Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations make changes to key elements of the business rates retention system by actioning policy decisions that have already been taken. The business rates retention system has been in operation for over 10 years. Through it, local authorities keep 50% of the business rates that are collected in their areas, subject to redistribution, with the other 50% being paid over to central government.

Under the system, if a local authority sees its business rates income fall significantly in a year, it can receive protection in the form of a safety net payment. The cost of making safety net payments is met within the system. This is done by levying a percentage of the business rates income of those local authorities whose business rates income has significantly increased.

Such arrangements under the system are governed according to the underlying legislative framework. Each year we make changes to this framework in response to the wider policy environment—for example, following a revaluation or adjustments to the tax. This instrument makes the necessary amendments and, while they are technical, the reasons for them are easily explainable.

Before I go into the details of the instrument, however, I will briefly address why it was withdrawn and re-laid. Unfortunately, following the initial laying of the instrument, there was a need to withdraw and re-lay it to correct a minor error made in its drafting. We did this to ensure that payments are made to councils on the right basis. After this, we were made aware of a risk of delay to the instrument’s progress through Parliament. This could have arisen if the JCSI had queried why we had left cells in a table blank, rather than explicitly setting values at zero. In anticipation of this, we re-laid the instrument with zeros in the schedule to provide greater clarity to the reader. This will ensure that we do not delay paying local authorities what they are expecting. This instrument is the resulting version and I am grateful to all parties for their consideration in making it possible.

I will now focus on the details of the instrument. Several sets of regulations set out the detailed rules which underpin the operation of the business rates retention system. This instrument makes changes to two of them. These are the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) and (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations.

The rates retention regulations provide for the core administration of the system and determine how payments are calculated and then made between local authorities, and between local authorities and central government. The levy and safety net regulations are more particular. They set out, in detail, the safety net and levy mechanisms that I have already mentioned.

I will now describe the reasons that amendments to the regulations are necessary, as well as what they entail. First, we must make changes in response to the 2023 business rates revaluation. As many noble Lords will be aware, revaluation is a key facet of the tax, allowing for changes in the market to flow through to the amounts paid by taxpayers. The reason we need to adjust for revaluations is to avoid abrupt increases or decreases in local authorities’ funding via the business rates retention system. This would otherwise result from the aggregated change in the amounts that local authorities collect from businesses.

The actions we are taking to neutralise the impact of the 2023 revaluation can be summarised as follows. First, we are adjusting top-up and tariff figures—the figures which redistribute income around the system. Secondly, we are adjusting the calculation of levy rates; to recalculate levy rates, we must also restate local authorities’ business rates baselines. These are the share of rates income we expect a local authority to have access to.

The year 2023 was somewhat busy for the business rates retention system. Not only did the revaluation take place, but also Royal Assent to the Non-Domestic Rating Act. I am sure that many noble Lords have fond memories of the debates during its passage through the House. As with most changes made to the workings of business rates as a tax, those made by the 2023 Act impact how the business rates retention system is administered.

The delinking of the small business and non-domestic rating multipliers has the biggest impact on the retention system. Currently, the non-domestic rating—standard—multiplier is equal to the small business multiplier plus a supplement figure. From April this will change as these multipliers are delinked. This means that the two multipliers can be changed independently of each other, and therefore at different rates.

The reason for the significant impact this has on the business rates retention system is because each year we have used the change in the value of the small business multiplier to adjust key figures within the system. Under a system of linked multipliers, the change in the small business multiplier represented the change in the tax rate for all properties. As multipliers will no longer be linked, we have had to identify a new way to uprate these figures. After consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders, we will do this using a new weighted average formula. This calculates uprating figures for each local authority based on the proportion of rateable value on each multiplier in that authority’s area. The instrument applies this new formula to the relevant figures in the regulations. These are top-up and tariff figures, baseline funding levels and the City of London offset.

I have already provided a quick description of what top-up and tariff figures are. For the sake of clarity, I will do the same now for baseline funding levels and the offset. Baseline funding levels are a measure of each local authority’s need. They are uprated each year to ensure that the safety net eligibility threshold, measured as a percentage of the baseline funding level, takes account of inflationary increases. The offset, meanwhile, is a small amount of business rates income outside the system that the City retains, in acknowledgement of its high daytime, but low resident, populations. Alongside delinking the multipliers, the Non-Domestic Rating Act also introduced new or amended existing reliefs for ratepayers—specifically, heat network relief and improvement relief, and doubling the rural relief from 50% to 100%.

Furthermore, we must take account of other tax measures that were not delivered through the 2023 Act —namely, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief for 2024-25, which was announced at Autumn Statement 2023, and the green plant and machinery exemption. The Government compensate local authorities for reliefs and exemptions. If they did not, they would unfairly cost local authorities as their income from business rates would fall. However, when calculating levy and safety net payments, it is essential that we recognise that local authorities have already been compensated for their losses due to the awarding of reliefs and exemptions. Otherwise, some local authorities may receive substantial increases in safety net payments despite already receiving compensation or may underpay the amount of levy on growth that they owe. This instrument makes sure that the appropriate compensation given to local authorities is included in levy and safety net calculations.

In continuation with the theme that 2023 was a year of change for the business rates retention system, the year also saw the Government transfer the power to grant certain types of relief from billing authorities to mayoral development corporations in Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, following a request from the Tees Valley mayor. Given that authorities receive a share of business rates income in their area, authorities could lose out from the relief awarded if the mayoral development corporation took up those powers. While we have already provided for billing authorities to be compensated, now we are extending the compensation to major precepting authorities.

Lastly, we are making a change to the levy and safety net calculations for the Greater London Authority. The share of income which we will use to calculate levy and safety net payments going forward for the authority is its 20% share. This is its share under the 50% rates retention system. Using its 20% share in this calculation brings it into line with other increased rates retention authorities.

To conclude, it would not be a mischaracterisation to describe these regulations as technical. Nevertheless, they pick up wider policy changes and, in doing so, make several important updates to the administration of the business rates retention system. It is very important that these changes are made to the system so that authorities retain the income from it that they are anticipating and on which they have budgeted. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a serving councillor on Stevenage Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council. I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument and I am very grateful for her explanation of the relaying of it, which was informative.

I suppose that this instrument is necessarily complex and technical in content, but, if we look through it, we see that in many ways it demonstrates exactly how far business rates—or non-domestic rates, as we have to call them—have got from their objectives. They are intended to ensure that businesses make a contribution to the communities that allow them to thrive, to link them with the people and public services of their local area. They should recognise the differentiation between small, start-up and local businesses and the multinational corporates, when in fact non-domestic rates sometimes penalise them in inverse proportion to their ability to pay. They should also ensure that areas wishing to improve, increase or regenerate economic activity are able to vary the business rates to incentivise according to local circumstances.

Looking through the pages of mathematical formulae and complex calculations in this SI, I say that it would not be surprising if any average business doing so felt that we had somewhat lost the plot. The complexities of the system do not really benefit most councils, either, although we appreciate the funding that comes from them. For example, my borough raises over £61 million in non-domestic rates but, after all these calculations and the turning of the Government’s sausage machine, we get around £4 million of that—in spite of having three of the most deprived wards in the country.

So we need to refocus business rates back on to what they were intended to do. That is why they are part of Labour’s plan to support the vast majority of businesses in this country that are SMEs. They employ 16.7 million people and boost our economy by £2.4 trillion; they breathe life into our high streets; they deliver services that make our life easier: and they provide the goods we need to thrive. While SMEs welcomed the support they got during Covid, many of them now feel neglected as they struggle to survive the cost of living crisis, the recession and the complexities of this business rates system, which can seem utterly overwhelming, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, set out.

Labour’s plan for small businesses will be an important milestone in recognising their value to the economy and the essential role that they have in ensuring the economic growth that we need. We will undertake a fundamental reform of business rates, which will reshape this antiquated system and refocus it on business not bureaucrats’ objectives. We want to make sure that bricks-and-mortar businesses do not continue to pay disproportionately more than their online competitors. We want to take the burden from high streets and the businesses that sit at the heart of our communities, such as the local café that makes our morning coffee, the mortgage broker on our high street who went above and beyond to help you get your first home, the plumbers who come out of hours when you have water pouring through the ceiling. We want a new system that incentivises businesses to invest, rather than discourages them doing so. Our plan for business rates sits within a comprehensive plan for small business, which tackles all the issues that our many conversations with those businesses have told us are key to their future.

We had the chance to speak on the wasted opportunity to revise non-domestic rates during last year’s debates on the Bill, as the Minister said. We recognise that, for now, this technical paper is necessary to put in place the mechanism for the current system, so we will not be putting forward any formal objections, but I have some questions for the Minister. Can she comment any further on the Government’s plans to shift the current disproportionate burden of non-domestic rates taxation from small local businesses to online corporates or, potentially, on alternative forms of income for local government, including an e-commerce levy, with the funding retained by local government?

The retailers that we know and love on our high street, such as M&S, Boots, WHSmith and small, local businesses, seem to have a dramatic penalty in the business rates system over big online retailers such as Amazon. The current top-up and tariffs system is now outdated and, in view of the extraordinary cuts to which local government has been subjected, it often penalises areas of deprivation just because areas around them may be more economically vibrant. Can the Minister comment on what recent assessment has been carried out on the validity of the tariffs and top-up system?

What progress has been made on the Government’s promised consultation on business rates avoidance and evasion? The LGA, for example, has called for a review of exemptions, such as where businesses happen to be located on farms, and further clamp-downs on business rates avoidance, along the lines of those introduced in Wales and Scotland, to ensure that the rules on reliefs, such as empty property and charitable relief, are applied fairly.

The Minister knows that the LGA is also in favour of giving councils more flexibility on business rates reliefs, such as charitable and empty property relief, and the ability to set their own business rates multipliers or, at the very least, to set a multiplier above and below the nationally set multiplier. Have the Government given any further consideration to those proposals? Lastly, could she comment on the glacial speed of the appeals process, which distorts council finances and reserves, as councils often have to hold funds for not just months but years while they wait for the outcome of business rate appeals?

As I said, we understand that this instrument is necessary to move forward non-domestic rates for this year, but we hope that there is an understanding that sticking plasters, even complicated and technical ones such as this, are the problem and not the solution.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses seated opposite for their contributions. A number of questions came up. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and, I think, also the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked about complexity. We accept that the administration of the system has become necessarily complex over time in response to all the changes to policy and tax that have happened. This will be an ongoing thing. Whatever the system is, as changes happen, it becomes more complex. While every mechanism cannot be made accurate pound to pound, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would like, we minimise the risks to the system from any major changes that would affect a local authority’s budget as much as possible. Of course, we are always happy to talk to local authorities if they feel that they have a problem with their business rates.

Inter Faith Network

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend Felicity Buchan to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“May I thank the right honourable gentleman for raising the issue of the Inter Faith Network? I am grateful for all his work as chair of the All-party Group on Faith and Society and as a long-standing advocate for dialogue across faiths.

As my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government said during an Adjournment debate on this on 10 January, we know full well the role that faith communities play in our society. We are extremely supportive of efforts by faith groups and others to bring together people of different faiths and beliefs.

The Secretary of State wrote to the co-chairs of the Inter Faith Network on 19 January this year to inform them that he was minded to withdraw the offer of funding for the 2023-24 financial year. This was because of the appointment of a member of the Muslim Council of Britain to the board of trustees of the IFN. As the House will be aware, successive Governments have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. The appointment of an MCB member to the core governance structure of a government-funded organisation therefore poses a reputational risk to the Government.

The Secretary of State invited the IFN to make representations on this matter, which it subsequently did. The Secretary of State carefully considered the points raised by the IFN before concluding that its points were outweighed by the need to maintain the Government’s policy of non-engagement with the MCB, and the risk of compromising the credibility and effectiveness of that policy. Inter-faith work is valuable, but that does not require us to use taxpayers’ money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB.

The department regularly reminds our partners, including the IFN, of the importance of developing sustainable funding arrangements rather than relying on taxpayers’ money, which can never be guaranteed. The potential closure of the organisation is therefore a matter for the IFN, as an independent charity, and not the Government. The Government are and continue to be fully supportive of developing and maintaining strong relationships across faiths and beliefs”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that we have kept the IFN informed of every move that we have made on its funding issues, and it has had the chance to discuss them with us. As for other funding, I absolutely agree with her that work facilitated and supported by government is really important for inter-faith work. I personally go and see a lot of inter-faith work going on, and we are still supporting more than 800,000 a year in organisations—people such as Near Neighbours and others that are doing this important work in our communities.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, whichever way you look at this, the optics are not good. It was news to me that the Government do not engage with the Muslim Council of Britain. Our group met its new, and first female, secretary-general only a few weeks ago. I have two questions for the Minister. First, this has been a long-standing non-relationship, promoted quite a few years ago; is it not time that the Government reviewed this non-relationship with the Muslim Council of Britain, particularly in the light of the current situation and the fact that it works with over 500 organisations to promote knowledge and understanding of the Muslim faith and counter islamophobia? Secondly, will the Government review this decision? It is petty, wrong-headed and counterproductive. It does not put the Government in a good light—but it could if the Government were prepared to review it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is not just this Government; successive Governments of different colours have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. British Muslims are a crucial part of Britain’s history and our way of life in Britain today. Each and every Muslim in every community in every corner of the United Kingdom should know that their religion will never act as a barrier to achieving their ambitions. The Government recognise the discrimination and intolerance faced by British Muslims, particularly at this time. We will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form and will seek to stamp it our wherever it occurs. This does not mean, however, that the Government have to use public funds to support the influence of organisations such as the MCB. We have no plans to review this decision.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as a founder member of the Inter Faith Network back in the 1980s, when it was very difficult to get people of different religions into the same room to talk to each other. That initiative owed much to Brian Pearce, a former civil servant. The Inter Faith Network has done some remarkably good work, particularly in the celebration of the millennium and getting religion in the census. There has been a difficulty in this country in that there is a sort of rule that people cannot talk about religion—people from different religions would come together and talk about anything but the commonalities and differences in their religions. There has been movement in the direction of actually discussing the importance of commonalities and building on them. It is sad that this closure is happening at this time, especially as the reason given is that the board contains a member of the Muslim Council of Britain. It is not a proscribed organisation, and it is better to have people with different views talking together to move the country forward in respect for one another.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we have safe places where people of all faiths can discuss the issues surrounding faith and their relationships and to get together in communities. I thank him for his work, including in the early days of the Inter Faith Network. It was funded by the department from 2007 and we have given it £4 million since then. We have always said to it, however—as we say to any organisation that we fund—that it has to diversify its funding streams in order to become sustainable. No organisation can be reliant for ever on government funding, because we just do not know what is going to happen. I cannot reiterate the views of the Government again.

[The Lord Bishop of Worcester]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the work of the Inter Faith Network. As has been stated, surely the optics of this are not good. I would like to ask the Minister how far non-engagement extends, because surely, in our society, we want to encourage dialogue, even with those organisations that may express some views with which we disagree. To not be willing to engage at all with an organisation that has not been proscribed goes against all the efforts being made to bring our society together—it seems very strange.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not particularly think it is strange. It is a long-standing decision not to engage with the MCB. The Government are doing what successive Governments have done. The person was on the council as a member, but it was when they became a trustee that things became more difficult for the Government.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Since it has been a long-standing arrangement that the Muslim Council of Britain should not be regarded as an organisation that the Government talk to, would the Government now be prepared to review that?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot say. Reviews like that are carried out by the Home Office. I will certainly take that back and ask the question but, as far as I know, there are no plans to look at it again.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that the Government’s action in this case is proportionate, given the huge importance in our society of interfaith dialogue and the fact that one person seems to be spoiling the show? Surely the Secretary of State would have a broader vision than that.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Secretary of State carefully considered the implications of this and of ceasing the funding, including the potential impact on the Inter Faith Network itself and interfaith relations in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord is absolutely right: interfaith work is valuable, but there are very many more positive examples of thriving initiatives across the country that bring people together. That does not require us to use taxpayers’ money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB.

East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 December 2023 be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 February.

Motion agreed.

East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Grand Committee do consider the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations provide for the implementation of the devolution deal agreed between the Government and four councils—Derby City Council, Derbyshire County Council, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council—on 30 August 2022. Since then, we have been working closely with the councils on the implementation of the deal, which is an important contribution to the Government’s levelling-up agenda increasing opportunity, investment and prosperity in the East Midlands. The four councils consented to the making of these regulations on 15 December 2023.

The regulations, if approved by Parliament and made, will establish the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the office of mayor for the area. This will be the first of a new type of local government institution, a mayoral combined county authority, made possible by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The essential feature of a combined county authority is that only upper-tier authorities, that is county councils and unitary authorities, can be constituent members of the combined authority, with a requirement that there must be at least two constituents. This does not mean that, where a constituent authority is a county council, the district councils in the area cannot be involved and have a voice within the combined county authority on matters which could affect them.

In the East Midlands it is envisaged, as set out in the devolution deal, that the constituent members will invite the district councils to be represented by four non-constituent members, two from Derbyshire districts and two from Nottinghamshire districts. It will be for the district councils to decide who their representatives will be. These non-constituent members can be given voting rights on certain matters, as decided by the constituent members. In addition, district councils will be invited by the combined county authority to nominate certain of their members to serve on the combined county authority’s overview and scrutiny committee and audit committee. These committees will have important roles for the accountability of the combined county authority and of the mayor to the people of the East Midlands.

The central feature of the East Midlands Combined County Authority that the regulations provide is that there will be a directly elected mayor for the area. The mayor will provide a single point of accountability essential for the powers and budgets being devolved.

The regulations provide for the first mayoral election to take place on 2 May 2024. The elected mayor will then take up office on 7 May, with a four-year term ending after the next mayoral election in May 2028. Thereafter, there will be elections every fourth year, to be held on the ordinary day of election for the year, which is the first Thursday in May. Following the enactment of the Elections Act 2022, these mayoral elections will be on a first past the post basis.

The regulations also make provision for the overall governance arrangements of the combined county authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its members to the combined county authority. One of these members will act as the constituent council’s lead member. This means that the combined county authority will have a mayor and a total of eight constituent members.

The mayor will be the chair of the East Midlands Combined County Authority and will appoint a deputy mayor from one of the constituent members. The combined county authority may, in addition, arrange for there to be up to eight non-constituent or associate members. As I have mentioned, it is the intention of the East Midlands authorities that the district councils should nominate four non-constituent members.

The combined county authority will be established the day after the day on which the regulations are made. Until the elected mayor takes office, it will be for the constituent members to decide how they will conduct business, including arrangements for chairing any meetings.

In addition to certain generic functions that all mayoral combined county authorities have, the regulations also confer significant functions on the combined county authority, as agreed in the devolution deal. Many of these functions are currently functions of a public authority, such as Homes England or the Greater London Authority, or indeed functions of the Secretary of State. As required by the 2023 Act, alongside these regulations we have laid a Section 20(6) report, which provides details about the public authority functions being devolved to the combined county authority.

Certain of the functions conferred on the combined county authority are to be exercised only by the mayor. In addition, the mayor will have powers, as mayors of combined county authorities generally do, to issue a precept, if they so choose, to cover the costs of mayoral functions which are not being met by other resources available to the combined county authority. The functions conferred by the regulations include those on housing and regeneration, mayoral development corporations, transport, public health, and education and skills. I will address each in turn. The essential features of these functions are as follows.

To improve the supply and quality of housing and to facilitate the regeneration of the East Midlands, Homes England powers will be conferred on the combined county authority and will be held concurrently with Homes England. These powers will enable the combined county authority, working closely with Homes England, to promote housing and regeneration, and will include the compulsory purchase of land. This will be a mayoral function, and any decisions will also require certain local consents, including the consent of the district council if the proposed land for purchase falls within its area, and that of the Peak District National Park Authority should the land fall within its geographical boundary.

The regulations provide for the mayor to have power to designate mayoral development areas within the geography of the East Midlands Combined County Authority to support the development of strategic sites. This is the first step in establishing a mayoral development corporation; further regulations would be necessary to create such a body. Powers relating to such a corporation are to be exercised by the mayor. As with the compulsory purchase powers, local consents are also necessary. District council consent is required should the proposed development area sit within a district’s geographical boundaries. Similarly, the consent of the Peak District National Park Authority would be required if any part of the development area were within the national park.

The combined county authority is to become the East Midlands transport authority. The mayor is to have control over a consolidated and devolved transport budget, with the power to pay grants to the constituent councils in relation to the exercise of their highways functions to improve and maintain roads. The mayor may also pay grants to bus service operators for eligible bus services operating within the East Midlands area. Grants must be calculated in accordance with any regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Local authority public health functions are to be conferred on the combined county authority, enabling it to deliver public health initiatives throughout its area and in support of the local authorities in the East Midlands. The combined county authority is to be required to adhere to Section 2B(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006, which places a duty on a local authority to take steps as it considers appropriate to improve the health of the people in its area. This responsibility will be held concurrently with the combined county authority’s constituent councils. None of the constituent councils’ public health functions is transferred from the councils to the combined county authority.

Finally on functions, I mention that the devolution deal also provides for the devolution of certain education and skill functions, together with the adult education budget. As agreed with the area, further regulations for these functions will be brought forward later this year with the aim, subject to Parliament’s approval, of the combined county authority being responsible for these functions from the academic year 2025-26.

These regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. As provided for by that Act, Derby City Council, Derbyshire County Council, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council consulted on a proposal to establish the combined county authority based on the East Midlands devolution deal. They promoted the consultation by a number of means, including a dedicated website; two online events in which residents and stakeholders could make their views known; and a communications campaign. Responses could be made online or directly by email or paper. The councils also undertook stakeholder engagement with businesses, the voluntary sector and key institutions in the East Midlands.

The public consultation ran from 14 November 2022 to 9 January 2023. A total of more than 4,800 people responded to that consultation. As required by the 2023 Act, the councils preparing the proposal provided the Secretary of State with a summary to the responses to the consultation on 1 November 2023, after the enactment of the 2023 Act. The Act provides that a consultation carried out before it came into force can be considered as fulfilling the requirement in it to consult. The majority of respondents supported all aspects of the proposal with one exception. On the establishment of the mayor, 48% of those who took part in the consultation supported the proposal, with 52% opposing it.

The role of the mayor is integral to the proposal. Many aspects of the proposal supported by residents are available only to an institution that is led by a strong, accountable, directly elected leader such as a mayor. Those opposed to a mayor raised concerns about the cost of a mayor, the consolidation of power in an individual and adding an additional tier of governance to local government. In contrast, those supporting the approach of a directly elected mayor referred to the benefits that it could bring to the area in accountability, leadership and providing a voice for the region at national and international levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly for their support for the East Midlands. I know that will be well received. Once again, we all wish it well. I will respond to a number of questions— I will look at Hansard and write if I miss any—starting with my noble friend Lady McIntosh.

The response rate to the consultations the constituent councils did was very low. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned that 4,800 responses from 1.6 million people is not a lot, but you cannot force people. My experience is exactly the same. People will tell you, “We just want people to lead our council, keep us safe and economically viable and to spend our money wisely”. Sadly, that is what happens in all these cases, but that is how it is.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked whether this funding is new. Yes, the funding to the East Midlands is new, as was the case in Tees Valley; that was new funding, too. My noble friend also mentioned planning powers. No planning powers or housing powers are being transferred from existing planning and housing authorities. We made that clear in passing the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is now an Act. Therefore, those authorities will be responsible. That is part of the challenge; they must work together for the good of their area.

The East Midlands devolution deal is a level 3 deal, with strong devolution alongside the establishment of a mayor. There was concern that 52% of those who responded to the consultation did not want a mayor; the problem is that they also said they wanted a level 3 devolution deal, with the large amounts of money and power that come with it. It was for the Secretary of State to make the decision that the result of the East Midlands consultation should be a level 3 deal, which requires a mayor.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh brought up Tees Valley. As they will know, the report came through very recently. We are considering the two recommendations in it. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is absolutely right: risk, scrutiny and audit are very important here, as they are in all local government. The mayor from Teesside has been asked for his response by early March; once it comes through, I will write a further letter on the Government’s response. What I think will happen is that we—the Government—will learn from that report, as will the East Midlands. As with all local government, as I say, scrutiny, audit and risk are important.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Since we are on that specific issue, may I ask two questions? The Minister said that there were two recommendations but, actually, there are 28 altogether.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I was talking about the ones on scrutiny.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Right, but there are others which relate indirectly to the scrutiny, risk and audit function.

Secondly, this is not just about the East Midlands Combined County Authority. This issue relates to all mayoral combined authorities: those that currently exist and those that are about to come into existence. I hope that, when the Minister writes to us, there will have been an in-depth examination by the department of how the criticisms of Tees Valley’s arrangements could not occur in all of those other authorities. I hope that I am making myself clear: there needs to be an examination of the constitutional and working arrangements in all those combined authority areas.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. This is what we will do: we will look at the report in detail and respond accordingly on the things in the report that reflect, first, on the department itself and, secondly, on future combined authorities of whatever type because of the importance of that.

There are currently no limits on mayoral precepts; the power does exist to set limits. That would need the approval of the Commons, though, if it were to happen so we will watch that as it moves forward. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who brought up the issue of a political adviser. The combined county authorities can have one political adviser; the post, like local authority political advisers, is not politically restricted in the way that other officers’ posts are, but they can have one.

Local Authorities: Financial Difficulties

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the financial difficulties facing many local authorities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, we have listened carefully to local authorities about the pressures they are facing. That is why, in January, we announced additional measures worth over £600 million. Taking into account the recently announced local government finance settlement, that makes available up to £64.7 billion, an increase of 7.5% in cash terms on last year. The department continually monitors the sector, and we stand ready to talk to any council with concerns about its finances.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, what the Minister said is of course welcome, but it is still a drop in the ocean compared to the cutbacks local authorities have faced since 2010. The Government keep talking about cutting taxes in a forthcoming Budget, but is not the real issue that council tax payers also pay taxes? Surely, council tax increases will have to make up for cuts in income tax. This is not honest.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, for many years we have had a cap on council tax increases. It remains at 2.99% for the general fund, with 2% extra for councils that want more money for social care funding. However, the department is establishing an expert panel to advise local government and the department on local government financial sustainability into the future. The panel will include the LGA and the Office for Local Government, and we look forward to its findings.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the local authorities that have so far gone bankrupt and applied for Section 114 have, by and large, been the authors of their own misfortune. Is my noble friend the Minister aware that many well-run upper-tier authorities—controlled by all parties—are now running out of road? Will not whoever wins the next election have to undertake a major review of local government finance? The current regime of overreliance on government grants, rate capping and an out-of-date council tax is simply unsustainable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I agree with much of what my noble friend said. In December 2022, the Government ruled out reform of the local government finance system in this Parliament in response to the sector calling for stability and certainty from local government. However, this Government are committed to reforming the local government funding landscape in the next Parliament.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I stress the need to review the local government financial settlements and support systems. In the case of a city such as Birmingham, even if increasing the council tax were realistic, a quarter of households—some 461,000 —are eligible for council tax support, and of those, 75,000 pay no council tax at all. Over the next two years, the city is facing a budget gap of some £300 million. Does the Minister agree that the structure needs to be reviewed and that individual circumstances have to be taken into account?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I repeat that we have said that we will look at funding in the next Parliament. There is an 18% increase in budgets per dwelling in the most deprived areas, compared to the least deprived. Through the settlement, places such as Birmingham are getting a lot more money.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, councils have been receiving money from the Government’s household support fund, which has provided many thousands of families with essential sharp-end help with their bills and food, for example. However, it is due to end at the end of March. Will the Government seriously consider extending that effective and targeted support for at least another year? Have they taken into account the increase in child poverty they anticipate will result from the withdrawal of this much-needed, much-used fund?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right to say that the current household support fund runs out on 31 March. However, the Government continue to keep all existing programmes under review in the usual way.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, council tax banding for our 25 million homes in England is based on their estimated market value in 1991. So, a two-bedroom flat in London, where property values have gone through the roof, falls in the same band as its equivalent in the north of England; a £1 million home is charged 0.2% of its value; and on average, one worth £250,000 is charged 0.6%. This year, 46% of households in England will receive a bigger council tax bill than Buckingham Palace. Does the Minister think that our council tax formula is regressive and needs reforming?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I said, in the next Government we will look at all these local government financing issues. We agree that that is long overdue, but the sector itself did not want that to happen in 2022.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that we promised we would fix social care? The problem for local authorities is that the vast majority of their funding goes on providing social care, crowding out other vital services. Until we address the issue of social care, this problem will get worse, and it is worst in those local authorities where the tax base is lowest and the demand is greatest. This is urgently needed, not least because people are not getting the social care they need.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. We made changes to local government financing in January, and we listened to local government and its priorities: £500 million of the £600 million extra that was given is going into social care.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this weekend, the Local Government Association Labour Group published its latest version of 101 Achievements of Labour in Power, featuring a huge range of initiatives: street support partnerships tackling homelessness in Leeds, Food On Our Doorstep clubs in Mansfield, delivering over 83,000 square feet of lab space to support life sciences in Stevenage, new models of fostering in South Tyneside, and Plymouth City Council launching the first ever national marine park to support conservation of our seas. Remarkably, all this innovation has taken place against the backdrop of a reduction in core spending power of 11% compared with 2010-11. Is it not time the Government recognised the huge value that people place on local services and worked with the sector to deliver a sustainable funding model to support them?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government do appreciate what local government can do, and it is not just Labour local government that is delivering this innovation and great services for local people. At this point, I should thank local government for everything it does. As I said earlier, we listen to local authorities all the time, which is why we put in £600 million more in January.

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, may I return to the issue of reforming the model? I have recently been caught up in discussions with Suffolk County Council about funding cuts it was making to its arts programmes. That drew me into detailed discussions about what its priorities were and the challenges it was facing. It said that two things would make a huge difference. The first was knowing further in advance what it might receive; it was looking for a three-year projection. The second was for the groundwork for the reform to which the Minister has been referring to be done now, rather than in the future.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right: local government is asking for reform of the whole system, but it is also asking for certainty for future years. Recognising the importance of this, the Government intend to return to multi-year settlements in the next Parliament when circumstances allow.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees that for 10 years, the Government made very severe cuts and, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, there was increased demand for social care services. The result is that the non-statutory services have borne all the cuts. Services for young people, family support and libraries—I could go on—have all been severely cut and continue to be so. I lend my support, for what it is worth, to the Minister. Local government finance really is in desperate need of a fundamental review.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have already agreed that this will happen in the next Parliament under a Conservative Government. However, as we have heard from the noble Baroness opposite, not all councils have stopped non-statutory services. Many of them are running their businesses very efficiently and keeping all those services going.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Friday 2nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That this House takes note of Holocaust Memorial Day 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, it is with respect and solemn reflection that I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Holocaust Memorial Day is all the more poignant this year as we reflect on the Hamas terrorist attack on the people of Israel on 7 October. One of the 1,200 people murdered by Hamas was 91 year-old Moshe Ridler, who escaped from a Nazi camp in Ukraine and was sheltered by shepherds before liberation, and who came to live in Israel in 1951. Moshe was murdered in the Holit kibbutz, just over a mile from the border with Gaza. His bungalow was hit first by a rocket-propelled grenade and then by a hand grenade. To his 18 children and great-grandchildren, may his memory be a blessing. His death reminds us that the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust has never been more important.

Holocaust Memorial Day is intended first and foremost to remind us of what was done to the Jewish people during the Holocaust. An attempt was made to annihilate the Jewish people in their entirety; an attempt to take anti-Semitism to its bitter and horrific conclusion. It is impossible to stand here today and not reflect on 7 October, which saw the deadliest attack against Israel since the state’s establishment in 1948. We witnessed the mass murder of over 1,200 Israelis by Hamas, the mass rape of women and young girls, and the abduction of 240 hostages. It is incumbent on us on Holocaust Memorial Day to speak the truth and to repudiate the attempt to level false charges against Israel. We must remember what was done to the Jewish people in the Holocaust and sound the warning of the threat that a resurgent anti-Semitism poses to them once again today.

The significance and meaning of the Holocaust came to be better understood through the heroic efforts of Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew who lost 49 members of his family to the Nazis, and who coined the word genocide. Three years after the Holocaust ended, and largely in reaction to what had been done then to the Jewish people, the newly formed United Nations defined genocide as a crime committed with

“the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

Tragically, since the convention was agreed, there have been other genocides, in Cambodia, Srebrenica, Rwanda and Darfur. This year we mark the 30th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis. It is very much in the spirit of remembering the Holocaust that, on Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the victims of those genocides too.

Since the 7 October attack by Hamas, countries across the world have experienced a shocking increase in anti-Semitism. The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom, has recorded over 2,000 anti-Semitic incidents since 7 October. This is the highest total on record, and, sadly, this increase is reflected across Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia.

The theme for 2024 is the fragility of freedom, highlighting that in every genocide that has taken place those who are targeted for persecution have had their freedoms restricted and removed before many of them were murdered. Holocaust Memorial Day is a time to reflect on how freedom is fragile and vulnerable to abuse, and to consider how to strengthen freedoms across the world.

The Nazi regime was characterised by the brutal oppression and persecution of the Jewish people and other minorities. The Nazis aimed to completely exclude Jews and other minorities from everyday life. Between 1933 and 1938, over 400 anti-Semitic laws were enacted. These laws limited every area of Jewish life. By 1935, the Nuremberg laws had changed who could be a German citizen. As a result, Jews and others lost their rights to citizenship, which not only stripped them of the right to vote but made them stateless. This meant that they could not get a valid passport for travel between countries or acquire a visa to leave Germany. With no escape, many met their deaths in Nazi concentration camps.

It is natural to presume that liberation, when it came at the end of the war, brought great joy. But for those Jewish men, women and children who survived, it also brought home the immensity of their loss. An extraordinary effort was needed to pick up the pieces of broken lives and to start over again. Many were lone survivors. Entire generations were murdered—grandparents, parents, children and cousins. Liberation day was the first day survivors were forced to confront reality. Up until then, survivors had expended all their efforts on the struggle to survive from one moment to the next. They had deflected attention from the world they had lost—their family and friends, their occupations, their neighbourhoods and their possessions. All of these had been taken from them long before liberation, but now they were forced to face the emptiness and try to build something new. Many did, with great success, but for some, such as Primo Levi, who wrote so powerfully about his experiences, it proved impossible to come to terms with the immensity of their loss.

Today, we also mark the 30th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi. Tutsis who survived the 100 days of slaughter in 1994 had to rebuild their lives. Many returned to communities where their attackers still lived, in some cases as close neighbours. Returning home, they searched for missing relatives, only to find strangers living in their houses, their communities in ruins, and reminders of their families and friends who had been brutally murdered. Liberation meant physical freedom for many, but it also brought home enormous loss, from which many survivors never recovered.

Last week, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust hosted the annual Holocaust Memorial Day at the Guildhall. It brought home to me how privileged we are to hear first-hand from witnesses to the Holocaust and from witnesses to subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Srebrenica, Rwanda and Darfur. Sadly, the number of first-hand witnesses to the Holocaust decreases every year.

The Government remain committed to the creation of a new national memorial, and we are pleased that MPs overwhelmingly supported the Holocaust Memorial Bill. If enacted, the Bill will remove a statutory obstacle that has prevented the building of a new memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. Our aim is that the completion of that memorial should be witnessed by Holocaust survivors.

In March, the UK assumes the important mantle of the presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. We will use this opportunity to explore the circumstances that led to the Holocaust and to highlight the nature of a society that allowed mass murder in plain sight. We will also use the opportunity to reflect on the use of artificial intelligence in Holocaust distortion.

I pay tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and to its CEO, Olivia Marks-Woldman OBE, and her team, which delivers the annual Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony and thousands of local activities across the country. Similarly, I thank the CEO of the Holocaust Educational Trust, Karen Pollock CBE, who works tirelessly to ensure that the next generation learn of the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust and can visit Auschwitz-Birkenau as part of the very successful Lessons from Auschwitz programme.

I look forward to noble Lords’ reflections. As always, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims, the survivors and their families. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have been here for over four hours and I do not know whether I can quite do justice to everything that has been said. Thank you—it was an amazing debate, one that I will never forget. I want to say a really personal thank you to those people who have spoken today and for whom, either through their family history or their heritage, the Holocaust is so much more important. Those of us who, like me, do not have that in our heritage or family history cannot imagine what it is like. I thank them for actually saying what they feel today. That was the powerful part of this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is just a hero; I have to say he is one of mine, even if he is from that side. I thank him for what he has done and continues to do. He could not have been more welcome as a child coming into this country and I thank him for everything he has done for us.

I do not know what to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson. The testimonies she brought to us, particularly the testimonies of the young people who were at that festival, are something none of us should ever forget. We should remember them when some things, particularly in the media, are said about the Jewish people and Israel today.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley: yes, he has differing views from some of us, but I thank him for what he said.

My noble friend Lord Polak spoke on behalf of Sammy Barnett. I cannot thank Sammy directly, but I can do so through my noble friend. The bravery of a young man telling his story, when perhaps he does not feel very brave and feels out of his depth, is amazing. He is exceptionally brave to tell that story, and I thank him for that. I am sorry that my noble friend’s grandchildren feel unable to go to school, or that they are even questioning whether they can do so. That is not what we want in this country.

I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann, who I have heard many times describing her private family history, for reminding us that we can still have hope. We might not think so at this time, particularly after 7 October, but we still have messages of hope out there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said that sometimes you feel helpless. We in this place should not be feeling helpless. We are really lucky: we can speak up, as we have done today, and bear witness to everything that happened on 7 October and keep talking about it, keep moving forward and keep on top of it. We should not feel helpless, and I do not want the noble Baroness to feel that way, because I think we are lucky. It is important that people in a place of influence—I hate to use the word “power”—such as this talk about things like this all the time.

I thank my noble friends Lord Gold and Lord Sterling and the noble Lords, Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their testimonies. They have all made a difference today, and they are something that all of us in this Chamber will not forget.

I say a special thank you to my noble friend Lord Pickles. He seems to be everywhere that I am when we are talking about the Jewish faith and the Jewish community, and I know it is in his heart. He says that “Never again” will be listened to only if it gets into our hearts. I know it is already in his heart, and he continues to work to ensure that that happens.

I cannot answer everything, but I shall read the whole debate and then send a letter out and put a copy in the Library. However, a couple of themes came out that I found very strong. The first was that this did not start with the Holocaust or with World War II; it started with politics and people, and with debates probably like this one, although not going in the right direction. Then there was the propaganda that we heard about at Nuremberg. That is the bit that is important for us, as we move forward, to take more notice of and look more into, rather than just looking at what happened in World War II. I am sure my noble friend Lord Pickles will take that forward; indeed, he probably already is.

It is important for the whole world to realise that these things do not start slowly. We must nip them in the bud and catch them because we can see them leading to something dreadful again. My noble friend Lady Altmann brought that up, as did the noble Lords, Lord Singh and Lord Parekh. We have to learn the lessons not just of the Holocaust but of how we got there in the first place. Many noble Lords mentioned that it was not in the last century but before that, and we need to look at that as communities of the world.

The second theme that came out strongly, from the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Young of Norwood Green, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Gold, was education. We go back to thanking the Holocaust Educational Trust and others—I shall speak a little more about them in a minute—for all that they do, but we must support them. We must keep the language and the stories going. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for those two wonderful stories from Naomi and Mariana, because she will remember and repeat those stories, but Naomi has gone, and I think Mariana has gone. All the Holocaust survivors who I get so much knowledge from are getting increasingly very old. That is why, as I said, we want to get the Holocaust memorial built: I want some of those survivors to still be there. I thank the noble Baroness for those testimonies; they are so powerful.

I have probably forgotten many people; I am really sorry. There are a couple of points I want to answer, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Austin. He quite rightly challenged us on the fact that Holocaust Memorial Day is now extended to other genocides. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust did that and wanted that, but some places that commemorate the Holocaust do not use other genocides. It is up to those people what they do, but there is a United Nations International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide on 9 December. Perhaps we in this House should remember that.

I am going to stop there because I am conscious of the time, but, as I said, I will go through the whole debate to see whether I can answer any other specific points. Building on the importance of education, I thank your Lordships, on their behalf, for the many tributes to the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust in the important work they do. It is import that we continue to support them to do that work to raise awareness and understanding, especially among young people. The work they do is impressive and invaluable, and if any of your Lordships have not seen some of it, I suggest you talk to them. Some of the stuff they do in prisons, in particular, is very interesting.

However, there are some other people in this country who are doing wonderful things, and I do not think they are ever mentioned in these debates. I want to bring up just a few of them, if your Lordships have just another few minutes. We are greatly blessed by these institutions, which are dedicated to broadly similar aims. Holocaust Memorial Day provides a fitting moment to reflect on the work that they do. I mention first the wonderful work done by the Wiener Holocaust Library, founded by Dr Alfred Wiener. He was looking at the roots of the Holocaust well before the Second World War; we can learn from that. It is one of the world’s leading and most extensive archives of the Holocaust and the Nazi era. I expect the story of how the library came into existence and came to London is well known to your Lordships—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, knows it—but if you do not know it I suggest you look it up, because it is another inspirational story.

Just before Holocaust Memorial Day, Her Majesty the Queen became the first royal patron of the Anne Frank Trust UK. As we have heard, the trust uses Anne Frank’s tragic story to teach about where anti-Semitism and prejudice can lead if it is not challenged. From listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, we know that even young children can get close to Anne Frank’s story, when the Holocaust may be too big for them to understand at that age.

There are many wonderful institutions outside London, helping people across the country to access powerful and effective educational opportunities. The National Holocaust Centre and Museum in Newark, Nottinghamshire, is a genuinely inspirational place to which I expect many noble Lords have already been—if they have not, I urge them to go. The centre was the brainchild of Stephen and James Smith, along with their mother Marina, who in 1991 visited Israel’s national Holocaust museum and wanted to bring something back.

The Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield is another valuable and important institution. The success of that centre is testimony to the work of the Holocaust Survivors’ Friendship Association, and the late Lilian Black—may her memory be a blessing—and many friends of the HSFA. In 2023 the Holocaust Centre North was awarded the first King’s Award for Voluntary Service, in recognition of the involvement of survivors and members of the second and third generations, as well as friends and allies in various aspects of their work.

Heading across to the north-west of England, we see the Lake District Holocaust Project. This is an interesting project that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, knows about, established in 2013 to remember 300 Jewish orphans who were sent to the Lake District to recuperate after the war. In June 1945 the Home Office gave permission for 1,000 Jewish orphans aged from eight to 16 to be brought to the UK for recuperation. In the end, 732 of them made the journey, with 300 arriving in the Lake District. These children had been discovered in notorious ghetto camps near Prague, but many had been used as slave labour in camps across Nazi-occupied Europe for many years. Many of the boys went on to lead really successful lives. The most successful was the late Sir Ben Helfgott—may his memory be a blessing—who was at the forefront of campaigns to introduce Holocaust education and remembrance.

There are also many smaller projects, and I mention one in particular—Learning from the Righteous, a Holocaust education charity that promotes dialogue and understanding to tackle racism and discrimination through learning about stories of resistance and rescue during the Holocaust. That is just a small sample of what is going on across this country. I hope that noble Lords do not mind me mentioning them, because they do not get mentioned very often. I want to thank them all in Hansard for their very important work. We need to keep supporting them in order for them to continue to educate our country.

I want my final words today to focus on Holocaust survivors, and the survivors of subsequent genocides. I have had the honour to hear testimony, as many noble Lords have, from survivors of the Holocaust, and from Cambodia, Srebrenica and Rwanda. I think we can all agree that listening to survivors of the Holocaust and subsequent genocides has a profound effect on us.

This year, Janine Webber shared her experiences at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Holocaust Memorial Day event. Janine was born in Lwów in Poland—now Lviv, Ukraine—in 1932. Janine shared her story and that of her family, of how she survived the Lwów ghetto, and how her uncle found a Polish farmer who was willing to hide her, which was just the start of a further ordeal. We heard about her struggle through many years to survive and how eventually, after the war, she made her way to Paris—this was all while she was a schoolgirl, and very, very brave—and then to London in 1956. Janine still lives in London and regularly shares her testimony with schools.

At this year’s Holocaust memorial ceremony at the Guildhall, we heard testimony from Mala Tribich MBE, sister of the late Sir Ben Helfgott, Ivor Perl BEM, Vera Schaufeld MBE and Antoinette Mutabazi, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi. It is our duty to ensure that their testimony is never forgotten. Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said that he believed

“firmly and profoundly that whoever listens to a witness becomes a witness, so those who hear us, those who read us must continue to bear witness for us. Until now, they’re doing it with us. At a certain point in time, they will do it for all of us”.

Motion agreed.

Combined Authorities (Mayors) Filling of Vacancies Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11 December 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 January.

Motions agreed.

Temporary Accommodation Costs

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on local authority finances caused by the rising cost of temporary accommodation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, local authorities deliver vital homelessness services, and we recognise the pressure that the cost of temporary accommodation places on councils. As we announced recently, total core spending power for councils in England will rise by 7.5% for 2023-24 to 2024-25—an above-inflation increase. In addition, we are providing more than £1 billion over three years to councils through the homelessness prevention grant, with a further £120 million UK-wide funding in 2024-25, announced at Autumn Statement, to help prevent homelessness.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I recently visited a secondary school in Manchester which now has to make significant bespoke provision out of its school budget for pupils who are living in bed and breakfast hotels. Those students are only a tiny fraction of nearly 140,000 children in temporary accommodation, which represents a 14% rise in the last year. What assessment, if any, have the Government made of this issue? Will the Minister commit to improving the data available so that the impact of living in temporary accommodation on children, particularly on their education, can be fully understood, and local authorities can be supported to enable their schools to address and minimise it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. No one wants to see families with children in temporary accommodation, and I am sure that every local authority across the country is doing everything they can to stop it happening. But sometimes, in emergency situations, it is important for the short term that those families have a roof over their head, a safe and secure place to go. We continue to work with the Local Government Association and local authorities on how many there are in such accommodation, and what more we can do—for instance, stopping people going into temporary accommodation in the first place. With the £1 billion grant for local authority homelessness prevention, we can also start to improve the quality of any temporary accommodation that we might have to use.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is quite right to draw attention to the pressure on local authority budgets. Given the hundreds of millions of pounds that we are spending on accommodating illegal migrants, might a possible solution for the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues be to go through Division Lobbies and support the Rwanda Bill?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that is within this Question. I will leave it to my noble friend to fight his corner on that one.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, many housing associations have been encouraged to develop homes for shared ownership, yet current trends illustrate that there has been a reduction in applications for this type of accommodation due to increases in mortgage rates and concerns regarding responsibility for maintenance—relating to the Grenfell Tower event. Can the Minister say whether capital could be made available for councils to purchase some of those empty properties and reduce temporary accommodation used for families?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Through their powers, local authorities can look to purchase accommodation. In the last two Budgets, we have given special dispensation to local councils, first, on special borrowing and, secondly, on their moneys from the right to buy. It is up to local authorities to look at the ways they can provide those houses, but I will take that back to the department as an idea.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has rightly said, the Government are allocating £1 billion to reduce homelessness. Unfortunately, it is clearly not working, as homelessness is at a 25-year high, with the result that local authorities have to spend increasing proportions of their budget on their statutory duty—which they want to undertake—to house people without a home. For example, Eastbourne Borough Council has an annual budget of £15 million but is spending £4.9 million each year on its statutory homeless duty. That is not sustainable. What are the Government to do?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have said, on 24 January, the Government announced additional measures for local authority funding worth £600 million, including £500 million of new funding for adult and children’s social care. It means that core spending powers will be up by £4.5 billion next year. This is what we are doing to help local authorities with all the pressures on their budgets at this time.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, local councils across the UK have warned that they are increasingly facing bankruptcy because of the rising cost of preventing homelessness. The National Housing Federation predicts that the number of children living in temporary accommodation will rise from 131,000 to 310,000 by 2045. It says that social housing waiting lists will grow to 1.8 million households by 2045—an increase of more than 50%. What practical steps are the Government taking to tackle the tremendous cost of temporary accommodation and homelessness?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think I have already answered most of that. We have increased the amount of money going to the base budgets of local authorities across the country this year. We are giving money to prevent homelessness—which is as important as dealing with the issue. As I have said, we are giving money to councils so that they can build better properties and access better temporary accommodation. We are doing all we can in what has been quite a difficult economic climate. However, we are coming out of it, things are beginning to look better, and houses are being built.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I think we should be building a lot more houses. In the meantime, should we not consider amending the Renters (Reform) Bill, now in another place, to increase substantially the amount of long-term institutional investment in private renting and relieve some of the pressures on the market that we have been hearing about?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The Government will support institutional investment in the private sector as well as in the social rented sector, provided, of course, that they stick to the rules and we can regulate them. That includes Build to Rent homes, which can boost supply and drive up standards. We are offering support through the £1.5 billion levelling up home building fund being delivered through Homes England to provide loans, equity investment and joint ventures to encourage such institutional investment companies and to support new Build to Rent developments. I think they will be a growing part of the market.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Devon Housing Commission. I can confirm that the rise in temporary accommodation is not just in London and the conurbations. Devon is deeply affected, and that affects the budgets of local authorities. What progress is being made with the Government’s proposals to enable local authorities to limit the switching or changing of use of ordinary private rented accommodation into Airbnb holiday accommodation and short-term lets, which is having a huge effect in Devon and elsewhere?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord is right. I am aware of this issue. I do not have the up-to- date facts with me so, if he does not mind, I will write to him.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the last Labour Government almost did away with homelessness. It is a Conservative policy which has created this scandal for the British people. Does the Minister have a plan? If so, can she tell the House how much it would cost to end homelessness and how that money would be allocated? Otherwise, it will continue to be a blight on society.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish it were as simple as that. Yes, we have a plan to build more houses in this country—importantly, more affordable houses and houses for social rent. As I said, at a time when we have been through a difficult economic situation, we have more people needing temporary accommodation. It is important that we are there to pick up those who need emergency roofs over their heads. They need to feel safe and secure. Quite honestly, I think they would rather be in temporary accommodation than on the streets.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

Motion agreed.

Combined Authorities (Mayors) Filling of Vacancies Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Mayors) Filling of Vacancies Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

These draft regulations were laid before the House on 11 December 2023. If approved and made, they will amend the existing legislation to provide the rules for the conduct of elections for directly elected mayors of combined county authorities and the rules by which mayoral vacancies in such authorities are to be declared, as well as the procedure for filling them through by- elections. The mayoral elections regulations are essential to enable the first election of a combined county authority mayor—in the east Midlands—to take place as planned in May 2024. It is highly desirable that the filling of vacancies regulations are made before the possibility of a vacancy in the post of combined county authority mayor arises.

The two sets of regulations that we are considering, if approved and made, will mark a milestone in implementing the east Midlands devolution deal and pave the way for further mayoral combined county authorities. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government agreed an historic devolution deal with Derbyshire County Council, Derby City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council in August 2022. This deal, if the necessary secondary legislation is approved by Parliament, will see significant powers and budgets conferred on the East Midlands Combined County Authority.

This authority, if approved by Parliament, will be the first of its kind to be established under the new powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Its directly elected mayor, agreed and consented to by the four councils concerned, will provide an essential single point of accountability for such major powers. The draft mayoral elections regulations are necessary to conduct an election of the east Midlands mayor and, indeed, to conduct elections for any future combined county authority mayors. The draft filling of vacancies regulations provide the rules for filling any mid-term vacancies in the office of mayor for a combined county authority.

Turning to the specifics, the draft mayoral elections regulations make detailed provision about the conduct of the elections for mayors of combined county authorities. They do this by extending the application of the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 to elections for combined county authority mayors. They also apply the Voter Identification Regulations 2022 to combined county authority mayoral elections in order to maintain consistency with other local government elections, and ensure that transitional provisions for EU citizens standing as candidates in other local elections in May 2024 apply to combined county authority mayoral elections.

The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 largely replicated the rules for elections for local authority mayors and police and crime commissioners. This procedural consistency is the hallmark of local government electoral law and ensures the smooth running of polls, particularly where they are held in combination. However, I will mention certain specific provisions that we are making for combined county authority mayors, reflecting the constitutional arrangements for these authorities.

We are creating a new role—the combined county authority returning officer—to oversee the whole of the election of a combined county authority mayor. This important role mirrors the role of the combined authority returning officer. The combined county authority returning officer, like the combined authority returning officer, will be personally responsible for publishing the notice of elections, administering the nomination process, ensuring that candidates comply with the requirements regarding the content of their election addresses, collating and calculating the number of votes given for each candidate, and calculating and declaring the result.

The draft regulations also clarify that the returning officer for the district council in a two-tier area of a combined county authority is to be responsible for running the mayoral election within that county’s area. This is because the procedural expertise and experience, as well as the responsibility for the electoral register, sits with these councils. This is the approach generally taken in polls run on different geographies to that of the district council including, for example, county council and police and crime commissioner elections.

In addition, the regulations also contain two provisions that apply to both combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections. First, we have included provision enabling the appointment of a combined authority returning officer, or a combined county authority returning officer, before the respective authority is established. This will help ensure the smooth running of the first mayoral election where the statutory instrument establishing the new authority is made only relatively shortly before the date of the mayoral election provided for in that secondary legislation.

For combined authorities, commencement of this provision is delayed until 1 July 2024. This is because the order to establish the new north-east mayoral combined authority, which we expect to lay before Parliament shortly, includes an area-specific provision for the first mayoral election in May 2024, reflecting the unique circumstances of that authority. This delay in the commencement provision avoids the risk of two alternative sets of provision being in play at the election on 2 May 2024.

Secondly, we have set the figures in the formula for the calculation of candidate spending limits at combined county authority mayoral elections at £3,040 per constituent council and 8p per elector. We have consulted the Electoral Commission on this as statute requires and, on the basis that these figures align with the candidate spending limits for combined authority mayors, the commission recommended this approach. These regulations also establish new spending limits for combined authority mayors by uprating in line with inflation the limits that were set in 2017. To do this, we have used the powers given by Parliament to the Secretary of State to make such upratings in line with inflation, for which no further recommendation is required from the Electoral Commission. Parity is therefore maintained between combined county authority elections and combined authority elections.

Turning to the filling of vacancies regulations, these smaller regulations also extend the scope of existing provision for combined authorities to include combined county authorities. They are necessary to establish the rules by which vacancies are to be declared in the office of a combined county authority mayor and the procedures for filling these vacancies through by-elections. These provisions need to be in place in advance of any combined county authority mayor being elected to ensure that any subsequent vacancy can be appropriately and consistently dealt with.

On consultation, the Government undertook extensive consultation ahead of the 2017 electoral provisions for combined authorities. The regulations before us today replicate the 2017 provisions and apply them to combined county authorities, reflecting the parity between the two types of authority. We have undertaken statutory consultation with the Electoral Commission on the provision in the draft mayoral elections regulations about expense limits for candidates for combined county authority mayoral elections and combined authority elections. The regulations reflect the commission’s recommendation with regard to the setting of the new combined county authority mayoral spending limit.

In addition, we shared informally with the commission a draft of the filling of vacancies regulations. We also engaged with officers of the constituent councils of the East Midlands; I want to say at this time that we are grateful for their input as we have developed the drafts of this legislation.

In conclusion, these draft regulations set out a robust legal framework for the election of combined county authority mayors. They provide the necessary clarity to those tasked with running these elections and ensure that local electors can have confidence in the fair conduct of these elections. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction to these two SIs. I understand entirely the need for speed on them both. I should declare an interest as an elector in the North East Combined Authority. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the arrangements for the next few months regarding the processes being put in place. It is appropriate that combined county authorities and mayoral combined authorities have the same regulations as each other; that is the right thing to do. It is also right and appropriate to uprate expenditure limits in line with inflation.

The Minister mentioned voter ID. I suggest to her that more attention be paid to the concerns around that. There has been a consultation with the Electoral Commission, which made clear its concerns about some of the requirements on voter ID that certainly seem to make it more difficult for younger people to vote. More generally, it is our view that the voter ID requirements need urgent reform. The Minister mentioned that voter ID regulations are to be the same for both kinds of authorities. Perhaps the Government should be more proactive about addressing the need for change.

There are some issues behind both these statutory instruments, which result, in part, from the passing of the levelling-up Act. I have grave concerns about the electoral system being used in these elections, first past the post, because the mayoral combined authority model is highly centralist. It does not engage fully with the general public or, indeed, most elected councillors; only council leaders will be engaged. There is an issue of legitimacy for those elected on very low turnouts with a very low share of the poll. It is entirely possible that, in a first past the post system, the person being elected on a 30% to 35% turnout may have only 30% support on first preferences. That is not adequate when the powers of a mayor are so great. I repeat my concern about the legitimacy of the electoral system, given that difficult, complex and challenging decisions will have to be made by the mayoral combined authorities of whatever kind.

The second issue is the role of district councils, which the Minister mentioned when she talked about managing the electoral process. During the passage of the levelling-up Act, we raised the issue of their rights to full membership of combined county authorities. They are the planning authority, not just the manager of the electoral processes. Can the Minister give us any update about whether district councils are now satisfied with the roles the Government are planning? I should say, in passing, that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I also have a concern, which I raised during the passing of the levelling-up Act, about scrutiny, audit and risk. I take these issues extremely seriously, and I just hope that the Government have ensured that every mayoral combined authority and every combined county authority has adequate risk, audit and scrutiny systems in place, given the huge sums of public money that they will be spending through that very centralised, top-down system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments. I concur with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in relation to district councils and their role in administrating elections, which I will come to shortly.

These regulations provide the rules for declaring a combined county mayoral vacancy, the procedure for by-elections and the rules governing a mayoral election. They do this simply by extending the existing rules for combined authority mayoral elections or by-elections to cover the new combined county authority mayors. We on these Benches supported the passage of the original orders in 2017, and we support these instruments today.

These regulations are required in advance of the first planned combined county authority mayoral election in May 2024 in the East Midlands, as the Minister mentioned, and we on these Benches want to focus on a particular point. While we are discussing the combined county authorities, I will take this opportunity to raise the importance of ensuring that all constituent councils get the opportunity to have their say. We hope that the mayors duly elected under the regulations we are discussing will take heed of the importance of that very local representation and expertise in parish, district and town councils.

As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned, the Minister talked about a two-tier system where there is a county and a district council. She referred to how the district council presiding officers will have the responsibility to administer the election process. My concern is that, as the noble Lord mentioned, there is a lot of confusion about the financial resources to support the administration of these elections. We all know that local councils are already so stretched, and there is a lot of discussion about certain councils not having enough funds to deliver statutory services. What extra financial support or resources are the Government giving to district councils in light of the new responsibilities created by these statutory instruments?

Can I press the Minister further in relation to consultation? She mentioned a number of organisations. I have seen this repeatedly in numerous statutory instruments. What is the consultation in relation to working with the Local Government Association, and what is the overall focus with regard to the district, parish and town councils? What discussions and deliberations are there with these councils in the light of these statutory instruments being introduced? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for taking an interest in this debate and for their contributions. Once again, these regulations are essential in providing the rules by which all county combined authority mayors will be elected, including in May, as well as the mayor of the East Midlands if Parliament approves this new authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about voter ID. Yes, that is understood. We have heard him loud and clear throughout many debates on voter ID. Obviously, we went through reviews on that, as did the Electoral Commission. I have been away, and have not been so close to it, but I will write to the noble Lord to say what the next moves are. I think we all have to agree that the first use of voter ID—I know it was in a smaller area—was successful, but we should never be complacent. We need to keep listening and learning from it.

On first past the post, which is another thing that the noble Lord often brings up, there is not going to be a change. The Government are very clear that the first past the post system is the most straightforward way of electing representatives. It is well understood by the electorate of this country. It makes it so much easier for the public to express a clear preference and reduces a lot of the complexity that we have seen recently in police and crime commissioner elections. There is no plan to change or relook at that; we had that discussion again on the recent Bill on elections, and we will not be looking back at it.

The patchwork of differences across the country is an interesting issue. The problem is that the whole of local government in this country is complex anyway, and reflects the different areas: cities, rural areas, and towns with rural areas around them. Government is trying to reflect that and give local people some choices about how they look in a bigger and more overall way at their area, rather than at small—down even to county —areas. As things change in this country, we are seeing bigger areas of economic development. We need to look at where the work patterns and travel-to-work patterns are. We need to look at all those things as well as at the traditional districts and counties that we have seen in the past.

I think it is up to local people. They have choice through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—they now have choices on how to plan for the future—but we in government have no further plan to look at the overall structure across the whole country.

On district councils, I will come back to the noble Lord. As far as I know, there has been nothing further since the Act came into force, but I will go back and see what discussions have been had with the district councils. That links to something brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Khan: do we talk to the district councils? Yes, we do. We talk to the LGA, the District Councils’ Network and the County Councils Network. They are part of the team that looks at these things, and part of our top stakeholder group, but I do not know what the latest conversations with particularly the district councils are.

As far as audit, risk and scrutiny are concerned—all important parts of local government—as we get bigger and there is more money to spend, people expect that money to be accounted for and to be accounted for quite publicly. In the new combined county authorities, while it is the upper tier that is doing it, the same audit requirements will be there as for other councils as they exist now. There must be scrutiny committees and audit committees, and they must have a risk register. I do not think it is any different but, in my opinion, we need to continue to challenge local authorities and to make sure that they are accessible to local people to know what their money is being spent on.

Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, talked about consulting with local people about any changes. I have been through that consultation; it is tough at times, but it is important. It will always be part of our process that local people are consulted in those early stages of changing their council structures, if that is what local people want. It is up to local elected representatives, whether district, county, borough or wherever they come from, to listen to local people before any changes are made. We expect that to happen.

In conclusion, these regulations are essential— as I said—to progress the devolution powers and to enable the election of combined county authority mayors. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.