Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement repeat to your Lordships’ House. Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team are to be congratulated on the work they did on the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the Government are right to have accepted the report’s recommendations. The Deputy Prime Minister, speaking in the other place, rightly recognised the suffering of the victims, the bereaved families, the survivors and those in the immediate Grenfell community.

When I was a Minister in government, I worked closely with the Grenfell community and my heart goes out to them. Their bravery and determination in campaigning for change so that this never happens again have been exemplary and, as always, I pay tribute to them all. As my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said yesterday,

“The tragedy of Grenfell, which claimed 72 innocent lives—54 adults and 18 children—will always remain a scar on our national conscience”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/25; col. 779.]


We on these Benches offer our sincere apologies to the bereaved, the survivors and the Grenfell community for the failures that led to that horrific night in June 2017.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s findings are damning, revealing decades of systemic failure, dishonesty and negligence. They are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and the industry. I welcome the Government’s decision to accept 58 of the recommendations and it is right that Ministers have committed to act on them.

We support the creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one department. These reforms are long overdue. We also support steps to professionalise fire engineers and to reform the construction products sector. The systematic dishonesty from firms such as Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex revealed by the inquiry is appalling, and government must respond robustly.

The Government’s response is promising, but they must deliver proper accountability. Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and, where appropriate, government officials cannot remain mere rhetoric. We need action urgently, and the Official Opposition will be following this closely to ensure Ministers act in a timely way.

Can the Minister explain why the Government have not accepted the inquiry’s recommendation for a single regulator to oversee the testing and certification of construction products, leaving that instead with the existing assessment bodies? We know that the Building Research Establishment was criticised strongly by the inquiry, so what steps are the Government taking to address the concerns?

We also welcome the remediation acceleration plan, but we know that the targets rely on voluntary engagement from developers. Can the Minister explain what options are available to Ministers where developers fail to comply, and will Ministers work to deliver solutions for non-qualifying leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? No resident should be left behind.

We have concerns about the phased approach to implementation stretching beyond 2028—the Grenfell community has waited long enough for change. Can the Minister explain the reason for the delay of another parliamentary term for full delivery?

Finally, we fully support the Metropolitan Police investigation, but this must be delivered more quickly. Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences, whether through fines or criminal sanctions. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have reviewed existing legislation to ensure we have the appropriate laws in place to prosecute similar criminal negligence in the future?

The tragedy of Grenfell must be a turning point, and we support the Government in seeking to deliver a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. We are committed to working with this Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise. As always, my thoughts and prayers are with Grenfell and their community.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire seven years ago in the most horrifying of circumstances. This phase 2 report on the Grenfell Tower inquiry from Martin Moore-Bick is an excellent analysis and provides a strong challenge to the Government for the decisions they need to make.

It is therefore disappointing that the Secretary of State’s Statement fails to be absolutely clear that the recommendation from the inquiry will be implemented in full. Instead, the words used are that the Government

“accept the findings … and will take forward … the recommendations”.

That is simply unacceptable.

The inquiry exposed a culture of greed and indifference, which must be rooted out of all the organisations associated with this wholly avoidable tragedy—I emphasise that it was wholly avoidable. The Government have a duty to ensure that all buildings with flammable cladding, and where the constructors deliberately omitted fire safety features, are fully remediated, and that the cost is borne entirely by those responsible for those failings.

Leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. Living in a building that is not safe is itself a cause of immense anxiety. Added to that is the scandal of huge rises in insurance costs and service charges, when leaseholders should not be paying anything.

The ministry’s figures show that 9,000 to 12,000 buildings of above 11 metres will need remediation, yet only 4,771 have so far been identified—of which less than half have had work started. The National Audit Office has called for the costs of this work, over and above that funded by the taxpayer, to be placed on developers. That is absolutely right. Can the Minister explain how the costs of this essential work are to be met? For information, the estimate is around £7 billion.

I turn to the 58 recommendations in the report. It recommended a single construction adviser, which the Government have accepted and will appoint. I fully support that. However, Dame Judith Hackitt’s report of 2018, made immediately following the Grenfell Tower fire, also recommended that there be a formal log of every element during construction work, including building improvements which may follow. The report recommended that that log should be signed off by the person responsible for the work. This seems to be the fundamental change that is needed. Can the Minister advise whether this particular change is to be implemented?

One of the other key changes proposed by the Hackitt report was that the overall responsibility for building control should return to the local authority for independent oversight. Can the Minister explain why the Statement simply refers to a “review” of building control? Currently, constructors can appoint their own building inspector. The failure of that system is seen in the fire safety corner-cutting in Grenfell Tower and in many other buildings. Does the Minister agree that an independent building inspector is a key change that has to be made?

The failure of the regulatory system that enabled flammable cladding to be added to the walls of many high-rise blocks is at the heart of this scandal, yet the Statement has little to encourage us to believe that essential reform is coming. The Government have published a construction products Green Paper, which is positive but long overdue. The safety of construction products partly depends on the testing regime, which was exposed in the report as being deficient. What are the Government’s intentions for the future of the Building Research Establishment?

Finally, the report refers to “higher-risk buildings”. It states that

“to define a building as ‘higher risk’ by reference only to its height is … arbitrary”,

and recommends that the use of the building is vitally important. Are the Government intending to review the definition as a matter of urgency, as required by the recommendations in the report?

What is needed now is a sense of urgency and purpose. It is more than seven years since that dreadful fire. Survivors need to see that radical change is being made. The tragedy of 72 lives cruelly ended must not have been in vain.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 7 and 24 in this group and have added my name to Amendments 14, 31 and 41 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox. I have also added my name in support of Amendments 5 and 22 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to which he has just spoken. This is an important group of amendments because it seeks to expose the problem that the Government have in applying a higher multiplier to some businesses without targeting them, as we heard on an earlier group this afternoon.

Searching through the Valuation Office Agency’s information reveals, for instance, that about 60 civic centres or town halls, and 80 police headquarters or very large city centre police stations, are included in this higher rate. If the top end of the higher multiplier is applied to these properties, that will add 20% to the business rates bills of those local authorities or police authorities, at a time when both have severe problems with their finances and are struggling to make ends meet.

It is not just police headquarters, police stations and town halls: 80 courts, from the Supreme Court at one end to large magistrates’ courts at the other, are included in the rateable values assessed as being above £500,000—this is in the information that the Minister shared with us at the weekend—as, indeed, are 80 prisons. I am not quite sure why the Government are including town halls, civic centres, police HQs, courts, prisons and 630 schools in the higher multiplier. Why would any Government want to impose 20% higher costs, potentially, for business rates on those publicly funded essential institutions? I am sure the Minister will have a reply; whether it is one I will accept is a different matter. It gets worse: 300 further education colleges are included in this.

We just had a skills Bill passed through this House, which purported to increase the advantages of a skills agenda for young people. Most of us know that FE colleges have been consistently undervalued and underfinanced over the last 10 to 14 years—or even more. Adding this to the list of their problems will not help the skills agenda, nor will 360 state schools. Why on earth would you include state schools in this catch-all of the higher multiplier? Within the budgets and funding for state schools there is an element to cover their non-domestic rates costs. Whether that will be increased for those who are caught up in this higher valuation remains to be seen. I am just quoting from the information that the noble Lord shared.

On top of that, 310 universities are caught up. As I declared earlier, I am a vice-chair of the University of Huddersfield. I know how hard the changes that the previous Government made have hit university funding. Across the country, universities are having to close departments—often those that are vital for the future growth agenda that the Government are following. I need to hear from the Minister how the Government will address this non-targeted way of having the higher multiplier. Will all those state-funded institutions that I listed—local government, police, prisons, courts, schools and FE colleges—be compensated for the potential higher rate multiplier and therefore the 20% increase in their business rates? Universities function as businesses now and have very little income that comes directly from government, but they are facing very challenging financial futures, which is absolutely contrary to what the Government want to achieve from their emphasis on R&D. That cannot happen if universities struggle to make ends meet.

The challenge the Government have is to ensure that the changes result in the same income from NDR as previously. Between 30% and 40% of local government funding now comes from business rate income. As well as my earlier questions, can the Minister assure this Committee that local government will have the same total funding pot from business rates as it does now and—because of the way the system works—that no local authority will suffer a loss in income from business rates as a result of these changes? I will not go into the way it works for local government. The Minister will understand that assuring the total funding pot of business rates does not necessarily mean that each local authority will continue to have the same level of funding.

The question is whether the Minister can assure us that schools, colleges and so on—all those publicly funded institutions that may have to pay considerably higher costs in business rates—will have compensatory funding from the Treasury to meet those additional costs. Otherwise, they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

I am going to leave my noble friend to talk about the importance of music venues. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, knows that I support both the amendments he has tabled, to which I have added my name, and I do not wish to add anything further to what he said. I am looking forward to the Minister’s answers to my questions .

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 12, 15, 29 and 33 and, in doing so, I apologise to the Committee that I omitted to declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I keep forgetting it. My amendments seek to exempt manufacturing businesses from the higher multiplier.

The manufacturing industry is exceptionally important to the British economy, and to place an additional financial burden on this sector is unsatisfactory. In 2023, the total value of UK manufacturers’ product sales was £456 billion, which demonstrates the value of the sector to the UK economy. The sector accounts for 8.1% of UK employment and, in July to September 2024, accounted for 8.8% of the total UK economic output. Ministers never tire of telling us that growth is this Government’s number one mission, so can the Minister give the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that the Bill will not have a negative impact on the growth of our UK manufacturing sector?

Recently, the global political situation demonstrated the importance of being self-reliant with the rise in energy prices we have seen in the wake of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. My amendments seek to protect this vital sector, which has an important role to play in growing the UK economy, by allowing manufacturing hereditaments to qualify for the lower multiplier. This Bill, despite promising business rates reform, will put an arbitrary threshold in place and many businesses will be adversely affected. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this group. Given that the manufacturing sector is likely to be included in this bracket, I would be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to outline exactly what impact his department expects the changes to business rates will have on the UK manufacturing sector.

This sector is already facing higher costs due to the increase in the cost of labour, and the Government are hitting it with a triple whammy of increasing costs with the increase in the minimum wage, which of course we support, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which is a damaging jobs tax. The House will have the opportunity to debate the national insurance measures tomorrow, and we will be speaking up for the number of sectors that will be devastated by this government policy. But why would these businesses invest to increase the value of their business and risk it going over £500,000? Labour-intensive sectors are already paying the cost of a Labour Government, and if businesses are forced to pay the higher multiplier suggested in this Bill that will only worsen their predicament.

Amendments 5 and 22, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seek to exempt retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from the higher multiplier. They are sensible amendments, and several of my amendments touch on very similar issues. I have referred in my amendments to specific types of stores on our high street, which are yet to be debated, but the sentiment of the noble Earl’s amendments is certainly one that I support.

Amendments 14, 31 and 41 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who I do not see in her seat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 11, 28 and 36 in my name, which seek to exempt anchor stores from the scope of the proposed changes in the Bill. These amendments are crucial for safeguarding the health and vitality of our high streets particularly in the context of the ongoing challenges facing retailers and small businesses. I thank all noble Lords who, throughout this debate, have acknowledged the importance of these businesses.

As we are aware, anchor stores play a vital role in the commercial ecosystem of any high street. They act as a significant draw for foot traffic, attracting customers not only to their own establishments but to the surrounding smaller retailers and businesses. It is no exaggeration to say that, without anchor stores, many high streets would be devastated. They are the backbone that supports the smaller independent shops that contribute to the unique character of our local economies.

However, while the higher threshold for non-domestic rates is a well-intentioned measure to ensure that out-of-town warehouses and large-scale online retailers contribute their fair share, we must pause and consider the unintended consequences of this approach. The so-called Amazon tax may be designed with online giants in mind, but the current proposals would also capture larger businesses operating on our high streets—businesses that, in many cases, are anchor stores.

It is a very real concern that these stores become subject to increased rates. They may choose to relocate to out-of-town retail parks where rates are more favourable. This would exacerbate the very problem we are seeking to address—the decline of our high streets and the hollowing out of our town centres. We must ask ourselves what the impact would be on our communities if these anchor stores, which currently act as magnets for footfall, were to disappear from our high streets. Would we see a chain reaction where smaller businesses, already struggling under the pressure of rising costs and changing consumer habits, are left without customers and forced to close? How many small businesses would be driven to the brink if the larger retailers that currently support them were to move away, taking their foot traffic with them? These questions are not just theoretical; they are deeply practical and must be considered carefully if we are to protect the future of our high streets.

Amendments 11, 28 and 36 seek to exempt anchor stores from the broader measures in the Bill and offer a way forward that ensures that we do not punish those businesses that are essential for the economic vibrancies of our town centres. They are about striking the right balance. We must ensure that we support businesses that are critical to the future of our high streets and town centres. Exempting anchor stores from this measure would help to achieve this balance. I ask the Minister to consider whether the current proposals risk harming the very high streets that we all seek to protect. We cannot afford unintentionally to undermine the businesses that are central to our local economies. Exempting anchor stores is a sensible, practical step to ensure the long-term health of our high streets, and I urge the Government truly to reflect on this before moving forward. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this group of amendments which seeks to exempt so-called anchor stores from high streets.

We could do with a definition of an anchor store and, indeed, of a high street, but we will come to that in a later group. High streets vary enormously from small town high streets and market town high streets to larger town centres and city centres. When there is a new retail development in a town or city centre, the phrase “anchor store” often comes into play. It is very clear in the business sector that retail works better if there is one major store, which is a sun around which the satellites of smaller shops and businesses operate. This is the description that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, provided. However, that is just for a group of retail businesses, often in a new situation—such as an out-of-town retail park, a new retail development within a larger town centre or an existing large business in a town centre, for example a Marks & Spencer or a John Lewis store that has a multitude of operations within it. That enables other businesses to exist and thrive from the footfall that the big name store attracts.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the importance of these so-called anchor stores, although I would like to see whether the Government have a definition that can be applied. I agree with her argument that smaller businesses develop and thrive as a result of the draw of a so-called anchor store and, equally, the argument that she makes that, because anchor stores are critical to the business environment for the totality of large, medium and small businesses—retail, leisure, hospitality or otherwise, within the sector—it is important to think about whether those often large retail businesses are exempt from the higher multiplier.

I am thinking of a local town high street where the Marks & Spencer closed and moved out some years ago. It was absolutely clear that that was the focus of shoppers going to that town. Once it went, it caused the closure of a whole section of shops in that town and very difficult situation for the businesses that were left. The town will require government money for regeneration to get back on its feet. That is what happens.

So it is important that the Government, in thinking about the Bill and the impact it will have on businesses, think about the consequences of what they are doing. In a previous group, I raised the consequences for public sector-funded businesses, but this is as important for the future health of our town centres. If you take out the key store around which others, like satellites, are drawn because its business sums no longer add up, the whole area will be on a downward spiral.

I will give the Committee an example from some figures that I remember, so they may be wrong. Take John Lewis, which is a big store. It knows that much of its business will move online. I think its business plan expects 60% of its business to move online. If we put an additional cost, as would happen under the large multiplier, on the remaining 40% of its business, I expect that one of the consequences would be that a greater proportion would move out of the high street to online to reduce those costs. That is not what this Government want to happen. They have argued for the importance of the health of our town centres for all sorts of reasons, not just to support small businesses but to support the community which goes there to meet and so on.

It is important that the Government think about the unintended consequences of this rough and ready Bill because it will potentially have very rough consequences on our high streets, particularly those which depend on a big store as the holder of the rest of the businesses around it. I look forward to what the Minister says, but I hope that he does not use “tough choices” and “fair and sustainable”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and all others who have mentioned this issue throughout the afternoon. There is an important role for anchor stores. To the definition, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I suggest that they should ask communities and their residents what would be an anchor store in their local town centre and ask the sector to discuss that as well. As a former leader of a council for many years, and knowing many council leaders, as I do, I know that they know exactly what an anchor store at any one time would be for the size and type of the high street they are trying not only to protect but to keep being a high street for any length of time. Many leaders of councils across this country have spent many hours working with the sector to get exactly that in order to make sure that they have a good thriving and surviving high street for their local communities.

As we have said, we all agree that these stores play a crucial role in the vitality of high streets and town centres. We know that they drive footfall, support local businesses and contribute significantly to the economic and social fabric of our communities. That is why it is important that we find a definition and a way through this. Without them, many of our high streets will struggle to survive, let alone thrive. I have spoken to the sector, and these businesses will leave the high street and go out of town where it is cheaper. Not only that, but they may even go out of business and, as we are seeing, go permanently online. That will not help our high streets.

As I have said, the changes in the Bill could inadvertently harm these vital businesses and place an undue burden on them, pushing them out of our high streets. The Bill follows several other damaging decisions that businesses are having to fund. This one at the end of it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Not only will it likely leave anchor stores paying higher business rates; they will also be paying increased staff costs, as we talked about earlier.

These decisions will have a cost, and if the Government continue to make them, we are worried that there will be no businesses left in the high street to tax. I urge the Minister to carefully consider the concerns raised by many noble Lords today. We just want a fair and equitable business rates system—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

“Fair and sustainable”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

And equitable. We must not overlook the specific need, as we have all said—across parties—to protect our high streets for our communities for the future. We believe that exempting anchor stores from these changes is a measured and practical way of safeguarding the future of our town centres. I hope to have further discussions with the Minister on this before Report but, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

English Devolution and Local Government

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s announcement on local government restructuring is a hugely significant upheaval for local democracy. We support the principles of devolution, but we do not support the Government’s method of achieving it. No council should be bullied or blackmailed into top-down restructuring. This was not in the Labour Party manifesto, and the Labour Government have massively rushed this whole exercise.

The Conservative Party has a proud record of supporting devolution. While we were in government, we empowered residents and their councils. We gave councils more control over local planning, improved accountability through elected mayors and police and crime commissioners, and decentralised power to the people by letting parents create free schools and giving residents power over neighbourhood planning.

In December 2024 we set out five tests for the Government that we believed any form of devolution should satisfy. Is this a genuine choice for local councils? In two-tier areas, do both district and county councils agree with restructuring? Will local government be more accountable to local residents? Will the overall changes help keep council tax down? Finally, will restructuring avoid disruption of social care?

We already know that the Government have failed each of these tests. Restructuring is compulsory. There has been no attempt to gather consensus within two-tier areas. Residents have not been consulted, and there has been no time for proper communication with local people about the plans that local councils are putting in place. The Government are incentivising council tax rises across the board—no, worse: punishing councils that keep council tax down. I have not been reassured by the Government that they understand the needs of adult and children’s social care, and the impact that this could have on it, compounded by Labour’s national insurance hikes. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister could address these five points in turn, and explain what consideration the Government have given each of them.

The shadow Secretary of State in the other place, Kevin Hollinrake, asked a number of questions of the Secretary of State, Angela Rayner, that went unanswered. Now the Government have had more time to consider these serious and reasonable questions, I ask the Minister to answer some of them, but this time with substance and not politics.

First, how exactly will this restructuring put more money into people’s pockets? How is it compatible with Labour’s changes to the local government funding formula that punish councils that keep their council tax low? Do the Government accept that these changes, which will mean that every single council employee in two-tier areas has to reapply for their job, will have an impact on local services, including planning delays? How will this impact on the Government’s plans to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament? Finally, what support will the Government give to authorities—such as Woking and Thurrock—facing significant levels of debt? Will this debt be written off or passed on to the new unitary authorities?

We support stronger local accountability, but there are different ways to do this, and there should have been proper, full and open consultation. Local government must remain local and accountable to its residents. The whole process should be considered more slowly, to ensure that the people understand their future representation and have their say on it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I remind the House that I have relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice- president of the Local Government Association. This is a wide-ranging Statement about the future of local government. There are three different elements within the Statement, and I want to address each separately.

First, I want to think about the creation of the so-called strategic authorities. The Government, in the headline to their Statement, described it as “devolution”. It is not devolution; it is delegation of powers from the centre in Westminster. True devolution will occur only when funding is raised locally and decisions are made locally, without the iron grip of Whitehall being exerted. This is a bit of a challenge for the Minister: if they are to have devolution, can she describe the route to the place where there is freedom for local government to make and fund its decisions, without the diktat from above?

The next challenge I have for the Minister—I am sorry, there are one or two here—is that of the democratic deficit that is being deliberately created. We are, apparently, going to have mayors for these so-called strategic authorities. If the evidence from the past in the election of mayors is to continue, mayors are elected—when they are stand-alone elections—by less than 20% of the electorate, which is hardly a resounding vote of confidence in that system. Those of us who care about local democracy are rightly concerned about increasing powers. For example, the mayors of the strategic authorities will have the power to create policy on housing and on strategic planning, which really affect the lives of residents. How will those decisions be respected when the mayors have been elected by such a low number of electors?

One small step that the Government could take to help reverse this democratic deficit is to return to the voting system that prevailed in the election of mayors until the previous Government, in their last throes, decided to remove the additional vote system and return to first past the post. I guess they thought it would help their cause; it did not. At least having an additional vote—albeit that is not what would I want—means that more people help to support the person who is elected.

The next element of the Statement is the abolition of district councils. I serve on a metropolitan council, so district councils are not anything I have experienced, but we know that they are very efficient in running very local services and are very close to the residents they serve. Systems always need reform, so if there is going to be reform of this two-tier system, why do we not think of change rather than abolition? Is it because the county councils are running out of money, and they need the district council reserves to prop them up?

In the new era of unitary authorities, the Government are talking about the average size of these unitary authorities being a population of 500,000. That is very much like the metropolitan area that I serve in. I can tell the House that this means that the wards that councillors will be elected to serve in will be large, and in rural areas they will be geographically large. I suspect that the Government are considering a ratio of councillor to electors of about 1:5,000. That is a very large number of people, and it would take local democracy away from people.

The last item I want to raise is the cancelling of elections. I do not think that, in a democracy, we should ever cancel elections. I know that the previous Government cancelled elections, so there is a bit of a precedent, but I do not think that it is one that should be repeated. People have a right to have their say in electing people to represent them. The difficulty that cancelling these elections creates is that the existing councillors who were elected four years ago will be the ones who determine the set-up for the new unitary councils in their area. If you do that you need the electoral mandate to do it, which they will not have.

I am very disappointed that the Government have decided that democracy is not worthy of the name, and that we are moving local government further and further away from local people. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions and put some life back in local democracy.

Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument and for highlighting the changes made. I know she has the misfortune of being from the south of England but, in Yorkshire, we call it “Orterbridge”, rather than “Outerbridge” as the Minister pronounced it. I know we have a lot of strange pronunciations in Yorkshire, but I think people there would appreciate it being pronounced as they do.

This is a sensible proposal. Populations move and expand; in response, political and administrative boundaries should move to make them fit local perceptions of place. While local government can and do respond informally to boundaries that do not make practical sense, such as by making arrangements about bin collections, local government boundary changes per se are less frequent. I wonder whether this is because the process is quite long. In this case, as the Minister said, the relevant local authorities made a formal request in April 2022, and despite broad agreement—the two local authorities in fact proposing the change—it has taken over two years to reach this final stage. Does the Local Government Boundary Commission encourage proposals for boundary changes that are supported by the relevant local authorities, especially where there is a clear anomaly?

One situation that is not raised in the Explanatory Memorandum is what happens if a councillor of either the existing parish or the existing council lives in the area to be moved to another council. If the councillor qualifies only by residency, I presume that that would result in their being unable to continue once their term of office ends. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case. I assume that, in this instance, that will not arise, because otherwise—I hope—it would be within the explanation. It would be useful to understand what will happen if somebody wants to continue serving their population but is then moved. From Barnsley to Sheffield, that is a big move. I jest not.

I have spoken to colleagues in Barnsley who agree that residents in Oughtibridge will feel that they belong to Stocksbridge in Sheffield, which is where they are moving, so they support the proposal in this statutory instrument.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this order provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole of the area of Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the City of Sheffield, as well as providing for consequential changes to corresponding wards and parish boundaries. I am pleased that the councils concerned both support boundary change, as do the affected parish councils. I also note that the LGBCE published a draft of this and asked for responses locally. There were 19 responses, I understand, including six from residents, five of whom were in favour and only one opposed. Therefore, one can say that the proposal is accepted locally.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not oppose these sensible boundary changes, as they suit not only local residents but the relevant public authorities and bodies. I also accept the late minor changes in the draft SI.