Devolution: English Cities
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and I go back a long way. I was the leader of Newcastle City Council during both periods in which he was Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment with responsibility for local government. We were by no means always in agreement, but his interest was genuine. I recall being invited by him to dinner on one occasion. I accepted with some trepidation: the venue was the Tower of London—not, I hasten to add, in the Beauchamp Tower. His concern for English cities is long-standing and welcome, but I have to say that I have reservations about some of his proposals.
One major component of the noble Lord’s programme is the requirement of elected mayors for what in many areas would be not just individual cities but city regions. Newcastle was one of a number of councils required to hold a referendum in 2012 on whether to have an elected mayor. As in a number of other places, the electorate rejected the idea. Now, we have an elected mayor for the North of Tyne Combined Authority, established this year as the price for what is a modest step towards a measure of local government reform, to which our neighbouring authorities south of the Tyne declined to subscribe.
The reward for the creation of this new body is very limited from a financial perspective; a much vaunted £600 million over 30 years amounts to little more than £6 million a year for each of the constituent authorities. As I have frequently pointed out, Newcastle alone has suffered a financial loss amounting to £280 million a year since 2010, rising to £330 million by 2022, from a combination of government cuts in funding and rising costs. As in other places, this is a 60%-plus cut in the council’s budget.
Nationally, since 2010, government core funding for local authorities will have been cut by £16 billion a year by 2020. Welcome though the Transforming Cities Fund is to its recipients, the amounts referred to in the noble Lord’s report are, to put it politely, modest, ranging from £250 million for the West Midlands to £59 million for Tees Valley. In addition to the Transforming Cities Fund, the Government have announced a Stronger Towns Fund. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether a “supporting villages fund” is envisaged. The Stronger Towns Fund will dispense all of £1.6 billion up to 2026, with amounts ranging from £281 million for the north-west to £25 million for the east of England. That is hardly likely to make a significant impact. The very fact of there being two separate funds raises questions about the Government’s approach. It implies a two-tier approach to addressing the needs of our regions, instead of looking at the issues across whole areas such as the north-east, let alone between regions.
We hear references to the northern powerhouse, but there appears to be very modest progress in improving the appalling trans-Pennine rail route connecting the north-east to Yorkshire and the north-west, with the emphasis on HS2 coming at enormous expense and with highly questionable benefit to the north-east. Newcastle MP Catherine McKinnell, who chairs the East Coast Main Line All-Party Group, has pointed out that,
“there is no confirmation from the Government that the line north of York will be upgraded, which will make parts of the north even further away from that national infrastructure investment, rather than benefiting from HS2”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/19; col. 331WH.]
Local councils estimate that the line needs at least £3 billion to provide a good service and be ready for the arrival of high-speed trains. This suggests a failure on the part of relevant government departments to work together on developing a strategy. It also underlines the need for local government to be engaged in the process. This could, of course, include elected mayors, but should not depend on an enforced change to adopting that mode of leadership.
Devolution should not be confined, critical as it is, to matters affecting the local economy. There should be an enhanced role at the regional level at the least in the oversight of health and further and higher education, transport and the impact of climate change and of custodial services, but devolution must go beyond merely delegating the responsibility for the provision of local services and the health of the local economy to local government in general or to cities in particular. It is essential to ensure that adequate financial resources are available.
The plight of local councils is also exacerbated by the local government finance system. The savage cuts of the past nine years have clearly damaged the capacity of councils to address the needs of their residents and protect and promote the local economy. In fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, he replaced the Thatcher poll tax with council tax, but after 27 years, including, I regret to say, during the years of Labour Government, little has been done to update it. Thus the residents of a small house in the ward I represent as a councillor in Newcastle will be paying for a band A property worth £40,000 one-third as much as the residents of homes worth more than £1 million.
It is impossible to empower English cities without ensuring that they have the resources to tackle the problems they and their citizens face and, importantly, to promote the local economy. A system in which council tax increases are limited to the same percentage, albeit yielding widely different sums between a council such as Newcastle and its counterparts in the south-east, is inherently unfair since the gap is not closed by central government support. The noble Lord makes a welcome call for more capital funding for local government and a power for mayoral authorities to raise local taxes and charges, interestingly including a tourist tax. Such changes in my view should not be confined to mayoral authorities.
I welcome the noble Lord’s proposal to establish a department for the English regions and his call to reinstate the government regional offices, abolished by Vince Cable during the coalition, and the suggested dispersal of government offices into the regions. We always found the regional office to be extremely supportive and helpful, while it existed. I confess that I am less enthusiastic about proposals to transfer responsibility for schools’ performance to combined authority mayors. It should be returned to local councils, from which it has been effectively removed for many years and where local councillors have a significant interest. This indeed reflects a concern among some of us who strongly support the case for a regional approach to such issues as economic development and transport but have reservations about other services which are closer to local communities and which need to be accessible to local elected councillors as well as to residents. The concentration of multiple roles in the hands of elected mayors could be problematic, as we are likely to see in the potential forthcoming elevation of one, at least, noble former holder of the position.
I should declare an historical interest in Richard III, a most maligned English monarch, who presided over the Council of the North formed by his brother Edward IV. It would be good to see the revival of such a body and the creation of similar ones, not to displace existing councils but to ensure that the needs and aspirations of the regions and their constituent authorities are adequately reflected in and through their local government structure.
Housing: No-fault Evictions
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord on that point: the essence of what we propose is that this is right for responsible landlords and it is right by tenants, who indeed sometimes go in fear of making complaints because of the possibility of eviction. That concerns a very small number of landlords, but this will knock that into shape to ensure we have the fairness of which I spoke.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, in theory legal aid and advice is available for eviction matters, though in practice there seem to be deserts in legal advice on this area because there are not sufficient practitioners who engage with that side of the law. Will the Minister consult the Ministry of Justice to ensure more incentives for lawyers to provide the service needed by these people in very difficult situations?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great experience in this area. He will be reassured by the fact that the reform will in many cases mean that people will not need to go to law, because the law will be absolutely clear and the activity will therefore cease. Our consultation will be wide and open for people to contribute. He will also know that we are looking at other procedures for speeding up, simplifying and streamlining the process, and that should help too.
Residential Construction and Housing Supply
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as a local councillor seeking re-election next week and as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the Minister and thanking him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important area of policy, and for his clear interest in it and support for action.
Today’s debate, with its curiously worded title, reflects a long overdue intention on the part of the Government to address a deepening crisis over housing policy. Belatedly, the Government are recognising the need for more new homes, although their target of 300,000 new homes a year embodies a minimal role for local authorities, allowing only the most hard pressed to bid for £1 billion by 2021-22. As I have remarked on a number of occasions, in Newcastle, when I was first elected to the city council, we built 3,000 houses in 1967. The Government’s welcome announcement will provide an estimated 10,000 houses: that is not great when you look at the national need.
Why should councils’ contribution to meeting housing needs be restricted to this extent? Why, contrary to the view of the Treasury Select Committee, do the Government intend to maintain their cap on all other areas? The Government and their coalition predecessor have restricted the use of the proceeds of sales under right to buy such that in the last six years, while £3.5 billion in discounts have been shelled out, councils have been able to retain only one-third of the already reduced proceeds and find it increasingly difficult to provide much-needed social housing. So in 2017-18, of 160,000 new homes built in that year, only 1,730 were built by councils and 27,140 by housing associations. Forty per cent of former council properties are now owned not by the tenants who acquired them but by private landlords who rent them out at higher rates than council rents. What is the Government’s definition of affordability for both rented and newly built, owner-occupied properties? What view do they take of the kind of profits generated by large housebuilders such as Persimmon and the massive payment of £110 million to its chief executive, which is in itself enough to build 100 homes? How do the Government square that with the bedroom tax, which in Newcastle alone costs 3,000 households £2 million a year?
Moreover, why, when the Government have announced additional expenditure of £l billion, has the Treasury published plans to spend only £880,000? What conditions, if any, will they impose on the application of this funding? The Local Government Association points out that in the past five years, local authorities have lost enough properties to house the entire population of Oxford. How many more people do the Government estimate will now be housed by councils in the light of their changing policy?
One area that is proving problematic is the planning system, with departments struggling to find staff. Again according to the Local Government Association, that has given rise to £200 million being paid to subsidise the cost of applications. It is sometimes alleged that the planning system is delaying or obstructing much-needed housing development, but it should be remembered that last year, 90% of applications were approved. In 2016-17, councils gave permission to build more than 321,000 homes, and there are currently 430,000 approved homes waiting to be built, with 90% of applications being approved. The planning system has been criticised tonight—rather unfairly, if I may say so.
A couple of years ago, the Local Government Association found that taxpayers are subsidising the planning process for housebuilding by some £200 million a year. That comes at a time of unprecedented cuts in government funding for local councils, causing serious problems in the delivery of important local services, with this year’s overall funding gap of £3 billion due to rise to £8 billion by 2024-25. Will the Government review the position and allow a further increase in what may be charged for planning applications?
Of course, there are other pressing issues, not least rising figures of homelessness and the decanting of people to distant locations from where they currently live. In addition, we suffer all too frequently problems over housing asylum seekers and refugees without the provision of adequate support. What attempts has the department made to engage the Home Office, whose track record on this issue and the outsourcing required have demonstrably failed too many of these unfortunate people and the communities to which they have been sent?
One burgeoning area of housing development is the massive growth of student accommodation, some purpose-built and some replacing long-term residents of town and city houses and flats. Neither the students nor the developers pay council tax or business rates. The former is understandable, but the latter at least merits consideration. We have a rash of newly built student accommodation in and around Newcastle city centre; again, no business rates or any such rates derive from them. Have the Government given any thought to this issue? If not, will they look at it again?
As the long title of the debate and its many speeches illustrate, there is more to housing policy than numbers, vital though they are. We are well below European standards in terms of the size and energy efficiency of our housing stock—a matter to which I and other Members of your Lordships’ House have referred from time to time in this Chamber, and which has been raised in this debate.
The Grenfell tragedy is a stark reminder of the need to be alert to issues that could lead to major problems. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the safety of residents is a prime duty of the builders and owners of homes, especially apartment blocks? What steps are they taking to ensure that leaseholders are not made liable to pay for the necessary precautionary steps of replacing vulnerable cladding and ensuring that other safety requirements are met? What assistance will be made available to local authorities to ensure that residents or employees are not left at risk in either private or publicly owned blocks, be they residential or used for other purposes?
Finally in this area, we need to keep under review the role of the private rented sector. Many private landlords live up to their responsibilities but, all too often, others neglect their obligations, fail to ensure that their properties are in good condition or act unlawfully when dealing with their tenants. Will the Government do more to encourage selective licensing of landlords and ensure that legal aid and advice are much more available, given that there are legal aid deserts for housing law problems?
On a more positive sign, I welcome moves to update the building industry in terms of design, especially in the areas relevant to climate change, home safety and, not least, adaptability. In that respect I suppose I declare a potential future interest in the light of people living longer and possibly needing more accommodation of that kind.
We have an issue with housing in this country. It is one that has gone on for a long time. The tone of the Minister’s speech elicited sympathy and support around the Chamber. I hope it marks a significant change in government policy across the whole range of housing issues. After all, we have too many people who are still homeless or still seeking decent permanent and affordable accommodation. We look forward to the Government developing and building on the useful but limited improvements in their policy that have been enunciated tonight. Across the House, we hope to see an increase in the number of affordable, good-quality housing in all tenures. In particular, I would argue—with the support of certainly some Members of your Lordships’ House—that the role of local authorities needs to be enhanced and promoted in achieving those objectives.
Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben
Well, if it were consulted, why is it not listed in the Explanatory Memorandum, as far as I can see? Perhaps I have misread it—I apologise to my noble friend if I have—but I think it says that the ARB was consulted, or that officials
“have been in regular contact with ARB”.
The ARB is constantly referred to, not the RIBA. I have declared my interest, but it happens to be true that the RIBA is the body to which most architects would look for advice and to which they have given their concerns.
As this is not going to be a both-ways arrangement and because the Government do not want a no-deal exit from the European Union—although what the blazes they do want is increasingly difficult to understand, and I suspect that the negotiations would have gone much better if people had known in the first place what they wanted, because clearly not until very recently did anybody know anything about what we wanted—can the Minister give me an assurance that one of the things we will be seeking immediately in negotiations for some sort of reasonable exit—which of course would leave us in a worse position than we are in at the moment—but even if that was so, would be to make this a reciprocal arrangement and that that reciprocity would be at least as good as the present reciprocity?
That leads me to my last point, which is on the Immigration Rules. The architectural profession is remarkably badly paid. If you look at the average wage of an architect, it is remarkably low for a member of a professional body. So I am concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we should not allow the Immigration Rules to interfere with our ability to recruit from the rest of Europe. It seems to me that this is a serious double jeopardy system. Why do we have to have these rules? Surely we could have had, in these regulations, a very simple system which said that if you got a job with a British architect registered with the ARB you would be able to have that job. Why do we have to double-do it? Is there not a much more sensible way, which is merely to do exactly what we do at the moment and say publicly that we would like this to continue to be reciprocal, although we do not have the ability to make it reciprocal ourselves?
I remind my noble friend of the figures that have been quoted: it is likely that one in four of architects in the London area come from the rest of Europe, so this is no minor matter. Therefore, I hope that we can have assurances that the Government will seek, under any agreement, to have reciprocity and, secondly, that the Minister will look again at the idea that we have to insist upon going through our immigration arrangements, when we could have a perfectly simple system, like the one we have at the moment. We should look very carefully at any income limit in any case because it is likely to affect newly-qualified architects from the rest of Europe in a way that would do our profession no good. It would interfere with, and indeed endanger, the very large amount of money that Britain earns through the primacy of our architectural profession. When you are talking about what may be £2 billion, you are talking about a very serious amount of money. If we cannot recruit newly-qualified experts from the rest of Europe to a shockingly underpaid profession, that would do us a great deal of harm.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, not for the first time, Newcastle is united in this Grand Committee. I think we would both welcome the noble Lord, who has characteristically analysed the Government’s proposals in a very effective way.
This instrument will freeze the list of architectural qualifications that are recognised immediately before exit day in the event of a no-deal Brexit. As a result, an individual holding one of those qualifications will be eligible to join the UK register of architects if they have access to the profession of architect in their home state. This will allow access to the workforce of EU-qualified and EEA-qualified architects. The register of qualified architects of the UK held by the Architects Registration Board currently includes 40,650 members, 17% of whom were admitted under EU directive procedures. Given that significant number, it is astonishing that no impact assessment appears to have been prepared for this SI. The UK must of course continue to attract the best talent after Brexit and have an immigration system that responds to the needs of industry, especially in the context of the architectural sector. The London’s Architectural Sector report states that the city’s architecture industry is worth £1.7 billion and is growing at 7% every year. That figure is set against the industry’s total value nationally of £4.8 billion, a significant contribution to the economy nationally.
The SI makes little attempt to make up for the damage that the industry has faced since the referendum, which has caused an alarming amount of uncertainty for businesses in the last two and half years. Since the referendum, projects up and down the country have been postponed as this period of chaos has badly damaged the investment market. An article on Consultancy.uk referred to Global by Design, published in 2018 by the RIBA, which said that 68% of architects have already seen Brexit impact their revenue stream as they have had projects put on hold and moreover, crucially, that 74% of architects regard access to the EU single market as necessary if the industry’s international workload is to grow. Already 40% of practices have had projects in the EU cancelled since the referendum.
The regulations fail to protect the recognition of UK-qualified architects’ qualifications in the EEA in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Those architects will have to rely on the individual registration policies of the 27 member states. The Government must look to establish a new mutual recognition agreement with the EU as soon as possible in order to provide reciprocity, and a date for that would be very welcome. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that issue.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The applicant’s ability to establish in the UK will be dependent on Government immigration policies”.
However, the Government’s immigration Bill has stalled and a £30,000 salary requirement for skilled migrants has been suggested. How many architects from EU or EEA countries living in the UK earn more than £30,000 now? How many architects have already registered with the Government’s settled-status scheme? Being a tier 2 sponsor for those earning more than £30,000 is difficult for many architecture firms because the process is lengthy and expensive. Have the Government done any work with the sector and the RIBA to assess exactly how much it will cost and whether the sector can bear the cost? According to the RIBA, the number of EU architects registering to practise in the UK has dropped by 42% since 2016, and 60% of them here at the moment say that they would consider leaving. That would damage architecture as a service both in this country and abroad; it would clearly suffer.
Architectural qualification requirements are frozen during the review period. How long does the Minister expect that period to last? How will architects come and work in the UK with new qualifications during this period? Paragraph 2.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“After EU exit, the ARB may lose access to the Internal Market Information (IMI) system. This facilitates communication between competent authorities. As a result, this instrument places the requirement to provide written verification from their home competent authority on the applicant should ARB be unable to secure it directly from the relevant competent authority”.
What assessment have the Government carried out to determine the ease of getting this written verification? Does it differ between authorities? Paragraph 2.12 states:
“This instrument removes the registration route of General Systems, which enables EU and EEA applicants who do not meet the automatic recognition criteria to work with the ARB to map what experience they do have against the UK criteria, and gain the experience necessary”.
Will the ARB offer any additional help to get candidates to work in the UK?
Finally, what estimate have the Government made of Brexit’s impact on UK practices and individuals currently, or potentially, working in Europe? What steps, if any, are they taking to create a new system including a reciprocal system of accepted professional qualifications?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who responded to the SI. I will seek to deal with the various points they have made.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly emphasised the importance of qualified architects from the EU 27. Of course, this measure goes a bit beyond that because it covers EEA-qualified architects from Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland too. Switzerland is in a similar position but the EU 27 countries make up the most significant part of the regulations. I do not deny that the regulations are important for the United Kingdom—indeed, I would affirm it—because of the impact they would otherwise have on individuals practising here or seeking to do so in future, and because of the importance of this sector to the UK economy. The regulations are therefore important for those positions.
Like other noble Lords, the noble Lord referred to the general immigration position, rather than anything specific to architects as such. Reference has been made to the £30,000 threshold. I should say that as things stand, it is not the defined and final position of the Home Office. Rather, it is a recommendation of the Migration Advisory Committee so we will feed in information regarding different sectors. We are working with our professional business service colleagues in BEIS to collect information from architecture firms around the country on what the threshold should be. I agree with my noble friend about the position of architects as a profession: on the whole—with exceptions, of course—their earnings tend to be on the low side. That will certainly be a relevant factor and one we would wish to pursue.
The noble Lord went on to discuss the recognition of the general systems in a no-deal scenario. He could not understand why we were not pursuing that. I am not sure whether this was grasped, and it may be my fault, but I emphasise that we are seeking to freeze the qualifications that are recognised. This does not mean that those who go on to get those qualifications later on cannot then practise in this country. They can while this remains the legal position, so after this is passed it would not debar anyone with these qualifications from practising in the UK. Indeed, while this remains the law it seeks to facilitate that. It is not those people who already have the qualifications; it is recognising those qualifications. Anyone getting that qualification later on will certainly be able to practise in the United Kingdom. I remind noble Lords that the number of people using the general systems qualification is four or five a year. Of those who make inquiries about it, 96% do not pursue this route because it is very cumbersome and difficult, so it is viewed as better that they qualify in the way we are setting out.
Stronger Towns Fund
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I find that last question much easier than the others. Certainly, towns such as Berwick—one that is having elections this year would be eligible—although they are in a metro area.
On the definition of a town and whether it is anywhere that is not a city or a village, I know from visiting the cathedrals of England that not all of them are in cities, which adds to the complexity. Chelmsford is now a city, but it was not until recently; Southwell is certainly not a city, and so on. I do not think that it is as simple as the noble Lord put it in his question. I do not want to give a definition. Within mayoral combined authority areas, towns which are visibly towns and not cities will certainly be eligible.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as a councillor in Newcastle and vice-president of the Local Government Association. The north-east will receive this wonderful benison of £15 million a year for seven years across the region. It is still a trifling sum given the scale of the problems that the region faces. What role, if any, will county councils have in the process? I understand that the Minister is saying that they will not get no money, but they will surely have a role in promoting any improvements, particularly on the economic side, of the constituent district councils in those areas. What will that role be in practice? How will the Government evaluate the proposals being made? How long will the process take? Can the Minister give any assurance that the north-east in particular will benefit from significant improvements to its infrastructure, which is desperately in need of improvement? How much would he expect such a modest sum to afford when the county council in Durham has a deficit of £245 million a year?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, rightly said that the region will receive £15 million a year for the seven years, or £105 million over the length of programme. For reasons that we know, it is an area that is due to benefit more than any other.
The noble Lord asked about the role of the county council in developing proposals. It will certainly be central, as will all councils. We want civic engagement, although, as he said, county councils will not necessarily be in the dominant position; however, they will certainly be there.
How proposals are evaluated will be outlined in the prospectus. I do not want to get ahead of myself by saying that money will go on infrastructure rather than on other projects, but certainly infrastructure will be eligible. We hope that the spending will be transformative, so infrastructure is important. I do not think that we can expect to sort out the bids yet. We do not know the quality of the bids; we do not know the process of the bids. These things are yet to happen.
Short-term Lettings
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for all that he does, not only in relation to the regulation of property agents, but more generally in the area. The noble Lord has written to my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, and she will be replying. As I said, it is our intention that the Short Term Accommodation Association is the route forward, with the code of conduct that it is progressing, rather than that this coming under the ambit of the property agents group to which he referred.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, Airbnb lettings have increased by 187% in London since 2015, and 678% in Birmingham. Should not properties let on this basis be subject to business rates? I refer to my local government interests in the register.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Airbnb is the market leader and is doing a good job within London, which is the only place where the 90-day limit applies. Its software ensures that you cannot go over the 90-day limit. As I understand it, to qualify as a business, you have to let for a minimum of 120 days, so that could not apply within London, but it could elsewhere, depending on the facts. I am not an expert in that area, but I do not think that it could apply in London because of that simple statistic.
Housing: Private Rented Sector
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My noble friend is right: it is a good scheme that perhaps has not had the take-up we hoped for, and it might benefit from added publicity. I will take that message back because it is a good scheme and we are trying to do many things to get the housing problem under control. That is just one more, and it comes at a low cost.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the number of older people living in social housing while paying the bedroom tax, or who, because of rent increases, have moved into the private rented sector?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I would be interested to know if the noble Lord has evidence of that happening. In short, we have not made that connection but if he has evidence, I would be very keen to see it and we can take it forward and share the results with the whole House.
Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a local authority with a population of 280,000. I am also an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We are in the paradoxical position of passing regulations which effectively bypass the wishes of four district councils in Buckinghamshire and of the 47% of respondents to the consultation on the proposal to abolish these councils and merge them with the county council. As we have heard, they voted for two unitary authorities to be created from the four districts. Slough, which is geographically in Buckinghamshire, is already a unitary authority, and so is Milton Keynes. Their views were backed by the chair of the District Councils’ Network, who blamed the decision on what he described as “ill-conceived legislation”; namely, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act. This includes a sunset clause expiring—curiously enough—in March, which permits the Secretary of State to fast-track changes with the consent of only one local authority; in this case, the county council.
Even the Secretary of State, who bears the uncannily appropriate name of Brokenshire, acknowledges the concern that a single unitary authority might weaken democratic engagement at the most local level. Incidentally, he said he would consult on whether this year’s local elections should be delayed to avoid councillors being elected for only one year. Can the Minister say what has been decided in respect of this matter?
The public consultation produced only a 35% response in favour of the proposals. How can the Government justify proceeding with such a slender measure of support? I understand that Chiltern and Wycombe District Councils—neither of them, I regret to say, yet Labour-controlled—wrote to the Secretary of State with notice of intention to institute a legal challenge. Joined by South Bucks, they are now seeking judicial review. Can the Minister indicate when the case is likely to be heard? Would it not be more seemly to defer any decision on the regulations until the legal proceedings are concluded?
In the debate on the draft regulations in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee, Dame Cheryl Gillan, the Member of Parliament for Chesham and Amersham, launched a blistering attack on the proposals. Among much else, she quoted the previous Under-Secretary of State, James Wharton, who, during the passage of the then Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, stated that it was the Government’s intention to build consensus, saying:
“We are not going to impose change on areas that do not want it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/15; col.772.]
Given that four of the five authorities involved—that is all the district councils affected—oppose the proposals, how can the Government square their decision with that emphatic commitment? In addition to the unanimous view of the district councils, 70% of parish councils in the area support the proposal for two unitary authorities, as do local businesses and other stakeholders.
Dame Cheryl also drew attention to the Government’s effective imposition of the county council leader as the initial leader of the new authority, with a majority of county councillors on the executive and the potential appointment of the county chief executive as “implementation leader”. This looks uncannily like a county council takeover—a sort of Amersham Anschluss.
In his reply to the debate in the Commons, Minister Rishi Sunak said:
“It is time for a fresh start for Buckinghamshire. It is time for people to forget about what has happened in the past, leave aside the tags of district and county, and come together to work for the benefit of residents”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/19; col. 18.]
This is all very well, but the people are being given no voice and no vote on the issue.
This is yet another example of government practice since 2010. Then, some councils were compelled to hold ballots on whether to move to elected mayors. Although many, including Newcastle, voted not to do so, the Government’s reaction over time was to require elected mayors as a condition of the establishment of combined authorities. Their contempt for local government was further exemplified by the abolition of regional offices of government—originally established by an earlier Conservative Administration—which had proved a successful way of building constructive relationships between the two tiers of government.
I trust that the Minister will not emulate his colleague in the Commons, who concluded the debate on the regulations by declaring that he was,
“confident that, before too long, we will have a happy resolution to all outstanding matters, and that the people of Buckinghamshire can look forward to a bright future”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/19; col. 18.]
This is the utterance of a political Candide, believing that all is for the best in the best of all possible local government worlds.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the proposals for unitarisation in Buckinghamshire. I remind noble Lords that a locally led proposal is the background to this—as it should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, rightly said. The provisions will run out on 31 March this year, when we will revert to the previous procedures and to legislation brought in under Tony Blair, if I am not mistaken. That would require an invitation from the Secretary of State to amend local government procedures, unless there is unanimity among local authorities, in which case it would not be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made a point about Milton Keynes. He is right that it is a dog that has not barked and was not part of the locally led proposal. I recognise that Milton Keynes is significant in that area but it was not part of the process. He also made a point about viable geography and the size of a unitary authority. I think this issue has been addressed; indeed, my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government dealt with this issue in the other place and followed it up with a letter that talked about the process. I will make sure that the relevant letter is sent to noble Lords.
Originally, we imagined a population range of between 400,000 and 600,000 people, but subsequently found that this was too high. I am not saying that no ranges are above that figure, but the norm is somewhere around the 300,000 mark I referred to. It is not a hard-and-fast rule, but it is a guiding principle. The size has an effect on the nature and the split of services; indeed, the children’s commissioner gave the view that one unitary authority would be more beneficial than two. That view was reflected in the consultation—not exclusively, I accept, but getting 100% support for proposals is always pretty unlikely in a consultation. There was certainly discontent from the authorities, all of which were not content with the status quo. We have not had representations from local parties saying that the proposals are untenable.
The choice facing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was between progressing with one unitary authority for the four district authorities or with two. Obviously, a judgment of Solomon must be made. With respect, all the authorities are Conservative-led, so there can be no idea of this move being for political gain; that was not suggested but I want to make the point. The Minister acted in this way after looking at the viable geography and representations made, and trying to work out which proposal presented the best option for local government in the area. He thought that a single unitary authority was that best option.
I do not pretend that this will please everyone; clearly it will not. For example, it will not please the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which I suggest will not change after I finish speaking and after the regulations have, I hope, been agreed to. As I say, we must look at the considerations I presented, the provision of services and the size of the entity. All are important but there was certainly little or no support for the status quo: 87% of people felt that the status quo was not viable, so the suggestion that this will upset everybody in the area is somewhat far-fetched. The noble Lord also mentioned the deferral of elections. They are being deferred for a year, in line with what all the authorities—district and county councils—asked for.
If I have missed any other points made by noble Lords, as I almost certainly have, I will pick up on them in a letter. Echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, noble Lords will get another bite of the cherry when the order comes forward and we look at some of its provisions in more detail. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I sympathise with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the volume of statutory instruments that we have to consider, the lack of time to consider them and, thereby, the lack of time to do justice to them. I shall, nevertheless, comment on the statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has raised a number of crucial issues on the possibility of divergence to which we need to be alert.
As the Minister said, the statutory instrument is to come into force only if there is a no-deal outcome on 29 March. It aims to preserve the current outcomes—that is, properly licensed and tested construction products, tradeable without barriers across all 28 EU countries, as far as possible. However, the only one it can actually guarantee, it does: that any approved EU kitemarked products will continue to be recognised as compliant under UK law.
It gives the Secretary of State the power to set new UK standards for products in future, either those that are purely UK-tested or by simply adopting future EU standards. Given that up to a quarter of all components and materials used in construction are imported from the EU, it is clearly hugely in the interests of the UK industry to maintain common standards, and it is unlikely that it would ever welcome a divergence from whatever was the current EU standard. In practice, any UK manufacturer wanting a test certificate for a new product would want it to comply with the EU version of the testing and carry a kitemark, so that it was accepted across the EU and the UK thereafter, whereas there is no automatic right for our tests to be accepted across the Channel, limiting our export potential. Inevitably, the Government will have to set up a UK system, but in real life nobody will want to use it. It is therefore wrong to say that there is no impact and so no need for an impact assessment, although that is the conclusion the Government seem to have reached.
It is not that there are deficiencies in the drafting of the statutory instrument; it is yet another shocking example of the complete waste of time that all this work on no deal is producing—for the Government, for Parliament and for the industry. If, by any chance, there was no deal, the additional cost of setting up a system parallel to the EU which practically no one would ever volunteer to use is certainly not a minor matter. I hope that when he responds, the Minister will comment on that and, I hope, express his agreement with that conclusion.
I raise one further issue, which relates to the responsibility for enforcement before and after. It will lie with trading standards, mostly decimated by funding cuts. What estimate have the Government made of the increased workload for trading standards as a consequence of the introduction of the proposed new regime?
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with many of the points made by preceding speakers about this process and this instrument as an example of the secondary legislation on which we are having to spend so much time.
In the light of the Grenfell disaster, the subject of these regulations assumes greater importance than might otherwise have been the case. It is therefore even more unsatisfactory that no impact assessment has been published. What assurances can the Minister give that, in the absence of a deal, there will continue to be comparisons for industry and the public as to the performance and safety of products from other countries? Will the Government ensure that EU regulations are constantly kept under review and that steps will be taken to ensure that our standards keep pace with increased safety considerations applied within the EU? In the absence of an impact assessment, has there been any conclusion on the potential cost to businesses as a result of the change? The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made that point.
What will be the process for designating standards under the new regime? Will parliamentary scrutiny of such new or amended standards take place? If so, will that happen under the “made affirmative” procedure? What form of consultation will be applied? In particular, will the British Standards Institution remain a member of the European Committee for Standardization? The Explanatory Memorandum declares:
“Existing European harmonised standards will become UK ‘designated standards’”,
and will be “identical”. Is that to be a permanent position? If not, what timescale is anticipated within which they may be reviewed or changed? What cognisance will be taken of any changes in the EU standards during that period, and by what methods?
Finally, is it to be a requirement that manufacturers must affix a UK mark to products? If so, to what extent have the Government received assurances that such a mark will suffice to satisfy buyers in the European Union or elsewhere?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to these undoubtedly important regulations; indeed, I do not deny that they are important. Obviously, I am not responsible for the usual channels and the timetabling of matters in the House and the Moses Room. I firmly believe that the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has probably been picked up elsewhere so I will leave others to deal with that matter. I apologise if he thought I was being discourteous but I do not think he asked me to give way, which is perhaps why I did not. However, I will deal with his points.
I can confirm that the regulations will not change the law, except mutatis mutandis, in that we are coming out of the EU so some of the terminology is different. The regulations seek to preserve the existing position on exit day, which is why there is no impact assessment. Bear in mind that both scrutiny committees have not commented on the lack of an impact assessment; there will be no impact because the law on exit day will remain exactly the same because of the regulations. To pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—I think I covered this in my opening speech but perhaps not at sufficient length or with sufficient clarity—any departure from existing standards will require new legislation through the “made affirmative” procedure, on which consultation will be necessary. At the moment, the normal review period for standards is a five-year cycle. I am not saying that this will always necessarily be the case, but any reason to depart from it would have to be strong.
The second general point made by noble Lords concerns the likelihood of our suddenly diverging, or diverging at all, if it is inappropriate for British industry and if there is no great clamour from the British public. It is hard to see why this would be done; indeed, it would not make sense. We should credit our legislators and builders—people with more common sense. There would be no reason to diverge just for the sake of it, particularly given the necessity of the consultation I mentioned. It is hard to see how that would become a priority in any way or something that anybody would want to do.
I take issue slightly with another theme that seemed to come through in noble Lords’ remarks: that the regulations are about safety. Essentially, they are not. They are about standardisation. We have a separate domestic safety regime, as one can see from the Hackitt review and the Grenfell disaster. This has not emanated from Europe; by and large, Europe has not been the focus of the Grenfell inquiry or the response to it, nor of the Hackitt review. This is domestic. I am not denying the importance of these regulations, but essentially they are about standardisation and supply chains so that, for example, bricks and window frames are of a standard size. They are not largely about safety, so I want to keep the focus where it properly belongs. That is the point. That is the reason for the lack of an impact assessment and, as I said, one of the committees would have picked it up if we were in breach of proper procedures. As noble Lords will know, they are very effective committees.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about trading standards and additional burdens. He will know that there is already an existing provision that new burdens have to be properly financed. We would expect to consult on that with the LGA and interested parties. If there are new burdens to be imposed, that would be a necessary consequence.
With those comments, and with the certain knowledge this will be brought up again in the Chamber, I commend these regulations.
Local Authorities: Essential Services
Lord Beecham Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my local government interests in the register. In my 52 years as a Newcastle City councillor, I have lived through difficult times for local government. In all that time, I cannot recall so many Conservative councils criticising a Conservative Government for their failure to fund adequately the provision of local services, as is now the case.
The failure to update the council tax system, which is now 27 years old, and to take into account the widening gap between authorities like mine—and others in the north-east—and those in the more prosperous parts of England in the amount that council tax yields has exacerbated the problem. It is ludicrous to leave unchanged a system that allows council tax on a band H property near where I live, on the market for £4 million, to be only three times the amount payable by residents in the council ward I represent in a band A property worth £40,000. I concede immediately that the Labour Government should have addressed this issue, as I argued at the time, but it is all the more essential to do so when the pressure on budgets becomes ever more heavy and government cuts bite ever more deeply.
It is sobering to recall that, between 2010 and 2017, homelessness nationally rose by just under 40%, the number of looked-after children by just under 11% and the number of people aged over 65 requiring care by 14.3%. Cuts to environmental services, culture, highways, transport, housing and planning services range from 14.65% to a staggering 52.8%. Meanwhile, the failure adequately to fund the NHS and the police service has added to the problems facing individuals, communities and the councils which seek to serve them. Moreover, we all know that GP practices are under great pressure.
I remind the House that, for five years, the Lib Dems were party to the damage inflicted on individuals and communities not only by the cuts to which I have alluded but by a range of other policies. These include the abysmal impact of universal credit, with 40,000 new council residents affected by so-called welfare reforms; the bedroom tax, which in Newcastle siphons off £2 million a year from 3,000 residents and the local economy; the dismantling of regional offices of government which have facilitated an understanding in Whitehall—in fairness, they had been established by a previous Conservative Government, but now of course they are no longer there—so that the diverse needs of different parts of the country are not addressed; and the failure to invest in improving highways and rail services in the north-east.
As the Public Accounts Committee reported last July, between 2011 and 2017, government funding of local authorities fell by 49.1% in real terms. In Newcastle, that translates into cuts that currently stand at £270 million a year, rising over the next four years to £327 million, with £16.9 million required in the upcoming 2019-20 budget. The loss is already £1,000 per head of population and £2,550 per household, rising to £3,000 per household by 2022. These figures come after raising council tax next year by the permitted amount of £5.2 million and business rates by £1.8 million or 1.7%.
Yet we have to cope with a rising demand for support services. In Newcastle, some 12,000 children aged under 16 live in low-income families—25.4% of their age group compared with a national average of 16.8%. Those are the 2011 census figures; they will be significantly worse by now. The highest level of poverty is to be found in households with children aged from birth to four years old. Many of these families and others rely on food banks for sustenance. The country’s busiest food bank is located in the ward I represent. In Newcastle, we have just under 5,000 people receiving ongoing and long-term support, 3,300 of them aged over 65, with 2,000 receiving short-term support from the council’s reablement service. Last year saw an increase of 36% in adults receiving safeguarding. However, the pressure on staff is tremendous and we struggle to maintain the extent and quality of the services we supply.
Some 44 years ago, as chairman of the social services committee, I inaugurated the city’s welfare rights service. Last year, it helped 19,000 residents to secure £30 million-worth of unclaimed benefits and supplied 6,500 with debt advice. It is a costly service for the council but at least for the moment we are continuing to provide it. I hope that that remains possible, but this is not a service required by statute, and without a change in government policy, there must be a risk as to its future and thereby to the people who desperately need support.
Depressing as this litany of problems and needs is, the damage to local government and the people it serves does not end there. Let us consider the impact of right to buy, which has led to a huge extension of private rented sector and high-rent properties without councils being able to use the proceeds to build genuinely affordable properties to replace them. The Government are belatedly planning some support for new social housing, but their concept of affordability is still connected to an inflated private sector market at the national level which bears little relation to the economy of regions like the north-east. In any event, the numbers are too few.
The sector has also faced pressure to outsource services, just as has been required of the probation service and the Prison Service, with disastrous results as we have frequently discussed in this Chamber. The role of local councils in education has been drastically reduced, with all manner of organisations replacing them, many deemed by Ofsted to be failing the children consigned to them. In one case in Newcastle, they simply closed down and abandoned a brand new building. Talking about young people, we have to recall that the coalition Government also did away with the important Sure Start programme. In addition to this litany of problems, we have a police service that is undermanned and overstretched, like so many others, with a significant reduction in neighbourhood policing reducing teams covering two or three council wards to single individuals.
This debate will exemplify the parlous state of local government today. I sympathise with Liberal Democrat Members of this House whose communities are suffering from government policies that I and other Members have criticised, no doubt to be amplified by other speakers. But I have to remind them that much of the damage to local councils and their residents or employees emanates directly from the coalition Government of which they were a part. An apology would be welcome.
In fairness, their former partners appear to be threatening to make matters worse. The Government are now consulting on a new formula for their funding of local government. This would remove deprivation from the formula covering waste disposal, public transport, libraries, leisure, homelessness and recreation, and replace it with a simple population basis, restricting the deprivation factor to adult social care, children’s services, public health, highways maintenance, flood defence and fire and rescue services. It is quite clearly a cynical attempt to divert financial support from urban areas to Conservative-controlled areas. Can the Minister say whether, and if so when, this House will have an opportunity to discuss any of these proposed changes? Above all, at a time when the Government proclaim that austerity is over—for too many people a questionable assertion—can they at least pledge to provide the funding required to provide services of the extent and quality that is desperately needed?