Budget Statement
Baroness Janke Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I add to others’ my congratulations to the three noble Lords on their very excellent maiden speeches.
Being disabled is expensive and the failure of the Chancellor to extend the £20 uplift to legacy benefits is a curt dismissal of this basic fact. Legacy benefits, which are vital to disabled people and their carers, have been excluded from the £20 uplift to universal credit for the second consecutive year. The financial situation of disabled people and carers has been worsened by the pandemic. Scope calculates that, on average, disabled people already face extra costs of £583 per month related to their impairment or condition, even factoring in benefits designed to meet these costs. Many have had the burden of additional costs of risks to health, such as taking taxis to appointments to avoid public transport, purchasing more PPE for those who with respiratory conditions, or using more heating to reduce the risk of complications from Covid-19. This means that less money is available for essentials.
In September 2020, 25% of disabled people reported that they have less money available for food. Some have had to pay around £30 an hour for privately sourced care, to make up for shortfalls, causing them to fall into debt or use up already low levels of savings. For some unpaid carers, caring responsibilities have expanded so much that they have had to give up paid employment, a major loss of income. The uplift must be extended to legacy benefits if there is not to be a two-tier social security system that unfairly discriminates against people with disabilities and their carers.
The £20 uplift to universal credit was widely welcomed as a recognition by the Government that universal credit did not provide a realistic income for people to live on. We call for this payment to be made permanent, so that 200,000 children will be safe from poverty, and hard-pressed families on universal credit will not suffer a crippling cut of £1,040 as they face next winter.
Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020
Baroness Janke Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear presentation, and speak in support of these regulations. We very much welcome the incentive the Government are providing here for people with problem debts to seek debt counselling. People with problem debt will have the chance to apply for a breathing space of 60 days, with a freeze on enforcement action, interest and charges. There will also be the opportunity—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, has said in detail—for people suffering a mental health crisis to apply for a moratorium to take stock of their position and not to face the stress of being threatened with recovery action.
Owing significant sums of money is a very frightening experience. I know because, when I was a local councillor, I met lots of people in this position, and it can be made very much worse by being pursued to repay debt, particularly when on a very low income. It is stressful and fraught with threats of insolvency, eviction and bailiffs. As other noble Lords have said, these have knock-on effects on other services. Creditors’ overzealous use of court orders, debt collectors and bailiffs has led to dreadful experiences and compounds the desperation for vulnerable people and the risk of debt spiralling out of control through fear.
The moratoriums will provide time and resources for debtors to receive debt advice and for a sustainable repayment plan to be agreed. The statutory debt repayment plans are a welcome part of these regulations, but they are not as yet included. What timeframe are the Government looking at for SDRPs? Through the extension of continued breathing space protections, SDRPs would give people a safe way to pay back their debts and reduce the harm that debt causes.
Will the Minister also let us know what plans there are to publicise the scheme? In one of the briefings we had, we heard that—certainly—half the people who approach debt counsellors say that they had been worrying about their debts for a year or more before seeking advice. However, nearly eight in 10 surveyed said they would have got advice earlier if they had known this could stop interest charges, collection and enforcement action. Six in 10 said they would have sought advice earlier if they had known it would deliver the temporary help from creditors that they needed. Therefore, it is important that the Government give a great deal of thought to how these new regulations will be publicised to the people who need them.
I wonder whether the Minister is confident that the service can cope, particularly with the further increased demand caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the projected economic consequences. Many debt counselling organisations, such as the CAB, have ever-increasing client lists. Members of my family who work as volunteers for the CAB have drawn this growing problem to my attention. Cuts to local authority budgets have meant that funding for the service has fallen dramatically over recent years.
Can the Minister also tell us how realistic he considers the tight timescales for conducting reviews are, given the pressure on the agencies and the specific assessments that are needed for people suffering from mental health problems? What will happen to people who suffer long-term mental health issues as well as recurrent episodes, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned?
It is intended that these regulations will come into force on 4 May, and others have said that they would like the scheme to be brought forward, which I also support. However, if the scheme is to be successful, there needs to be protection for creditors. Creditor organisations will need to adapt their systems, policies and processes to ensure that they are able to fulfil the new regulations in order that no action is taken against individuals who are subject to a moratorium, no interest fees and charges accrue during it, debtors are not contacted regarding the debt during the period of the moratorium and no action is taken to challenge the grounds in applying for a moratorium that should be taken before the deadline to do so expires.
What plans do the Government have to support creditors to adapt their organisations to the new regulations? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that a great deal has advanced in this area, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s assessment, and I very much look forward to his response.
Income Equality and Sustainability
Baroness Janke Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for securing this important debate today which provides an opportunity to highlight the growing inequality of income and subsequent disadvantage to many people, as he has done for so long throughout his career. It is shocking for British people to learn that in the 21st century, 14 million people are living in poverty and 4 million of them are children. I also pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for her eloquent speech and the points she made from her experience of working with and protecting children.
It is well documented that policies over the recent years have not furthered the cause of equality—rather, they have widened the gap between the rich and the poor, as the most reverend Primate said in his speech. For most disadvantaged people, there has been a systematic reduction in, and removal of, vital services and rights, as so many noble Lords have said. With the massive and unprecedented cuts to local authorities, vital services have virtually disappeared, services on which the poor depend. Changes to benefits have removed any effective safety net for those who experience catastrophic events. The UK has the fifth largest economy in the world and is a leading centre of global finance, yet one-fifth of the population—14 million people—are living in poverty, with 4 million of them below the poverty line. The current pandemic emergency has laid bare the shocking shortfalls in our woefully inadequate social safety net.
We have heard from noble Lords today about the importance of tackling these issues, and the post-Covid recovery is going to be of crucial importance to the least well off in this country. We have heard about the importance of social insurance based on progressive taxation, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. This would give rise to a new society that would spring up, as the most reverend Primate has said. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, highlighted the potential for massive unemployment and the need for a form of job guarantee scheme, while my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lord Bruce talked about the minimum basic income policy. My noble friend Lady Randerson highlighted the importance of investment in education and infrastructure, as well as the importance of supporting charities on which so many depend, a key point made by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
We have also heard about the need to learn from the emergency, particularly from the care and kindness shown by people in our own communities and from the values of empathy and service that have been shown. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, highlighted this. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the importance of affirming the dignity and worth of all. The noble Baroness, Lady Healy, highlighted the fact that key workers, often in low-paid and insecure jobs, are of vital importance, and spoke of the need for an income floor.
I also want to highlight the issue of health and the impact of poverty on health. The Marmot report produced in February this year—
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, we seem to be having connection problems with the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Constitutional Convention
Baroness Janke Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. As a member of the APPG on the constitution, I also welcome the chance to contribute to the report of the inquiry into better devolution for the whole UK chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake.
As a former leader of Bristol City Council, I want to focus on devolution at a local level, particularly in England. We see devolution as the transfer of power and funding from national to local institutions, meaning that decisions are made closer to the local people, communities and businesses that they affect. Governments have been slow to recognise the frustration suffered at a local level. Powers and funding are controlled by central government and the local authorities that people vote for are seen as little more than a means of delivering government policy at a local level.
Anyone who has knocked on doors in elections knows that the major issues raised are not decided at a local level. Investment in housing, transport, jobs and social care is not determined locally; it is controlled by the far-reaching grasp of the Treasury. French local government raises three times more of its own finance locally than English local government; in Sweden, it is 12 times as much. As we have heard, 9% of local government income in England is raised locally.
There is huge potential to increase economic growth through local devolution. We have heard today about HS2, the failure to invest in the regeneration of Liverpool and other northern cities and the shortage of investment in transport across and between the northern cities. Myriad reports from different sources—such as the City Growth Commission, the London Finance Commission and the non-metropolitan commission, which produced the Devolution to Non-Metropolitan England report—testified and have examined evidence to show how much can be achieved by giving more powers to local government. The issue of whether that happens at a regional level, for example through metro mayors, needs to be looked at by a constitutional convention.
The Government’s response of creating combined authorities and elected mayors has improved circumstances in some cases, but compared with many international cities that raise their own long-term finance, the level of powers devolved to English cities is derisory. In a quote in the London Finance Commission report, the Mayor of London said that when he explains to the mayor of New York or Berlin that he must go, cap in hand, to the Government to seek funding for major infrastructure improvements, they are incredulous. When I was a city leader working with core cities in Europe, there was incredulity at the minimal powers that city leaders and mayors in this country have.
More devolution has been given to metro mayors but it is controlled by a web of government lawyers and civils servants. The restraints are time-consuming and extremely frustrating. As the APPG report I referred to says, devolution is not just about economic benefits. Professor Vernon Bogdanor states:
“The fundamental case for devolution is the stimulus it gives to local patriotism and pride in the development of services, a patriotism and pride which can well stimulate improvement in services”,
as well as much better public satisfaction. The possibility of a constitutional convention could be a means of enabling central government to listen and act upon the aspirations of people in the cities and regions of our country, but it would have to be backed by resources and a commitment to real change if that is what people want. Any new constitutional settlement must start from the grass roots. A rolling programme of consultation could go some way to answering the anger and frustration we are seeing increasingly across the country. The problems are particular to different areas. The cost of living in London is unaffordable for so many people, yet jobs and investment growth are concentrated in the south-east. There are huge differences in income and the quality of services across the country.
If a new settlement is to be achieved it must be based on a contract with the people of this country, not determined centrally by Whitehall. It also has to be based on a real commitment to give power. If we are really to have devolved democracy across our country we must make sure that it is firmly rooted in the needs and circumstances of the people in the regions, cities and counties of this country. Any new settlement must be transparent so that people and groups can and will participate and, better still, hold it accountable. It also must have real powers, including fiscal devolution, that enable real investment and economic development. Without these it will continue to be no more than an outpost of central government.
Parliament and Central Government: Relocation
Baroness Janke Excerpts(7 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, we will go to the Bishops’ Bench.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
Yes, that was certainly a very good decision by the BBC. That is why the Government Property Unit, which is in charge of seeing how the departments work with their civil servants, is indeed trying to drive this radical reshaping of the Civil Service estate, and so encouraging departments to move their civil servants out of London, as I said earlier. That could well be to the north and it would certainly encourage people from the north to take those jobs.
Baroness Janke
My Lords, given the Government’s commitment to devolution and the reference in the Autumn Statement, do the Government have specific plans to devolve financial powers to local level? Has the Minister taken note of the various reports that state that, for the economic balance to be redressed away from London, financial and fiscal powers need to be given to local authorities across the country?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, the problem is that that could interfere with central budget considerations, and then the whole thing becomes a bit muddled.
Electoral Fraud
Baroness Janke Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
It is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Janke
My Lords, given that the only two Members of Parliament who gave evidence to the report were Conservatives, and given the Minister’s statement about the independence of the report, will she say what evidence will be taken from other parties on the incidence of electoral fraud, which is the main thrust of the report?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
We are pleased that Sir Eric Pickles has produced this report. It is now up to us to look at it and decide the way forward. We will be reporting back on it soon.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Janke Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I too will speak about devolution. I very much welcome the developments that have occurred so far and the forthcoming legislation, which envisages further developments in devolution, particularly with regard to the northern powerhouse. Although things are moving ahead with these developments, quite a few people would question the pace of such changes. Certainly the bespoke deals that the Secretary of State is negotiating have been successful, but parts of the country—particularly parts of England—do not naturally lend themselves to city regions and have questions about their own future devolution of powers.
Many of us who have been in local government in England envy the debate in Scotland, particularly on financial accountability and fiscal freedoms. In England, even a large city region such as Manchester has no such discretion. Equally, in the face of shrinking services and more cuts to local government, people question the Barnett formula and the unequal funding there is across the United Kingdom. The situation therefore needs to be examined from the point of view of the relations between the four countries of the United Kingdom, in which things have so fundamentally changed in recent years, and to see how within those four nations we address devolution to local level and how decisions can be taken at the most effective local level.
Quite a lot has been written about the benefits of devolving powers. Having been a local councillor, I know that there is a huge amount of frustration about taxation, whether national or local. People often feel that their money goes into a great big black hole and they do not get a great deal of benefit from it. On the contrary, people are constantly frustrated that they are told about cuts and decisions taken in distant Whitehall by officials, many of whom do not have an understanding of local matters. They do not know the kind of experiences that local people have when they cannot afford a home, how it feels when they cannot get a place at the local school for their child, or what it is like to wait for a very long time for an operation that could transform their quality of life and ability to look after themselves. Certainly in my local authority and in the core cities of which I have had most experience, major decisions about investment in transport are, again, taken centrally, with no real appreciation of local aspiration or local need. One model usually fits all, but we are saying that that is not the case when we move to these local deals.
From that point of view, it is easy to understand why a large number of people do not see the purpose of voting. It is also easy to understand people’s frustration and anger—they feel that, even if they do vote, very little will change as a result. We have heard a great deal about sovereignty in the debate on the referendum but, from my experience, people in large areas of the country do not see Whitehall as an example of having sovereignty over their own affairs.
A number of noble Lords have said today that we have a very uneven distribution of power. If we want to see fairness, transparency and proper accountability across the United Kingdom, we need to look, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, at a coherent picture. English votes for English laws will not address the aspirations and ambitions of people in many areas of England.
I am sure we all agree that we want the Government to follow through with their commitments to locally driven devolution, and we also want to engage all our citizens in deciding what they believe will suit their own towns, cities, counties, districts and regions. One size will definitely not fit all, as, again, I am sure we would all agree.
As is said in a recent report on devolution by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, produced through the APPG, we are at a crossroads. The European referendum is focusing attention on the quality of our international relationships, but it seems to me that it is time for the Government to engage our citizens in a major consultation—whether through a constitutional convention or a big conversation—to address the uneven distribution of powers within the United Kingdom and the question of how to achieve greater transparency and accountability, and the participation and trust of the citizens of the UK.
Deregulation Bill
Baroness Janke Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke
“Referendums on changing local authority governance system
In the Local Government Act 2000, omit section 9NA (effect of section 9N order).”
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 30, I declare my interest as a member of Bristol City Council. This amendment seeks to restore to Bristol people the same right that people of other cities have to change their system of government, subject to conditions required by the Local Government Act. A section added in 2011 relates to local authority referendums for elected mayors ordered by the Secretary of State. Noble Lords may recall that in 2012, the Government required that the 12 largest cities in England call referendums on whether their residents wished them to introduce a system of directly elected mayors. Bristol was the only city to vote narrowly in favour of such a system.
The section removes the right of Bristol citizens to change their system of government in perpetuity. This fact was not made at all clear when they voted in the referendum. As more and more people have found out that that is the case, they are quite outraged and feel that they are being discriminated against by virtue of having supported the Government’s arguments for a mayoral system. Whatever the view is about elected mayors—and there are many—many Bristol people are astounded that they have been denied the democratic rights that other cities enjoy as to whether or not they have a mayoral system. I can believe that this was not an intended consequence of the legislation. Nevertheless, it clearly is unjust and needs to be changed.
I say, “in my view”, but this view is also supported across the political parties in Bristol and by the mayor, as he said at a recent council meeting when a motion was unanimously passed supporting change—change not necessarily from a mayoral system but change to enable the citizens of Bristol to decide themselves what system of government they wish to have.
The Local Government Act lays down clear conditions as to how a local authority may change its governance arrangements, including the need for a referendum as fully described in Section 9N. The current situation is unnecessary, unjust and discriminatory in that Bristol people should be deprived of their democratic rights to determine their own system of governance, which is the case in every other English city.
I hope the amendment will receive support and that the Minister will consider how the current situation could be redressed and restore democratic rights to the people of Bristol. I hope the House will give its support in taking this matter forward. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment, which, as the noble Baroness said, has cross-party support in Bristol. I have been in touch with the leader of the Labour group there, who confirms her support for it.
As we have heard, Bristol was one of 12 cities that had a referendum foisted on it by this coalition Government, and it is worth reflecting on the extent of that mandate. The turnout was 24%, with 41,000 voting for and 36,000 against. So 77,000 people voted and the majority was about 5,000.
We know also that central Governments have an appetite for elected mayors that is not altogether reflected at local government level. The noble Baroness was right to point out how you change your system of governance and the constraints that you have. I have a helpful briefing from the House of Commons Library, which states:
“Under the 2000 Act, any local authority wishing to establish a mayoralty required a ‘yes’ vote in a local referendum. The 2007 Act changed this, permitting local authorities to adopt a mayor by resolution. However, an authority can still choose to hold a referendum on the issue. Alternatively, authorities can be obliged to hold a mayoral referendum if 5% or more of the local electorate sign a petition demanding one … The Government may also compel an authority”—
which is what happened in this case—
“to hold a referendum. The result of a mayoral referendum is binding on a local authority.
The Localism Act 2011 permitted a referendum to be held on abolishing an elected mayor, subject to time limits; and for a referendum to be held on establishing a leader and cabinet, or on using the committee system. Four authorities have held referendums on whether to retain their mayoral system. Electors in Doncaster … and Middlesbrough … voted to retain their elected mayor, whilst those in Hartlepool … voted to replace it with the committee system, and those in Stoke-on-Trent … voted to replace it with a leader and cabinet system.
Authorities which have changed their governance arrangements as a result of a referendum can only make a further change following a further referendum”.
That is not unreasonable. It goes on:
“Where a local authority has held a referendum on its governance arrangements, a further referendum may not be held for ten years (five years in Wales). Conversely, where a mayor has been created by resolution of the council, five years must elapse before the council may resolve to abolish the mayor. However, there is no time limit on holding a referendum (whether initiated by the council or by a petition) to reverse a decision made by a resolution”.
I come to the crucial point:
“Further, where a local authority has been required by the Government to hold a referendum and voted for an elected mayor, it may not hold a further referendum at any time. Bristol City Council is the only authority affected by this: as the law stands it cannot move away from its elected mayoralty”.
As the noble Baroness has said, it is held in that position in perpetuity. That just does not seem right, and perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to explain why the Government think it is. However, if they do see it as an anomaly and an injustice, what do they propose to do about it?
Baroness Janke
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his sympathetic response but am rather disappointed that there does not appear to be a great deal of support for this amendment. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it will go away. I am sure that it will come back again and again. The explanation that the Act of Parliament relating to London is another example is not right, because in London the elected mayor has strategic powers, with 32 London boroughs and the City carrying out the functions of local government, so there is more of a subsidiarity issue than in other cities.
I would like to press the case in future. As I say, I am sure that this will not go away. I believe that Bristol people should have the same rights as the people of other cities in England and shall of course look for other ways in which I might be able to take this forward. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Economic Leadership for Cities
Baroness Janke Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great privilege and honour to join your Lordships’ House. I stand today as a former leader of Bristol City Council, not as one who has lost her seat. I am still a councillor in Bristol and I stand here in the hope of sharing some of the ambitions and hopes for that great city with your Lordships in the debate today.
First, let me thank your Lordships for the warm welcome that I have received here. I include my supporters, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who are not only parliamentarians but have long experience in local government. Secondly, I add my thanks for the advice, professionalism, kindness and good humour of the staff in this place. The doorkeepers have already been mentioned, but I, too, would like to add my thanks for the many times that they have rescued me from the labyrinthine corridors and staircases of this magnificent building. Who knows, I might not even be here today if it were not for their good advice on finding some of the best routes.
On my own background, I was born in Liverpool, which is a great and proud city. We have already heard in the debate about Liverpool and its achievements. I am a teacher and have taught in a variety of settings: primary, secondary and adult. I have taught modern languages, including English as a second language, and economics. I have also taught in a number of different locations, in London, Paris, the west coast of Scotland and Bristol. In addition, I have served as a councillor in the London borough of Kingston upon Thames and of course Bristol. It is a great privilege, in a debate on cities in this House, to be able to talk about Bristol in the week of the 150th anniversary of the Clifton Suspension Bridge.
Bristol is a city of innovation and technical excellence: whether we talk about the suspension bridge, Concorde, Airbus or Wallace and Gromit, it is testimony to the high concentration of technical expertise, which is underpinned by two world-class universities. Bristol is the most economically successful city in England, with the exception of London. Bristol is also the European Green Capital and a place where many of the new green industries and organisations choose to have their base and headquarters; it is a very green city.
So it is with great pride that I wish to speak in this debate. Yet, coming even from a successful city like Bristol, the question is constantly being asked: why cannot cities take their own decisions, invest in infrastructure, invest in housing, and invest in the growth that is really going to address the needs of their people? As my noble friend Lord Shipley has said, the IPPR report really outlines the case for economic improvement in performance in English cities. They have lagged behind the average GDP per capita. Only Bristol has bucked the trends. This, of course, is in stark contrast to other cities in Germany, Italy, Sweden and France, which are at the forefront of economic growth and have outperformed even capital cities.
The report of the City Growth Commission recommends a range of powers that could be devolved to what are called “metro areas”; and I agree with what has been said today: there should be no tight imposition on what those boundaries should be. However, there is a recommendation about financial flexibility and this, as other speakers have said, is the key to giving powers, whether it is to our regions, county regions, city regions or whatever configurations emerge. The London Finance Commission and the Communities and Local Government Select Committee have outlined ways in which revenue and taxes could be raised at local level and add to the rates of economic performance of our cities or city regions.
In conclusion, the many reports of such groups as Core Cities, the Centre for Cities and the City Growth Commission and others that have been mentioned provide ample evidence to support major change. As I have said already, it is important that new configurations, whether they are federations of existing local authorities, county regions or city regions, should be voluntary and locally inspired. One size will not fit all. The ambitious and visionary proposals that are coming forward from all parts of the country are a huge encouragement and are opportunities that we must seize. I hope that the constitutional debate will give us the opportunity to move forward on these major issues. I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley for raising the debate, and I thank noble Lords for their attention.