Levelling Up

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Stunell

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there are 51 cities, 935 towns and 6,000 villages in the UK, hundreds of which suffer from considerable inequalities. Although we were delighted for 55 of those places that were successful in this announcement made on Monday, they have been singled out, as before, from many other areas that have equal or more need of funding to support their economic growth, and which will be wondering whether the Government’s approach to them is more like giving up than levelling up.

However, we welcome that the Government have recognised that the Hunger Games approach they were taking to funding has failed. We believe this approach resulted in millions of pounds being spent on consultants to put bids together, and that it was actually perpetuating inequalities between areas by further lining the pockets of those who spent the most on their bids. What discussions took place with the sector about the new methodology of the allocations this time, and what account has been taken of the inflationary factors that may have impacted on their viability in the time since the bids were submitted? What does the funding simplification doctrine, quoted by the Minister in the other place on Monday, actually mean? Does this new doctrine apply across government, or just to DLUHC? If the latter, how has the sector been engaged in its creation? How quickly does the Minister expect that the pilots taking place in relation to this will be evaluated?

Compared with the devastating cuts that local authorities have suffered, these grants to just 55 local authorities feel to the rest of the sector like crumbs from the table. With authorities facing the burden of £1.6 billion of increased housing and homelessness spend and £1.125 billion just for special educational needs, and with £15 billion of cuts from their funding already and the LGA estimating that there will be a £3.5 billion shortfall this year—that may have changed slightly today, but I have not had a chance to look yet—surely, as we asked during our discussions on the now Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, it is time for a radical overhaul of local government funding.

Can the Minister comment on the National Audit Office’s report last week, which found, as did the Public Accounts Committee, that no impact assessment had been carried out on levelling-up funding and that just 7% of the first two rounds had been spent so far, with 89% still held in Whitehall? Why has DLUHC not been able to agree the necessary funding arrangements with local authorities? Can we be assured that this process will be simplified so that the money gets to where it needs to go and projects are not held up by departmental delays? What will happen next for the hundreds of projects that have been submitted and not yet funded? We believe that this is the last round of this funding.

I am sure that my noble friend Lady Ritchie will come in on this, but why have councils and people in Northern Ireland been left out of this process? Whatever is happening in Stormont, councils will want their communities held in at least an equal process with the rest of the UK.

The projects funded through this round of levelling-up funding will have been thought through, fought for and, I am sure, welcomed by the successful authorities. However, in the context of cuts to local government funding of 60p in the pound between 2010 and 2020 and a fall in real-term spending power of 27% up to this year, they are a drop in the ocean compared with assessed need. Councillors and their communities watch as their high streets decline and their budgets are torn away from universal services that touch everyone, everywhere, all the time, to the specialist demand-led services that are there only for those with the most complex needs. Our residents are still reeling from the cost of living crisis. Surely it is time for a radical devolution of powers and resources and the flexibility to take the decisions that they know will be in the best interest of their areas. Surely it is time for Labour’s plan, which will genuinely enable that and truly let people take back control.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, this is a sad and disappointing Statement. It is another signal that levelling up, which was the flagship policy of the last Prime Minister but one, is on its dying breath. The Statement was delivered by a junior Minister in the other place. It rehashes announcements that have already been made. It glosses over failures of process and delivery, and it trumpets success when it is in full retreat. It starts with a boast about the £13 billion allocated to the levelling-up task, which is the same £13 billion that had already been announced five times before. But it overlooks what the National Audit Office said in its report published this week: much of the money will never be spent because of the overweening departmental bureaucracy and long ministerial delays in signing off projects with sponsors.

In fairness, the Statement does contain a sort of “sorry, not sorry” section about changing the process in the future, establishing a long-overdue but non-specific “funding simplification doctrine”, of which the noble Baroness just spoke. I am sure it will be a belter when it comes, but the benefit of the new doctrine will be lost by what is perhaps the most gobsmacking piece of double-speak in the Statement. Apparently rounds 1 and 2 have gone so well that, after learning from their successes, round 3 has been cancelled. Usually, back in the real world, if a project goes really well in its first two stages, everyone is eager to get on and do the third stage—but not this time. Instead, the approval threshold for projects is to be lowered and schemes previously rejected in rounds 1 and 2 will be reconsidered. There will be no round 3 and no chance for further bids to be submitted.

The National Audit Office reports that rounds 1 and 2 generated 834 bids, but three-quarters of them were rejected. I have no doubt that there will be some very good schemes among those rejected before that fully justify their approval now. Like the noble Baroness, I welcome the announcements made, but that has been done by pumping money originally intended for round 3 bidders back into the original pool for round 1 and round 2 bidders. This clearly demonstrates that the contention of these Benches was exactly right that the overall size of the pot was always minuscule compared to the need.

That leaves some of the most deprived councils, and the smaller and less well-resourced ones, stranded. They are the ones who did not bid in earlier rounds because they could not afford to take the risk of investing time and money in a bid that had only a 1:4 chance of success. Encouraged by the July announcement that a new and simpler process was ready to come into play, they have been ready to step forward and do so, but their chance has now gone. There will be no round 3, no new bids, and no levelling up for them.

I have two questions for the Minister. Will she publish the list of local authority areas that did bid in rounds 1 and 2 but will still not benefit from any funds from any of their bids, despite the clawback of round 3 money to help? I will call that list A. It would give a good map of where the Minister thinks that levelling up is not really needed. Secondly, will she publish a list of those local authority areas from which no levelling-up bids at all have yet been received? I will call that list B. That, I fear, would give a good map of small, under- resourced local authorities that have been left stranded by the cancellation of round 3 and are left out of the picture altogether. Publishing lists A and B would be a long-overdue first step to restoring transparency and trust to what, up to now, has been an opaque and desperately underfunded bureaucratic disaster. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Stunell

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 193 and 194 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, introduce sensible additions to Schedule 7 on the content of plans. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, reminded us on Monday, just because Ministers assume that something will happen, that is no reason for leaving it out of the Bill. One would assume that any local planning authority would include such vital matters as meeting housing need and the economic, social and environmental needs of its area in its plan, as well as identifying appropriate sites. I agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in that regard. Putting this in the Bill makes sure that it happens.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to draw attention to the distinction between strategic and non-strategic priorities, which will become ever more important as these strategic policies are considered by a potential combined authority for the joint strategic development strategies. If they are not set out clearly in plans, how will the combined authorities identify them and make sure that they take account of them in the wider plan?

Amendment 193A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, goes to the heart of a huge lost opportunity in the Bill, as currently structured, to make a real difference in addressing the housing emergency we face in this country. The figures have been much debated in this Chamber, in Committee on the Bill and in many other debates on housing, but it is a scandal that over a million families are still on social rented housing registers around the UK. With the current rate of building—just 6,000 a year according to Shelter—few of those families stand a chance of ever having the secure, affordable and sustainable tenancy they need.

This problem is now exacerbated by rising mortgage interest rates resulting in many private landlords deciding to sell the properties they were renting out and their tenants coming to local authorities to seek rehoming. Commentators in the sector say that this could affect as many as one in three privately rented properties. The figures are stark. Worked examples show that rents may have to increase by at least £300 a month. For landlords and tenants also facing other elements of the cost of living crisis, this kind of increase in costs is untenable.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, proposes that local plans should link the provision of social housing to the provision of adequate housing for those registered with the local authority. This should be a minimum. I think the noble Lord described it as a duty to be clear about the scale of the housing problem and I totally agree. As we all know only too well, the unmet need for social housing also includes many families not on those registers. We will have a later debate about the definition of “affordable housing”, but social housing in particular merits special treatment in how it is addressed by local plans. For some families, it is the only form of tenure that will ever meet their needs. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the importance of putting social housing priorities into the planning process, so if he chooses to test the opinion of the House on this matter, he will have our support.

Government Amendment 197 is a helpful clarification that neighbourhood plans cannot supersede the local development plan in relation to either housing development or environmental outcome reports. I was very pleased to see Amendment 199 from my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Young. As a fortunate resident of a new town designed with the great foresight to incorporate 45 kilometres of cycleways, thanks to the vision of Eric Claxton and our other early designers, I can clearly see the importance of incorporating this infrastructure at the local plan stage.

The experience of Stevenage is that, unless the infrastructure makes it easier to cycle and walk than to jump in a car, the latter will prevail. Our cycleways are only now coming into their own and being thought of as the precious resource that they are, so the vision to include them was very much ahead of its time. It is important that careful thought is given, in all development, to the relative priorities of motor vehicles and cycling and walking.

As my noble friend Lord Berkeley outlined, this amendment is well supported by the Better Planning Coalition and the Walking and Cycling Alliance, which says that embedding cycling and walking in development plans would

“help safeguard land … that could form useful walking and cycling routes, while ensuring that new developments are well-connected to such routes, and securing developer contributions for new or improved walking and cycling provision”.

It cites examples—they were adequately quoted by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, so I will not repeat them—of how this has not been the case in the past. I agree with my noble friend that the consultation on the NPPF makes no mention of, never mind giving priority to, local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. It makes no mention at all of rights of way improvement plans.

On Monday, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the new role for Active Travel England as a statutory consultee in planning matters, but surely this amendment would strengthen its role by ensuring that cycling and walking are considered for every development, so that it can focus on the detail of those plans.

Government Amendments 201B, 201C and 201D are very concerning. They represent sweeping powers for combined county authorities to take over the powers of local councils in relation to making and/or revising local plans. Alongside the government proposals that the representatives of local councils will have no voting rights on combined county authorities, this represents yet another huge undermining of the role of local democratically elected institutions in favour of combined county authorities, which are indirectly elected, which may have voting representatives who have no democratic mandate at all and which operate at a considerable distance from the front line of the communities that will be affected by the decisions they are making.

In the debate on Monday, the Minister said that these new powers will be used only in extremis, but one can envisage situations where they could be used for political purposes. I raise the importance of this issue from a background of long experience of plan-making in two-tier areas and the complexities that that brings. On Monday, I mentioned that it was our local MP who held up our local plan for over a year by calling it in to the Secretary of State. Would this, for example, give a CCA grounds to initiate its power grab for the planning powers? If that were the case, you could see this being a very slippery slope indeed. What discussions has the Secretary of State undertaken with the sector on these proposed powers? These powers, like so much else in the Bill, seem to move us ever further away from the devolution and agency for local people that were espoused at the introduction of the White Paper.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has done a tremendously good forensic job of disclosing the fact that there is an omission—possibly accidental—connecting the whole planning process as far as non-domestic strategic direction is concerned. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation for that and perhaps to her coming back with a correction at a later stage.

The Liberal Democrats will certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Best, if he puts his proposition to the House. There is no doubt at all that it is absolutely necessary to tackle the severe problem of the lack of affordability in the rented sector. It is understood clearly by all that developing the social rented sector is the way to go—this surely must be taken into account in all plan-making. The noble Lord made a valid point about those who are homeless. This is a rising number of people and there is a reluctance among many local authorities to undertake the formidable task of dealing with the circumstances that they face.

Certainly, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friends Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock about active travel are important. I await the Minister agreeing that the connection on this between policy and the NPPF, and between policy and plan-making, needs to be corrected in the direction that this amendment sets out.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Stunell

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a short debate and it will be very interesting to see how the Government respond to it. I wait in hope that something can be done, as my noble friend said in moving this amendment, to turbocharge local democracy. There is no doubt that it needs turbocharging: we see elements of its alienation every day of the week. We are moving closer and closer not to better local democracy, but to perhaps better but certainly more intense local administration. I have spoken on that already today. My noble friend made the extremely powerful point, and certainly a very good debating point, that if ID cards are good enough for Northern Ireland, surely a proportional voting system is good enough for England. I hope the Government have a really plausible reason for not accepting that argument.

My noble friend Lady Harris has accurately reported, I am sure, the views of Richmondshire District Council—incidentally, it is in North Yorkshire, which we were of course discussing earlier today—and the value of every vote being equal and the opportunities for regeneration that flow from that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew our attention to some examples of bad practice and pointed out the damaging impacts of single-party rule. Since we certainly think it is inappropriate, to say the least, in North Korea, it ought to be inappropriate in our town halls in England as well. Restoring that element of local choice and broader representation ought surely to be one of the objectives of this levelling-up Bill.

My noble friend Lord Foster of Bath drew attention to the not untypical situation with East Suffolk Council whereby a party with less than 40% of the vote finishes up with over 70% of the representation and therefore of the decision-making. We had debates earlier about the Government’s intention, set out clearly in the Bill, to suspend the operation of proportionality in local authorities in the formation of CCAs. I hope the Government Front Bench will take note of some of the malign consequences that can arise when proportionality is not adhered to. Of course, in terms of representation, a sense of alienation can grow in voters, and in non-voters but electors, who repeatedly say, “It’s not worth voting because they always get in”. That happens time and again, particularly in local government. Surely, we have to make sure that the voices of the silent ones—the voices being suppressed by that system—are in fact heard.

I want to hear the Government say, “There are things about this we do not like; we do not really want anything other than first past the post; but we do recognise that local communities, local councils, should have the right to choose for themselves the voting system they use”. My noble friend has set out in considerable detail a very compelling case: we are not suggesting throwing the whole system up in the air, but simply using systems already in operation in various parts of the United Kingdom, including in England.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Stunell. It has been a very interesting discussion. The arguments I have heard articulated many times over the years on voting methods have been rehearsed with great conviction this afternoon.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Stunell

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I will speak very briefly; I will certainly not debate with the Minister all 35 amendments. I am taking on a brief inspection that these are indeed just minor and consequential. I want to use this as the opportunity to say that the Minister has written to us today, advising us of a whole range of further amendments that the Government will table. While most of them flow from the debates we have had so far, one particular amendment relating to the building safety regulator is completely off-piste, as far as I can see. In responding, can the Minister—perhaps being grateful for me not debating all 35 amendments—assure us that sufficient time will be given for us to think through some of the new amendments the Government have tabled today?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that I too will not debate all 35 amendments. They are largely consequential and drafting amendments. I noted that, earlier in today’s debate, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the consultation provisions contained in Amendments 151 and 152, so we will have a closer look at those, and we may write to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, if we have any further concerns on that.

I have one tiny question—forgive me: I know that it is late—on Amendment 143. The proposed new paragraph 7ZB in Schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

“If the Secretary of State … thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and (b) invites the combined county authority to prepare or revise the document, the combined county authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.”


I do not necessarily need an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me. Is it the Secretary of State or the constituent planning authority who invites the CCA to intervene in the preparation or revision of the document? That was not clear. The amendment also makes provision for the CCA to charge the non-constituent authority for work done on the development plan. Would those charges be agreed between both parties in advance, subject to a fee scale or limited fixed charges? I ask that question because it may be that the financial position of the constituent planning authority was the reason for the delay in the first place. It may be that, either in preparing the plan or if the recruitment of planning staff in the area is difficult, the authority is not in a position to increase salaries and so on, so if there were to be a massive charge to it from the CCA, that might be an issue. I am happy to take a written response to that question in due course.

Other than that, I have no questions or comments on the amendments.