Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Like many, I was looking forward to this Bill. You could say that I was even excited at the prospect of a set of provisions that would unleash the economic, social and environmental opportunities of all the towns and cities across the land—maybe I need to get out more—but, having read the Bill, my excitement turned into a feeling of utter disbelief and confusion.

Is this Bill’s focus devolution and economic growth? Is it planning guidance, housing, or the control of local government structures and finance? I have no idea what its driving purpose is; it seems to be a pick-and-mix of whatever was in the Secretary of State’s in-tray, which he has decided to cram into one Bill. At the same time, he has given himself so many powers that all he will be doing is sitting in a Whitehall office making provisions for rules on street votes in Saltburn, making new design orders for development in Southampton, or deciding the financial constraints of the council in Sheffield. Indeed, this Bill could be diagnosed as having a split personality.

Part 1 of the Bill sets the whole tone of the Government’s thinking. Devolution is derived from the Secretary of State’s pen—deciding what is important, what is to be measured and when, and marking his own progress. That is why this Bill is flawed before it starts. It is still the Whitehall-centric view of the country from SW1: deciding if all is going well from that vantage point. It is indeed a “Henry VIII powers on steroids” Bill.

The elephant in the room is that there is no reform of the Victorian monolithic structure of Whitehall itself. You cannot have an empowered set of regions until you start looking at the reforms of Whitehall needed to facilitate that. If the Government really are radical about what matters to local areas, let them decide what is important in closing the economic, social and environmental gaps. Let them have a say and put them at the centre of whether progress is being made in closing the economic, social and environmental gaps. Why cannot that be turned around? Why cannot local areas be the judges of what is important and how progress is being made, along with government?

It is also what is not in this Bill that shows why it is doomed to fail on levelling up. When we look at other countries, we see that they cannot control sustainable economic growth in any region without having full fiscal devolution. Here in England, only two property-based taxes are the levers that local politicians can pull to raise income to invest in their area. In France, local areas have nine taxes; in Germany, the figure is more than 12; and in New York City it is 22. The OECD has shown that, to be effective, local areas need to have a split of taxes based on 60% property and 40% non-property. Other than the iron glove of the Treasury, what stops local areas in this country having fiscal powers to make the right investment decisions and create the right incentives for their areas? We have to stop the Oliver Twist approach of holding out the begging bowl and asking the Secretary of State, “Please sir, can I have some more?” in a bidding war for time-limited funds that is flawed and will continue under this Bill. This is an area that these Benches will return to in Committee.

This Bill has many great intentions but unfortunately, the powers in it are not really being devolved to local areas. Devolution means that local areas, local politicians, local businesses and local communities can make real decisions about investment, fiscal issues and significant issues that affect their area. This Bill stems most of that power still from the Secretary of State’s pen in Whitehall.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, as this is my first time speaking in Committee, I lay out my interests as in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley and have listened carefully to this debate. Technically, it does not matter how small and granular the information is; it is how it is evaluated and reported against the aims of the mission that is important. That is why I want to speak in particular to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

If you look at the Bill, you see that the only person who will evaluate the homework of whether the geographical disparities are actually narrowing against the missions in the Bill is the Minister. The Minister will not only set the way in which the task is set but will then be the person who marks his or her homework on that. That is why it is particularly important that Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is accepted by the Government, as it proposes an independent review of whether the geographical disparities are narrowing.

I ask the Minister a very simple question: why would you object to an independent body assessing whether the Government are meeting the requirements in the Bill which they say they are so eager to meet? That is why, as Amendment 48 proposes, regardless of how data is collected, at what level and what criteria are used, it has to be independently measured to ensure that the Government’s desired requirements and policies are working to achieve the levelling-up issue in a geographical area.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, three issues have been raised by this small group: defining geographies—we talked a lot about geographies and spatial disparities— and granularity; independent scrutiny, which is really important; and then funding allocation and how that happens. I am beginning to think that the Government and the Minister may regret the publication of the levelling-up White Paper because it is a fountain of really good information.

On geographies, we need to understand what we mean by “geographies”. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about very small pockets of multiple deprivation, and largely we have been speaking in the previous debates, yesterday and today, about big, regional or county-wide differences across the country. We need to understand at what level—or is it at all levels?—levelling up will take place. The levelling-up White Paper is quite handy in that regard—the Minister is nodding, so that is a good start. It has not taken IMD—the index of multiple deprivation—but it has a great map; I love maps which are mapped out according to datasets of this sort. It is figure 1.13 in the book, if noble Lords want to know. It has mapped, across local authority areas, gross value added, weekly pay, healthy life expectancy and level 3+ equivalent skills in the adult population. It is very revealing.

The map shows where there are all four of those indices in the lowest quartile of the measures. Where are they? According to this map, it is not always where you suspect. One of the areas is north Norfolk— I would never have thought that. Another area is where we would expect: the north-east, shown as a great, dark blob where that is a problem. Then there is the area down the Yorkshire coast and then obviously on the Lancashire coast, where you would expect—and then central Devon. So this is a very important sort of dataset to use. That is on a big scale. However, when my noble friend Lord Shipley introduced this, he talked about being able to go below that level of dataset to understand where the highest levels of multiple indices are occurring on a regular basis and how that can be tackled.

So that is the first point: it is not defined in the Bill, and we need a definition of what we are tackling in terms of geographies. So I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Foster about the granularity and importance of the data, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Scriven on supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hullock—I am so sorry, I always do that; I meant the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—on the importance of independent scrutiny.

Finally, on the allocation of levelling-up funding to date, if this is a symptom of how it is going to occur in the future, we may as well abandon levelling up. The House of Commons Library has a report on the funding to date and where it has gone. The Government have put local authority areas into priorities 1, 2 and 3, with 1 being the most needy. I would expect that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, the money would go to priority 1. But no: 59%, only just above half the money, has gone so far, in the first two rounds of funding, to priority 1 areas. Some has even gone to priority 3 areas, which, by the Government’s own definition, are doing okay. So what is this about levelling up?

In response to the question about the cost of bids, I know, because I spoke to the chief executive of Leeds City Council, that it spent a third of a million pounds on drawing up bids for level 2 and got not a penny piece in return. When local government across the country, or certainly where I am, is cutting its budgets—£43 million has to be found in my own budget in Kirklees because of rising energy prices, inflation and all the rest of it—local government cannot afford to spend a third of a million pounds on making bids that then get turned down because the Government decide to hand the money to local authorities in priority 3 areas. It is not right, it is not levelling up and it needs to change.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the assessment of levelling up. Amendment 10 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, with whom I am more than happy to have a teach-in on data for anybody who would like to come and learn more about the technicalities—please just let me know. The amendment would define criteria that could be used to evaluate levelling-up policies that aim to address geographical disparities.

As I set out in detail to noble Lords in our first day of Committee, the missions contained in the levelling-up White Paper are a product of extensive analysis and engagement. The missions are supported by a range of clear metrics, used to measure them at the appropriate level of geography, and these metrics take account of a wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. These metrics cover a wide range of policy issues but all are clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities. This has been set out in the White Paper.

I turn to Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. This amendment would require an assessment by the independent evaluating body to be included in any review of statements of levelling-up missions. We have accepted in this Chamber that scrutiny and seeking expert advice will be important in ensuring that we deliver on our missions and level up the country. That is why we have established the Levelling Up Advisory Council to provide government with expert advice to inform the design and delivery of the missions. The council includes voices from different parts of the UK.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, might not have been here for the debate on a previous group but I should say that the advisory council is chaired by Andy Haldane and its membership was published in the White Paper. The council members are not tied to government views and the council is made up of renowned independent experts in their field, such as Sir Tim Besley, professor of economics and political science at the London School of Economics; Cathy Gormley-Heenan, a former deputy vice-chancellor of research and impact at Ulster University; Sacha Romanovitch, the CEO of Fair4All Finance; and Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive at L&G. All are independent experts in their field. We welcome the challenge and expert advice that the council provides and have been clear that we want it to provide us with candid views and challenging recommendations for how the Government are delivering levelling-up policy.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The noble Baroness read out a list of eminent people and said that their voice is important. If that is the case, why cannot their assessment and report be in the Bill, as the amendment seeks, and part of the Government’s independent assessment of geographical disparity? Under the present Bill, there is only the Minister’s assessment of whether the missions are narrowing geographical disparity. If these people are so eminent and important, why cannot that be part of the report to both Houses of Parliament?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No one has said that those views cannot be taken when the missions are scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. However, we will not put it in the Bill, as in our opinion that would not be appropriate.

Amendment 58, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would change the definition of disparities in the Bill. The amendment is right to note that geographical disparities may include differences between regions, counties, councils and council wards. However, in the course of our work on the levelling-up White Paper, it has become clear that the appropriate unit of comparison will vary depending on the mission or policy area.

To help us tailor analysis and policy to the UK’s complex economic geography, timely and robust spatial data have been made a foundational pillar of the new policy regime for levelling up. More granular spatial data is crucial to ensure that policy fully recognises the different characteristics, opportunities and challenges of different places—including, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on two occasions now, rural and urban areas.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Given that levelling-up directors are, in theory, supposed to be driving the agenda nationally and regionally, and getting both councils and government working together and with all the relevant agencies, charities, businesses and so on that can help deliver this agenda, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what progress has been made with these posts. I have heard a rumour that somebody might actually have been appointed; maybe I have missed the confirmation of that. It would be helpful to know about progress on the posts, or whether the Government have had a rethink about this and how it is going to be structured. Have the Government perhaps pulled the plug on this way forward? It would be helpful to have a better understanding. The reason why this is so important is that it strikes me that they are supposed to be the glue between the department, local councils and local communities, and to start to make things happen. So, we consider a proper understanding of their role in implementing the levelling-up missions to be critical. If the Minister can give us any further information on this, it would be gladly received. If he cannot, it would be helpful to know when we are likely to have an update.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, just pointed out, these amendments relate to consultant spend by councils and regional director spends, and their roles in the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

Amendment 51 is important, as the noble Baroness just pointed out. A freedom of information request showed that in the 245 upper and lower-tier councils, £26.9 million has been spent on levelling-up bids. That is £26.9 million taken away from social care, housing, cleaning, street cleaning and bin collection at a time when councils are finding things particularly difficult. Of that money, the vast majority went to external consultants. Does the Minister think it right that £26.9 million should be used on a lottery process pitting town against town and city against city to bid for levelling-up funds, only for the Government to move the goalposts at the last second by changing the criteria against which councils are bidding, which means not only that this money could have been spent on other services but that it has been wasted?

On Amendment 52, I wish to start with a general point, and here I do not necessarily share the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The concept of 12 regional directors controlled out of Whitehall somehow being the panacea for devolution is ludicrous. Let us be clear: what this will turn out to be is a system of crude decentralisation. Those of us who have been around for quite a while in local government know that when we had something similar in the past, the regional directors of the department dispersed to work with local area partnership boards came with “We are here to help and support you” as their mantra. However, they were used as government enforcers and the eyes and ears of government, going back to the department and saying which areas were in the good books and who should be put on the naughty step because they were not carrying out the Government’s agenda.

Reports back from such regional directors decided who got money and what sticks or carrots were deployed. I know that the noble Earl will pour out soothing words from the Dispatch Box, saying that is not the role, but history shows that it is. Look at the job advert issued in November 2022—it kind of gives the game away. It says that they will report progress to the newly established committee for levelling-up, which is exactly the same as the previous directors in the department did.

We are now told that these regional directors are on hold, but that they could be answerable and accountable to the mayors. Let us take Yorkshire as a region, as these are regional directors. We could have four mayors in Yorkshire with different agendas and from different political persuasions. To which mayor will the regional director be accountable—one of them or all of them? It is clear that these roles have not been thought through from a regional perspective but from an office in Whitehall, with a very Londoncentric view of how they can be used as government enforcers.

Talking of Yorkshire, we are a little perplexed—not that we are from Yorkshire, but perhaps the Minister can help with this. Civil Service World on 17 February had an interesting headline, stating that the department

“hires former … No. 10 official as levelling-up director.”

Ed Whiting, David Cameron’s former deputy private secretary has been hired, and he very helpfully tweeted that he has been recruited to the role of levelling-up director in the north, based in and working out of Leeds:

“I’ll be based in Leeds, hoping to be travelling round North”,


working with local councils and others on innovation. He also expects to travel to London often too—ah, yes, that newly established Cabinet committee for levelling-up has to be informed. He goes on, quite incredibly—he has been hired on a six-figure salary—to say that “details” of the new role are “tbc”.

We are perplexed, Minister, and some clarification would be helpful. Is Mr Whiting a regional director for levelling up and, if not, what is his role and how does it fit with the regional directors? When was he recruited, where was the job advert and who sat on the recruitment panel? Why have local authorities in the north not been informed officially who he is and how he is there to help them? Why has someone been recruited on a six-figure salary when their role is still to be confirmed?

That is why Amendment 52 is important. We need transparency and clarity on who the department is using in the regions and what roles they have, to ensure the Government do not establish an expensive decentralized bureaucracy, costing the taxpayers millions, trying to enforce their agenda in local areas.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments is related to consultants and the Government’s appointment of levelling-up directors. Specifically, Amendment 51, in the name of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Government to publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. I fear that requiring local authorities to report in this way would be disproportionate and unnecessary, but let me explain why.

The new burdens doctrine, established and maintained by successive Governments, requires all Whitehall departments to justify why new duties, powers, targets and other bureaucratic burdens should be placed on local authorities, as well as how much these policies and initiatives will cost and where the money will come from to pay for them. This provision already ensures that the Government must properly consider the impact of their policies, legislation and programmes on local government and fully fund any new burdens arising.

Further, local authorities are already bound by the Local Government Transparency Code, which mandates local authorities to publish data on all expenditure over £500 in open and accessible formats. I will come back to that point in a second, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness about expenditure by central government on consultants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It would depend on the circumstances. It would depend on whether the expenditure on consultants was classified as a truly new burden or not, and that is an arcane science on which I do not pretend to be expert. Perhaps I may provide the noble Baroness with clarification in writing on that point, because I recognise that it is of relevance.

As I was saying, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Baroness’s points on expenditure by central government on consultants. As a matter of principle, I think all Secretaries of State across government would agree that they should impose a self-denying ordinance on their departments where skills can be developed in-house. Where that can happen, it should. The problem is, I suggest, twofold. First, the skills needed are very often highly specialised; secondly, if one looks across government as a whole, it is very difficult to make general statements about the needs of individual departments. However, I think the noble Baroness and I are aligned in our antipathy to expenditure that may turn out to be unnecessary—certainly expenditure that turns out to be wasteful. No department wants to go down that road.

On expenditure, transparency, as so often, is key. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about consultancy expenditure by local authorities in preparing their bids. I would just say to him that the decision by some local authorities to appoint consultants in their bidding process was a decision for them, and such decisions will doubtless have reflected in part the point that I just made: that the necessary skills are not always on tap locally. I think that is all I can say about that, but I will write on his questions about Mr Whiting, as I do not have the necessary briefing on that in front of me.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I want to ask a specific question, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also asked. Has any regional director been appointed? That is the key question, particularly about Mr Whiting.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am coming to Amendment 52 in a second. It might be helpful if I added a few comments about local government funding more generally, because we recognise that the sheer number of different funds has become onerous for some councils to navigate and deliver. We have taken initial steps to address this complexity in the funding landscape. For example, the levelling-up fund provides cross-departmental capital investment in local infrastructure, and the UK shared prosperity fund provides resource-focused investment to support people, boost pride in place and strengthen communities. However, the levelling-up White Paper made it clear that we can do more, and we will set out a plan on funding simplification shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It is open for decision. We want to see local areas taking the initiative themselves. Where there is a functioning economic hub, for example, or a whole county, they may wish to apply for CCA status, but it is up to them to make those decisions. One can talk in general terms of “the north”, but until we know that the appetite is in those northern areas for taking advantage of the opportunities that we are trying to create, I cannot be more specific.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

For clarity, the issue with Mr Whiting, to whom I referred, is that, as the Minister helpfully said, no regional director has been appointed so far. However, Mr Whiting describes himself as a regional director for the north and not for a particular region. Therefore, it is important that, when the Minister writes to me, he clarifies exactly what Mr Whiting’s role is and how it fits with the regional directors.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, can he also clarify the geographical area for which he is responsible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Can the Minister explain, then, where the geographies of a county area do not coincide with the geographies of an economic or travel-to-work area? Often, they do not. What I have heard is that you can either have a functioning geography of a county and its two tiers, or the alternative, but not a mixture of the two.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister has raised the East Midlands. On the northern tip of the East Midlands there is Chesterfield and north Derbyshire. Most businesses in that area would look into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority in terms of their business, and not into the county combined authority. It seems to be an administrative boundary designed down here in Whitehall rather than a true travel-to-work area. How would the north Nottinghamshires and Chesterfields be affected by this when, in reality, the economic performance and activity is actually into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

May I add to what my noble colleagues have said? This goes to the heart of this amendment. We struggle to say how you can have a county with more than one functioning economic area included in that county. To take my county as an example, the south of the county largely relates to London, because some of the boroughs almost are London boroughs, whereas the north of the county relates much more to Cambridge and Bedfordshire. There are definitely two distinct, functioning economic areas within one shire county. The shire counties go back centuries: their economic geographies have changed very considerably since then. If you take the economic geography of my noble friend Lady Hayman’s area, people in Cumbria may even relate to an economic area that includes parts of Scotland. This is not a simple picture around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

To get back to the amendment, I suggest that splitting the responsibility for functions currently vested in local authorities could lead to discrepancies in the delivery of important services, such as transport or adult education, within areas of a county council. I think it would introduce unnecessary complexity.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he keeps talking about complexity. This is complexity of boundary, not of reality. I will give him a situation where complexity may hold back the levelling-up agenda. Let us again take the top end of the east Midlands and South Yorkshire. If both the South Yorkshire combined authority and the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined authority have control of the skills money, the fact that probably about half the people from the north end of the east Midlands come up into South Yorkshire means that the skills required should be funded for jobs available in the South Yorkshire combined authority. If the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined authority decides not to invest in that type of skill, the issue is that the flow of labour will not be there for South Yorkshire businesses. How does that kind of problem get solved? It is not an administrative issue but the reality of having the skills where real people and businesses travel and work together.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point. The experience we have had with combined authorities is that local authorities’ natural tendency is to co-operate with each other. We have seen this all over the place: they do not want to operate in silos and they look outside their boundaries. Yes, there may well be cases where at the beginning there would seem not to be a particularly good fit, but that does not preclude two authorities, such as those he mentioned, getting together and finding a way through, if they possibly can, to address the mismatches of the kind he mentioned.

Amendment 99 seeks to amend Clause 23 to require a public consultation before any proposal to change the area of an existing combined county authority. We agree that those with an interest in the area should be consulted before a combined county authority is changed. As I said, we will have more to say about this in the debate on the next group of amendments.

Clauses 45 and 46 set out a requirement for a public consultation on any proposals from the local area on changes to the area of a CCA. Where a combined county authority has been established and subsequently seeks to change its boundary, Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for areas to achieve that. The Secretary of State may make regulations changing the area of a CCA if that is something the area consents to, the Secretary of State agrees and Parliament approves the necessary secondary legislation.

We fully recognise the crucial importance of residents in the local area having a say; that is common ground between us. That is why any CCA or local authority seeking to submit a proposal to the Secretary of State to change the area of a CCA must carry out a public consultation, as set out in Clause 45(3). This consultation must take place in the area covered by the CCA. This enables local residents, businesses and other interested parties to have a strong input into any such proposals. A summary of consultation responses is then to be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the proposal.

Clause 46 provides an additional safeguard to ensure that there is sufficient public consultation. This enables the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation prior to making any regulations to enact these changes if they feel that there has been insufficient public involvement in their development.

We completely agree with the sentiment of Amendment 99, but I suggest that we already have provisions later in the Bill to address this; we will debate some of these in a few moments. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw Amendment 60 and not to move Amendment 99 when it is reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is certainly the aim. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would agree with me that one of the downsides of referendums that we have seen in the past is that people are asked to take a binary decision. That very often does not allow for the nuances and subtleties of an issue to be presented in the question, to put it at its mildest. So we think the consultation model is more appropriate for this type of situation, particularly as the different constituent elements of a community will have different interests and viewpoints on the issue in question.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

It is clear that, even barring a referendum, under Clause 44(3)(c) the Secretary of State will ask for further consultation if they consider that it is required. I assume that the Secretary of State will not have a subjective opinion on that and that there will be some objective criteria. It therefore comes back to what my noble friend Lord Shipley said: would it not be wise for the objective criteria about what good consultation is to be shared and, potentially, to be in the Bill? That would stop the position where local authorities had to rerun a consultation because it had not met the criteria which the Secretary of State was looking for in the first place.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Yes, I take the noble Lord’s point. It comes back to one that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about minimum standards in this area. It might be helpful if I took advice on this and wrote to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, to see whether I can add some clarification.

Turning to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the levelling-up White Paper clearly states the Government’s ambition for devolution, including the devolution framework, which is underpinned by four principles. One of these principles is sensible geography. The White Paper clearly states that future devolution deals should be agreed over a sensible, functional economic area and/or a whole-county geography, with a single institution in place across that geographic footprint. We have already debated that issue on the previous group. The combined county authority model is being established in the Bill to provide a single institution that can cover such functional economic areas, or whole-county geographies, where there is existing two-tier local government and multiple upper-tier councils. As such, I reassure the noble Baroness that combined county authorities will be focused on single economic hubs.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

The associate member arrangement provides a more formal structure for bringing in such expertise. Associate members can also bring the local business voice into the combined county authority, the harnessing of which is, of course, vital to achieving levelling up.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Can I ask the Minister a question? In relation to the commissioners who have just been referred to, do those commissioners have an automatic seat on the combined authority?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Well, does that not argue for having in certain circumstances a similar status for associate members, who can contribute on a par with the way that commissioners contribute to combined authorities?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The point I am trying to make to the Minister is that, if he is going to use an example, it has to be an example of someone who already sits on a combined authority and has that influence, rather than just someone who advises the mayor and does not have a formal role within the combined authority structure.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I think this was said earlier. I do not think you can take the model of the metropolitan areas and combined authorities and transpose that on to other areas of the country. Why should we not allow for difference, diversity and local decision-making on the way that people are used to best effect?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister does not seem to understand. It is not about transposing from an urban to a non-urban issue. This is a matter of principle about democratic accountability for taxpayers’ money being used and that, when people sit at a table, there is some form of democratic accountability back to the people for whom they are making those decisions. The kind of membership that the Bill proposes has no democratic accountability. It is not about transposing a model from urban to rural; it is a matter of principle. If people are spending taxpayers’ money as part of a mayoral combined authority, whether urban or rural, they should be democratically accountable back to the people whose taxes they are spending.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I sense that this is a matter that we will come back to at a later stage of the Bill. I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said on this subject.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the clerks who made up this group—it is an astonishing achievement to have managed to get so many completely separate issues all in one group. I am afraid that I am going to make life more difficult for the Front-Benchers, particularly for the noble Baroness the Minister, by moving from one subject to another—but here we are; I will do my best.

I ought to remind the Committee that I am a former police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire and Rutland. I have a clause stand part notice in my name for Clause 59, which we will not reach for many sessions, probably. I thank noble Lords who have added their names to that notice. My noble friend Lord Hunt, at the end of his speech, talked about Clause 59; I very much hope that the Government will listen. Even if my words are fairly harsh, they are not addressed at Ministers here; obviously it is not their responsibility, as such, but the Government’s responsibility that we are landed with Clause 59, which really is not a worthy clause in a Bill of this kind. It should never have been in this Bill; it is a mean, short clause in a large, important Bill and it has absolutely nothing to do with levelling up or grand plans for the future of our country.

It is for one reason only, as has been stated: merely to ensure that one mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority—Conservative, as it happens—can become the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands police force area whenever he really wants to. All he has to do is ask the Government, who are his own party, of course. He does not have to consult with anybody, unlike under Clause 58—for which there is also a stand part notice—where consultation is at least mandatory. In effect, he just has to wake up one morning and say to himself, “Oh, I fancy being police and crime commissioner today; I’ll have a word with a Minister”. Then, without much ado, he will be. In fact, he has, to use modern parlance, fancied it for a long time. Unfortunately, for him, there is a combination of the present law, which demands democratic consent from the combined authority members and from the constituent authorities—the councils that make up the combined authority—and, annoyingly for the mayor, the electorate who have voted on four separate occasions for a Labour police and crime commissioner. “How dare they”, says the mayor, and the Government follow suit by putting in this clause.

First, the present law sought to be amended by Clause 59—namely, the need for majority support from the combined authority and support from all the councils that make up the combined authority, the constituent authorities—was put into the 2009 Act by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. For the Government of the day, and for all of us, it represented a sensible, democratic and consensual approach. Of course a mayor can become police and crime commissioner, if he or she has general support—as has happened in Manchester and West Yorkshire. However, it did stop a mayor from grabbing that position without local support. In the West Midlands, that support is not forthcoming. Now, seven years on—only seven years—the same Government wish to change all that and give the mayor a free ride, effectively.

Secondly, the electorate in the West Midlands has voted every time, as it happens, for a Labour police and crime commissioner, most recently in May 2021, on the very same day that they voted for a Conservative mayor. There is no suggestion that the two position holders, the mayor and the police and crime commissioner, have not worked well together. Both were elected, so I ask the Minister, what is the argument for change? What is the argument to nullify the result of an election, effectively, if it does not happen to suit one party?

This clause is there only, I submit, for the West Midlands mayor. Ironically, if he becomes police and crime commissioner, he will no doubt appoint a deputy who will do most of the work but will not have been elected by anybody. Police and crime commissioners, whether we like them or loathe them, were actually set up by the Government of the day to do a particular job for their public. One of the selling points by the Government when this controversial Bill was put before Parliament was that it would be the public who would elect police and crime commissioners, and that gave them some mandate. This clause represents a real lessening of democracy. It is usually only authoritarian regimes that make laws to abolish the results of democratic elections that they do not happen to like or do not suit them. Surely, we are better than that.

At Second Reading, the Minister did not have time to deal with the points I am making now. In no way is that a criticism: she had much too much to do, given the number of speakers and different points that were made at Second Reading. Now we are in Committee, I would be grateful if she would be kind enough to listen to the following questions and give me answers. First, what is the purpose of this clause if it is not to nullify the results of an election held 22 months ago? Secondly, what is wrong with the principle of having broad consent for change, which was the Government’s policy right up to now? Thirdly, why is there no consultation for the mayor before he makes his application? He does not need to consult under the new provision. Lastly, should the Government not think again about how undemocratic, chilling and unnecessary this clause looks? Its departure from the Bill would, I believe, be well received by all people of good will who believe in local democracy and think it rather shocking that an election result can be overturned merely because the party that lost it does not like it.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the probing Amendments 89 and 90, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the role of local government and the NHS. I speak as somebody who has been an NHS manager—I think I said previously that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was in the higher echelons of NHS management when I was a mere trainee. I have also been a local government council leader and recently I have been an NHS non-executive director.

There were clear issues as we went through the Health and Care Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, it seems like we are having the same discussion. It is not that we want to say, “We told you so”, but the structures that have been set up and the cultures and behaviours of the two organisations mean that they are incompatible with what we all want to achieve, which is a localised and systematic approach to dealing with people who go through the NHS and care system to improve health and reduce health inequalities between areas.

The NHS, by structure, looks up. It looks up to NHS England and the department. The way that the funding goes means that the levers that the Secretary of State or the senior directors of NHS England can pull will mean that NHS staff, in terms of managers and leaders, will look up and will respond to a top-down approach. The culture within the NHS is top-down, top-down, top-down. Local authorities, and particularly local councillors, look out. They look out to their area: that is who they serve, that is who, predominantly, gives them their marching orders—not somebody above them from a national organisation and a central ministerial area of government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is not the logic. It is an opportunity for the directly elected mayor to be able to join up all these issues within their geographic area and deliver more joined-up services by working with others.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Do the Government therefore suggest that, at a local level, a council leader could appoint their own cabinet rather than taking from elected councillors? That is the logic of what the Minister is saying.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is not the logic. It takes the whole issue too far. Cabinet members will come from the elected members. That is required in the legislation.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Secretary of State would have an independent review of the decision and would make a decision taking all that into account.

We are also keen, as I say, to make sure that those combined authorities and combined county authorities operate in the same way to ensure this consistent approach to devolving these functions to mayors, whether they are leading a combined authority or a combined county authority. This clause achieves that for the exercise of fire and rescue functions by replicating the existing provisions in the 2009 Act.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness regarding Clause 33. The single-employer model is just one option available to combined county authority mayors with both police and crime and fire and rescue authority functions, allowing the area’s chief constable to run both operational services. A mayor of a CCA could seek to utilise the model if they felt that doing so would deliver a more effective service. To go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, if we are talking about fire and rescue and police and crime, an effective service is one that keeps people safe; that is their job and I suggest that, if it is effective, that is exactly what they are doing.

As far as York and North Yorkshire are concerned, the fire and rescue service and the police and crime functions are, as the noble Baroness said, already adjoined, but without the use of a single employer. That has not been taken into account in York and North Yorkshire, and there is no reason to think that the mayor will do that. At the moment, the combined authority still has to go through parliamentary approval, so that will be something for local people in the future.

Clause 33 sets out the process required for the mayor of a combined county authority to request fire and rescue functions. The clause is an important part of the procedure to be followed when fire and rescue functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of the single-employer model. It ensures that there is sufficient scrutiny from both constituent councils of the CCA and the public because it requires the mayor to provide a report setting out an assessment of the benefits of the conferral and a summary of the public consultation carried out, along with a specific summary of representations from the constituent members of the CCA and the mayoral response to them.

This clause also contains further scrutiny to make sure that any proposal will deliver more effective services for an area. The Secretary of State has to obtain and publish an independent assessment of a proposal from a combined county authority mayor if two-thirds or more of the constituent members of the CCA oppose the transfer. The Secretary of State will then agree to transfer the functions only if they consider that doing so is in the interests of public safety for that area.

Removing the clause would remove key conditions for fire and rescue functions to be transferred to the mayor of a combined county authority and could therefore potentially lead to proposals going forward that have not been subject to either sufficient consultation or robust assessment. This in turn could lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I move on to issues the noble Baroness raised regarding Clause 34. This clause enables the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to the administrative operation of fire and rescue services, should a combined county authority mayor request these functions and transfer them to their chief constable to carry out on their behalf under the single-employer model. The clause is necessary because it enables there to be a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities as part of implementing the single-employer model. It also allows the chief constable to appoint staff as part of delegating their fire and rescue functions, subject to the necessary and important restrictions on who can carry out these responsibilities so that operational independence between policing and fire is maintained.

Removing this clause would make it very difficult for the chief constable to carry out their functions under the single-employer model, because they would not have access to key assets or be able to effectively resource their delivery. This would therefore lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and would hinder its day-to-day operation in a way that could ultimately impact on the successful delivery of these public safety functions for the area concerned.

On the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 35, this clause sets out safeguards governing the exercise of fire and rescue functions where the single-employer model is being operated. These include a requirement on the chief constable to make sure that they secure good value for money, and an obligation on the CCA mayor to hold those exercising functions under the model to account. This clause is another important part of the process and procedure to be followed when these functions have been conferred on the mayor as part of the single-employer model. Where possible, the processes for handling the functions available to be conferred on combined county authority mayors are the same as those for combined authority mayors and subject to the same requirements.

Removing the clause would mean that the single-employer model would work less well in practice because important safeguards on the exercise of fire and rescue functions under the model would be lost. This in turn would lead to ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 36. This clause enables the Secretary of State by regulation to make provisions corresponding to Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 dealing with complaints and conduct matters. This clause is an optional power to be used when these functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of implementing the single-employer model. It specifically relates to complaint and conduct matters for members of a police force and their civilian staff or members of staff transferred to a chief constable or appointed by them where they are exercising functions under the single-employer model.

Removing the clause would mean that the methods for dealing with complaints and conduct matters could not be specified for those carrying out functions under the single-employer model where a combined county authority mayor has decided to use it to exercise their police and crime and fire and rescue functions. Without this clause, it would be much more difficult for any complaints and conduct matters to be handled consistently and efficiently, thereby hindering the effective implementation and day-to-day operation of the single-employer model.

Clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to transfer the application of fire and rescue provisions under Section 32 to specified persons where regulations have transferred these functions to the chief constable of the area. Removing this clause would mean that the Secretary of State would not be able to make further provisions applying a fire and rescue enactment or new corresponding provisions in relation to chief constables to whom fire and rescue functions have been delegated as part of the use of the single-employer model. As such, removing this clause would hinder the effective implementation of the single-employer model.

Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relates to powers under Clause 38.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I have listened very carefully both to the speeches that were made regarding the power of fire and rescue and police being together and the noble Baroness’s answers. I assume the purpose of this is not just an administrative difference but actually to improve the services of fire and police to people where this merger happens. Has the Minister looked at the four areas where this has happened, and His Majesty’s inspector of fire and police? Do those areas actually have a better service, an average service or a worse service than the national average?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot answer the noble Lord in detail, but I will look into it and make sure he has those comparisons and knows what they are.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I can help the noble Baroness: having looked at the comparisons, I can say that they are actually below the national average. So, what is the purpose of going through this huge administrative issue if it does not improve the services to people on the ground?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Because this is localism. If local areas want to take on those responsibilities, the Government have been listening to local authorities and combined authorities and listening to the fact that they want to take these on. The fact that there are only a few of these combined police and crime responsibilities and fire and rescue responsibilities—at the moment, there are not very many—means that it is quite difficult to tell, but we need to keep an eye on it, obviously, and I will come back to that in a minute under Amendment 122A.

The Secretary of State has power under this clause, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to apply legislation relating to police and crime commissioners in relation to combined county authority mayors where the single-employer model—that is, the ability to make the chief constable the single operational head of both the police force and the fire and rescue service—has been engaged. Clause 38(4) provides a power to amend, revoke or repeal legislation consequential on that power. This is important because of exactly what the noble Lord opposite said: this is the power that could be used if any area has implemented the single-employer model but the chief constable is failing to manage the F&RS effectively. The Secretary of State may wish to revoke the implementation of the single-employer model and use this provision to do so. I think this is the power we have put in to ensure that exactly what the noble Lord opposite says need not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Scriven]

128: Clause 48, page 43, line 18, at end insert–
“(3A) A CCA may, with the consent of its constituent authorities, request that the Chancellor of the Exchequer devolve further fiscal powers to that CCA to help its regeneration powers, and those fiscal powers may not be unreasonably withheld.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to assess the Government's willingness to empower a CCA to drive its regeneration plans forward using enhanced fiscal powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the only amendment in this group, Amendment 128 in my name and signed by my noble friend Lord Shipley. This is a probing amendment to tease out the Government’s thinking on this issue. It was a deliberate decision to have this amendment in a group on its own because this really is the elephant in the room: fiscal devolution. We can talk about structures and systems but, without the proper levers of finance and autonomy at a local level, the structures and the systems will achieve very little and will not deliver the equalling up of areas and regions across the country.

I think we need to be clear about what this amendment is not about. This is not about handing down moneys raised by national taxation to areas so they have a little extra leeway on how that money can be spent. As welcome as this is, it is a small step that is not going to solve the regional inequalities that exist in the country. This is what the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands authority calls the “begging bowl approach”. It is nothing more than spending decentralisation. It was quite amusing, listening to the Chancellor earlier today talk about a pothole fund. The very notion that a Chancellor of the Exchequer stands up in the national Parliament to deal with potholes is ludicrous. A predetermined pot of money handed down, usually with strings from Whitehall, to have local areas determine key projects in areas to spend that money is not fiscal devolution.

It was also telling that the Chancellor today, in announcing that the West Midlands and Greater Manchester combined authorities will have departmental-type arrangements, sees these arrangements as nothing more than decentralisation of central government departmental spending. It is even more telling, as has been reported in the Financial Times, I think it was, that even when the areas get this extra leeway on how the money is spent, there may be a committee set up here in Westminster to oversee how that money is prioritised and then spent. Other parts of the world that understand and implement devolution will be laughing in disbelief at this ridiculous notion of local autonomy.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the explanation I have given reassures noble Lords that the Bill already captures the amendment’s intent, and that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has shown that this is not a party-political issue, but an issue for those of us who believe that you cannot deal with levelling up unless you give real fiscal powers to local areas that require them, to be able to make autonomous decisions in the locality on where to invest and where to make the biggest changes. It is also about stopping this particular view in England that local areas have to look to Westminster to be able to make decisions that many local areas across the vast majority of the western world, whether they are federal or not, can take.

I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Shipley said: we are not a unitary state. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, fiscal devolution exists. We are talking predominantly about 56 million people in England, where fiscal devolution is totally off the table at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was quite right to point out that, in itself, the Bill does not bring about fiscal devolution; it brings about departmental decentralisation, with predetermined spending limits being able to be made a little differently at the local level. Everything that the Minister said reinforces that view. Nothing in the Bill significantly gives further fiscal devolution to local areas if they so wish. In fact, she made the same mistake again: she talked about the trail-blazers in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester that have been announced today. As welcome as they are, they are not fiscal devolution. They are the decentralisation of departmental spending decisions; that is the fundamental issue.

This debate, on all sides of the Chamber, has stipulated that the Government are not going far enough and the Bill does not go far enough. We may have to return to this on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 128 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, before I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, could I make an appeal to the usual channels that, given that there is a major problem this evening in terms of transport, we are mindful of that in terms of how long we sit? Only in this House—certainly not in the House of Commons—could we be here with the difficulties that are experienced outside and, while I realise we have got to try and make progress on Committee, I appeal for the exercise of a degree of common sense.

In speaking to the amendments to which I have put my name, I want to make a broader point. When I was leader of the city of Sheffield, with its population of 560,000, I was not always mindful of the needs and the importance of the parish and town councils that lay to the north of the city and which had previously been in what was then the old West Riding—that is, Bradfield, Ecclesfield and the town council in Stocksbridge. It struck me much later, as a declared communitarian, that this was a big mistake. The more that we devolve and ensure that we make decisions and delegate decisions as close to people as possible, the more we will ensure that we protect and reinforce our democracy. Town and parish councils are the building blocks on which the broader decisions are taken by county and metropolitan authorities and, here in London, by the boroughs, the GLA and the mayor.

As we move to greater devolution, which was debated in the previous business this evening, we must take into account that, while elected mayors and mayoral combined authorities are the way forward in terms of infrastructure, investment and devolvement of powers from central government, this will not succeed unless people feel an affinity and are engaged with their community and neighbourhood in the cities and, in rural areas—of which I have had experience in the last 20 years—with their parish and town council.

These amendments are not just technical amendments relating to the powers that should exist with parish and town councils. They are about the reinforcement of democratic representation by local people and the investment in community facilities, including religious facilities and institutions where it is possible to define sensibly what that investment is for. I imagine that the Government will want to reflect on this. It could be in heritage. It could be, as has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the community facility that in so many parishes and small towns across the country exists only within the local church. I did apologise to the annual conference of parish and town clerks for having been a bit centralist in the past, so I might as well put that on record tonight. A sinner who comes to understand is worth three of those who have not understood the mistakes that they have made—so there we are.

There is a very real issue here that the Government could deal with very simply and easily and, as has been described, where there are contradictory pieces of legislation—Section 137 was mentioned—we could set the record straight. We have moved on a lot since the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission’s proposals and the 1972 and 2003 Acts. Life has moved on. There is a greater consensus now about devolution and about subsidiarity—I never could say that word without losing my teeth. We have an opportunity on the levelling-up Bill, very simply and easily and without a great deal of fuss, to put this right on Report.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I will probably upset my noble friends Lady Scott and Lady Harris when I speak to Amendment 163. There may be confusion, but if any of the Acts should be withdrawn, it should be the 1972 Act, not the 1894 Act, for one reason of practicality and one of principle.

The matter of practicality is that the Church Commissioners, in their latest report, said that the reserves of the Church of England after its liabilities in pensions is £7.5 billion. Therefore, there are issues concerning investment in church funds or church buildings where the first port of call should be the reserves which the Church of England holds. The report goes on to say that in dioceses, the reserves are £1.6 billion, with a cash reserve of £1.84 million, and cathedrals’ general reserves are £524 million, with £50 million in cash.

The second reason is one of principle. I find it absolutely incredible and unacceptable that the Church of England—an organisation that does not see me as an equal citizen in this country, that has used discrimination and prejudice to try to deny my marriage and many other people’s marriages in this country and continues to do so, and that uses a fudge to try to hold its own organisation together rather than see equality for all in love—should be the first port of call as a matter of principle in which parish or any other councils should be able to claim off the state.

For those reasons—one of practicality, the funds that the Church holds, and one a matter of principle, which I see as a position of prejudice and discrimination held particularly by the Church of England—I feel that if any legislation should be repealed, it should be the clause in the 1972 Act and not the 1894 Act.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Raspberry Walk.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My noble friend suggests that Raspberry Close might be what we have as a future name. This provision illustrates everything that is wrong about the Government’s approach to levelling up and this Bill. First, it removes an existing power of councils to do exactly what the Government say they want to control. It adds bureaucracy and cost, and it puts in a new procedure which is not needed at all but, just to be clear, is a centralised new procedure. The word “regulation” appears eight times in 42 lines.

It is a make-work clause for people in Whitehall. It serves no practical purpose, but it goes down to the smallest detail in the text. For instance, Clause 77(3) states that, the name having been changed, a local authority may put up a sign. That is a pretty good point; I am glad they did not overlook that. What kind of sign? Well, it can be “painted or otherwise marked”. Yes, that is another good point. I am glad they did not overlook that. Where can it be put? It can be put on

“a conspicuous part of any building or other erection”.

Is this not getting down to the absolutely absurd? Of course, at first I was worried that trees were not included in the places where you could fix a sign—but then I realised that the Minister would tell me that trees will be covered in regulations. In fact, the whole clause is covered in regulations. The whole Bill is covered in regulations. The only consolation I get out of this is that we have not yet been given the department’s list of approved street names—but possibly the Minister will tell us that that is going to come on Report.

This is an unnecessary clause: it is poorly drafted and dripping with red tape and the Minister should take it out of this Bill and let us focus on the real task of levelling up, to which it contributes in no way at all.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Well, my Lords, follow that. After that devastating forensic analysis explaining exactly why Clause 77 should not stand part of the Bill, I rise briefly to add a couple of additional points to the arguments just presented. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that this clause should go altogether, but I also understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is trying to ameliorate the mess to some degree. But I think it is clear that getting rid of the clause altogether is by far the best option, and I note that the Local Government Association has expressed its concerns about it.

I want to add one case study, one piece of analysis and one warning for the Minister and the Government in general. The case study concerns what has happened not with a street name but with a similar story in Stroud. There is what has been described as “an offensive racist relic” clock that glamorises the slave trade. When this became an issue, the council started an eight-week consultation. Some 1,600 people in a town with a population of 13,500 responded to that consultation; 77% said that the clock should be taken down. This is an interesting case study. One issue is that the clock is on a building owned by a trust. It is possible that the Secretary of State may have to be referred to on whether the trust is allowed to have this clock, which the people of Stroud have expressed their desire to see removed. This is my cautionary warning to the Government and the Minister. Do Ministers really want to get tangled up in these stories and issues?

Maybe they do, which brings us to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about the purpose of this clause. It would appear that the purpose of the clause is that Ministers can be seen to take a position; that is surely a very bad reason to write law. The other case study warning, which has not been mentioned here but should be, concerns Bristol and the Edward Colston statue. That was a demonstration of what happens when public opinion is not listened to and when there is a strong clinging to tradition. As other noble Lords have said, times have moved on and things put up in the past are now offensive. People will take things into their own hands. It is clear that these are local issues that should be decided at a local level, and the Government really should not be sticking their oar in.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to continue the absurdity that my noble friend Lord Stunell spoke about. Clause 77(6) says:

“An alteration has the necessary support for the purposes of this section only if … it has sufficient local support”—


so one needs to determine what is “sufficient local support”—

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

It is in the regulations.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Indeed. It continues

“where it is an alteration of a specified kind, it has any other support specified as a pre-condition for alterations of that kind.”

We then move on to Clause 77(7) and, as my noble friend Lord Stunell just said from a sedentary position, it seems to be in the regulations. It says:

“Regulations may provide that sufficient local support, or support of a kind specified under subsection (6)(b), can only be established in the way, or in one of the alternative ways, specified in the regulations.”


These regulations should make provision for a referendum and, according to Clause 77(8)(a), should specify

“the conduct and timing of a referendum and who is entitled to vote”.

So it may not be the whole street; it may be part of the street, the street next door or a few streets next door. Clause 77(8)(b) goes on to say, interestingly, that the regulation may say that it may not be a 50:50 percentage split, or 51%. It says that the regulation will set

“a specified percentage or number of those entitled to vote in the referendum”

and

“a specified majority of those who vote indicate their support for the alteration”.

Clause 77(8)(c) goes on to say that, following the first voting event, at another specific time, through regulation, a second vote could be held, or it could be determined that it could be part of the street or the whole street that then gets voted on in a second referendum.

I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Stunell: this is a most ridiculous clause. It should not stand part of this Bill. It has nothing at all to do with localism. The 1907 Act allows exactly for a street vote to take place if it is required. It seems that the right honourable Oliver Dowden MP in the other place let the cat out of the bag on what the issue is. I do not think it goes back to Nelson Mandela, but to a four-letter word: “woke”. Oliver Dowden said recently that this should stop people getting rid of historical names and putting in “woke” names.

This is a culture war in a Bill; it should not stand part of the Bill. It is not a problem that has been defined. The 1907 Act already determines that this can take place. Doing this through centralised regulations in such a prescriptive way is not what levelling up or devolution are about.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in the interests of some balance, while I have no idea what Clause 77 is doing in the Bill—I agree with the objections that have been raised; it is far too prescriptive—I thought it might be worth noting that, in Haringey where I live, over £100,000 was spent on renaming Black Boy Lane as La Rose Lane. That was due to concerns that the old name had racist connotations. However, it is disingenuous to talk about the idea that this was based on local consultations. The council did launch a consultation after the death of George Floyd but, since then, it has admitted that a significant number of residents of the street objected to the idea. Its inbox was full of messages from people objecting to the name change but it decided to carry on regardless.

The culture war is not so much in the Bill as in society. I do not think it is fair to say that this is all to do with Oliver Dowden playing the woke card, because there are real issues happening on the streets of the UK.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Will the noble Baroness accept that I said that this clause was based on what Oliver Dowden said? It was a direct quote. Would she also agree that the example she gives could be dealt with if the 1907 Act were deemed to be appropriate for all street name changes and the 1925 Act repealed? Then there would not be a need for this clause at all—the 1907 Act allows for street name changes with votes.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is true that I am not familiar with the 1907 Act in detail, if at all. It is also true that I did not introduce the subject of Oliver Dowden or the term “woke”; I was responding to the comment that was made. I would just like to carry on, as this bit of what I am saying is important to the Bill.

Sometimes people speak on behalf of local democracy and actually the problem is that what passes for local democracy at the level of consultations is often faux and sham consultations, and local people feel aggrieved. In Haringey, there has been a big row about whether the name even has racist connotations. Local people have put forward all sorts of ideas that it was to do with chimney sweeps or was based on King Charles II —all sorts of things. Local supermarket owner Ali Demirci has been going round asking people what they thought the original name was. Whereas the council seem convinced it is racist, local people do not necessarily.

The bit where levelling up comes in is as follows. Carol Lee, who has lived on the road for 35 years and has mixed-race children, was quoted in the Guardian as saying:

“I’ll have to change my driver’s licence, and that’s £40 alone. You have to look after your money these days”,


as well as saying that she objects and that this has been imposed, and so on. Graffiti has been put up on the changed sign and signs put up in windows with the original name on them.

I was simply making the point that, although I do not think this Bill is the right place to deal with it, I do not think there is nothing to be dealt with. As to the Colston statue question, it would be wrong if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested, we took to pulling down statues that we disagreed with because things did not go our way. I think that would be a destructive conclusion to reach.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall focus straightaway on the provisions of Clause 77 in the round, in response to the concerns and questions that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Bennett.

Clause 77 creates a requirement for the necessary support to be obtained for any changes to street names. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked why the Government have included this clause in the Bill. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I must repudiate the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that this has something to do with the culture wars. The answer is that it addresses the issue that, in some places around the country, there has been considerable concern and disquiet where councils have taken it upon themselves to change the name of a street without any meaningful consultation with local residents.

Under the available legislation, which noble Lords have rightly said dates from the early 20th century, any council has the power to change the name of a given street without consulting the residents in the street. The provisions of the Bill will ensure that, instead, local residents will be properly involved in changes to street names that affect them—changes that, as we have discussed, can alter the character of their area. Street names are often an intrinsic part of an area’s heritage, cherished by the community for their history and representation of the place. Changing names involves both practical costs for residents and businesses and social cost to the community. We are clear that these costs should be borne only with the consent of those affected.

How that should be attained will vary according to the nature of the street and its importance in the community. A one-size-fits-all approach would be insufficient to properly allow the views of the community to be determinative. The clause will unify the approach to how changes to street names are made where currently the rights of the community depend upon where they live and, outside of London, the decision of the local authority as to how involved or not the community should be.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I totally follow the logic of what the Minister has just said, but would it not be the case that a solution would be, rather than a new provision, to revoke the part of the 1925 Act that a council can adopt, which says there should be no vote, in favour of saying that all councils must adopt the 1907 Act, which says there must be a vote?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The problem is that there are, I am advised, three Acts of Parliament that date from the early part of the last century, and that has led to a confusing mix of provisions across the country. Many provisions are over a century old, as I say, and there is no transparency over which Acts apply where. We thought it simpler to take the opportunity to be clear in this Bill that there should be more local determination of these issues. The current legislation is antiquated in its drafting, apart from anything else, so this updating is intended to make the process clearer for local authorities. All that should make the process for renaming a street more democratic and ensure that the voices of the local community are genuinely heard.

Amendment 173, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would add additional criteria for local authorities when considering the renaming of a street. We entirely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of history, archaeology and culture in this process. The last thing we want is anodyne street names divorced from the character and history of the area. However, as I have made clear, the Government are strongly of the belief that the final say on changes affecting street names should lie with local people. We fully expect those local views to reflect the historical or cultural associations of the names concerned and the importance that communities place upon them.

The amendment would create a duty on a local authority to consider the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a name change. It is not clear that a free-standing additional requirement of that kind is necessary, nor is it clear how that duty would work alongside the provisions of the Bill. It could, for example, make it harder to secure name changes that had local support but where new considerations, such as the need to honour a local person or event, took precedence over an archaeological interest. We saw some Olympians having streets named after them following the 2012 Olympics.

It is for this reason that, with the aim of being helpful to local authorities, the Government would be minded to set out in statutory guidance how factors such as the history and culture of the area should be considered in bringing forward proposals for street name changes under this clause. We have consulted on the prospective secondary legislation and guidance to deliver these changes, and respondents were over-whelmingly positive about our proposals: 91% of respondents agreed that regulations and statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name. In view of that support, and of the fact that heritage and cultural significance are matters that local communities are best placed to weigh up for themselves, I hope I will have persuaded the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The 1907 Act is very clear. It is not antiquated or in any way there to be debated. The 1907 Act power may be exercised only with the consent of two-thirds of the non-domestic rates payers and council tax payers in a street. That is what the Act says. What is it about the 1907 Act and that provision which seems to be non-democratic and does not give the power to the people on the street to make the change?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Because it is a one-size-fits-all approach and our judgment is that that is not an appropriate prescription for every situation.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The noble Earl is therefore saying that in one street it could be 51% and, in another street, maybe a couple of streets away, it has to be 75%. Is that what the noble Earl is saying? The provision in the 1907 Act is very clear. It gives a provision of what needs to happen and a percentage of the vote required to change the name. Is he saying that different streets need different percentages of the votes to change the street name?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We cannot, at this stage, prescribe particular percentages to particular situations. This is to be worked through in regulations and guidance, which was, as I emphasised, the approach that respondents to the consultation felt was right: we should not be unduly prescriptive in primary legislation, but rather allow for some flexibility at local level depending on the situation under consideration.

I turn to Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Baroness. As I outlined, our view is that local people should have the final say on these matters, particularly, as the noble Baroness’s Amendment 173 demonstrates, when it comes to their local heritage. In this context, I agree with the underlying intent behind this amendment. There should be clear processes for making sure that views from all relevant groups that might be affected by a street name change are taken into account. It is, however, important that we do this in the right way so that the processes are robust but can be adjusted if needed.

The approach in these amendments would be prescriptive and would limit our ability to go further than simply consultation by making local views determinative, as the clauses do at present. But I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we will be setting out clear, transparent and robust arrangements in secondary legislation, as we set out in the consultation I already mentioned. In addition, by setting out the detail for how consultation on street naming will work in regulations and guidance, we can maintain flexibility to update processes in line with different local circumstances and changes such as new technology. I hope these remarks are helpful in explaining the Government’s approach to what is a sensitive issue.

My noble friend Lord Lansley asked whether there were any local Acts of Parliament that might affect this issue. I am advised that the Oxfordshire Act 1985 might be relevant here. I think I had better do further research for my noble friend to find out whether there are others—but that was the advice that I have been able to receive.

On his other question of the power to name new villages, I have no direct experience of this. My understanding is that what normally happens is a conversation between a private developer and the local authority and an accommodation is reached. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who clearly has direct experience of this, is shaking her head, so I do bow to her experience. It would seem appropriate that I look into this further and write to my noble friend once again.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is a very relevant point. The point that has been made to us quite forcefully is that a lot of the software that is already in use is clunky and outdated, and that somehow a solution needs to be found. Clearly, the state in which systems are at the time any new system comes into play will vary from local authority to local authority. I will investigate that point further and, if I can elucidate the issue, I will gladly do so.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

In his normal calm and reassuring way, the Minister pointed out on Clause 81 that there may be some leeway regarding the software that could be used. However, I will read what is in the Bill, so that the Minister can explain why there will be leeway. The power is

“to require use of approved planning data software in England”,

and the clause says:

“Planning data regulations may make provision restricting or preventing a relevant planning authority in England from using or creating, or having any right in relation to, planning data … which … is not approved in writing by the Secretary of State.”


How will that leeway come in if the Bill says that the software has to be approved in writing by the Secretary of State, and that a planning authority in England cannot use it if it is not?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I simply come back to the point I am trying to emphasise, which is that the watchword here is collaboration, between central government and local authorities. We want to get this right to get a solution that local authorities themselves are comfortable with and which is compatible, authority to authority. Although the noble Lord is correct to quote the Bill as he has, our intention is not to require approval for all planning data software.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

That is impossible given how Clause 81 is written, because it makes provision for

“restricting or preventing a relevant planning authority”

if software is not approved by the Secretary of State. I understand the intention, but does the Minister agree that, as Clause 81 is written, what he wishes to see is actually not allowed by the Bill?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I can only supplement what the Bill says by saying that we do not intend to introduce any requirement for approval without the appropriate exploratory work and engagement with local authorities.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his wise intervention. We have come a very long way. Over a decade ago, the natural environment White Paper created local nature partnerships. Some of those have been incredibly successful but some have not. What we are trying to create here on a statutory basis is something that will see around 50 of these right across the country, with consistency and a determination to draw the threads of the desire to restore nature through the planning system and get good decision-making as a result. I am happy to work with my colleagues and anyone in this House to see whether that can be tweaked but, at this stage, I think we are going a long way towards creating the kind of regulatory and statutory basis that we need to see the proper restoration of nature.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am straying on to the next set of amendments, but the Minister made it very clear that, regarding building up local plans, there needs to be flexibility and that something statutory in the Bill would stop that. However, under Clause 86, if there is a difference between the local plan and national guidance, statutorily, in the Bill, it says that national guidance must be followed—so there is no flexibility. Can he explain that contradiction?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

As the noble Lord says, he is perhaps straying on to the next group. What we are concerned with here is making sure that we are creating a plan that is agreed locally under very clear guidelines, and that has a proper weight in planning decisions across the country. We will then see an understanding of where the nature-rich areas are, where nature can be improved and what the particular features are in those areas that need restoration, all unpinned with an understanding of what species exist and where they can be increased in abundance. That is what we are trying to achieve here. We all want the same thing. I think we have gone a long way to achieving that and I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

It was not a matter of the plans. The Minister has said that, as a matter of principle, the reason to reject the amendment was that flexibility is needed and that statutory provision for the automatic assumption to accept another plan should not be in the Bill. But Clause 86 says exactly that. I am trying to tease out why it is okay for one national plan but it is not okay for these local environment plans. What is the difference, as a matter of principle, if flexibility is required for local plans in every area, as the Minister said?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

There are over 200 clauses in the Bill, and what good legislation seeks to do is to achieve the right balance between the needs of society—new houses, energy and the rest of it—and the understanding that we have a serious problem. We think we have that degree of flexibility about right here. There may be other parts of the Bill that are more rigid in what they seek to achieve, but I have tried to explain that if flexibility did not exist here, rather timid plans might be created, and we want ambitious plans to be created for these local nature recovery strategies. That is why we think this degree of flexibility is the right way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The national development management policies are dealing with the top-level issues. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are out to review those issues of consultation. These issues have come back. We have not got the list yet, but your local plan will accept those as being there and will then deal with issues that are local. As my noble friend said, there will be issues such as the green belt, but they will take into account the national policies on green belt and deal only with very localised policies on it, so there should be no conflict. I do not see where that conflict can be. But we are going to have a meeting on this to further discuss and probably have, not arguments, but strong debates—those are the words—on these issues.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am more confused than I was when the debate started. If there is no conflict, what is the point in having the clause?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The point is to make clear that there is no conflict.

Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to

“lay a Statement before both Houses of Parliament”

if there is

“a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan”.

As I have noted, actual instances of conflict between national development plan policies and those being included in the plans should be relatively unusual, as the Bill makes clear that planning policies should avoid such conflicts—something that will, in cases of doubt, be assessed transparently through public examination of those emerging plans as they are made. Should any conflicts arise when considering individual planning applications or appeals—for example, where the local plan has become very out of date—this will need to be made very clear through the report on the application, or the evidence before the planning inspector. These procedures will ensure transparency for communities. At the same time, it would be impossible for the Government to track every instance of such a conflict arising and to report to Parliament on it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will understand that this is not an amendment we can support.

Amendment 195, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to consult county combined authorities if it is deemed that there is a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan. As I have already explained, where any inconsistencies arise between an emerging plan and the national development management policies, these will be evident during the plan preparation and examination. We expect that any county combined authority will be engaged in this process at the local level. There is no need for an additional statutory requirement to be placed on the Secretary of State in the way the amendment would do.

I have also pointed out the impracticality of applying a requirement of this nature in relation to any inconsistencies which might arise in the handling of individual planning applications, the great majority of which will not be cases that the Government are party to. Consequently, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we are unable to support this amendment. I hope that I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her Amendment 185 and for other amendments in this group not to be moved as they are reached.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked what intervention powers the Government will have to get involved. We think that local authorities know their area best and, unequivocally, are best placed to produce their own local plans. However, if local plans are not produced or are failing, or if something is absolutely wrong with that plan, the Secretary of State will retain the power to intervene if necessary.