Teesworks Programme: Audit

Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Lord Scriven

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and so doing draw the House’s attention to my interest set out in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

The previous Government asked the Tees Valley mayor to provide a progress update in September, following the recommendations of the independent review of Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks Joint Venture. Once we have received that update, we will consider whether the questions that need to be answered have been and whether any further action should be taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, many Teessiders’ jaws will drop on the floor when they hear that Answer from the Minister, as every Labour candidate in Teesside promised that a National Audit Office review would take place. In the light of half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money being used and two businessmen making multimillion pound profits without taking any liabilities or any risk to their money, does that constitute best value? Why leave the people who have created the mess to solve the mess without any enforceable action being taken by Government?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, does in local government, and I understand the deep emotions that he talks about, because there are outstanding questions to which the public deserve answers. We understand that this issue, like all local issues, is emotive. This is evidenced by it being raised in this House and in the other place several times. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has asked this question before. This Government believe that scrutiny and transparency are important. However, we must carefully consider the mayor’s response, due in September, and we will consider any further action to take when we receive it. We are not ruling out any options, and one option could be requesting the NAO to review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

That is absolutely the case. However, there are recommendations on decision-making, governance and scrutiny. I appreciate the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister has said the Government have to wait for the mayor’s answers to the questions, which is different from what was being said before the Government were on the Government Benches. However, the review panel said in the report that the responses

“reduced our confidence that we have been given access to all relevant materials”.

The panel also said that it had

“not been able to pursue all lines of evidence or examine all transactions”.

Is that not why a full statutory audit is required: so that the Government convince themselves that Teessiders are getting value for money? With a response from the mayor, the report will have not seen all relevant information.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord again makes an important point. I remind the House that it is not the normal role of the NAO to examine or to audit local bodies. However, I understand that the NAO previously stated that it is willing to work outside its usual scope to undertake a review about Teesworks. We cannot prejudge the response of the Mayor of Tees Valley. When we get that response, we will look at it. In relation to the noble Lord’s question, that is another issue for the combined authority and the Mayor of Tees Valley to look at. Whatever happens, once that response is back with the Government, we will look at it and take further action then.

Elections Bill

Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Lord Scriven

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am a little perplexed and confused. Many noble Lords will ask how that is different from my normal state, but the reason I am confused is this. I am looking at this from the perspective of a potential voter at a parliamentary election. Many noble Lords will probably argue later in Committee that the link between the MP and the constituency, particularly for voting, is strong and must be maintained. Most people, when they vote, look at the link of the candidates to the constituency they are standing in, not necessarily the local authority area, as those can be very big.

Let me give an example. In my home city of Sheffield, there are five and a half constituencies: the half is because one half of the constituency is in Barnsley and the other half is in Sheffield. Sheffield is quite large: it is 367.9 kilometres squared. If you live in the north of Sheffield, it is highly unlikely that you have a link with the south-west of Sheffield. You would not go shopping there; you probably do not work there; you probably do not go to the parks there. People living in south-west Sheffield probably do not have a link with the north of Sheffield. There are many constituencies across the country like that. Therefore, just having the name of a local authority does not necessarily mean that the candidate has a link with the constituency. I agree with the Minister on the importance of the security of candidates, but that has to be balanced with the need for information for the potential constituents and voters to be able to ascertain how local the candidate is and what link they have with a particular constituency.

There are 650 constituencies in the UK and 398 councils, as laid down in the Government’s amendment. That means that there are 252 more constituencies than councils. I am not going to become a geek and tell you what the square kilometres of those are, but the number is quite large. When the Minister responds, will he say whether there has been any evaluation done about the exact amount of extra security and safety that will be afforded to candidates if we move from constituency to council area? That is key. If not, we potentially lose the link between the candidates and the constituency in which they are standing. That is the main reason for my amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply, particularly his answer to that question about what evaluation has been done and what level of extra safety and security will be afforded if the Government’s amendment is implemented. I beg to move.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 121 relates to election candidates and the location which they state on their ballot paper and elsewhere. We on these Benches fully agree with the Minister’s comments about concerns held by Members of the other place. At present, there are two options available to candidates: they may state either their full address or the name of their constituency. Police forces and other authorities have often advised candidates that the first option can be unwise. Elected politicians and candidates are often subject to extensive abuse, so making their full address publicly available can increase the risk that such abuse will lead to violence or intimidation. For this reason, it is often appropriate for candidates to select the second option and instead list their constituency.

At times, this can be problematic, because the names of constituencies often do not accurately describe or reflect their location. It therefore makes sense that a candidate may instead list their local authority, but I am concerned by a few unintended consequences. In particular, there is a possibility that candidates will use this option to mask the fact that they live far away from the constituency. Many rural local authorities such as Cornwall, Shropshire and Northumberland are well above 1,000 square miles, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made in relation to Sheffield.

In these examples, a candidate may now list their local authority to obscure the fact that they live close to two hours away. Does the Minister accept that this amendment might have the unintended consequence of hindering transparency? In addition to this, I am concerned that some local authorities may not accurately describe their locations. Will the Minister consider expanding this to include local authority wards? I look forward to hearing his response and thoughts on these points.