Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025.
Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025.
Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.
Homelessness
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we are facing a homelessness crisis in every part of the country, with record levels that have become nothing short of a national disgrace. This Government acknowledge the devastating impact that homelessness has on so many lives. The current situation did not happen overnight; it is the result of long-standing neglect. We are addressing these failures head on with an injection of cash—allocating an extra £233 million to councils directly for homelessness, taking total funding to £1 billion next year—and through the long-term approach of working with mayors and councils across the country. The Government have set up an interministerial group chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, today marks 1,000 days since Royal Ascent was given to repeal the Vagrancy Act. Repealing this outdated law, which punishes people experiencing homelessness and pushes them further away from support, had overwhelming support from every party and every section of your Lordships’ House. Despite this, the last Government, and to date this Government, have not yet commenced repeal, citing concerns over the need for replacement powers, even though the latest report from MHCLG shows that this Act is being used less and less by police forces and that nearly half of them do not use it at all. I ask my noble friend one simple question: when are the Government going to commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her campaigning around homelessness and on this issue. The Government view the Vagrancy Act 1824 as antiquated, cruel and no longer fit for purpose. No one should be criminalised for sleeping rough on the streets. I share her passion for ensuring it is confined to history, where it belongs. We want to ensure we avoid criminalising those who are most vulnerable, while ensuring that police and local authorities have the tools they need to make sure communities feel safe. As we move towards our steps on the Vagrancy Act, we are working closely with the Home Office and local partners. I was pleased that my honourable friend Minister Ali was able to announce yesterday an additional £20 million to deal with severe winter pressures, taking the total to £30 million.
Lord Bird (CB)
Are the Government going to address the fact that we have never learned to turn the tap off? We have more and more people falling into homelessness from different sectors of society—people are having problems all over the place, as the noble Baroness said. My concern is this: we are always going on about the emergency, but where in the background are this Government or the next working on reducing homelessness by turning the tap off and getting rid of the inheritance of poverty, which is what produces most homelessness?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right in what he says. He will know that we have set a target of building 1.5 million homes over the course of the Parliament, which in the long term is the answer to tackling this issue. In the short term, we need to tackle the issue of many children spending years in temporary accommodation, when they need space to play and develop, at the same time increasing the funding to tackle the long-term causes of homelessness and poverty, which, as he rightly says, sit at the heart of this. The Renters’ Rights Bill, which is coming before this House very shortly, will tackle some of the causes of homelessness.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. As the Minister has identified, the primary cause of homelessness is a lack of homes. London has nearly 70,000 families living in temporary accommodation—over half the total in England. Of those, almost half—33,000—live out-of-borough compared with one in seven for the rest of the country. Does the Minister agree that this is largely down to London having failed to build the homes that its residents need? What will this Government do to get London building?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that new targets have been set for building homes across the country, and in London no less. Local authorities use out-of-area placements to provide temporary accommodation, as he rightly mentioned. We are enabling more funding to go into London so that we can reduce the level of temporary homelessness accommodation. However, the long-term solution is to get more houses built, which is why we have increased the housebuilding target for London.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, according to data from the Ministry of Justice, the proportion of all prison leavers who were released homeless in 2023-24 was 13%. Considering that people are 50% more likely to re-offend if they are homeless, what steps are the Government taking to reduce rates of homelessness among prison leavers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right to highlight homelessness for ex-offenders. Since 2021, more than £33 million has been awarded to local authorities to support nearly 6,000 ex-offenders into their own private rented accommodation. The number of individuals still enrolled on the programme and sustaining tenancies is nearly 3,000. The funding provided allows schemes to offer a range of support. It is very important that, alongside housing, we get that support, consisting of rental deposits, landlord incentives, and dedicated support staff with landlord liaison and tenancy support officers. That complements the MoJ’s community accommodation service. The right reverend Prelate is right that housing is key to preventing re-offending.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, worryingly, the total spend on homelessness is unknown, largely due to a loophole in what we call exempt accommodation, which I am sure the Minister is aware of. The usage of this is not tracked, and it is now evident that it attracts some of the worst providers. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will get to grips with this unquantified and uncontrolled spending, and with those who are exploiting some of the most vulnerable people in society and the public purse?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right. It is outrageous that people choose to exploit the individuals concerned in this situation and the councils that have to fund their accommodation. We are doing everything we can to discover the extent of this and to tackle it head on. We recognise the increasing costs of that temporary accommodation and the pressure that it places on council budgets. As well as the homelessness prevention grant, councils are expected to draw from their wider local government finance, as the noble Baroness is aware. The overall local government settlement made extra provision for that, as well as the additional homelessness funding. It is totally unacceptable for homeless people to be exploited. We continue to track that down everywhere we can.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that we have a crisis now with the number of children and young people trapped in bed and breakfast accommodation, in totally unsuitable conditions, which will have an important and deleterious effect on their well-being? On the strategy she outlined, can she say more about the priority that the Government are giving to reducing the number of children and young people trapped in homelessness and to taking them out of that temporary system?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. There is a short-term and very long-term effect on young people who get trapped in temporary accommodation. Councils must make sure that temporary accommodation is suitable for the needs of the household. Households can request a review of their accommodation if they feel it is unsuitable and it an applicant is not satisfied with how the council has handled their case. We have launched emergency accommodation reduction pilots, backed with £5 million, to work with the 20 local authorities that have the highest use of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families. Through the Renters’ Rights Bill, we will be applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector; this includes a clause to bring temporary accommodation into the scope of the decent homes standard.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the Minister may have seen the Sunday Times article by Martina Lees with the headline:
“Our grotty B&B bedroom costs taxpayers £2,383 a month”.
Can the Minister update us on the local authority housing fund, which enables the purchase of rundown properties for use on a temporary basis for temporary accommodation, which will save an enormous amount of money? In the long-term, with ownership by the council or a housing association, those properties can be used for years to come, providing vastly better value for money than the £283 a month for really grotty accommodation in the private sector.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct to flag up that issue, and I thank him for his work on housing and homelessness. The funding that the Government have introduced—the £450 million third round of the local authority housing fund—will support local authorities to get better quality temporary accommodation for homeless families. The third round is expected to deliver over 2,000 homes by 2026; funding will then be provided over the next two years, and will include revenue funding to support councils to deliver that fund. We are putting our money where our mouth is, but trying to resolve a problem that has occurred over many years is taking a great deal of effort. We will continue to strive to make sure that we put an end to the chronic homelessness we have seen in this country. It is time that we made sure everyone has a decent home to live in.
Local Government Reorganisation
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, what local residents want from their local council are good quality services at a reasonable cost, however it is organised. When the Conservatives took control of Harlow Council in 2021, they cut council tax, and have kept it frozen ever since. Under this Government’s new local government funding formula, Harlow will lose approximately 30% of its grant funding next year. Why is the Government’s new formula punishing councils that are keeping taxes down and providing better value for money for taxpayers in their area?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I find it astonishing to hear the party opposite challenging us on funding issues in local government, when it has punished the whole of local government for 14 years in this respect. I agree with the noble Baroness about what the public want from their local government services. They are not worried about the overheads of additional councils; they want to see good public services at local level and good value for money. That is what the devolution and local government reorganisation programme is all about.
The review of the funding formula will happen as we go into the spending review in the spring, and is there to make sure that funding is directed where the need is greatest. That will be what we set out to do. It is what we said we would do in our manifesto, and we will continue to do so. Let us not take any lessons in that from the party that has starved local government and brought it to its knees over 14 years.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats do not accept the assumptions behind Labour’s following the Conservative imposition of directly elected mayors and larger councils across England. It is easier to impose yet another reorganisation than to address tax reforms, public service limitations and trust in democracy. Distant mayors cannot revive local democracy, and cancelling elections will deepen public mistrust. Given that this reorganisation is intended to save money, have the Government factored in the costs, such as redundancy payments, movements of staff and buildings, etcetera? What plans do the Government have to strengthen the role of really local town and parish councils, in which it will still be possible for ordinary voters to get to know their local representatives and for representatives to know their voters?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Lord. I believe that creating councils that can deliver good public services at local level is vital. We have seen from the areas that already have mayors that they have been able to take a strategic approach to delivering vital strategic assets that drive the local economy in their area, which will improve the lives of their residents. On the question he raised about funding, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that there would be a one-off reorganisation cost of around £400 million, but that there would be billions of pounds-worth of savings to the public purse over subsequent years, which could be reinvested in delivering the services that people are looking for.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, the White Paper suggests that the optimum size for a unitary authority is a population of about 500,000. Can I get her assurance that those unitary authorities that are working effectively and efficiently, and providing good local services, and which may be short of 500,000 in their population, will not be unnecessarily disrupted? Furthermore, over the years I have seen so many different optimum sizes being recommended for the provision of local government services. Will she place in the Library the basis of the calculation that the Government have made that leads them to the conclusion that 500,000 is the right figure?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his important question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify some of the misunderstanding around the number that has been given. It was in our manifesto that we would pursue a devolution agenda, and for many months after the Government were elected we were pushed to give an optimum number for the size of a council. Of course, when we did so, everyone said, “Not that number; that’s not the right number.” There is some flexibility around it. The important thing in the whole of this process is that the size, geography and demography of the units created make sense for people. We can be flexible around the numbers, but the number of 500,000 was intended to set out what we feel would be around the right size for the economies of scale and to deliver effective services at local level in a way that gives value for money.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister please inform the House of any work the Government have done on what the practical implications might be of this local government reorganisation on their encouraging plans to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament? Will this reorganisation help speed up the delivery of these homes or, in practice, slow the whole process down? Can the Minister give us a clue as to how this will work in practice as public sector staff look for new jobs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The intention is that this will help with the delivery of both growth and new homes. The intention, as set out quite clearly in the White Paper, is for mayors to have powers over strategic planning—not the local planning that local authorities currently do—so that they can work with the constituent councils in their areas to set out plans for housing. The noble Lord referred to issues of planning. We have put in a significant sum of money to improve the capacity for planning authorities as we take forward the programme of delivering 1.5 million homes.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. On Monday, in Grand Committee, the Minister stated that
“we move into a picture where we have all unitary authorities”.—[Official Report, 13/1/25; col. GC 200.]
Can she confirm that it is the Government’s intention to oblige all county and district areas to unitise?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The process of local government reorganisation will do that. We want to move at a pace that is right for the local authorities concerned. That is why we have set out a four-track approach, depending on where people are with their readiness to go forward. We believe that unitary councils can lead to better outcomes for residents, save significant money which can be reinvested in public services, and improve accountability, enabling politicians to focus on delivering for their residents. Generally speaking, as I said earlier, residents do not care about structures; they just want good public services, delivered at value for money.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, it looks as if the provisional local government finance settlement for 2025-26 will disadvantage rural areas, with the removal of the rural services delivery grant making the situation even worse. What steps are being taken to ensure that the needs of rural communities are being considered in the devolution process and that the strategic policy approaches developed by the combined authorities meet the specific needs of service delivery in our rural communities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question and for his continued interest in rural communities. We believe that part of the process of devolution will mean that the people who are taking the decisions for rural communities will be people who have skin in the game in those rural areas; that is very important. Places with a significant rural population will, on average, receive an increase of around 5% in their core spending power next year, which is a real-terms increase. The rural service delivery grant does not properly account for need, and a large number of predominantly rural councils receive nothing from it. That is clearly not right, and a sign that we need to allocate funding more effectively. We are keen to hear about rural councils, as well as others, as we go through the spending review, so that we can work on what would work best for them in the new funding system.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, no doubt the Minister will be aware of the eye-watering debts of over £2 billion left to the people of Woking by their former Conservative council. What is the level of risk to other local authorities if they are merged with Woking? What analysis have the Government undertaken of chronic failures of financial management, such as Woking, and the likely impact on reorganisations if the Government fail to find a way to resolve a debt of this nature?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that there are councils that may be in scope for this programme which have significant debt. We are working through a programme with those councils—Woking is one of them and Thurrock is another. It should not be for people outside those areas to pick up that debt. This is not helped by the fact that our Government have inherited a broken local audit system. For the financial year 2022-23, just 1% of audited accounts were published by the original deadline. That is not good enough. We are working on fixing that, and we will be working through a process with the councils concerned.
Political Parties: Funding
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent political parties, and activities to promote political parties, from receiving funding from outside of the United Kingdom, and whether they plan to grant additional powers to the Electoral Commission in this regard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to
“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties”.
Foreign money has no place in our elections and the rules already provide clear safeguards against foreign interference. We are considering changes which will help further protect our system from such risks and are engaging with the Electoral Commission as we do so. We welcome the views of and evidence from stakeholders. Details of our proposals will be brought forward in due course.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I very much welcome the Answer from my noble friend but does she agree that true patriots and those who believe in the sovereignty of our democratic system in the UK will want to see off those—whether they are malign state actors or multibillionaires—who seek to interfere in our democracy? Is it not now that we must act to safeguard our future?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend and assure him that the Government take the threat posed by disinformation and foreign actors interfering in our democratic processes very seriously. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference. While it is clear that foreign donations to political parties are not permitted, the Government recognise the risk posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic processes. That is why we will take all necessary steps to ensure that effective controls are in place to safeguard our democracy. I assure noble Lords that we share the sense of urgency, and as soon as we have developed our proposals we will inform Parliament.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Labour Front Bench tabled amendments to the Elections Bill in 2022 that would have granted many foreign nationals the right to vote in both local and parliamentary elections; indeed, the IPPR is suggesting this again. How would Labour be able to restrict such donations? What assessment has been made of the potential influx of foreign donations from Russia, China and Iran as a consequence of the Labour Government in Wales and the Scottish Government allowing their foreign citizens to be on the electoral roll?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the law is already clear that accepting or facilitating foreign campaign donations is illegal. Only those with a legitimate interest in UK electoral events can donate to candidates or political parties. Donations from individuals not on the electoral register are not permitted and strict rules are in place to make sure that foreign money is prohibited from entering through proxy donors, providing a safeguard against impermissible donations by the back door. We are looking at ways to make this even stronger. It is an offence to attempt to evade those rules on donations.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there can be problems with very large donations to political parties, whether they may originate from abroad or be clearly from within the UK, and that the only way to prevent undue influence on political parties is to ban company donations and have a sensible cap on the size of all other donations? Does she then agree that political parties would still be able to campaign effectively if existing public funding was redistributed—for example, from the £100 million spent by the Government in the last two general elections on distributing candidates’ election addresses—and given to the parties to spend as they saw fit?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I take it that that was a question about a cap on donations. That is not a current priority for the Government, but strengthening the rules around donations really is. Political parties play a vital role in our democracy, and it is important that they are able to fundraise effectively and communicate with the electorate as a very important part of our process. By law, it is the responsibility of political parties to take all reasonable steps to verify their donors and whether they are permissible. We will take necessary steps to ensure that those requirements are tightened and stuck to.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, during the Lords stages of the National Security Bill, the last Conservative Government and Conservative Ministers pledged to enhance data-sharing powers to allow public bodies to share data with political parties. That is what we need; it is not about the honest ones who come through but knowing who is coming through a tenuous route, so that political parties are assisted in their due diligence. Can the Minister tell me the status of those plans to provide more information to political parties?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I explained in my earlier Answer, we are reviewing all matters related to electoral donations. Those will be taken into account as we go through the process of developing any new legislation, including the issue raised by the noble Baroness.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
The Minister keeps referring to the fact that foreign donations are not allowed to parties in the United Kingdom but, of course, that is not correct because donations can come from the Irish Republic. In there lies a severe problem, in that funds from the United States, for instance, can be channelled via the Irish Republic into political parties in the United Kingdom with representation in these Houses, so will the Minister and the Government look at that issue?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. Political parties registered in Northern Ireland can also accept donations from Irish sources, such as Irish companies that meet prescribed conditions. Allowing Irish donations to Northern Ireland parties recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland. The rules are consistent with the principles set out in the Good Friday agreement. Irish donations are subject to the same scrutiny by the Electoral Commission as donations from any other permissible donor and if there are any complaints about that, they must be referred to the Electoral Commission.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the last Government extended voting to people who had been out of this country for more than 15 years. That in itself was not very problematic but it meant that they all became permitted donors. People who had not lived in this country for 40 or 50 years could become permitted donors and give money, with absolutely no ability to check on its source. Can my noble friend assure me that when this is looked at, that aspect introduced by the last Government will also be properly scrutinised?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend raises a very important issue. Political parties can accept donations only from registered electors but of course that now includes overseas electors. They are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identity confirmed as part of the registration process, but that very important issue will be looked at as we all look at all matters relating to elections.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the response that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about a full consultation. However, she will be aware that the restrictions on election expenditure were set in the days when one could communicate with the electorate only through leaflets and the like. There are now many different ways of doing so, many of which are very cheap or low-cost. Will the Minister include in the review that she mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, some assessment of the restrictions on expenditure in general for elections at whatever level?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for that question. There is no doubt that the system of campaigning has changed very dramatically, particularly in the last few years with the advent of social media. However, in my experience of campaigning—which spans a number of decades—political parties have adapted their campaigning but have not let go of their traditional methods. So although social media can be a very effective and efficient way of campaigning, we do still rely on some of the traditional methods. But, of course, that will be looked at as part of the review we are undertaking.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, voter registration is at shockingly low levels. Can my noble friend the Minister update the House on implementing automatic voter registration, as was also recommended by the Electoral Commission?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that there are a large number of people still unregistered. When one goes out campaigning it is very clear that there are people who are not registered to vote who probably should be. We all need to address this and look at whatever way we can of making sure that everybody who is entitled to vote is not only registered to vote but takes part in our democracy. That is a very important part of our process, and we will do all we can to increase both voter registration and participation in elections.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report hinted at the very considerable extent of Russian money flowing into British politics, both to some political parties and, of course, during the Brexit campaign. Will the Government consider whether the redacted parts of that report should now be published to inform the public fully?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am happy to look at that. We are very aware that this is a real issue, and we continue to be concerned about it. We will continue to take whatever steps we can to avoid foreign interference in our elections.
Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 November 2024 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 January.
Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 19 November 2024. The other place debated them on 8 January 2025. The regulations relate to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority. Via Section 1 of the Local Government Act 2003, they will enable these authorities to borrow money for use against their relevant functions.
Presently, the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority are already able to borrow against their transport functions, and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is able to borrow against its police and fire authority functions. The East Midlands, as a combined county authority, is unable to borrow against any of its functions.
The regulations before us will enable the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the North East Mayoral Combined Authority and the East Midlands Combined County Authority to make use of borrowing powers for purposes relevant to their current and future functions. This will bring all three authorities in line with existing combined authorities and fulfil commitments made in their original devolution agreements.
On consent, I bring it to the Committee’s attention that all three authorities and their respective constituent councils have given consent to the conferral of borrowing powers. Similarly, the three authorities have agreed their respective debt caps with HM Treasury for 2024-25.
The regulations will also confer the East Midlands Combined County Authority’s constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration upon the combined county authority. The power will be held concurrently with the East Midlands constituent councils; the East Midlands Combined County Authority will be able to exercise the general power of competence only in relation to economic development and regeneration. The conferral of this power will fulfil the East Midlands’ original devolution agreement and enable the combined county authority to support local businesses and charities, as well as strengthening the area’s visitor economy.
As the conferral of the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration upon the East Midlands constitutes a new power, Section 48 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 applies. I can confirm that the requirements under Section 48 have been met, and that the East Midlands Combined County Authority and its constituent councils have consented to this conferral.
I come to the final part of these regulations, which will make amendments to the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations. Specifically, these are by: first, amending a typographical error so that the combined county authority is the local housing authority for housing needs, laundry facilities, shops, recreation grounds and housing purposes, and with respect to buildings acquired for housing purposes; secondly, enabling the mayor of the combined county authority to arrange for a committee of the combined county authority to exercise mayoral functions; thirdly, allowing non-constituent members of the combined county authority to have voting rights in an authority committee; and, finally, clarifying the voting arrangements for the combined county authority, including the requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass its mayoral budget. These amendments have been discussed with the East Midlands and its constituent members, with the councils and the combined county authority consenting to the amendments being made.
These regulations, which are supported by the authorities and their constituent councils, are a necessary step in fulfilling the original devolution agreements that had been reached. Devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change that the public expect and deserve: growth; the more joined-up delivery of public services; and policies being done with communities, not to them. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these are important changes to the devolution in the three mayoral authorities referenced by the Minister. In general, I and my party support devolution, of course, but we remain concerned about the mayoral system being adopted across England because of the way in which it concentrates too much authority and decision-making in the hands of one person. So, it is a “yes” to devolution, but mayoral authority may need some adjustment to make it more democratic, particularly as it is happening in this statutory instrument, with more powers being extended to mayoral authorities—hence budgets becoming enlarged, sometimes substantially. It seems to me that, if there is more capital borrowing, there will be a requirement to fund that borrowing, and there will therefore be an increase in the mayoral precept. My first question for the Minister is this: will there be a cap on either capital borrowing or mayoral precepts so that we understand the extent of the borrowing and the cost to the taxpayer?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this SI is a key step in advancing the devolution agenda, continuing the work set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 under the previous Conservative Government. As we have heard, it extends the borrowing power to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the North East Mayoral Combined Authority and the East Midlands Combined County Authority, empowering them to invest in critical areas, such as housing, regeneration, transport, education and health. This is part of a broader effort to decentralise power from Westminster and empower local authorities to shape their own futures, which His Majesty’s Official Opposition support.
In terms of economic development and regeneration, the regulations grant the EMCCA the general power of competence to support local businesses, tourism and other sectors. This is a notable shift, allowing the EMCCA and its constituent councils to carry out more comprehensive projects, including potentially accessing grants from central government, but we must ensure that, while these powers enable growth and development, there is robust accountability in place to ensure that resources are used effectively and in the best interests of those local communities.
A public consultation was conducted regarding the proposed changes, particularly focusing on the economic development and regeneration powers of the EMCCA. While the feedback was largely positive, with no significant objections, it is important to note that support for these new powers was not overwhelming. The absence of major concerns from stakeholders, including the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, suggests broad acceptance, although this should not be construed as unanimous approval.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. While the regulations aim to empower local authorities, several questions need to be answered to ensure these powers are used effectively and responsibly. On effective devolution, the work of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act promoted decentralisation, but how much autonomy will local authorities truly have under these regulations and at what point will central government oversight become excessive? On oversight, without a statutory review clause noted, how will the Government ensure accountability for these new borrowing powers? Are there safeguards in place to ensure that borrowing is managed prudently? Finally, on regional equity, could the new powers create disparities in regional development, potentially leaving smaller regions behind? How will the Government ensure that these powers, to be granted to certain areas, do not exclude or disproportionately benefit specific regions at the expense of others?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their participation and broad support for this SI. I will address some of the questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the powers of mayors; I simply point to the success of existing mayoralties, delivering real things for their communities that have made a huge difference—in transport, skills and, in some places, health economies—in the areas where people live. Of course, you can only really do that if you are part of the community that you are representing, and the Government’s push for devolution is to help those local areas with skin in the game to have the powers and funding they need to drive their areas forward, particularly for growth but also for the conditions for the people in their areas.
We now have the Council of the Nations and Regions, which is a very important body for driving forward growth in our regions and nations. It is very important that every part of the UK has a seat around that table. That was the thinking behind the English devolution White Paper—it is still out for consultation, so we will see what comes back from that.
On capital borrowing, it will be the responsibility of mayors to drive growth in their areas, but I realise that borrowing will have to be paid back. Debt caps have been agreed with the Treasury. There has been an extensive process to agree them, and it has been done on the basis of what is affordable for those areas within their current envelopes.
The noble Baroness spoke about powers in relation to housing and planning. The English devolution White Paper set out strategic and investment powers, and possibly development corporations that mayors will have powers over. Planning powers on a day-to-day basis will stay with the constituent local authorities, which is right and proper because they are the people on the ground.
The noble Baroness also spoke about local government funding. The last person in the world who would underestimate issues in local government funding is me. I lived with them on a daily basis for many years. There have been substantial steps forward in funding for local government. In spite of a very difficult financial settlement this year, our Secretary of State has achieved significant additional funding for local government. Off the top of my head, I think the figure is £3.7 billion altogether for local government, and I am sure that officials will wave at me if I am wrong. We know that will not solve all the problems. We have to increase growth in the country to improve that situation more substantially. I have just been given a great big written note which I am supposed to read, while I talk at the same time, but that is not possible, so I will answer off the top of my head and, if I do not answer all noble Lords’ questions, I will respond later in writing.
On the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and non-constituent members, the noble Baroness is quite right that we had substantial debates about them during the passage of the Bill. For one type of authority, there are not voting rights, but for the other type of authority, there are voting rights. As we move into the full picture of devolution, there will be further consideration of that. It is right that in mayoral combined authorities the upper tiers will take the decisions. How they decide to involve their constituent members will be broadly up to them. I have heard some really creative ideas, such as having key committees chaired by the constituent councils. As we move into a picture where we have all unitary authorities, I think we will continue to look at that and review it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The three of us are part of the LURB club who sat through many hours debating the Bill. I agree with her about what a key step this is and that the East Midlands Combined County Authority will need to undertake the more comprehensive projects that were set out in its devolution agreement, and it needs these powers to do that. Of course we need robust accountability for all of them.
There was some consideration of consultation, but extensive consultation had already taken place on this so, having looked extensively at what had been done before, it was felt that there was no need for further consultation. I take the noble Baroness’s point that support was not overwhelming, but there was enough support for us to feel comfortable that we could go ahead.
The question about autonomy is important. The way that we have set out the picture in the English devolution White Paper is that, the more established an authority becomes, the more autonomy it will have. It is perhaps the opposite way from what the noble Baroness suggested. Central government oversight will not overwhelm those authorities once they are established. Look at some of our more established mayoral authorities: Greater Manchester is always the standard example and it has extensive powers and funding to lead the way for growth, transport, skills and so on. We want to see that with the more established authorities. The more established they are, the more they prove themselves in terms of accountability of all kinds, especially financial, and the more powers they will get.
On accountability and safeguards for borrowing, that is why debt caps have been set with the Treasury. They have been looked at very carefully. The White Paper also sets out a wider process of accountability which may, depending on what comes back from the consultation, include something like local public accounts committees to have oversight at local level of what is going on within mayoral combined authorities.
I hope that answers all the questions but, if not, I will go through Hansard and make sure that we respond.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I asked how we would ensure regional equity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and apologise for missing that. She will have seen that one of the adjustments we have made to the local government finance settlement that came out just before Christmas was to slightly reshape the spending to meet need. There will be more news on that and more discussion about it as we go into the spending review in the spring.
That is an important point because having a champion for a local area on its own will not be enough. We need to make sure that we are addressing the key disparities, and there are some enormous disparities that we heard much about during the passage of the levelling up Bill in health, employment, standards of living, housing, and so on. The devolution aspect of this project means that local areas have far more autonomy to make the changes that will make a difference to them. The spending review will take all that into account and, I hope, reshape the way that the distribution of finance is done so that we make it more equitable generally. If there are further contributions to the spending review as we go through it, I will be pleased to hear them.
These regulations deliver on the commitment made in the devolution deals agreed with York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority to provide them with borrowing powers against their functions. The conferral of borrowing powers will provide all three authorities with the opportunity to further invest in their services and functions to the benefit of those who live and work across their geographies. In short, I believe the regulations and the powers that it confers will make a significant contribution to the future economic development and regeneration of York and North Yorkshire, the east Midlands and the north-east by providing those three authorities and all the people who look after them with the tools to shape their futures, driving growth and higher living standards across their geographies. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
National Insurance: Employer Contributions
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, refer your Lordships to my registered interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. The devolved Governments will receive funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way in 2025-26. The Welsh Government have confirmed that they will use this funding to help local government in meeting increases in national insurance contribution costs. The Government have also announced £515 million of support for local government in England to manage the impact of changes to employer NICs. The Government have no direct role in funding parish and town councils.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the Government’s announcement of the £515 million NICs compensation package as part of the provisional local government finance settlement, but I am disappointed that they have confirmed that compensation to local government bodies will not extend to town, community and parish councils. Could she explain why it is fair that some elected bodies are given financial support and others are not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I explained, the Government have no responsibility for funding town and parish councils. The Welsh Government’s budget is growing in real terms in 2025-26. In fact, the settlement is the largest in real terms for any Welsh Government since devolution. Currently, the Welsh Government also receive an additional 5% transitional factor as part of the Barnett formula, while they are funded above their independently assessed relative need compared to England to 115%. If they wish to provide further support to town and parish councils, they are able to do so.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, no other country in the world taxes companies to employ people. We do that through our national insurance contributions, which are now going up from 13.8% to 15%. That will hit all our SMEs hard, which are the backbone of our economy. What will the Government do to support our SMEs to compensate for this additional cost—this evil tax—that we are talking about?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have heard a great deal from that side of the House about NICs. If we had not had to fill a £22 billion black hole, we would not have had to do it in the first place. None of us on this side of the House would have made that choice unless we had to. We recognise the need to protect small businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers. The OBR expects 250,000 employers to gain from the changes to the employment allowance and 840,000 to see no change at all. That is more than half of all businesses, including charities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Is the Minister aware that the OBR has said recently that it assumes that most of the Government’s increases in national insurance costs will be passed directly on to workers and consumers? Do this Government still claim to serve the working people of this country, or will they now come clean and admit that they are raising taxes on ordinary working people?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The denial of responsibility from that side of the House is quite astonishing. Public services were broken by neglect from the party opposite for 14 years. I am surprised that they do not see the irony in complaining about the measures we are having to take to sort out that mess, including our commitment to an additional £680 million for social care, further funding for local government and a real-terms boost for local government funding. I would rather hear some other ideas from that side of the House than complaints about what we are doing.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Following the Minister’s response, does she agree that the last Government left a massive deficit in the Budget and that, while they do not like the national insurance increases, they have no suggestions whatever on how to bridge the massive gap that they left us?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. When we start to get some alternatives from the other side of the House, I might be more prepared to listen to their arguments about not putting NICs up.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the National Association of Local Councils. The Government’s new burdens doctrine has been in place since 2011 and is specifically designed to compensate authorities for this sort of situation. I have reread the guidance today and it specifically mentions town and parish councils, so can the noble Baroness explain why the Government are not following their own guidance in this case? Will she perhaps meet me and representatives of the sector to discuss it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am always very happy to meet colleagues from NALC and have done so several times in the past, as the noble Baroness knows. The issue here is that parish and town councils have not traditionally been funded in the same way. It is for upper tier councils to decide. We have provided additional funding for upper tier councils. The local government funding settlement saw a 3.7% real-terms increase in funding. If upper tier councils choose to provide that funding, they are able to do so, but local councils also have the ability to precept, as she will know.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, in the arts, already struggling theatres and museums are among those affected by these changes. What consideration has been given to mitigate this effect in the arts sector as a whole?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Earl raises a key point. We have looked very carefully at charities and the voluntary sector. Many arts organisations have charitable status and there has been significant support in the tax incentives for charities. In fact, charities receive a better tax incentive in this country than in most other European countries. I know that it is not ideal and, as I say, it is not a decision we wanted to take. Unfortunately, the financial situation left to us by the last Government meant that we had to take it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, in Monday’s debate on national insurance, a number of noble Lords raised the issue of special needs transport conducted by local authorities which is contracted out. In his response, the Minister said that £515 million—the figure the noble Baroness has just cited—had been set aside for local government. But that is for local government employees and will not provide support for the additional costs being incurred to provide special needs transport. This is an important area, so will the Minister perhaps look at this again?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that special needs transport has been a significant burden on local government in recent years, and with little help from the last Government. However, in the Budget, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. That includes the £515 million to which he referred to help with national insurance contributions. That £2 billion covers special educational needs home-to-school transport. I am not saying that will totally solve the problem. We have a spending review in the spring where I hope we will be able to look at that even further.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the new burdens approach says that councils should be fully funded. The Minister keeps referring to the £515 million uplift, yet the Nuffield Trust has pointed out that the NICs increases will cost local authorities £900 million. Where is the extra £400 million coming from, and why has it not been handed over by the Government as part of the new burdens approach?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have seen the figures from the Nuffield Trust. The Government have provided additional funding for local government, as the noble Lord is aware. I have cited the figure before but will do so again: there is £3.7 billion of additional funding for local government. As I have said several times in this debate, we wanted to do more. Unfortunately, we have to be fiscally responsible, and this Government will continue to be so.
Lord Bird (CB)
I must just point out a difference between business and charities, and the help for both. I am an employer of a little social enterprise group. We pay tax. We do not get the breaks or all sorts of other things that charities get. It is hitting us, so we will have to review whether we can employ so many people because of this new employment tax. Can the Minister encourage and include social enterprises—social businesses—in her mix to support them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point about social enterprise. I am a great champion of social enterprises. They do magnificent work in our country. I set out the basis on which the Government are providing support to SMEs under this regime. Those organisations will benefit from the way we have completely exempted many businesses from having to pay NICs and many others will remain the same as they were before. I hope that will help social enterprises but I am happy to discuss that further with him if he wishes to.
National Policy Planning Framework: Housing
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to compare the need for affordable housing with the need for council and social housing as part of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I add my tribute to Baroness Randerson and offer my condolences to her family and friends. Her wisdom and experience were greats asset to this House, and she will be missed.
Our Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation; I hope we have shown that through our movement. Our revised National Planning Policy Framework reflects the commitment to building a greater share of genuinely affordable homes and prioritising the building of new social rent homes in particular. It is, though, for local authorities to judge the right mix of affordable homes for ownership and for rent that will meet the needs of their communities.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while the NPPF is welcome, does the Minister share the widespread concern that the technical term “affordable” does not mean affordable to those in acute need? Research by the National Housing Federation and the charity Crisis shows that at least 90,000 social homes a year are required to end homelessness. Will the Minister consider expressly requiring local planning authorities to reflect that acute need within their plans? It includes those who are on housing registers in need of supported housing, rough sleepers and the homeless.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that the terms “affordable housing” and “social housing” have sometimes been conflated, with unfortunate consequences. To make clear the priority that we attach to delivering homes for social rent, we are amending the definition of affordable housing. It will be carved out as a separate category, distinct from social housing for rent. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness a sign of our intention. We will expect local authorities to assess the need in their areas, including in all the categories that she mentioned, and to make provision to meet that need in their local plans.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Has the Minister seen reports that more than 17,000 affordable homes have been made available by developers under Section 106, but no single housing association has been able to take them up? Against that background, would it not make sense for the developers to sell those homes to first-time buyers and discharge their Section 106 obligation by making a financial contribution to the local authority, which could then build some social houses?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is possible for builders to change the provision if they need to, but that has to be in exceptional circumstances, because the need for social housing is so acute. The Government have set up a new clearing service for those Section 106 homes via Homes England. That was launched on 12 December, and we hope that it will enable us to match up registered providers with the social homes available under Section 106.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, in endorsing the condolences expressed to Baroness Randerson’s family and friends, I remind the House that she was also a stalwart champion of Wales, with a long record of public service that should be recognised.
Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the 2010-15 Tory-Lib Dem coalition Government spent £10 on building new homes for every £100 on housing benefit? That was virtually a reversal of 40 years ago, when every £100 we spent on building homes was matched by £20 on benefit. Is that not another reason for building many more council houses and for public investment in social housing?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I echo my noble friend’s points about Baroness Randerson’s work in Wales. He makes a valid point: a good reason for building social housing is that it saves expenditure on DWP funds. In my own area, a private rented property costs around £1,200 a month; a social rented property is about £600 a month. Even those with my maths skills can work out that that would be a saving. That is why it is so urgent that we get on with building the social homes that we need. There are social reasons for doing so, but also very good financial reasons.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that consideration will be given to ensuring that supported housing at social rents, particularly for older citizens, will be emphasised in the review? In the spirit of joined-up government, will the results be provided to inform the Casey review on social care, because the two are inextricably linked?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the topic of housing for older people and for those with particular needs. For example, we laid regulations to exempt all former members of the regular Armed Forces and victims of domestic abuse from any local connection tests. We are actively working on issues around older people’s housing; in fact, I met Anchor this morning to discuss that very topic. We will bring forward further policies in the spring to look at the need for older people’s housing and how to make better provision for it in the planning process.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, in my time as leader of the Welsh Liberal Party I had the advantage of a close relationship with and enormous support from the late Baroness Randerson. I was shocked to hear of her passing when I was told yesterday, and I personally, like many others, will miss her greatly. She was a great public servant.
On the Government’s commendable ambition to build a very large number of houses, I remind the Minister that this ambition will be matched by an extraordinary visual effect on our townscape and landscape in general for hundreds of years. Can the Government try to ensure that the design of these houses to be built is of a high quality which reflects well on our age? Well-designed houses cost no more than badly-designed houses.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I could not agree with the noble Lord more; this is an important issue. I am not apologising for the ambitious targets we have—we certainly need the housing. However, I am also passionate not only about delivering well-designed homes—we are currently working on the future homes standard and will publish that shortly—but about those homes being situated in communities that really work for people. That was part of what the revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework were about, but it is also incumbent on all local authorities, as they pass their local plans, to make sure that they enable that too.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, many in the House will wish the Government well in their ambitious commitment to housebuilding, but in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework, will the Minister outline how the social objectives of the framework are guaranteed and monitored, specifically
“accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being”?
As regards well-being, will the Minister further consider restoring mandatory space standards for the construction size of British homes?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises a very interesting point about space standards. Coming from a new town, I remember the standards that were introduced when my town was built. On the issues around the National Planning Policy Framework and the social aspects of it, as the Planning Inspectorate goes through the process of assessing local plans—it is important to remember that fewer local authorities do not have them than those that do—it takes account of the social aspects of the plans as well as of the straightforward housing numbers. That is part of the work of my department, and we will be looking at that closely. The social aspects of the planning framework are equally as important as the technical aspects.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I offer our condolences from these Benches to the friends and family of Baroness Randerson. She will be very much missed in this House.
Affordable homes should be built where they are most needed, meaning near jobs and existing infrastructure such as public transport networks, schools and doctors. With that in mind, can the Minister tell us why London’s mandatory housing target has decreased while some rural constituencies have seen increases in hundreds of per cent? Will the Government reconsider their targets to build more affordable homes in London, where there is the highest need for them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The new methodology has been carefully considered. It strikes a balance between meeting the scale of need right across the country and focusing additional growth on places facing the biggest affordability pressures by more than doubling the affordability multiplier, which is in the method. It produces a figure for London of nearly 88,000—more than double recent delivery—and London has the biggest proposed percentage increase against existing delivery of any region in the country by a significant margin.