Building Safety

Baroness Swinburne Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in reference to the Statement, I have to say how irritating it is that statistics are selected to project a positive picture of progress made on the remediation of building defects as a result of the Building Safety Act and how refreshing it would be if the Government were able to reflect on the poor rate of progress, instead of trying to spin a success story. Spinning the progress made is not doing anybody any favours. It is certainly not helping the thousands of leaseholders who are still stuck in limbo in flats where work has not been started and where even an assessment of whether work is needed has not been made. Perhaps an honest appraisal of the situation would put some government energy into trying to resolve this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has just asked, what is the timetable? How long have leaseholders to wait while this scheme is making snail-like progress towards some remediation?

In Inside Housing last week, a piece by the investigative journalist, Peter Apps, provided some very different numbers from those given by the Government in the Statement. I am not accusing the Government of having inaccurate figures, but they were very selective. I have no reason to challenge the report in Inside Housing, which says:

“As it stands, of 3,839 buildings above 11 metres being monitored by the government due to the need for cladding remediation, 2,286 have not even started works yet”.


The terrible Grenfell Tower fire was nearly seven years ago, and 2,000-plus buildings have not even had work started yet. But the report in Inside Housing went on to say that

“the 3,839 figure could eventually rise by as much as 5,000”.

based on the Government’s own estimates. We really do not know how many are in desperate need of remediation.

So my question to the Government is: can we have a full and final estimate—which surely should be possible nearly seven years after Grenfell—of how many blocks of flats are in need of remediation? How many of them are over 18 metres and most at risk? How many are over 11 metres? What consideration is being given to those under 11 metres, given that many thousands of leaseholders and tenants live in such flats, which the Government regard as being relatively safe but which insurance companies and service charges and all the rest do not? They are in total limbo, waiting for some action to unlock the situation that they are in. That is my first question.

Secondly, in January, there was a fire in Petworth Court in Wembley, which is a social housing building. The social landlord knew that work needed to be done and the original builder accepted that work needed to be done, but they have been in dispute ever since about how much responsibility each should take for it. That is another issue which desperately needs to be addressed because, at the end of it, it is leaseholders who are stuck in this awful situation of going to bed every night knowing that their buildings are unsafe and vulnerable to very serious fires. So another question that I want answered, please, is about how the Government are going to resolve the disputes between what are sometimes leaseholders and sometimes social landlords and the developers and builders.

My third point is this. According to the Statement, the Government are going to drip another £6 million of public money into council enforcement action. Now, I am absolutely fed up with the answer to any problem being that the Government will spend another bit of money trying to do something about it, instead of accepting what the fundamental issue is here. If you do not fund the public services on which we all rely—such as building regulations and building enforcement—properly in the first place, when there is a problem we are forever going to have the answer, “We’re going to drip another £2 million or £3 million in to try to solve it”—and it will not. It will deal with a little bit this time, but nobody can plan with little bits of money being dripped into public services in this way. So, please, at least take this back to the Government: fund the thing properly rather than dripping in money.

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

I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Pinnock, that too many residents in England continue to live in unsafe buildings, while irresponsible building owners fail to set things right. Last year saw a fundamental step change in our programme to fix unsafe buildings, with the launch of the cladding safety scheme last July. All private sector residential buildings above 11 metres in England now have a pathway to fix unsafe cladding. Following intensive talks with the homebuilding sector, we have also secured a solution that will see the original developers of defective buildings take responsibility to pay for and fix historical safety defects. Where developers are building owners and not currently funding cladding remediation, the Government have committed more than £5 billion to ensure that residents are safe—and feel safe—in their homes. However, there is still more that we can and will do.

Where building owners are failing to fix unsafe buildings quickly enough, enforcement action by our regulatory partners is critical. That is why we are announcing a new comprehensive package of support for regulators to boost enforcement. We continue to accelerate our remediation programmes. Over 4,000 buildings of over 11 metres are now in our remediation schemes; this is double the number of buildings in our schemes a year ago. The number of buildings reported to have started or completed remediation work has also more than doubled since February 2023.

From the start, we have prioritised the remediation of the highest-risk buildings. The ACM cladding remediation scheme, which funds the removal of the most dangerous Grenfell-style cladding, is nearing completion, with 98% of those buildings having started or completed works by the end of this month. This figure rises to 100% in the social sector. Over 50% of high-rise buildings in our building safety fund, which deals with buildings over 18 metres in height with non-ACM cladding, have also started or completed work. I apologise for the statistics, but these are real numbers, so I think the House deserves to know. For 346 buildings identified as requiring works under the developer remediation contract, remediation work is expected to start by January 2025.

Registered providers of housing also report that remediation work is complete or due to be completed for 87% of identified buildings with cladding related to defects by September 2028. The bulk of the outstanding buildings requiring remediation are between 11 metres and 18 metres in height. These medium-rise buildings now have a funded route to remediation, following the launch of the cladding safety scheme in July 2023. We expect the number of medium-rise buildings starting and completing remediation to increase as applicants enter and progress through the scheme.

Our focus is now on getting more buildings into our funds and accelerating their remediation process, including through robust enforcement action where needed. The data published this week in our new enforcement league table shows that levels of enforcement activity vary by regulator and region. Some regulators are doing a commendable job. For example, Newham Council recently won a landmark case and successfully prosecuted a building owner for delaying vital remediation work on unsafe cladding. However, as today’s data shows, some councils and fire and rescue authorities need to do more to ensure the safety of residents in their area.

Last year, the department published a joint statement with building safety bodies committing to see buildings made safer faster through a robust regime. The building safety regulator, the Local Government Association and the National Fire Chiefs Council all put their names to this statement. This week, we are delivering on this commitment by announcing our next package of support for our regulatory partners.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I support allocating the further £6 million for the next financial year in grant funding to councils, in addition to establishing a new grant funding scheme to support councils and fire and rescue services with complex enforcement. It is needed; the work is additional work, and therefore we are putting in the money to enable them to do it properly.

To ensure that regulators have the tools they need to harness this funding and drive remediation, we are publishing a new suite of guidance this spring. New enforcement data also increases transparency for the public and empowers communities to see how their authorities are using their funding and powers to keep them safe.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked about a number of things, including progress made on registration of building control inspectors and other safety measures. Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, she asked about buildings below 11 metres. I will seek to answer as many of those questions as possible. If I miss any, I apologise and will write to the noble Baronesses.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked what progress has been made on the registration of building control inspectors. The deadline for registering with the building safety regulator is 6 April. All building inspectors must be registered at least class 1 by that point. However, the building safety regulator has taken the decision to extend the registration period for experienced building inspectors in England who have not yet completed their competency assessment. To benefit from the extension period, they must be registered as class 1 before 6 April and be enrolled on a validation scheme in order to have their competency assessed at the level at which they intend to practise. They will have until 6 July to complete the assessment process. It is crucial that the sector continue to undertake the validation and registration processes in order to meet the competence requirements set by the building safety regulator.

Regarding second staircases, following public consultation and liaison with expert bodies, there is a recommendation that all new tall residential buildings over 18 metres have a second staircase. This will provide an additional means of escape for residents, and I am sure it is supported across the House. We will publish the updated approved document and guidance. I am told, with some authority, by my department, that that will still be by the end of March. Therefore, I am assuming that it will be in the next day or two. I will report to the House if that does not happen—but I hope that it will.

With respect to buildings under 11 metres, it is generally accepted that the safety risk is proportional to the height of the buildings. The risk to life from historic fire safety defects in buildings lower than 11 metres is less. Therefore, building safety-related remediation works are required in a very small number of buildings under 11 metres. A fire risk assessment and accompanying fire risk appraisal of external walls, conducted in accordance with PAS 9980 principles, will often find that lower-cost mitigations are more appropriate in low-rise buildings.

To give some assurance, in rare cases where remediation work is required in buildings under 11 metres, the Government have retrospectively extended the limitation period under Section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. This enables legal action to be taken against developers and contractors where works completed in the last 30 years make a dwelling not fit for habitation.

With regard to the accountability of manufacturers involved in building safety defects, the Defective Premises Act has been amended to cover refurbishment and refitting work for works completed after the Building Safety Act came into force on 28 June 2022. Civil claims can therefore be brought against manufacturers for defective or mis-sold construction products where these products contributed to the dwelling being unfit for habitation. This provision applies to all dwellings and has retrospective effect for cladding products within a 30-year period. The Building Safety Act also gives courts new powers to extend liability to the associated companies of developers.

With regard to the way in which leaseholders and taxpayers will retrieve money they have paid towards a remediation scheme, under the Building Safety Act 2022 we have granted leaseholders the power to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for remediation contribution orders. The First-tier Tribunal has the discretionary power to decide a timeframe in which the money must be paid to the specified person. In the first ever RCO issued, the respondent was required to pay the amount specified in the order within 14 days of the decision date. If the respondent does not pay the specified person within the deadline set by the tribunal, the order can be enforced through the county court system.

Discussions have been taking place with the insurance sector. A lot of discussions have happened and, indeed, where buildings comply with building regulations or align with the industry-accepted PAS 9980 standards, insurers should now offer affordable premiums and should not prescribe additional remedial works. The Association of British Insurers and its members have stated that premiums should reduce where buildings have completed remediation or have become PAS 9980 compliant in the external wall assessment and have therefore shown a marked risk reduction. We expect insurers to honour their commitments and ensure that premiums are priced fairly and appropriately, given the level of work that will have been done.

With regard to selective statistics, monthly data is now being released that can be seen by all, and the progress can be seen; therefore, rather than selective data, the whole dataset will be available for people to observe. Indeed, when taken together with the transparency and enforcement measures through the enforcement league table, I hope that will allow not just this House and its Members but the wider public to keep up the pressure on remediation, making sure that it all happens at pace.

With regard to additional estimates, the numbers have not changed since they were released as prevalence estimates. The publicly available data suggests that 4,092 residential buildings of 11 metres and over with unsafe cladding are being monitored by DLUHC. This comprises just over 2,500 18 metre-plus buildings and 1,500 buildings of 11 to 18 metres. We will continue to bring more buildings into the remediation scheme and provide monthly updates on that progress as and when we have it.

I thank the two noble Baronesses for their comments and look forward to working with noble Lords to try to make sure that we continue at pace to make sure that people live in safe homes.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the additional information, but can I press her a little further on the key issue raised by the two noble Baronesses: the pace of remediation? I welcome the action taken last year by the Government to compel 50 major developers to sign the developer remediation contract, but it does not have a timescale. One large London-centric developer, Galliard, says that its remediation plan could take another eight years. That will be 15 years after the Grenfell tragedy. Does my noble friend think that is acceptable? Related to that, under the contract, developers are obliged to report their target dates for each building to my noble friend’s department in their quarterly returns data. So far, the department has not published that data, meaning that leaseholders are unaware of what progress is being made. Can she consider publishing that data, which the department has, so that people know the pace agreed by the developer and her department?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. To start with the second question first, yes, I shall take that back to the department. Given that transparency is a tool that we are using, it would make sense to make that communication transparent. I shall report back to my noble friend on progress on that.

On whether I personally think that developers taking eight years to fix this is acceptable, absolutely not. These are people’s homes; they need to feel safe. The reason why that new money has become available for regulators is to ensure that enforcement action can happen and to increase the pace of the change that is required, ensuring that remediation takes place as soon as possible. Therefore, I suggest that, if there are specific instances, noble Lords should speak to the department so that we can make sure that pressure is put on.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

In connection with building remediation, has the department any estimate of instances of potential freeholder insolvency? If a freeholder charged with building safety remediation becomes insolvent, what provisions will the Government make to ensure that those costs do not fall on the leaseholders?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for that question. I shall have to write to him with the answer, on the basis that I do not have the data with me.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, did I hear the Minister say that, in respect of buildings higher than 11 metres, 87% had a remediation plan that would be delivered by 2028? Could she clarify what she said?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

The 87% refers to the registered providers of social housing, which report that remediation work is due to be completed in 87% of buildings with cladding-related defects by September 2028.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

So that is for buildings of 11 metres that are social housing. There are two questions that arise from that. First, if it is in respect of social housing alone, what about non-social housing blocks? What is the equivalent figure there? The second, stark issue raised, given that, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, it is already seven years after Grenfell—so in 2028, it will be 11 years after Grenfell before that 87% is dealt with—is the other 13%. It is a sizeable number, and that is in respect only of the most pressing cases, in social housing, which may have been less well maintained. What is the position for the other 13%? Are there schemes agreed that will take longer, or is there still a proportion for which there is no scheme? Either of those situations is, of course, completely unsatisfactory.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I have numerous statistics in terms of the number of buildings that are involved in this programme. Of course, what we know is how many of those buildings over 18 metres are left without a programme or have completed their programme. Some 10 are left, and they all have programmes in place, so they will be completed as soon as possible. The highest-risk ACM cladding buildings are being dealt with, so we will get very close, in that 98% of them have now started or completed their works.

On buildings of lesser height, of 11 to 18 metres, because the fund was established only last July some of those buildings will not be known to us. We are still working on an estimated number for those requiring remediation. In England, that number is somewhere between 6,220 and 8,890. That figure is based on an estimation and, therefore, a methodology behind it. We expect those numbers to come forward as that fund is called on; as people utilise it to put pressure on the owners of those buildings to deal with this, we expect that number to rise.

I shall come back to the House regularly to update it on progress. We believe that pressure is the right way here, and pressure across the House is definitely the right way to keep up the work and get this done at pace.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister has indicated a number of times that the Government are focused on buildings over 11 metres in height and suggested that other buildings are not really a priority. Is she aware of the Moss Hall Grove fire in Finchley, north London, a few weeks ago, where four terraced houses went up in flames astonishingly quickly? There were 70 firefighters there and a significant number of engines had to be called to this blaze. Luckily, it happened at 10.30 am, so eight people were able easily to flee the circumstances, but this has led Barnet Council to recognise that there are significant problems particularly with timber-framed homes with plastic cladding on the outside. This one council in north London has identified 580 low-rise homes in need of urgent remediation. These are mostly 1930s to 1960s-built timber-framed homes with uPVC panels fitted in the 1980s. Are the Government looking into this issue? The identification of 580 homes in one London borough suggests a very large problem across the country.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question; however, I do not have any data with me on that. I will make sure that the department looks into it and I will write to her with an answer.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as deputy mayor for fire in London. With respect to the Minister, using such terms as “at pace” and “as soon as possible” when things are taking so long after the Grenfell Tower fire seems a little tardy to some of us in this House. Building safety in London and across the country is still a fundamental issue. There is still shoddy practice and that is not just historic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, the time of day matters in this. I raised the fires in Barnet in the debate earlier today and previously with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I would be really grateful if the department could respond to Barnet Council on the issue of the properties referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but the time of day should not matter in terms of building safety or risk to life. Do the Government include the time of day that an issue might happen in their fundamental assessment of risk to life in relation to building safety? It really does matter in practice.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Again, I will ensure that the department briefs us and we will be able to come back in writing on the situation in Barnet. I will check what the independent individual has told us with regard to that risk to life and whether that involves an assessment of the time of day. I am afraid I do not have that information, but I am sure somebody in the department does.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, I seek a little more clarity on timelines. Do the Government have a deadline by which remediation must be complete? If they do, what is it? If they do not, does the Minister think it is sensible to set one?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

At this point, “as soon as possible” is the deadline and therefore no excuse is a good enough excuse for this not to be happening in any identified building right now, in order to ensure that people are safe. As to whether it needs to happen as this progresses, we have doubled the number of buildings that have been made safe in the last year. If that does not continue to progress and, indeed, potentially quicken, then, on that basis, I imagine that the department will start to investigate whether other measures are needed.

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

As a department, DLUHC has many priorities and, necessarily, a limited budget. Can the Minister tell us where in the list of departmental priorities the cladding safety scheme features? Will all eligible buildings be covered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Of the funds that have been made available, there are a number for different sizes of buildings; the fund for buildings between 11 and 18 metres was available from July last year. Therefore, from that perspective, everyone is open to being able to use them. Regarding how the issue sits as a priority, it certainly sits with me as a priority and, as a new Minister in the department, I will ensure that I do everything I can to monitor progress. The monthly data will be checked and we will put pressure not only on developers but on the enforcement side, with regards to the regulators and the local authorities working hand in hand.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I raise an issue relating to what has happened with high-rise buildings since the Grenfell tragedy. This week, the Independent reported that, in high-rise buildings that have been declared safe, substantial numbers of leaseholders and residents are seeing massive increases of up 1,000% in insurance premiums. To give an example, there is a one-bedroom flat occupied by a single parent and a baby where the insurance has gone up over two years from £274 a year to more than £2,600, making it essentially unaffordable. Will the Government look into why, if buildings have been declared safe, the insurance premiums are going through the roof? Surely risk to life and risk to the fabric of the building, which the insurance primarily relates to, have to be interrelated?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

If there are instances where that is the case, then you can either work with our department, or directly through the Association of British Insurers to alert them to the fact that it is happening. There is an agreement with insurance companies that, if remediation work has been done, the insurance premiums should not be excessive.

With regards to other parts of the insurance market and those buildings which have not yet had full remediation work done, they are also expected to be working with residents to ensure that insurance is affordable. There is a fire-safety reinsurance facility led by the Association of British Insurers, which reinsurance brokers can utilise. There are a number of insurance-led schemes which are supposed to be helping. If noble Lords know of any instances where they are not, please let us know.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

Can the Minister say if there is an intention in government to seek recompense for the taxpayer from the people who are responsible for this crisis?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

We believe that those responsible for these buildings need to be the ones who ultimately pay for this, so the answer is yes.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I want to press further on the business of insurance premiums. Did the Minister say that there was an agreement with the Association of British Insurers that, once remediation work had been completed, there would not be any net increase in insurance premiums? That does not appear to be happening at the moment, so what enforcement action will the Government take, if that is the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Sorry, bear with me for a second. I need to go back to an earlier section—I have ripped all my papers out and therefore they are in the wrong place—to allow me to help the noble Lord.

The commitment made by the ABI and its members is that the premiums should reduce where buildings have completed remediation, or have achieved the PAS 9980-compliant external wall assessment, and have therefore shown a reduction in risk. We are working with the insurers to build a better understanding of these building standards, and we expect insurers to honour their commitments and ensure that premiums are fairly priced and appropriate to the level of risk after remediation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Since there is time, I will follow through on that—for public information, really. If it is not happening, and if we have a case such as the one I cited, from £270 to £2,600, who does an individual or a campaigning organisation go to in the Government? What are the actual steps to say that this is not happening and the ABI is not delivering? What is the mechanism that can be implemented?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

In the first instance, I suggest that they go to their insurance company directly and notify it of the requirement that this should be fair and assessed based upon the existing current risk rather than prior risk. If that does not yield results and the ABI is unable to help, I am more than happy, as the Minister here, to have those sent to me.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

Since there is time, and on this very important point, is the department monitoring the rise in insurance premiums in these properties to allow Ministers to make appropriate policy decisions, and should the ABI not honour its commitments?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I do not know the explicit answer to that. I will check, and anything comes to light that suggests that we are not, I will come back to the House, but I imagine that we are, and if not, I will revert.

Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Swinburne Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Swinburne]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 February be approved.

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

The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 19 February, will, if approved by Parliament, complete the legislative framework for overview and scrutiny committees, and audit committees, of combined county authorities. They make provision about the membership and proceedings of these committees and in relation to allowances for committee members. The regulations also provide for allowances for members of a combined authority’s overview and scrutiny and audit committees.

The wider context of these regulations is that these committees are essential components of the architecture of accountability in combined authorities and combined county authorities. As more powers and resources are devolved to these important bodies and their mayors, the responsibility to ensure sound governance and effective decision-making in the interests of local people becomes ever more important.

Through these regulations we are ensuring that the new combined county authorities have strong and effective overview and scrutiny committees, and we are pursuing a number of further initiatives to develop this architecture of accountability. In particular, we have published the English Devolution Accountability Framework and a scrutiny protocol, and we intend shortly to issue revised statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny.

It may be helpful to say a little more about these initiatives. The English Devolution Accountability Framework sets out how institutions with devolved powers, such as combined county authorities,

“will be scrutinised and held to account … by the residents and voters of their area”,

by local leaders and businesses and, as appropriate, by central government. As part of this framework, the scrutiny protocol in particular sets out how a combined county authority’s or a combined authority’s overview and scrutiny and audit committees hold the institution—and, where there is one, the mayor or directly elected leader—to account.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, we must also recognise that the more powers we give out, the more robust the checks and balances need to be. We are concerned that 14 years of Conservative economic mismanagement, compounded by spiralling inflation and the failure to grow our economy, have hit councils hard. We are keen to ensure that local councils are supported where the Government have failed. We will not expect councils to live hand to mouth, with short-term financial settlements year on year—I think we are now on our sixth single-year financial settlement—which make it difficult for councils to plan. Labour will give councils long-term, multiyear funding settlements so that they can plan ahead, as well as the tools they need to get on with the job. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank Members for their contributions. There were some questions that I may need to come back to in more detail. With regard to the questions that in particular the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the situation in Teesdale—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Teesside.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Teesside—apologies; a lot of briefings have gone on in the three weeks since I joined this department.

As noble Lords will know, the mayor has accepted all the recommendations that the independent panel made in its review. They are in many cases substantial and therefore will take time to implement. But they are sensible recommendations and are in line with the frameworks that we have put in place and are putting in place with regard to the scrutiny protocol. From that point of view, the mayor in that region now needs time to put this into place, and the overview and scrutiny committee needs to step up to make the changes required.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

There are two points to that. My question is not really about what is happening in Teesside; it is about what mechanism the Government now have in place to ensure that the things that led to the Teesside review do not happen again. In the explanatory framework, the Government state that they are not going to “actively” monitor the legislation. Secondly, the protocol is welcome but it is non-statutory, so bodies do not have to apply it to their own overview and scrutiny committee. That is the case, is it not?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

We expect that all combined authorities and combined county authorities, where there is a significant amount of power being devolved, will adopt the best practice that we can possibly put before them. The English Devolution Accountability Framework pulls together all the existing policies and best practice, and indeed we will go further with the scrutiny protocol, plain English guidance and new published outcomes and metrics for areas to be measured by. There will be a new framework, and they will be held to account.

The intention is that this accountability framework will empower local residents and provide them with confidence that devolution is leading to improvements in their area overall. Ultimately, the mayors are accountable to the public, but we believe that the mechanisms need to be there for them to be accountable on a more frequent basis. The Government retain the ability to intervene in exceptional circumstances, but scrutiny and accountability should be led locally. Those are the principles we are applying to this—not just for one authority but for all these authorities, as we devolve the power.

I do not have an exact timetable for the scrutiny protocol; I will write to noble Lords as to when that will become operational. A lot of the work has already been done. Certainly, the scrutiny protocol will apply to all the activities and arrangements of the overview and scrutiny committees in all English institutions with devolved power, including combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, and combined county authorities—again, mayoral and non-mayoral—and with regard to all devolved powers in county councils and unitary authorities that have agreed to devolution deals. It is very comprehensive; they will all be covered by it.

With regard to the payments of allowances and the differences that may be deemed necessary in order to get good-quality people, any payment may be made only in accordance with a recommendation from an independent remuneration panel at that authority. Therefore, we would expect that panel to take the lead on this. The other side of the coin, of course, is that if an existing combined authority does not wish to make any payments, it is not required to do so, but if in the future it should change its mind, it will not need to seek further fresh legislation in order to do so.

In conclusion, these regulations are essential to ensure a robust local accountability framework for the exercise of devolved power by combined county authorities and their mayors.

Motion agreed.

Teesworks Project: Audit

Baroness Swinburne Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the audit arrangements for the Teesworks project, and of whether they are effective for the scale of the work being carried out.

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

The public and private sector bodies engaged in the Teesworks project are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all relevant audit requirements. Additionally, the Government commissioned an independent review of the project, which we published in February. The Tees Valley Mayor is implementing its recommendations, including recommendations 27 and 28, relating to the internal and external audit functions.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, but I honestly think that the people of Teesside deserve better than to be fobbed off like this. The independent review published in January said:

“Based on the evidence from the review the governance and financial management arrangements are not of themselves sufficiently robust or transparent to evidence value for money”.


We are told by Ministers that the NAO does not look at individual authorities, so we questioned on 30 January and 7 March just what the arrangements are for auditing this project, so local people can be reassured about the return their significant investment is giving them. We were promised an answer in writing, which has not appeared. In view of the parlous state of local government audit generally, and the nature of the 28 scathing recommendations set out in the review, an NAO financial investigation seems appropriate. Why are the Government still resisting that?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her supplementary question. I assure her that the letter is on its way; I thought that it was already sent, so I apologise if she has not received it yet. As I outlined in my response to the debate on the regeneration of industrial areas on 7 March, it is not the NAO’s role to audit or examine individual local authorities, and its power would not normally be used for that purpose. I have since looked into this, and expanding its remit previously required the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to grant statutory powers. Therefore, given that we have had a thorough independent review, it is time that we learned from it and implemented those lessons rather than repeat it.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, two businessmen are making multi-millions of pounds of profits on the back of £0.5 billion-worth of taxpayers’ investment, without them putting any of their own cash at risk or taking any liabilities until they are negated against guaranteed income streams. The Tees Valley Review said that these generous contractual arrangements should be renegotiated, as the businessmen are making super-profits at the expense of local taxpayers. Do the Government agree with that finding and the suggested change that needs to be made?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I can assure this House that the mayor has accepted all the recommendations in that report and is enacting them now. We have asked for a report in six months’ time on how much progress has been made. We expect that there will be significant progress, including any renegotiation of those contracts.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. In the debate, I thought that we had established that the mayor was dealing with only a limited number of the recommendations, particularly on governance. There is a whole raft of others that he did not address in his letter. Neither we nor the public in Tees Valley have heard from the Government on what they will do to ensure that proper procedures, which have been undertaken by other local authorities for generations, are adhered to in Tees Valley. Can the Minister reassure us that there will now be a tendering and procurement process that is understandable in the public sector, even though this is a public/private arrangement? Will that take place, particularly given that the Secretary of State just last week transferred to two of the development corporations set up within the Tees Valley money from the local authorities without consulting them?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I assure the House that all procedures are being followed and, where necessary, they are being tightened as a result of the review. Therefore, where the recommendations need changes to be made, they will be made. Indeed, one of the recommendations affects DLUHC and another, more broadly, affects departments in central government. We are dealing with those now, including one for new systems of governance.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, this project relates to the Government’s wider levelling-up agenda. We heard last week that only 10% of the Government’s levelling-up funds have been spent. What assessment does the Minister make of that?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I already have an outstanding question from one of his colleagues on his Benches from the debate last week. I am trying to find the exact numbers for how much is in progress, given that there is lag between the money being allocated and being spent. I am chasing that and will come back to the House as soon as I have the number.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, returning to the Teesworks project, in writing to the mayor—the noble Lord, Lord Houchen—the Secretary of State said:

“Improvement takes time, and where the recommendations related to cultural change especially it is important that sufficient time is given”.


But is it really right to leave a six-month hiatus? Should the Government not monitor what is happening much more regularly than that, given the level of concern expressed by the independent inquiry into what is happening at Teesworks?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Again, I can only give an assurance that this will not be waiting for six months. A number of these actions are required immediately and are therefore ongoing. We will be monitoring it both centrally and locally.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, many years ago when I was leader of a council, if I had acted in this way, I would have faced a surcharge. What sanctions are open against the mayor for the activities he has been involved in?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I need to be very clear that the review did not find any wrongdoing. Some governance issues need to be fixed; they are being fixed. On whether commissioners needed to be put in because there was wrongdoing, that is not the case in this instance. Therefore, time has being given to the combined authority to get its house in order. I am sure, as I have been assured, that it is doing so right now.

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Baroness Swinburne Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, most of whose wise words I agree with. I am grateful to the Minister for our meeting earlier.

The majority of us agree that hateful extremism and hate crimes threaten society and the safety of our communities and undermine social cohesion. I will speak quite plainly today. The Government’s new non-statutory definition of extremism has not been universally welcomed or embraced, and it has created concerns that it will be used disproportionately to target British Muslim communities and organisations that the Government of the day may disagree with.

Singling out a number of mainstream law-abiding British Muslim organisations that have contributed to society over many years sets a dangerous precedent, undermining democracy, religious freedoms and free speech. I echo the words of the noble Baroness about the leaking and briefing that has been taking place over the last few weeks. It was briefed that, for example, the Muslim Council of Britain could be the sort of extremist organisation that the Government must have nothing to do with. The MCB is the UK’s largest Muslim umbrella group. Many of us know and respect its first female secretary-general, the dynamic Zara Mohammed. It is an umbrella group with more than 500 affiliated members, including mosques, schools and charitable organisations. Are the Government saying that they are to be labelled as possible extremists? This can serve only to smear groups and individuals. How will the Government address these concerns, in order to counter fear and division? As we have heard, online extremism is on the rise, but surely, smearing organisations and all those who work within them or benefit from them is not the way to bring about social cohesion.

Michael Gove says that his department will establish a civil service centre of excellence. Who will these people be and where will they be drawn from? Will there be transparency? Will they include people who already have displayed intolerant views, such as William Shawcross, whom the Secretary of State describes as the author of the “brilliant” review of Prevent. In 2012, he was quoted as saying:

“Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future”.


It is no wonder that over 400 organisations refused to engage with him on that Prevent review.

What evidence-based threshold will be applied by this new centre of excellence, especially when compiling lists of organisations and guidance? Will any of these organisations have the right to appeal any decision? It is disappointing that the Secretary of State seems to have ignored civil liberties groups. As we have heard, three former Home Secretaries are against politicising such an important issue. I would also like to know who was consulted in drawing up this definition of extremism.

In the past few years, the Government have refused to recognise or accept a definition of Islamophobia, despite it now being widely adopted across civil society and by all other political parties. They said that they would come up with their own definition. In the past week, they have had problems in condemning racism and misogyny in respect of Diane Abbott. There was even a debate on whether making such hateful remarks constituted racism. Yet they are promoting this new definition of extremism with apparently little reference to minority communities, who have seen a massive increase in racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other hate crimes.

The respected race equality think tank, the Runnymede Trust, described the definition as an “attack on civil society”. It went on to say that it has

“bypassed parliamentary scrutiny and will likely shut down organisations supporting people of colour, who are critical of the government of the day … This definition governs what people are thinking, rather than doing, and will likely silence those who oppose the govt’s position, for example on pro-Palestinian marches and critical race theory. Muslim groups and orgs supporting people of colour will be targeted as a result”.

This is the perception outside, and I have been contacted by numerous faith groups and other community groups who are concerned that, instead of people being brought together, the seeds of division are being sown.

Can the Minister please respond to the concerns I have raised? Does she agree that we need a commitment to bring unity and not division to our society? We certainly need more inter-faith dialogue, not less.

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

I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions. I understand that this is a sensitive issue, and I appreciate the co-operation being shown here today. But as the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, said in his Oral Statement in the other place last week, the UK is facing a rising threat of extremism. The 7 October terrorist attacks in Israel, the aftermath in Gaza and the domestic implications have sharpened our focus on countering radicalisation.

My department has announced that it is publishing a new definition of extremism, which we are discussing today, and a set of cross-government engagement standards to be housed in a new centre of excellence on counter-extremism. To date, the Government’s approach to countering radicalisation has focused on preventing people being drawn into terrorism. However, we have not yet taken a comprehensive and strategic approach to preventing a wider cohort of people being radicalised into extremism. Hence, these are vital interventions at this challenging time, and the Government must ensure that they have the tools they need to tackle this ever-evolving threat. I really am grateful for that cross-party support.

I can reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hussein-Ece, that the announcement is the culmination of a concerted cross-government endeavour, bolstered by the expertise of external agencies and practitioners. The ways in which extremist agendas are pursued have evolved since extremism was first defined by government in 2011. As such, government’s approach must evolve, too.

The new definition of extremism seeks to limit the advancement of extreme ideologies and ensure that open debate can take place unfettered by those who seek to exploit our freedoms—or, indeed, overturn them. The new definition is more specific, allowing us to better target extremists in this changing landscape while avoiding unnecessary overstep into public debate and the freedom of expression. This has always been a tricky balance but, with clear thresholds and thorough guidance, I hope that we can support the first duty of government to keep citizens safe and the country secure.

The definition will capture only those individuals, organisations and groups that are driven by ideologies of hatred, violence or intolerance and intend to negate or destroy our fundamental rights, overturn or undermine our democracy, or intentionally provide a platform for those that do. I appreciate that the speakers agree with that premise. Importantly, as mentioned by the noble Baronesses, the definition does not capture those who advocate for democratic change to rights and freedoms and does not seek to restrict lawful protest or debate.

Community engagement is a fundamental part of the work of UK ministerial government departments. We are proud to engage with groups and individuals from across the country, with charities and community organisations and directly with local people. Our external engagement can strengthen our democracy, our policy-making and our society, and we agree with the Benches opposite that nothing should weaken this legitimate engagement with our communities. However, through the independent review of Prevent, we know that, if best practice is not followed, the UK Government’s engagement with communities and external groups can inadvertently provide a platform, funding or legitimacy for individuals, organisations or groups that oppose our shared values. If we do not tackle this, this allows extremists of all ideologies—this is not aimed at one part of society—to exert greater influence and be legitimised and publicly emboldened.

To ensure that we maximise the many benefits of engagement and minimise the risks, the definition is being published alongside a set of community engagement principles that central government departments will be expected to consider when undertaking external engagement or providing funding. These will enable officials to make carefully considered, risk-based judgments about the individuals and groups with which they could or should engage. Their implementation across government will ultimately enhance and, I hope, broaden our external engagement practices.

I can respond to concerns raised by the noble Baronesses about scope. It is focused on central government and does not apply to local authorities or public bodies. However, all local authorities have a duty to ensure that public money is being spent effectively and not wasted or misused and, as such, are expected to undertake their own community engagement and due diligence appropriately and responsibly. The extremism definition is not a statutory definition and does not create new powers but instead helps the Government and our partners to target existing powers better. The definition and principles will apply to engagement, including funding undertaken in England, Scotland and Wales by UK Government ministerial departments. Engagement undertaken in Northern Ireland is exempt due to the unique political and historical circumstances, and the definition of principles does not apply to the engagement undertaken by the devolved Administrations themselves.

I turn to the processes that I was asked about with regard to the centre of excellence. It is important that we tackle the threat of domestic extremism, and we are setting up a counterextremism centre of excellence, which will become a world-leading authority on best practice, data and research in this field. The new centre of excellence will be housed in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and will provide leadership for departments’ operations and implementation of the definition. The cross-government engagement principles and extremism-related due diligence process will in time be the home to new counterextremism assessment and analytical functions and capabilities, as and when the budget and the staff are employed. Since its inception, the team, many members of which have moved over from the Home Office, has been undertaking community engagement in each local authority to get to the heart of the issues our country faces today and explore how we can support these local authorities holistically. In response to the question of who ultimately decides: as joint leader for countering extremism, the DLUHC Secretary of State and the Home Secretary will make the final decision on who will be added to the list. This will be based on the recommendations made using the evidence gathered and analysed by the subject experts.

I was asked whether there would be a right to appeal. During the process of identifying these groups, they will have the opportunity, before things are made public, to provide mitigating evidence, which will then be analysed before a decision is taken. Following publication on a list, if anyone believes our judgment is wrong, as in any case where it is believed that the Government have acted unreasonably, the option of judicial review is always available. Indeed, DLUHC is finalising the process for reviewing the inclusion of names of extremist organisations and groups on the list so that they can come off it in appropriate circumstances. For example, this could be based on a change of position, such as an individual’s, an organisation’s or a group’s efforts to refute or rescind any previously extremist behaviours. We plan to appoint a new, independent anti-Muslim hatred adviser. It is important to get this appointment right, and it is currently going through due process. I hope to update your Lordships very soon. I can confirm that an investigation has been launched into the leaked information as of last week.

While the Government and their partners have worked tirelessly to combat extremism through the updated Prevent and Contest counterterrorism strategies, the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the integrated review, the pervasiveness of extremist ideologies in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks has brought the need for further action into sharper focus. We are trying to put that in place as part of, and accompanying, our broader counterextremism strategy. I hope the Secretary of State will make further announcements regarding this in the coming weeks. I look forward to coming back to this Dispatch Box to update your Lordships’ House imminently on what that strategy will be.

On the hate crime action plan, the Government do not intend to publish a hate crime strategy. We keep our approach to tackling hate crime under constant review, and we remain committed to protecting all our communities from crime. We fund the national online hate crime hub, a central capability designed to support local police forces in dealing with online hate crime. As to whether this will apply to online extremism more broadly, assessing that online activity will be in scope of the definition where the law allows.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hussein-Ece, for their comments and questions on this sensitive issue. I look forward to continued co-operation as we implement this across government and further develop the counterextremism strategy over the coming weeks and months.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this new definition, in particular its focus on protecting our parliamentary democracy. I was pleased to be consulted on it in my role as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. It was helpful to hear the Minister set out the process for ensuring that organisations deemed to be extreme and included on the list which emerges have sufficient chance to engage and put their case.

It is worth reminding the House that it was a Labour Communities Secretary who made the decision on non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, which has stayed in place for much of the previous 14 to 15 years, on the basis that the then deputy general secretary of that organisation endorsed a call by Hamas for attacks on foreign troops, including British troops, so this has not come out of the blue. Nevertheless, the process of who ends up on the list is really important. Does the Minister have an update on how long the Government anticipate that process taking before a list can be published?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

We are just finalising the criteria regarding how this will be measured, what the metrics are, and how the evidence will be compiled and then decided. As and when that happens, we would expect to complete this within weeks and certainly as quickly as we possibly can.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the proposition that my enemy’s enemy is my friend is probably one of the most wrong-headed and dangerous in politics. I am proud that over the past few years, when the Jewish community marched first against Mr Corbyn and more recently in favour of and to support Israel, we have absolutely rejected the far-right extremists trying to hijack our demonstrations because they think we have a common opponent. That is a completely wrong-headed and dangerous thing to do, because we all know that, ultimately, all extremists want to take us to the same place: to divide communities and to undermine our democratic process. Does my noble friend the Minister therefore agree that what fundamentally underpins this definition of extremism is a distinction between those who want to work within our democratic process, albeit perhaps to change it, and those who seek to undermine the democratic process, which is the foundation of all civilised debate and safe living for all communities in this country?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Absolutely. I totally agree with my noble friend; I am sure most people in this House do as well. We are in a period of heightened tensions. Anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate crime levels are at an all-time high. Flags, symbols and graffiti are all causing division and stoking fear locally, and now is the time to tackle this issue head on. The definition tries to ensure that it focuses on extremism that is founded in hatred, violence or intolerance, and which poses a threat to our rights and our freedoms. It does not matter where it comes from: we need to tackle it and try our best to stop it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I too believe that this is very important. Clearly it is right that the Government look fully at the risk of extremism. I worry about the definition and some potential unintended consequences. I note the Minister said that organisations that felt they were unfairly affected had recourse to judicial review. Given that this Government have been chuntering about use of judicial review, I am glad to see that they now think that it has a positive benefit.

I want to ask the Minister about one point in the Statement issued by her department, which talks about this work complementing the Government’s updated Prevent guidance. I am puzzled by the guidance issued last year, which lists socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on the Prevent list of terrorism warning signs. A section on the left wing goes on to say:

“Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause”.


I am not sure whether I call myself a socialist. Members of the Labour Party probably would not describe me as a socialist and my local branch definitely would not—it would find other ways to describe me. However, that seems to show some of the risks of Prevent making these quite alarming statements and, because of what Mr Gove has said, their maybe being translated into the extremism definition. I would be grateful if the Minister would at least look at how this relationship will operate.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I certainly will undertake to do that. The sole purpose of bringing this under one umbrella is to ensure that all departments treat this with the same lens. They will have the same evidence- based methodology and the same basis for making decisions, and we will then ensure that that is across all departments. This is the method by which we will bring all that together so that all departments say the same thing and treat people equally.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. The New British Union describes itself as the fastest-growing far right organisation. What criteria were used to determine that it should not be included on the list? For those organisations that are included on the list, if an individual says publicly that they have left such an organisation, will the Government engage with them immediately, or after a year or in five years’ time? What timescale will the Government use after someone has been directly connected with one of the five current organisations, or however many it ends up being, for non-engagement? Is there a specific timescale in which the Government will choose not to meet, associate with and recognise individuals from those organisations?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I can answer part of the question, but the other part is yet to be worked out in terms of the detailed processes. The Secretary of State referred in the other House to the types of groups and extremism that we are concerned about. This was not in any way an exhaustive list and it certainly was not “the” list. The process of making those assessments, following the evidence and collecting all the data is ongoing. It has not been completed and therefore there is no list. I will be able to share that with the House as and when that work is completed.

On someone who has left an organisation, rejected the ideology and now wants to be considered in a different light, I suspect that will need to be on a case-by-case basis, and the evidence and data will need to follow it. There will be experts in the group who will be able to make that judgment. I suspect they have not yet got far enough down the processes to determine the timeline.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, there have been examples, recently and in the past, of Conservative politicians making unfounded allegations, particularly against Muslims, that have resulted in the paying of damages. Words have consequences, such as death threats, damage to reputation, loss of livelihood and mental ill-health. This new extremism definition could be abused to make false allegations that inflict lasting damage. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that power and position are not abused?

I am also very worried about the safety of Muslim women. Last Wednesday, a Muslim woman came to see me. On the eve of the definition being released, she was subjected to hate crime on the Tube on her way home. She has reported it to the police but most Muslim women do not do so. I am really worried about the safety of Muslim women. When will the Government start to engage with Muslim women’s groups? How many have the Government engaged with? I run the only national Muslim women’s organisation, so I declare that interest. To date, we have had no engagement.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I will commit to replying in writing on how many of those groups the department has engaged with. The Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is responsible for that engagement with those faith groups so I will ensure that we collate the information and write to the noble Baroness.

If anybody uses inappropriate language it should be condemned and called out immediately. I personally would feel comfortable doing that. However, I will confirm that anybody who is an elected representative will not be on the list.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will make two points. First, I think there was an overlap between some of the work that the Intelligence and Security Committee has been doing about foreign interference in British politics and the dangers this is trying to address. We all know that internal politics in Pakistan spills over into British cities, with Tehreek and others. There are close links between some of our communities and political parties in Pakistan; we need to watch that. I have done all my politics in West Yorkshire, and I am certainly concerned at the extent to which the growth of Hindu nationalism within India may also spill over into British communities. We certainly need to be very concerned about that; we have seen one or two instances already.

I am even more concerned about the extent to which the rise of extremely well-funded anti-democratic right-wing groups within the United States might spill over into this country, with money from those right-wing organisations trying to influence British politics. We have just seen a former leader of the Conservative Party attending a very right-wing conference in Washington, standing with people whose loyalty to democratic principles is extremely doubtful, and not being sent into suspension by the Conservative Party. That worries me considerably, and we all need to think about it. On a cross-party basis, we need to think about how we conduct our democratic debate.

That leads to my second point, which is that if one looks at opinion surveys, one sees that we face a public in Britain who are now more disillusioned with our parliamentary democracy than we have seen in our lifetimes. That breeds extremism, particularly among those who are unskilled or unemployed, or who have done badly in school. That is not entirely new; in the first election I fought, in Huddersfield in 1970, I had a National Front candidate against me, and it made for a very nasty campaign on occasions. We are well aware that unless we as democratic politicians make sure that we mind our language as we compete with each other in the forthcoming election, and do something to improve the quality of our democracy and encourage greater participation in it—membership of all political parties has gone down over the last 20 years—we will leave the bed out of which extremism grows there for it to grow. That is a problem which, before and after the election, all of us in all parties need to address.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I acknowledge the noble Lord’s comments and recognise many of them. For me, there is no boundary as to where this goes. If somebody is practising extremism that matches the definition—that it is founded in “violence, hatred or intolerance” and poses that threat to our “rights or freedoms”, or our liberal democratic positions that uphold them—they need to be called out. It does not matter whether they are far left or far right, or another other colour or description you would give in between. DLUHC has worked with the Home Office and other government departments, including arm’s-length bodies, agencies and practitioners confronting extremism in our country, as part of this review, so anybody who has had any role in doing this has come together to try to get this definition across the line and to now support the strategy, which will be made public in the next few weeks.

Everyone has a right to freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that we will always protect in this country, but obviously there are limitations to that if it does damage to others. The definition does not single out single subjects as inherently extremist, but calls for that careful assessment of evidence in relation to any individual organisation or group. In each case, the question is whether they are taking action to advance or promote that ideology with the “violence, hatred or intolerance” in mind. It is very specific, but it is likely to cover a broad swathe from all different parts of the spectrum. I reassure the noble Lord that the expert group will look at this in detail, and will apply the same metrics across the board.

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the reassurances she has given. In our time in the European Parliament, when we served together, I admired my noble friend for her moderate and well-balanced views. But the overwhelming perception of Muslim communities at the moment is that this latest statement by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up is a way to silence them—to stop public discourse. It is extremely worrying. I cannot stress enough just how upset people are; there has to be a way to allay those fears.

Organisations have been named publicly; what evidence has there been to deem them extremist? Would that evidence stand up in a court of law? Where does it all end? If I stand here one day and say, “I believe that there should be an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem should be lifted, in a process towards peace and mutual recognition”, and if some people feel that to be extremist in some way, how does that impact any kind of public discourse? I have grave concerns about the way this has been put out and articulated, and the communities that it will impact the most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that those documents being leaked is really unfortunate, and has had some damaging effects. I assure the House that the list does not currently exist; the evidence and data are being compiled, and therefore an assessment will be made in due course. There is no list at this point in time. As and when it is appropriate, I will come back and present that context to your Lordships’ House.

I have heard the messaging that the Muslim community is finding this difficult. The way in which it has come out in the media has caused some issues. But it is really important for me to say at the Dispatch Box that the Muslim community makes an enormous contribution to British society, and has done so for centuries. Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people worldwide; we need to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between those who practise Islam and Islamist extremists. Therefore, we need to differentiate between them.

Rightly, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we stand for British Muslim communities; we maybe need to accelerate and emphasise that a little more. Some of that will be by working with those Muslim communities and, indeed, in the support we give to some of those Muslim groups. We certainly need to encourage most of those groups to come forward to work with us to counter extremism. I think this gives us the ability to work with a broader, more diverse group of individuals, to try to see whether we can make a bigger difference. I thank the noble Baroness for the question.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I just think it is important that the record is straight; I was very taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said about the length of time. An organisation that in the past had somebody associated with it, who is no longer there, continues to be smeared. I mention this because the noble Lord, Lord Walney, mentioned a name—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I am on my feet speaking; I would like to finish, if the noble Lord does not mind. An organisation is smeared if it is continually associated with somebody who has not been involved for over a decade. It is really important we have that distinction. I urge the Minister to look into that closely. That is being said; it was said here about somebody who was involved, who supported Hamas 10 years ago, and it is not fair to continue that in the present day, to keep that on the record.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I confirm that the list has not yet been generated. As and when it is, I expect it to be on current, up-to-date data and evidence. I can therefore reassure the noble Baroness that that is what I will be looking for.

Local Regeneration: Industrial Areas

Baroness Swinburne Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for tabling this important debate on local regeneration of former industrial areas across the whole of the United Kingdom. We have visited a very large swathe of the United Kingdom in today’s debate, also talking about the challenges constraining such regeneration. I thank all noble Lords for their considered and insightful contributions today, some of which I agree with—not all, but I am sure that we can work our way through them.

I too grew up in a former industrial area, in south-west Wales. I went to school during the miners’ strike as the granddaughter of a miner. I spent a large number of my years as an MEP supporting Welsh economic developments through the EU’s convergence funds, looking at how you regenerate some of those industrial areas. Therefore, I have some first-hand experience, share your Lordships’ aspirations for these areas and support their redevelopment.

However, as we all know, over the last 50 years the UK has seen fast and extensive deindustrialisation, with a lasting impact in many areas, including, as we have heard, the north, Yorkshire and the Humber, my own country of Wales and certainly the Midlands. That is to name but a few. We have heard today even more examples of where this has happened.

Although London and much of the UK have flourished under the new economic trends, former industrial centres that were once the beating heart of the Industrial Revolution have struggled, and continue to do so. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and all sorts of other noble Lords here, that this is not right. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, average wages in London in 2019 were 60% higher than those in Scarborough and Grimsby, with the top 10% of earners in London earning nearly twice as much per hour. Half of working-age adults in London and Brighton have university degrees, compared with less than one-fifth in places such as Doncaster or Mansfield. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge to regenerate these former industrial areas, and that is precisely why we have made it central to this Government’s levelling-up agenda.

I know that the noble Lords will have heard this before, but it bears repeating: for this Government, levelling up means ensuring that your life chances are not determined by where you grow up. It means addressing entrenched regional disparities to unlock economic growth everywhere and ensuring that people benefit from these rises in living standards and well-being. Nowhere is this more important than in our post-industrial heartlands—places where once, a location meant a life path. Now, while celebrating the cultural history and heritage of these places, we are committed to unlocking their full and wide-ranging potential.

Before turning to specific issues that noble Lords have raised in the debate, I will talk through some of what the Government are doing to try to make this happen. We are rolling out gigabit broadband across the UK; introducing education investment areas; opening freeports; increasing the national living wage; launching the long-term plan for towns and the anti-social behaviour action plan, while recruiting more police officers; and, importantly, delivering through our extensive local growth funds, including the levelling up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund. Through the third round of the levelling up fund, we are investing a further £1 billion in 55 projects across the length and breadth of the UK.

As many noble Lords have mentioned, we are using the levelling-up needs metrics to target funding at the places that need it the most, ensuring that every part of the country benefits. Multiple projects in former industrial areas are benefiting, such as the £20 million South Shields riverside transformation project, the £19.5 million River Tyne regeneration infrastructure project and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, will appreciate, the £19.8 million project in Bradford to support and enhance Keighley’s engineering, manufacturing and economic role in the region, to name but a few. We have granted town deals exceeding £20 million to a number of other former industrial areas. As well as Barnsley, Doncaster and Wakefield, we are including 12 more that were announced yesterday by the Chancellor. They will receive £20 million each to invest in community regeneration over the next decade; it will be led by local people in order to be determined by local need.

Beyond our funds, post-industrial areas in the Midlands, such as Stoke-on-Trent and Mansfield, are being supported by bespoke and intensive levelling up partnerships. Levelling up requires a multifaceted approach, as many noble Lords have said today, from catalysing industrial clusters in the sectors that will drive the future economy to supercharging our city regions, to supporting our struggling towns and local areas.

We know that the challenge is large and recognise that it is not a simple task. It will not be achieved through quick wins. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said, restoring pride in place across all areas of the UK, including those with a strong historic cultural identity, will take time. The current economic context makes this even harder, but even more essential, and so this is why structural and systemic change is so important, not least the empowerment of local leaders. I agree with many noble Lords who have spoken today that local decision-making is best. To this end, we have set ourselves a clear mission that, by 2030, every part of England that wants one will have a devolution deal, with powers at, or approaching, the highest level of devolution, with a simplified, long-term funding settlement.

Since 2022, we have announced nine new devolution deals, many of which are for post-industrial areas. These include, as many noble Lords know, a new mayoral combined authority deal for York and North Yorkshire, as well as Hull and East Yorkshire, the first ever mayoral combined county authority deal in the east Midlands and a second mayoral combined county authority deal announced with Greater Lincolnshire.

This May, the north-east will become the first region to be entirely covered by a mayoral devolution. A new north-east mayoral combined authority will be established, which will mean that every person in the north-east will have their own authority and elected leader, making decisions in their best interests. English devolution currently covers about 14.2 million people, taking the proportion now covered by a devolution deal to greater than 64%—up from 40% just a few years ago.

I turn to some of the other issues that were raised. We also recognise the challenges facing the local government sector and have committed to reducing the complexity of local government funding. I note the comments from many noble Lords. We have listened to local partners. In July 2023, we published our plan to simplify the funding landscape. Through this, we are delivering a more transparent, simple and accountable approach to funding and we are beginning to put this into action. For example, we have adopted a new approach to the third and final round of the levelling up fund, which has moved away from competition and made use of the large number of high-quality bids submitted in round 2. This was designed to reduce burdens on applicants and maximise efficiency.

Similarly, the UK shared prosperity fund provides local authorities more flexibility with a three-year allocation that they can choose how to spend on local priorities or projects. The most recent local government finance settlement for 2024-25 makes some £64.7 billion available to councils across the country—an increase in core spending power on 2023-24 of up to £4.5 billion or 7.5% in cash terms. We appreciate that they have more work to do and are therefore trying to fund them appropriately.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Secretary of State made an outrageous statement this week about local authorities using consultants. They are used mostly to put together the very bids that the noble Baroness just set out. Can she please take back to the Secretary of State that it is absolutely wrong to criticise local government, which is starved of resources anyway for the reasons we all know about and is desperately trying to get hold of some of the funding to which she referred? The only way that local government can do this is by bringing in consultants to put its bids together; it does not have the resources otherwise. I ask the noble Baroness to take that back to the department and get it to think about this again.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I give the noble Baroness that assurance: I will take that back to the department. It is my first week in the department, so I do not have an answer for her now, but I will speak to the civil servants and my Secretary of State.

I will continue. The settlement includes additional measures for local authorities in England, announced on 24 January, which will be worth an additional £600 million. We are trying to provide local authorities with as much bespoke support as possible, knowing that they have more jobs to do to deliver some of these programmes.

The work that we have done to create a climate for investment through the development of our freeports and investment zones programmes will drive up living standards and regenerate selected areas. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and some others, I think that the freeport initiative will be a source of jobs and investment. So far, we have created 12 freeports, eight of which are in former industrial areas—including in Teesside, the east Midlands, the Humber, Plymouth and the Solent—two are green freeports in Scotland and two are in Wales. All are now open for business and creating jobs.

Freeports are all about securing economic futures, and that of the UK as a whole, by reorienting regional economies towards innovative, low-carbon sectors such as renewables and advanced manufacturing. I believe that we are already seeing some movement here, with 6,000 jobs expected to be created and £2.9 billion of investment promised. They are also creating high-quality jobs across the UK, right in the communities where they are needed most.

Meanwhile, our investment zones programme recognises that the UK has underperformed in leveraging the success of key industries and certain research strengths, so they will be established in places with significant unmet productivity potential, many of which have a rich industrial history. For example, the zones in South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and the north-east of England are focusing on clusters associated with advanced manufacturing, nodding to their industrial heritage while investing further in high-potential industries of the present and the future.

The Government recognise the crucial role played by the private sector in the levelling-up agenda through schemes such as investment zones and freeports. We aim to enable and empower the private sector to increase investment, jobs and growth at a local level. Good quality, self-sustaining growth will be delivered through capitalising on the growing industries of the future. That includes manufacturing, where our funding is targeted to ensure that UK industry copes with the fundamental changes to remain at the forefront of the global transition to net zero. We are committed to growing the economy and ensuring that funding does not focus solely on the most successful sectors today but looks ahead as we keep pace internationally and build the UK’s expertise for the industries of the future.

In acknowledging many noble Lords’ close ties to the north-east region, I am delighted to draw attention to the recent announcement of a £40 million funding package to accelerate Teesside regeneration. Middlesbrough, alongside Redcar and Cleveland, will receive £20 million each—a total of £40 million—to help ramp up improvements, with targeted projects planned to revitalise high streets, healthcare, transport and education, and to create more affordable housing.

Finally, in County Durham, where I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, served as Member of Parliament, the market town of Bishop Auckland, which expanded to serve the coal industry, has been awarded £53 million from the Government’s future high streets fund and towns fund to support its development as a visitor destination of national significance. I look forward to visiting, given that my grandparents come from there. This investment will help diversify and enhance the town centre, improve transport connectivity and provide new skills and enterprise opportunities for young people. I hope noble Lords will acknowledge that that is a fitting response to celebrate the town’s proud industrial heritage.

I have a very large number of questions that I will try to zip through. My handwriting is appalling, so please forgive me if I stumble. I really empathise with the pride that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, has in her home area. It certainly made me think about my upbringing in my area. To date, approximately £1.4 billion in levelling-up funding has been allocated to projects in the north-east and Tees Valley. This funding covers a range of regeneration priorities, including addressing the local skills gap and developing emerging sectors in former industrial areas. Across all three rounds of the levelling up fund, the north-east has received more per capita than any other English region, alongside wider programmes including devolution deals, levelling-up partnerships and our long-term plan for towns. This shows our commitment to level up the region.

I turn to some of the remarks that many noble Baronesses and noble Lords made with respect to the Teesworks controversy. Following the concerns raised about Teesworks and the actions of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, we commissioned an independent external review, which was published on Monday 29 January. This found no evidence of corruption or illegality but made a series of constructive recommendations regarding the governance and transparency of the project. For the two recommendations relevant to central government, we will carefully consider how to support the continued success of the mayoral development corporation across the country and the recommendations regarding the landfill tax. The Secretary of State made a written request to the Tees Valley mayor, asking him to set out how he intends to respond to the panel’s recommendations by 8 March. This has already been done, and we hope to publish all this in a very short time.

I have been asked why the National Audit Office should not examine this. I have a note here to tell me that the NAO’s role is not to audit or examine individual local authorities, and its powers would not normally be used for that purpose. It would therefore be inappropriate to expand its role so significantly by asking it to lead this inquiry.

The panel that did this investigation was made up of individuals with significant experience in assurance and local government. The panel spent months investigating thoroughly, and found no evidence of corruption or fraud. Its report has been published; I am sure noble Lords have all read it, as they have alluded to. It was published a week after we received it. We welcome the constructive recommendations and are actively considering the way in which these relate to central government.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I in no way wish to besmirch those on the panel that conducted the report—they did what they were asked to do—but the report has raised more questions than it has answered and leaves an awful lot still in doubt. It says that

“the governance and financial management arrangements are not of themselves sufficiently robust or transparent to evidence value for money”.

I completely accept what the Minister says about corruption—I have never made an allegation of corruption—but we deserve better in Teesside than, “At least it’s not corrupt”. We wanted an NAO investigation; my understanding is that the NAO has offered to conduct such a review, so I am slightly confused about what the Minister just said, which she has obviously been advised to say. Can she confirm that she will write to us with detailed responses to the questions we have raised? Can we please have a meeting with her or an appropriate Minister and officials?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I will certainly commit to making sure we follow up on this in detail to the noble Baroness. Given that publication is imminent, I hope we can follow up as and when that happens.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I literally have only a minute and a half to finish, and I have about seven responses.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I will happily wait a bit longer if that helps. As part of that letter, because the Minister has said that it is not the job of the NAO to audit this body, will she tell the House whose responsibility audit is?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

As I have just agreed, I will come back to noble Lords with a response on this, and we can follow up in detail.

I will try to flip through a few points; I will not be able to do them justice, given that we have 45 seconds. The reality here is that there are lots of things going on. On the funding allocation through the towns fund, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, asked how much has been spent. The towns fund, one of our flagship local growth funds, is on track to be spent by 2026, and the rates at which the projects are being completed is consistent with the delivery timelines we have already set out. We are aware that major regeneration projects take time to deliver, and it is expected that all the funds not spent at this point will be on track to be delivered.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, referred to the long-term plan for towns. Its key features include an allocative rather than a competitive process over a 10-year period, giving local authorities the flexibility to invest in interventions based on evolving local needs and priorities. I hope that helps with that. There were also various comments on transport. With regard to working with others in the community—the right reverend Prelate raised this—we have all sorts of answers we can give noble Lords. I will follow up in writing to many noble Lords.

I will conclude by saying that we recognise the scale of the challenge to regenerate former industrial areas. We believe wholeheartedly in their potential to thrive, not least because of the pride, spirit and resilience that these communities continue to show. I agree with all noble Lords that this is about people. We need to work hand in glove with local communities to make sure we deliver the regeneration they need. I look forward to continuing discussions and working with all noble Lords to deliver for these communities.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

Can I just make a correction? I asked about not the towns fund but the levelling up fund. Maybe the Minister can write to us and just tell us what percentage of money has actually been spent, and what that might tell us about the machinery of the state and its ability to deliver on any of this.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

As a Minister in the department, I want to know that answer, so I will do that.