area, and it takes ages to negotiate and renegotiate the terms of the community infrastructure levy or Section 106.

An amendment of this kind, which would require payment of the infrastructure levy up front, would speed up development because it would concentrate the minds of the developers and bring clarity to the contractual status of the infrastructure levy, and it would, in our view, have a positive impact on the development process. Of course, it would not be compulsory to charge it up front, but it would be possible to do so if a local planning authority felt that it was the right approach. That is the proposal in Amendment 331.

I have long felt that we spend far too much time trying to cope with negotiations where developers seek to make changes to the promises that they have made. I look forward to the Minister’s reply to see whether the Government think that there is some mileage in a proposal of this kind that would get payment made up front rather than later, however staged that process may be through a development being put on to the ground.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 335 in this group. Each amendment in this group deals with the impact of the proposed infrastructure levy on different aspects of social infrastructure. The levy is one of the most consequential aspect of the Bill, which proposes a new infrastructure levy largely to replace the current system for developer contributions. Developer contributions currently play a vital role in delivering affordable and social housing. Section 106 agreements alone accounted for 47.3% of all affordable homes in 2021-22, a figure that represents 12% of all new homes delivered annually. Section 106 is not a perfect process, but while there is clear scope to reform and improve the existing system for developer contributions, it is none the less responsible for a huge proportion of new affordable and social homes. As its proposed replacement, the infrastructure levy represents a radical shift in how this housing will be funded and delivered.

There are 4.2 million people currently in need of social housing in England. This means one in five children is living in an overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable home. Research published last week by the National Housing Federation found that more than 310,000 children in England are forced to share beds with other family members—I have already put down a Question on that issue. That means that one in every six children is being forced to live in cramped conditions because their family cannot access a suitable and affordable home. This equates to 2 million children from 746,000 families.

Against this backdrop of acute housing need, changes to the planning system must, at minimum, protect current levels of new affordable housing. It is with this principle in mind that I tabled four amendments to Schedule 11. Each of those amendments seeks to strengthen protections for affordable housing in this legislation and ensure that the infrastructure levy does not lead to a net loss of affordable housing. I am pleased to have received support for these amendments from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.

I now turn to my amendment in this group. A key threat to the supply of affordable housing via the infra- structure levy is its potential to result in the diversion of developer contributions away from affordable housing and towards other unspecified forms of infrastructure unconnected to development. As long as there are clear affordable housing needs, it is essential that local authorities’ use of developer contributions for purposes other than affordable housing is strictly limited. My amendment seeks to prevent levy receipts being spent on unspecified items “other than infrastructure”. In its current form, the new infrastructure levy could lead to the diversion of developer contributions away from affordable housing. By contrast, a high proportion of developer contributions currently obtained via Section 106 agreements is spent on affordable housing. According to research commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in 2020, 78% of Section 106 funds were spent on affordable housing in 2018-19.

I support Amendment 350 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which is in a later group, which seeks to ring- fence 75% of levy receipts for affordable housing based on the current proportional figure for Section 106 funds.

My amendment attempts to remove the risk of future regulations which would permit the diversion of funds away from affordable housing or infrastructure and towards unspecified items provided by a local authority. I hope the Minister will acknowledge the real and present danger inherent in this part of the Bill and explain how the Government propose to mitigate it.

--- Later in debate ---

Both these amendments are minor clarifying amendments, as they may express what is arguably implied within existing powers. Together, these amendments are an important part of the Government’s plans to introduce the new infrastructure levy in an effective, transparent and coherent way.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

First, I am very grateful for the very lengthy reply the Minister has given us. I listened very carefully to all she said, but could she confirm that the new system, which she referred to as a “long-curve transformation programme”, will actually end up building more affordable homes? That seems to me to be a central requirement of the infrastructure levy. I seek her confirmation that the outcome of all she has just said will be that more affordable homes will be built in this country.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What we have said is that this will deliver no fewer affordable homes. Of course, the number and type of affordable homes that are built will be a local decision. If local authorities want more homes—I suggest that we need more homes in this country—we should be able to deliver more homes.

Voter ID

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, obviously, but it is interesting that, when the research was done on the number of people in this country who had photo ID, it was higher for younger people. It was 98% for the whole of the country, but 99% for young people between 18 and 25. But, yes, we will look at that. I know that the Oyster card has been an issue, but there is a real reason. Oyster cards for younger people have a different process which is not as secure as that for older people’s Oyster cards.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, mention has been made of a review, and it is critical that it happens correctly. That requires three sets of information. The first is how many people were turned away; the second is the precise reasons for their being turned away, and the third is the time of day that they were turned away, because if it was before, let us say, half an hour before the close of polls, people may have been able to go and get the required documentation in some cases. Will the Government have the correct data on which to form an opinion?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Councils are required by law to record data in polling stations. There are two purposes for that. The first is in the case of any complaints or legal challenges, as we know. That data is on individual electors formally refused a ballot and whether they later returned and voted successfully; it will be sealed and retained in case it is needed. The second set of data will be captured in the short term to help evaluate the voter identification policy. That data will be anonymised and will include both the number of electors turned away and the reasons why, as well as whether they returned and voted later; it will also include data on other aspects of the policy, such as the number of times a voter authority certificate is used. As I have said, that data will be used by both the Government and the Electoral Commission in their evaluations. I do not think that the time of day when those electors came to a polling station will be in the evaluation, but I will certainly get the House an answer on that.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

This measure will enable the establishment of a system that allows key statutory consultees to recover costs for the planning advice they give to applicants on a wide range of applications and related activities. I hope that noble Lords see how important this is to enable more effective and self-sufficient statutory consultees within the planning application process, and that they will support this important amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

May I ask the Minister to clarify one issue? I have listened very carefully to this debate but there is an issue that I have not fully understood. I heard her say that prescribed bodies will be able to secure cost recovery, but she has not said that local planning authorities will be able to recover their costs. She said that there could be an increase in the fees they are allowed to charge following the consultation, but that is not the same thing as permitting cost recovery; indeed, a lack, as yet, of a definition of cost underpins this whole debate. To my way of thinking, there is the immediate cost of administering and managing a planning application, with all the costs that may apply to that application. However, there is also the cost that a local planning authority might have in terms of the provision of IT services to the planning system, web services, office costs, heating, lighting, and so on—essentially, the overhead cost. As the Minister is going to think about all these issues, I hope very much to hear that the Government will consider full cost recovery for local planning authorities. However, as I say, I have not yet heard that during this debate.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. There have been a lot of Youngs involved, and I will try to respond on behalf of both of them. Let me say straightaway that I very much welcome the government amendment, and I am sure that, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would also do so.

On the rest of it, I had hoped that, with this group of amendments, we might have found a chink in the Government’s armour that has been deployed throughout our debates. I am disappointed that we have not been able to make progress, and I know that the Local Government Association will also be disappointed.

I am grateful to all those who took part. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made the valid point that the flat rate prescribed by the Government simply does not reflect the costs to a local authority of a complex planning application that spans a number of years; that point was not adequately dealt with.

I was most concerned to hear what my noble friend Lord Moylan said about developers offering to second to an overstretched planning department a planner who might assist them. That is rather like me saying to Test Valley Borough Council, “I understand your electoral department is under some pressure; I would like to second a returning officer to the forthcoming election”.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I nearly lost that chance, having sat here for several days waiting for this. I agree with everything my noble friend Lord Young said on the amendments he and I have jointly tabled in this group, except for one word: he referred to his “chequered” career, but I would say “distinguished”. We will replace “chequered” with “distinguished”, but otherwise I agree with everything he said. That helps, because it means that I do not have to repeat the arguments he made.

I want to speak to Amendments 184A and 187A very briefly. I will also explain Amendment 185, which my noble friend did not dwell on, and say a word or two about Amendment 183—the lead amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—which he did refer to. As my noble friend said, the issue we are turning to now is the plan-led system. How local plans are to be made and what the relationship is to be between the local plan and the national development management policies are very important questions.

To paraphrase one of the key questions that arises out of this, which I think we need to understand now in order to address these issues in the Bill at a later stage, would the Government be kind enough to explain to what extent the provisions presently in the National Planning Policy Framework are going to be national development management policies in the future? They will then acquire a different status—although, I have to say, it is quite difficult in many cases for a local planning authority to proceed on the basis of operating with the guidance in the NPPF, because inspectors will look to the NPPF as a basis for the judgments they make on whether a plan is sound, and indeed whether determinations in themselves are sound on appeal. We may be looking at distinctions or differences between the NPPF and NDMP without there being that much of a difference between them. In practice, the legal differences are clear, and the extent to which the NPPF is going to be turned into NDMP and given that status is important, and we need to know that.

As my noble friend Lord Young said, the revised draft of the NPPF, which the Government have consulted on and have yet to tell us the final outcome of, states:

“Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years”.


My noble friend referred to the loophole or the issue here, which is that local planning authorities decide for themselves whether that review turns into an updated local plan. I give him and the House one very specific example, which is close to me. I should remind the House, as I have mentioned previously, of my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. East Cambridgeshire adopted a local plan on 21 April 2015, which covers the period up to 2031. In April 2020—five years later—the authority conducted a review and decided that it did not need to update the plan, save with respect to the housing supply numbers. So, it conducted a single-issue review.

I will not dwell on some of the issues, but I have various complaints about this. First, there is the idea that the housing number is unrelated to other issues in the plan—that the housing supply in the decade ahead is unrelated to issues of environmental concern or whatever. That seems to have been ignored by them. However, I make the point that the inspector, who conducted an examination in public in the latter part of last year, said that it was not in his remit at all to look at whether the plan should be updated or not, whether anything other than housing should be updated or not, and indeed whether the final date of the plan should be beyond 2031. Of course, what the local authority is planning to do in this case is to update its housing figures, but when it has done so, it will extend for only about six years rather than the 15 years that the NPPF would imply. Notwithstanding that, they got away with it. So I very much agree with my noble friend and hope that the Minister will think hard about how we might make sure that we have local plans.

However, our Amendments 184A and 187A go precisely to the issue of requiring local plans to be up to date. If they are not up to date, in our view it cannot be right that the same principles apply in terms of the compliance or otherwise of determinations made on planning applications if the local plan to which they relate is out of date. There must be a distinction. Our amendments simply add “up-to-date” in front of “development plan.” They do not say, “What’s the relationship between a planning application and a determination on that planning application in relation to a local plan that is no longer up to date?” We need to resolve that. I suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that Ministers should think about whether there is as yet something they can do to distinguish between the proper relationship between development plans and in this particular instance determinations of planning applications, which should be made according to an up to date local plan, and local plans that had been adopted but are now out of date. They need to address the question of whether they are proper material considerations but not necessarily determinative. That seems to be the right way to go.

Amendment 185, which is in my name, that of my noble friend, and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to the question of a determination on a planning application and that it should be made in accordance with the local plan. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says in Section 38(6):

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.


It has said that since 2004, so there is considerable case law relating to this, and those working in the planning system have experience of working with that. They know that it means that, in making a determination on a planning application, local planning authorities have to weigh material considerations. However, courts pretty much do not second-guess the weight that planning officers and planning committees give to various considerations in considering an application. We have had nearly 20 years of that.

The Government have rewritten this bit and inserted the word “strongly”—

“unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.

That says to me that two things are going to happen. First, it is the Government’s intention to limit and restrict the circumstances in which decisions are made other than in accord with a local plan or with national development management policies. That means—which goes to the point that we have been debating in this group—that it reduces the role of the planning committee and the local planning authority, because they do not balance the weight any more. Most of the material considerations, almost by definition, will not be enough to indicate that they should do other than what would be demanded by the local plan and the NDMP.

The second thing that will inevitably result from this is that there will be a large amount of litigation, because the question of what “strongly” means in this context will be hard to determine. There will not be case law or precedent—a large number of decisions will not previously have been made. Where does “strongly” change the balance? How is that weight to be shifted? It is very unwise for the Government to be proceeding down this path. It would create a better balance across the Bill generally and we would be better off in many cases just to leave things as they are if they cannot demonstrate that there is a mischief to which this is the answer.

I will stop there, but I just want to refer to one other thing. I thought that Amendment 216, which is not in my name but in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, rather pointed to an issue. Schedule 7 on page 294, which is about plan making, would take out a rather curious few words where the Government say that local plans must not

“be inconsistent with or (in substance) repeat any national development management policy”.

I just have a question: what is the point of national development management policies if it is not essentially to write for local planning authorities large amounts of their local plan? If the local planning authority then puts that language into its local plan, does that mean it is repeating it or incorporating it? What does “repeat” mean in this context? I thought the whole point was that local plans would “repeat” national development management policies, yet we are being told in the legislation that that is not what they are to do. That is a genuine question to which I really do not know the answer, but I hope we can find out a bit more from my noble friend later.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 191A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, as is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It stipulates the process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy, including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008, as amended, for national policy statements. It is an amendment to Clause 87.

Clause 87, which is a matter of only 20 or so lines, defines the meaning of “national development management policy” as

“a policy (however expressed) of the Secretary of State in relation to the development or use of land in England, or any part of England, which the Secretary of State by direction designates as a national development management policy.”

It then says that the Secretary of State can revoke a direction and modify a national development management policy. It goes on to say:

“Before making or revoking a direction … or modifying a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must ensure that such consultation with, and participation by, the public or any bodies or persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate takes place.”


In planning terms, this is the most gross act of centralisation that I can recall from the various Bills we have had relating to planning policy.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to this very good and interesting probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young, who I know has great expertise in local government. We represented different parts of the London Borough of Ealing in different capacities over many years.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has not compared apples with apples but apples with pears. We are a unitary state—we are not a federal state like Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy or France, where they have regional government and a culture of accretion of power to the local level. Therefore, we have to have some central sanction and control of the disbursal of funds. So I do not think that the noble Lord is necessarily comparing the situation that we are in wholly accurately.

However, the noble Lord makes a very astute point about the hoarding of power, particularly financial power, by the Treasury. Any Minister will tell you that, over the years, the Treasury has not wanted to give power away and has wanted to bring in power. The noble Lord is absolutely right that far too much of the funding of core local services is in effect subject to the begging-bowl approach, as enunciated by Andy Street, the executive mayor of the West Midlands.

The problem with the situation that we now have—the disparity of local councils being responsible to their electorate for decisions, in effect, taken centrally—is that central government of whatever party is in power gets the income in and can make those judgments based on its manifesto, but it is local councillors and officers who are accountable and often take the brickbats for failures. For instance, many people have argued for many years about residential real estate investment trusts leveraging private sector money to provide new, good-quality housing for young people in particular. The Treasury has never really advanced that properly, and local government could be very much involved in it. Social care is another area. All Governments should look at tax breaks for providing extra care facilities—in terms of nutrition, housing, exercise and so on—for old people from the age of 60 all the way through to death, as many countries have across the world. That is an example of a central government policy that could also help local government.

I have great sympathy for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I hope there is further debate on it. It cannot be right that we cannot follow other modern liberal democracies such as the United States where local authorities and mayors have the capacity, for instance, to raise funds for the issuance of bonds, local infrastructure and capital projects. We have very restrictive financial and legal rules in this country that prevent us doing the same. On that basis, we have begun a good debate and I look to my noble friends on the Front Bench to run with it and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, show some ankle, as it is long overdue.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, we have begun the debate. That is the intention of this probing amendment, because we must have it.

Today’s Budget decentralises—but does not devolve—some powers, although not fiscal ones, to combined authorities, which is welcome but comparatively minor. In other words, if a combined authority was able to adjust a block grant and make different decisions on how to commit expenditure from it, that would be welcome. However, it is not a fiscal policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, it would be helpful if the Government could explain their thinking on devolving real fiscal powers.

I would pick up the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on one statement. He said that we are not a unitary state. That would be hard to explain in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and it goes to the heart of the problem as I see it. Substantial devolved powers, including fiscal ones, reside in Scotland, Wales and, theoretically, Northern Ireland that do not apply in England. Yet England is a country of 56 million people. It is far too big to operate out of centralised control in Whitehall, but there is a very strong argument for saying that, in terms of Treasury control and the Government’s desire to do things on a hub and spoke model in which all the financial resources are controlled in London, England is a unitary state.

I want to add one thing to the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Scriven and the other contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which I really appreciated. Can the Government explain why Scotland and Wales can have fiscal powers but no constituent part of England is permitted to have them? That is the nub of the problem, and it is why starting the debate on this issue is very important.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to add to the political breadth of this debate and to offer Green support for the introduction of this amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley. Localism is at the absolute heart of Green politics, but I think we have seen right across your Lordships’ Chamber a great desire for an end in England to the incredible concentration of power and resources in Westminster.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 81, spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. In doing so, I draw attention to my vice-presidency of the National Association of Local Councils, which I had the privilege of serving as president for many years, and my current joint presidency of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.

It is regrettable that, notwithstanding the status of neighbourhood plans as a material consideration in local planning structures, principal authorities often seem to be obliged to disregard them, despite having considerable agency in the production of these plans. I refer to the calling of referenda or, as sometimes seems equally likely, delaying of the calling, which I can only assume has sound reasons. It creates great problems, given that there is substantial commitment of time and no small amount of public money to the neighbourhood planning process.

As we move into other areas that will involve multiple local authorities, such as biodiversity net gain and water neutrality, I can see that it is perfectly legitimate for these to be dealt with at what you might call a superior level. But it remains absolutely essential that communities still have a voice, a view and a role in that particular decision-making format. If the Secretary of State’s comments mean anything when he refers to strengthening the role of communities, as I understood him to say some while back, it must be something other than lip service—something other than parishes and town councils being somehow left behind. When I say that neighbourhood plans are being disregarded, I think of the neighbouring parish to the parish in which I live, where precisely this has happened.

It is very important to understand the structure of town and parish councils, as alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, with their knowledgeable, highly engaged and often very effective interventions in local planning processes through their structure of county and district associations as well as the individual parishes. They should not be underrated. They have access to resources you would not believe. I have come across parishes in which top planning consultants happen to be residents. These people are highly engaged, highly knowledgeable and should be listened to. Parishes have moved along massively in the past 20 or 30 years. They really are the only structure that represents the community at this level. When you think about it, there is no other authority that extends down to that level of where people really live and do things in their work/life balance. If people feel disregarded, as do many residents in my part of West Sussex, it bodes ill for engagement, cohesion and, ultimately, the efficacy of national policies. I would not want that to go unstated in the context of the Bill.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I rise to speak to Amendments 155 and 156 in my name. These are probing amendments because I think it is very important that the Government explain their intentions. Amendment 155 provides that non-constituent members of the combined authority are not able to vote, given their status, and Amendment 156 provides that associate members of a combined authority are not able to vote, given their status. On a previous day in Committee we addressed this issue, in part. However, the Government need to undertake some mature reflection about what is proposed here.

Giving a vote to somebody who is not a full member of a combined authority is unwise. My amendments provide that there should be no vote for anybody who is not a full member of the authority. The principle is that full members are voting members, and voting members are full members, but you cannot have full voting members when they are not full constituent members, as opposed to associate members, of the authority.

The voting structure between counties and districts as explained in the Bill would provide a route for resolving any impasse that might arise if votes were allocated on the basis of population. Of course, a county would have exactly 50% of the votes. If all the district councils voted against the county—one hopes it does not come to that—there would have to be some kind of system for a casting vote. The mayor would seem to be the way forward.

After reflecting on what we have been saying on previous days in Committee, to me it seems that district councils, which are responsible for planning and economic development matters, ought to be full members of a CCA. That seems to me to be the principle. It should not be at the discretion of the CCA, which does not have a district council member, to simply award a vote to that district council member when other district council members may not have a vote because, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said on the previous day in Committee, when giving a vote to one non-constituent member or to an associate member, it does not follow that other associate or non-constituent members would have a vote.

So this is a probing amendment. It is complicated; I understand that. When in due course we reach Report, I just hope that the Government will be prepared to examine the structure they have proposed here. I have come to the conclusion that they should permit district councils within a CCA area to become full members. At that point, those full members would have a right to a full vote under their own terms of membership. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond to that, so that we can get a better feel of what we need to do on Report to bring in further clarification on this matter.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a couple of amendments in this group, one in my name and one in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. First, Amendment 73 in my noble friend’s name would mean that a non-constituent member ceases to be a member when they form part of a different CCA.

We are aware that the Local Government Association has expressed concerns about this amendment. It has said that local areas should be able to “look both ways”—in other words, be a non-constituent member of more than one authority—if they have close economic or cultural ties with more than one combined authority or devolution deal area. It has also expressed concerns about the fact that it would set a precedent, contrary to the current plans for the city of York, which is currently a non-constituent member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority but would become a member of the new York and North Yorkshire mayoral combined authority.

I want to explain the thinking behind why we tabled this amendment, which is, of course, a probing amendment. It is of course understandable that local authority non-constituent members may wish to be part of more than one CCA. However, we believe, first, that district councils should be constituent, not non-constituent, members of a CCA, to ensure that they can play a full part in decision-making for their area—as other noble Lords have just said—and that this would include any budgetary and spatial development issues, and, secondly, that therefore they could then be a non-constituent member only in a CCA that was not their primary CCA.

We believe it must surely be the case that membership of a CCA is implicitly determined by the geography of an area. If it is the intention of the Secretary of State to have a pattern of overlapping CCAs across the country, will this not complicate the structure of local government rather than simplify and declutter the picture, which the Government have said they want to achieve?

Further to this, if we then have overlapping areas that are both combined mayoral authorities, to which mayor do the people of an area represented on more than one CCA relate? Can the Minister in his response clarify whether the population of that area get a vote in both mayoral elections, which of the mayors is responsible for delivering the economic development and/or regeneration of their area, and who is accountable?

This clause is predicated on the assumption that district council members are simply co-opted, junior partners in CCAs with no voting rights and only a passing interest in sitting in on meetings that they are not actively participating in. As has been said in debates on earlier amendments, we feel that this is, frankly, an insult to district councils.

As I said, my noble friend’s amendment is intended to probe why the Government appear to have set their face so firmly against the inclusion of district councils. Instead, we believe they should be at the heart of decision-making in CCAs since, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, they have powers over planning and economic development, not to mention that they are the councils with the highest percentage of public support. We strongly believe that they should be able to be full members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It may be helpful if I cover the issue of district councils in a moment when I come to Amendments 155 and 156. I will do my best when I do so.

Amendment 127A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, addresses the requirements in relation to public consultations on proposals to change a combined county authority. We are in complete agreement that public consultation on a proposal to change a combined county authority is important. However, the amendment questions an important part of the safeguard that Clause 46 has in place to ensure that such a consultation is sufficient.

I will explain. As the provision is currently written, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation on changing a combined county authority unless three factors are met: first, that a proposal has been prepared under Clause 45; secondly, that a public consultation on the proposal has been carried out and a summary of it submitted to the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, that the Secretary of State considers that no further consultation is necessary—namely, that the consultation which has been carried out is sufficient. The amendment, as I take it, probes the process involved in the third factor. I tried my best to cover that in the letter I sent to all noble Lords who spoke in our previous Committee session.

In essence, the issue here is that the Secretary of State, in deciding whether a prior consultation has been sufficient or insufficient, has to look at several things: what the consultation consisted of; whether it followed the Cabinet Office guidance for public consultations sufficiently well; and, in that regard, whether it covered the necessary groups of people that it should cover, which is one of the principles set out in the Cabinet Office rules. So the public consultation would involve not only residents but key stakeholders, such as district councils, local businesses, public sector bodies, and voluntary and community sector organisations. A summary of those responses has to be presented to the Secretary of State when the proposal is submitted, together with any amendments that the proposing councils wish to make to the proposal in the light of the consultation. So the consideration the Secretary of State has to undertake is a combination of making sure that the principles laid down for consultations have been followed and looking at the evidence that has been presented. I hope that is of help to the noble Baroness.

I turn now to Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which have similar effects, as he explained. Amendment 155 would remove the ability of a combined authority to resolve to allow non-constituent members voting rights on certain matters. Amendment 156 would apply the same restriction to a combined authority’s associate members. Both non-constituent and associate members are non-voting members by default, but we have enabled the combined authority to give them voting rights on most matters, should they wish to do so. For example, a combined authority may have provided for there to be a non-constituent member of a neighbouring council to enable their input on matters which may have cross-boundary effects.

I listened with care, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who expressed some severe reservations about this idea. However, it is entirely possible that a combined authority may have provided for an associate member—for example, a local business leader—to enable their input on matters which may have an impact on businesses in the combined authority’s area.

The combined authority may wish to maximise this input by allowing both non-constituent and associate members to vote on such relevant matters. The process for doing this would be set out in the combined authority’s local constitution, with the decision being made by the authority. As I have alluded to, there is a good example of this. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, expressed the view that district councils should be allowed a seat at the table and a vote. The Government have allowed for this to happen, albeit not in the way that the noble Lord has suggested, but as a non-constituent member.

We will be coming to a later group, consisting partly of Amendment 125A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, when we can perhaps discuss the issue of district councils in a little more depth. But it is also one of the topics that I suggest to noble Lords we cover in the round-table discussion which I proposed in our last Committee session, and which is now in the course of being arranged.

I should add that, very importantly, the decision by a combined authority to give any non-constituent members and/or associate members voting rights could be scrutinised by the authority’s overview and scrutiny committee to ensure due process is being followed. I suggest to the noble Lord that what we are proposing will not be without checks and balances.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

The Minister has given one example of a constituent council—a council outside the area of the CCA becoming a constituent council because there are cross-boundary issues. But that is the only one I have heard him come up with, and I had assumed there would many other examples of why this structure is being created.

I also have concerns about the associate member category. The Minister said, and I hope I understood him correctly, that a business leader in the area might be co-opted as an associate member, who would then be given a vote. Do the Government think that wise, in terms of public perception? I suspect that the public might have some doubts. I do not understand why giving them the vote is so important. I can understand a business leader advising as an associate, or simply being in attendance, which is a common category in meetings, but not actually having a vote.

I will not extend this debate, but I hope that when we have the round-table discussion we can get to the bottom of the reasons for votes being given to those who are not full members of the combined authority.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

77: Schedule 1, page 253, line 18, at end insert—
“(d) to make its reports public whenever the overview and scrutiny committee believes publication to be in the public interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that the CCA cannot refuse to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 79, 82, 83, and 84. All these amendments relate to audit and scrutiny, and issues that I think are extremely important if the public are to have confidence in the combined county structure, but those principles, of course, apply to any structure in local government and to any combined authority structure.

Amendment 77 would ensure that the combined county authority cannot refuse to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee. This is a probing amendment, for the Minister to explain that indeed it is possible, as I propose in Amendment 77, that an overview and scrutiny committee can

“make its reports public whenever the overview and scrutiny committee believes publication to be in the public interest”.

I simply seek the Minister’s confirmation that is actually what is intended, because I do not think it is actually in the Bill—maybe the words are there and I have simply missed them.

Amendment 79 in my name would prevent a CCA restricting the work of an overview and scrutiny committee without good reason. I think this is really important because an overview and scrutiny committee must have independence to operate without undue influence by the parent committee. Therefore, my amendment simply says that a CCA cannot unreasonably withhold permission for some work of the overview and scrutiny committee taking place.

Amendment 82 relates to whether recent members of a political party can qualify as “an appropriate person”. Amendment 83 is on the same subject or principle. It seems to me that the Bill actually permits someone to be appointed as “an appropriate person” the day after they have resigned from a political party. I have proposed five years: if you are really going to be “an appropriate person”, surely you can be appropriate only if you are not recently associated with an individual political party—five years is a probing proposal; some other period might be relevant. I feel very strongly that you cannot have people appointed as an appropriate person who have very recently been a member, perhaps a prominent member, of any political party. I hope the Minister will be able to put my concerns at rest.

Amendment 84 would enhance public confidence in the audit process by increasing the number of independent people on the audit committees. At the moment, the Government have put one person in the Bill. I think one person is inadequate. What if there were one person and that person’s only contribution to a meeting was to apologise for their absence? I have proposed three people: then if somebody is not present at a meeting, at least somebody is more likely to be present. The general public are now increasingly aware of some of the problems around the audit process in local government: I think that six local councils are now in special measures under the Treasury.

One of the reasons the public have concern is that they are being asked, in some places, to pay much higher levels of council tax to make up for losses that the council has created. The audit function—as opposed to just the overview and scrutiny function—really does matter. To have only one person appointed as an independent person seems to me to be insufficient. Given the concerns that can arise so very quickly about investments and the administration of current expenditure that may go wrong, audit committees play a very important role in giving the public confidence that the taxes they pay are being properly spent. I hope very much the Minister can indicate that the Government understand why just a single independent member of an audit committee is not sufficient. I hope she will confirm that there will be at least two independent people—though I would prefer three, it could be that there should be four or five—for that is the basis of audit. It is and should be run on the basis of independence. I beg to move.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in farming as set out in the register.

I rise to speak on Amendment 80, and I will continue with my theme I brought up on Amendment 33 in Clause 2 about rural proofing. The levelling-up Bill is an opportunity to correct the systemic failings in the Government’s rural policy development. Defra is often seen as being responsible for rural policy but does not actually have the remit to change economic and social policies in the countryside other than on the environment, farming, fishing and forestry. The cross-departmental objectives set out in this Bill should now enable serious rural policy-making to level up that part of our community in both social and economic terms.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the combined county authorities are structured in a manner that enables them to review or scrutinise decisions which have rural implications, with relevant and experienced knowledge at their disposal. A lack of awareness and understanding of the special challenges facing rural communities is very much exemplified in the development and implementation of the rural England prosperity fund. Local authorities’ strategies for using this fund to exploit the potential of the rural economy are not clear, and their engagement with rural businesses has been scant. By ensuring that the overview and scrutiny committees of combined county authorities have the power to appoint rural sub-committees, a better understanding of the needs of rural challenges—from housing to education to transport to connectivity—will be embedded at the grass roots. This would lead to better local authority engagement with rural households and businesses, enhancing their understanding of the workings of the rural economy and rural livelihoods. Please can the Minister give her support to this amendment in the interests of confirming that and enabling rural issues to be properly considered in wider policy-making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. I think the issues raised across the Committee on this group have been understood by the Government, including the concern that audit and scrutiny are seen by the general public to have been properly and appropriately carried out; that is a joint objective that we have. I would now, simply, like to read Hansard tomorrow and see exactly what has been said by everybody. We may have something further that we want to address on Report but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, with the current local authority funding gap running at over £7 billion a year and much of the supposed increase trumpeted by the Government having to come from the pockets of already hard-pressed council tax payers, it is somewhat disappointing, as I have said before in this Chamber, that the Bill seems largely to overlook the underlying issues of the underfunding of local government generally and the fact that funding is not distributed fairly according to need.

That is key to the Bill, because those financial issues represent a barrier to the Government achieving their ambitions of levelling up. Indeed, the current rounds of bidding to get funding for levelling up only further add to the problem, because the authorities with the resources to put together the shiny bids that appear to be favoured are not always the ones with the most need. In that respect the Government are, at worst, turning the whole concept of levelling up upside down, and, at best, are applying sticking plasters to the gaping wounds of underfunding in our communities.

As a local government leader for 17 years, I can say from first-hand experience that the drastic savings that have been imposed on local authorities since 2010 mean that what has been achieved is all the more impressive. All major projects coming before any council are subject to detailed analysis of how the outcomes will be measured and monitored. That includes environmental, legal and equalities impacts and, especially, financial costs. At a time when even our Conservative County Council are announcing that it has exhausted all options in meeting its budget deficit, I hope the Minister will reflect on how we can better enable local councils to level up our areas. We are proposing a number of amendments in an attempt to address this deficit, and the amendments in this group would be the start of that process.

On Amendment 87, with a local government regime that is already incredibly regressive—from the benefit from council tax being skewed to those areas that are already better off to the many recently introduced funding pots which, as I said, enable those authorities with the resources to prepare the best bids regardless of the needs of the area—it is vital that there is a process to ensure the accountability and integrity of funding directed to CCAs. The publication of an annual statement would enable clear scrutiny to take place, both between and within CCA areas. It would also have the effect of making the funding of CCAs far more transparent for public purposes, as it would enable the CCA and the Government to demonstrate what funding had been allocated.

The second part of the amendment would take that transparency one step further, in that it asks for the annual statement to have a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate whether the funding allocated to the CCA is achieving the stated aims. Again, that would provide a good opportunity for internal scrutiny via the overview and scrutiny committee, which we discussed earlier this afternoon, and for the public to be assured that the funding provided to the CCA was achieving the aims of levelling up and the strategic objectives that the CCA had set for itself.

The national benefit of these statements would be that, once consolidated, they would provide a national picture of funding, the way that funding was allocated and why, and the benefits that were being delivered through that funding. I would like to think that the discipline of reporting on an annual basis would also ensure that, where bidding pots still got allocated—much as I might prefer funding to be done in a different way—there would be clear criteria for and assessment of those bids, with measurable outcomes, so that these could be reported in the annual statement.

On Amendment 123, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, while the clause in the Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to requiring the mayor to maintain a fund in relation to receipts arising from, and liabilities incurred in, the exercise of general functions, and about the preparation of an annual budget, it is not clear whether that power for the Secretary of State extends to subsequently scrutinising that budget and fund in Parliament. Our contention is that local government, including any CCAs set up under this Bill, is already subject to extensive scrutiny through the overview and scrutiny committees internally, and externally through the audit process. So we would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on whether there is to be a further layer of scrutiny set up in relation to CCA budgets.

Amendment 172, submitted in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talks about this fair funding review—and I feel fairly strongly about this. The fair funding review has been under discussion for at least five years to my knowledge, and probably longer than that. It was delayed again in October 2022. The methodology we currently have for allocations is both flawed and completely out of date. For example, it takes traffic flows from 2011, unemployment data which is 10 years old, highways data which is 20 years old, and census data—and, as we all know, the census is undertaken only every 10 years and so is nearly always too out of date for allocating funding via that formula. Additionally, we all know about the failure to reset property values, which means that we are using property values from 1991.

Average council tax as a share of disposable income in London is the lowest in the UK. That does not mean that there are not areas of deprivation in London, of course—some of the most deprived areas in the country are there—but it is just over half of that in Yorkshire and the Humber, and in the north-east. So, in a dynamic economy and at a time of a cost of living crisis, this outdated and flawed approach, which penalises and exacerbates economic equalities, will not do—it is the exact opposite of levelling up. Our amendment is there to suggest that we need to get on with this fair funding review and get it enacted quickly, because we have got no chance of levelling anything up unless we get this fair funding review completed.

There have been comments from the LGA, which supports the fact that the fair funding review needs to be done. It makes a very good point that there needs to be enough time to allow formal consultation with local authorities, but I cannot believe that, after five years of working on this, that could not be done fairly quickly. When the review does happen, it needs to consider both the data and formulae used to distribute funding, and the Government need to ensure that overall local government funding is sufficient when the new-needs formulae are introduced. That will ensure that no council sees its funding reduced and that there are transitional arrangements for any business rates reset. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I think that these are three very important amendments, and my name appears on Amendment 172. It goes without saying that the fair funding review has been undertaken for too long and that it is reasonable that within one year of this Bill being enacted the publication of the fair funding review should happen. I also think that the other amendments are very important, but Amendment 87 really matters because it says that

“a CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions”.

In other words, is the right amount of money being given to undertake the tasks which the CCA is due to undertake?

All of this relates to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Scriven and myself that relates to fiscal policy. There is an issue that we need to debate about fiscal policy and the powers of CCAs—we have the concept now of “trailblazer authorities” and I think the trend is a good one. Nevertheless, I want to be reassured that Ministers understand that local authorities cannot be expected to undertake things, and nor can CCAs, unless the local authorities or CCAs are able to fund them. For that reason, all three amendments in this group seem to me to be particularly important.

--- Later in debate ---

I saw how it works recently. I was the non-executive director of Chesterfield NHS Hospitals Trust. Even at budget level, the way that the levers are pulled from the regional level to determine what hospitals do is quite startling. Therefore, unless the Government look at what has happened in Manchester, which I think was called “devo max”, where at least some of the levers—not all, but some—come down to a local level, so everybody looks out at NHS level and at local government level to be able to deal with local needs, rather than somebody sitting in Whitehall making a decision for the whole country and everybody in the NHS having to march in the same direction, we will not get a significant change in improving health and reducing health inequalities at a local level that is systematic and can work. That is why I think these two amendments are important, and the Government will ignore them at their peril.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, because time presses, my name is attached to the stand part debates on Clauses 58 and 59. I do not seek to repeat what has been said already about those two clauses, but I hope the Minister will give clear evidence for the need for both clauses, because I am unconvinced that they are necessary. I will make a further point in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said a moment ago: that the whole principle behind police and crime commissioners was that they were directly elected. If the ballot box is the main means for a police and crime commissioner to be appointed to their job, I do not think that that system can be meddled with in the way that the Government appear to want to meddle with it.

Indeed, to develop what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, of course a mayor with PCC powers can appoint a deputy mayor to have the PCC powers on behalf of the mayor. Actually, when we read the Bill very carefully—indeed, we debated this in earlier stages of consideration of the Bill—the deputy can also pass powers on to “any other person”. There are some restrictions in the Bill as to what that might mean, but the fact is that the words “any other person” simply take away the power of the electorate to make a decision as to who is the police and crime commissioner. For that reason, I support the propositions on Clauses 58 and 59 not standing part.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is another really important group of amendments to do with the extent of devolution: what are the limits that the Government are putting on that? The only areas we have explored, very important though they are, are the National Health Service, policing, transport services—buses, in particular—and general functions. I have great sympathy with all the amendments in this group, particularly those introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asking where the National Health Service fits in with the notion of devolution to local areas.

As the noble Lord explored, currently the NHS does not fit in. A move was made in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority for the mayor to take the provision of health and care services—which we have not referred to so far—under his powers. That was accepted but has not made much progress. One of the biggest challenges, as has been said time and again in this Chamber in debates relating to other Bills, is the absolute importance of connecting the National Health Service and the social care system. Enabling devolution of NHS services to a mayoral combined authority would enable social care and NHS services to be properly linked. The result of no progress being made in this area is before our eyes; we have too many older people staying in hospital for too long, which harms their health, and they are not discharged into the social care service because the two are not linked. The Government have failed to do this time and again. Well, okay, devolve it—pass it on to local mayoral authorities so that we can see what progress they can make. I repeat every sympathy, and support what has been said. I do hope it will be pursued at later stages of consideration of this Bill because it is so important for the health and well-being of the people we serve.

I will also wholeheartedly support the Clauses 58 and 59 stand part notices, for the reasons that have been said. I will give the example of West Yorkshire, where it was determined that the police and crime commissioner role would be combined with that of our elected mayor. Now we no longer have an elected police and crime commissioner because that role is unelected; they are appointed by the West Yorkshire mayor. That was her right; I am not saying she has done anything wrong. But who is now called to account for failings in policing in West Yorkshire? There have been a number of examples across the country where police and crime commissioners have, for various reasons, been found wanting and have been held accountable for their actions. How does that work in a combined mayoral authority where the mayor appoints the police and crime commissioner? Does the mayor have to be held accountable for the decisions and actions of their appointed deputy? That is the only way that accountability can take place. The attempt by the Government to undermine an elected process is undemocratic. How do the Government think that local people will feel about the very important role of holding policing in the West Midlands to account when an elected police and crime commissioner there is somehow unelected? Those two big issues are very important. It is about whether we are talking about devolution to local areas or still talking about centralised systems where there is delegation to combined authorities—which leads nicely to buses.

I cannot add to my noble friend Lady Randerson’s description of what has happened to the bus services and how important they are to any hope of levelling up for many parts of the country. As she said, if you cannot get a bus in order to access employment then, for many people, it is financially impossible to do other than stay at home. Mayoral authorities need to be given the powers to control bus services, as bus services should be encompassed in mayoral authorities. In giving another local example, I should point out that it was done before the mayoral authority was set up. Nevertheless, it comes from the centre of West Yorkshire where, in my own area, we have a number of small villages where the bus services were poor and people could not get about. Fortunately, there was not only one bus a week—like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has, I think—but services were poor throughout the day. We managed to get a subsidy for what I call a small hopper bus—a 15-seater—to go around the various parts of the Spen Valley area and pick up older people, take them into town to do their shopping, collect them and go back again. After a bit, because it was so popular, it has become a self-financing bus service. With local initiatives comes success because local areas know what would probably work for their patches. That is why enabling mayoral combined authorities to have control over bus services is so vital.

Any notion of levelling up will not work without the aspect of transport. There has been too much focus on rail services, which are very important but do not feature in a lot of people’s options for transport. I repeat that my noble friend Lady Randerson made a powerful case for ensuring that mayoral combined authorities can run bus services. Without that, many people—especially in rural areas, but not only in rural areas—will find that they cannot access the services and jobs they need to if levelling up is to be anything other than a slogan.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 115, 118 and 119 and Amendments 116, 117 and 125 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock.

In general terms, these amendments have been tabled to probe some of the issues around what appears to be a democratic deficit in both the existing elected mayoral system and the new provisions proposed in the Bill. They also consider how the Secretary of State will deal with the financial consequences of the powers given to him or her in the Bill to transfer functions to the mayor, as well as some further issues around the communication of issues relating to the mayoral system to members of the public in the area that he or she represents.

I know that communication has been covered extensively in our previous debates in Committee—we have heard extensive responses from the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on that subject—so I will be brief. However, if the new CCAs that choose to go down the route of an elected mayor are to be successful, it will be vital that all matters relating to the mayoralty are set out clearly and communicated effectively to the public in the area concerned.

Amendment 103 is intended to probe the possibility of mayoral by-elections. We need clarity in relation to what would happen in the event that a CCA mayor resigned or left office for any reason. Does there need to be specific provision in the Bill to enable a mayoral by-election should this happen? As the current proposal seems to be that the deputy mayor is simply appointed by the mayor, it does not seem appropriate for an unelected deputy mayor to step in and take over until the next cycle of mayoral elections is due. Can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that a mayoral by-election should possible if the mayor is unable or unwilling to carry on in their role in a period that is not close to the date in the normal cycle of mayoral elections?

Amendment 115 would insert:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments.”


This amendment has been supported by the Local Government Association, which thinks it gives greater power to combined authority members to hold the mayor, and the mayor’s choice of deputy mayor, to account. We heard a great deal earlier this afternoon about the flaws in the process for appointing deputy mayors. The current system of appointment by the mayor to the role of deputy mayor seems to leave a gaping hole in any democratic process in this respect. Deputy mayors have powerful roles within the executive and administration of the CCA. As we have heard, they could potentially take the role of the current police and crime commissioner. They also receive remuneration from the CCA, which can be at a significant cost to the taxpayer. But this can be done without any provision in the Bill for scrutiny either by the overview and scrutiny committee or by an equivalent body, let alone any external scrutiny, which seems to set those roles apart from both the democratic process, in that they are not elected by the public, and the provisions that would be made in a local authority, for example, for the appointment of a senior member of staff. Would the Minister give consideration to any further provisions and safeguards that could be built into the Bill to ensure that CCA members and the public can hold the mayor to account for the appointment of deputy mayors?

Amendment 116, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, would mean the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming what additional funds will be made available to a mayor when making regulations under Clause 28, so we are back to funding again. This amendment is supported by the LGA. The clause gives the Secretary of State significant powers to transfer responsibilities for certain functions and activities to the mayor and the CCA. In some circumstances, we accept, this may be subject to the normal process of new burdens funding, although that process in itself has its own challenges. We would be more concerned that devolution may be used as an excuse to reduce funding for services, particularly core services. We absolutely support the transfer of powers from central government to local leaders, but of course these powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels. Our amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would confirm what funding was being allocated along with any new powers that are conferred. The LGA agrees with that opinion, saying that

“powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels, and devolution should not be used as an excuse to reducing funding”.

So, on that amendment, we have the support of the LGA.

Amendment 117, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, is on an annual summit of CCA mayors. This is similar to earlier amendments we laid down around the sharing of good practice. It is a probing amendment designed to explore how CCA mayors will share information on the implementation of the new types of combined authorities and best practice. It would give them a forum to enable them to discuss any issues arising from the operation of the CCAs, and liaison and co-operation between them and the Government, and to understand how different models of CCA are working—for example, those that have taken the powers of police and crime commissioners. We appreciate that there may be a role for the LGA. We discussed that earlier this afternoon; we can discuss it further in later stages of the Bill. Other bodies may have an interest in this area in relation to CCAs, but it is certainly not clear from the Bill how joint working, sharing of good practice and achieving an agreed stance where issues arise on policy matters around the structure of CCAs and so on would happen.

Amendment 118 is a probing amendment which would prevent the Secretary of State from conferring only partial police and crime commissioner functions on the mayor. This relates very much to the discussion that we had earlier under other amendments. I hope that it is not related to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt earlier, where a mayor does not agree with decisions made by a PCC of a different political persuasion—or even the same one, if you are in one of those types of political arrangements and they have had a fallout. It seems strange to have provision in the Bill which could lead to the possibility of a patchwork of different policing responsibilities being conferred on CCA mayors. This begs a further question about the role of police and crime commissioners in those circumstances.

This probing amendment seeks to understand the Government’s view on whether they would prefer the default position to be to transfer all the functions of police and crime commissioners to mayors in most circumstances, except where the CCA particularly expresses a wish not to transfer any of those powers, or whether it is to be left to CCAs at local level to determine which functions will be transferred to the mayor. Can the Minister please clarify this point? Policing is just too important in our communities to see it haggled over between different bits of local authorities. I hope we can have a clear line on this.

Amendment 119 is a probing amendment to allow the person appointed deputy mayor to be appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Again, we had a very long discussion about this earlier today, but it is certainly not clear in the Bill whether it is the intention that a deputy mayor should never take the function of a deputy mayor for policing and crime. We have raised other amendments, and under those is our concern about the democratic deficit in the appointment of deputy mayors. However, if and only if the issues around accountability for those appointments can be resolved, it would seem perverse for the mayor not to be able to delegate this part of their responsibility. Indeed, in practice, it almost certainly would happen. Can the Minister comment on how this aspect of the Bill might be clarified to make that issue clearer?

Lastly, Amendment 125, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, would mean that a change in the mayoral title must be communicated to residents. We agree with Amendment 124 by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley: a list of possible alternative titles for mayors is really unnecessary, as the CCA already has powers to choose alternative titles if it wishes. My noble friend’s amendment is intended to make sure that, if there is a change to the title, that is communicated to the public—to residents—and that that should be written into the process for any mayoral change of title. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 124 in this group, which relates to Clause 40, “Alternative mayoral titles”. I challenge the notion that a choice of titles is required on the face of the Bill. Powers to decide a title already lie with the CCA, under Clause 40, in line 25 of page 35, and to attempt to define possible titles is an unnecessary addition.

The titles suggested are,

“county commissioner … county governor … elected leader … governor.”

I am not clear where those four titles came from. I guess we could all add some more, but it is confusing since everybody else is using the word “mayor”. I do not understand why another title is necessary. If I look at the word “governor”, I immediately think of a school governor, the governor of a US state or the governor of a prison. I am not sure it helps public understanding of what is proposed with a combined county authority to have a mixture of titles for roles. The public will have great difficulty engaging with them, because the titles could be different in one place from another. The power is there for people on the CCA to decide what title they want but, frankly, if I had my way it would be “mayor” because that has become the term. For the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tees Valley and so on, the word is “mayor” and I am not sure it helps to have suggestions that they could be called “governors” or “county commissioners.” I hope the Minister may be able to look at that and come up with an explanation about why the Government want to confuse things so much.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for raising issues in detail regarding mayoral names—or not—and some aspects of elections and powers, because that points to the fact that although we have a very long Bill with a huge number of clauses, a lot of the detail is insufficient for us to understand completely what the Government seek to do and how they hope these new CCAs and mayors—or not mayors—will operate.

An important issue is in Amendment 103, about what happens if the current mayor stands down for whatever reason. That would be worth knowing for all of us who live in combined authorities.

The second important thing is about the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments. One would hope that a panel of members who are not of the same party as the mayor would interview and scrutinise the appointment of the person, who will have significant powers conferred on them simply because they are a mate of the mayor; that never seems appropriate. There are a number of other probing amendments in this group, including that of my noble friend about “governors”. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but it points to the fact that the Bill has not been as well thought through as it might have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

All the powers will go. There will not be half a PCC left. Does that make sense?

Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to allow the person appointed as statutory deputy mayor of the combined county authority to also be appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Schedule 3 prevents this because the deputy mayor and deputy mayor for policing and crime are two distinct, separate, and weighty roles. The role of the statutory deputy mayor is to step in and act as mayor should the mayor be unable to act or if the office of mayor is vacant for a time, as well as assisting across a whole range of general mayoral functions where applicable.

The deputy mayor of a combined authority is typically also a council leader, and we anticipate this will likely also be the case in combined county authorities. This would mean that this person is already accountable for the decisions and activities of the council they lead, in addition to their combined county authority responsibilities, where they will be accountable collectively, and possibly personally, for some of the CCA decisions, including personally for the mayor’s functions if the mayor cannot act. The role of the deputy mayor for policing and crime is to dedicate constant focus and attention to crime and policing and is usually a full-time role. Clearly, both the roles of deputy mayor and deputy mayor for policing and crime are significant and we believe that they should remain separate and distinct.

Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow CCA mayors to be called by their choice of alternative title. Clauses 40 and 41 already enable mayoral combined county authorities to resolve or choose to use an alternative title to “mayor” for their directly elected mayor. They can choose from a shortlist of titles listed in the Bill, or a different title not on the list, having regard to other titles used in the area. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from regarding the fact that the title “mayor” is beginning to take on some level of credence within the country, but if you come from a particularly rural county area—I counted last night that where I was leader of a council, we already had 16 mayors—an elected mayor would be confusing for some people. The role of a mayor in some rural areas is seen as a civic role, rather than a leadership role, which is very different.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I say to the Minister that the problem applies in urban areas too; it is not specifically a rural issue. If you look at Merseyside and Liverpool, you will see a mayor, a ceremonial mayor and a combined authority mayor—you have three already. The public work with that, but what I am challenging is whether people being able to choose their own title for their area will not be more confusing, because if you use the word “governor” or a variation on that theme, the question then arises: “What are those powers?”. People at least have some idea what a combined authority mayor is actually about.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

These decisions, as with many, have to be taken locally because local people will understand better than anybody what is right for their area. I have given the Committee my personal views from when we were considering mayors—I just thought it would be confusing.