NHS: Independent Investigation

Debate between Lord Scriven and Earl Howe

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad we are having this debate on the report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, even if the tone set by the Statement—which I am sure noble Lords have read—is, as far as I am concerned, rather regrettable. It is regrettable because the noble Lord, as one would expect of that most distinguished man, has produced a thoughtful and carefully argued diagnosis and set of prescriptions for the NHS. It would have been better to treat those findings on their own terms rather than as an excuse for a highly charged political rant. Having said that, I hope that, in this House at least, we can maintain debate on a rational and civilised level.

There are indeed problems in the health service that are there for all to see and others that are less immediately visible. These problems are real and indeed require sustained remedial effort. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, attributes them to a mixture of causes, one being inadequate central government funding. I do not expect the noble Lord to be an apologist for the previous Government, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged more fully that, despite so-called austerity, health service funding rose in real terms in every year since 2010 and in the last five years by nearly 3% in real terms per annum. The problem, as Sir John Bell has pointed out, is not a lack of money: it is that too much of the money has been sucked, suboptimally, into acute care settings and not enough into the community. The noble Lord goes on to say that very thing. But let no one conclude from that that community funding has been neglected. The last Government oversaw the opening of 160 community diagnostic centres. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, this is the largest central cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the NHS.

Is there more to be done? Yes—but the results are there and proving their worth. The NHS is currently treating 25% more people than it did in 2010. It is delivering tens of millions more out-patient appointments, diagnostic tests and procedures than it did when the coalition Government came into office. Some of the community services are being delivered by staff employed by acute trusts—the statistics tend to hide those numbers. Yes, we can talk about the need for greater productivity, but this progress—it is indeed progress—is all down to the efforts of the dedicated clinical staff across the health service on whom we all rely, and who are more in number than at any time in the service’s history.

Please do not criticise the last Government for focusing on the numbers. The imperative of planning ahead to train the right number of staff for the right care settings was amply fulfilled in the last Government’s workforce plan—a publication heralded by the NHS chief executive as

“one of the most seminal moments”

in the NHS’s history.

Can the Minister nevertheless say, despite the fact that the report is not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, whether the Government will embrace the workforce plan and take it forward as the NHS clearly wants and needs? Can she also say whether the Government will adopt the productivity plan announced in the last Government’s Spring Budget? That plan—again, unaccountably not mentioned in the report—would deliver the “tilt towards technology” that the noble Lord rightly advocates, with a big productivity gain to boot.

I said that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi’s report was carefully argued, but not all of it is well argued. I cannot allow his colourful statements about the 2012 Health and Social Care Act to go unchallenged. To attribute the NHS’s current difficulties and challenges in large part to that Act is, frankly, ridiculous. What that Act did was to complete the process that the noble Lord himself started, which was to ingrain quality into the commissioning and delivery of healthcare based on clearly defined standards and outcomes, meaning that providers would be competing with each other based on the quality of care and treatment that they delivered to patients.

The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, now says that we need to move away from the whole idea of competition, but I suspect he has misled himself, because he goes on to say:

“The framework of national standards … incentives and earned autonomy … needs to be reinvigorated”,


along with patient choice. What is that framework if it is not a framework of healthy competition between providers based on quality? Therefore, what role does the Minister see for competition alongside collaboration —I do not think the two are mutually exclusive—in driving up the quality of NHS care?

I have a few final questions. We are told that a 10-year plan will be produced based on the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi. Whose plan will that be? Will it be the Government’s plan, and if so, how will the Government avoid what might look like a prescriptive top-down set of instructions to the health service? Does the Minister think it important that the NHS takes ownership of the plan and, if so, how will that be achieved?

In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, believes that we need to get from point A to point B—in other words, from acute settings to community settings; from tired old premises to brand new ones; et cetera. Does the Minister agree that we cannot transition from point A without first finding the money to create a functioning point B? In other words, will she and her fellow Ministers urge the Chancellor to commit to the capital expenditure necessary to achieve that?

Lastly, I quote the noble Lord, Lord Darzi:

“The vast array of good practice that already exists in the health service should be the starting point for the plan to reform it”.


Does the Minister agree with that and, if so, how does she reconcile those sentiments with the Government’s mantra—which is so discouraging to the men and women of the health service—that the NHS is “broken”?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House. You do not have to be a mastermind to realise that the NHS is straining at its seams. It is only down to the great work of the many thousands of people who work in the NHS that millions of people get great care, even though some fall between the cracks.

The Darzi report is a very good medical history and it gives a diagnosis, but we all know that the treatment plan is going to be the important point if we are to deal with a reformed, new and productive NHS. There are some welcome themes in the report that are not new. Those who know the previous Darzi report will see have seen some of them before: prevention; moving resources from hospital care to primary and community care; dealing with the wider determinants of health; improvements in and parity for mental health; and a bigger role for public health.

I understand that the Minister will answer many questions by saying that we need to wait for the 10-year treatment plan, and probably the Budget, before such specific questions can be answered, but I have a few general questions for the Minister, to get at least a sense of the direction that the Government wish to take.

Is it the Government’s intention to restore the public health grant back its 2014 levels? Are there any general views about looking at changing the structure of public health, nationally or locally? On capital, what is the Government’s thinking about the general theme of allocation to hospital and non-hospital services, and how will this be managed and monitored? On data, what is the Government’s thinking on the workforce plan, particularly when there is a huge imbalance when it comes to digital and data between the private sector and skills within the NHS? That is not to say that there are not some good skills within the NHS, but there is clearly an imbalance.

Welcome as it is that the report talks about moving resources from hospital to non-hospital settings, I was a manager in the health service in the early 1990s and I know that this has been said since at least the 1970s. What are the Government going to do to be able to move resources from sunk costs in the acute sector into other sectors? What mechanisms will be put in place? How will this be monitored? More importantly, who will be held accountable for making sure that it actually happens? How will the new neighbourhood approach affect the existing workforce plan? If a new health service is anticipated, what will the effect be on the workforce plan and the implications for capital allocation?

We all want to see a productive and effective healthcare system that improves peoples’ health and independence, but that cannot be brought about if we do not have a strong, effective, well-funded social care system. I do not understand why social care has been kicked down to the next Parliament, or how we are going to solve the health and well-being of the population without that being done. If the major reforms of social care are in the next Parliament, what steps are the Government going to take in this Parliament to deal with the social care crisis?

I look forward to the Minister’s answers, but, more importantly, to the 10-year treatment plan’s arrival in the next few months.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Debate between Lord Scriven and Earl Howe

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this is a welcome Statement and I thank the Minister for repeating it. During the passage of the legislation that underpins the creation of the infected blood compensation scheme, one thing that I am very glad that we all agreed on across the House was that we should not let party politics interfere with our collective aim of reaching a fair and workable set of legal provisions in response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. It is therefore particularly welcome to see that collegiate spirit continuing under the newly appointed ministerial team, and I thank them for that.

The debate that took place last Friday in the other place served to clarify a number of important questions arising from the Statement and I do not therefore propose to dwell on matters that have already been covered. The main areas that I would like to touch on relate in one way or another to the projected timetable for delivering compensation and justice in all its forms. It is excellent to hear that the recent period of election purdah did not prevent the further interim payments of £210,000 being made to beneficiaries of the infected blood support schemes living with infections, as was promised by the previous Government.

However, the other promise that we made was to put in place as soon as possible arrangements to make an interim payment of £100,000 to the estates of deceased people who were infected with contaminated blood or blood products and whose deaths have not yet been recognised. To fulfil that promise, it is clearly necessary, as the Statement indicated, to reach consensus between the devolved Administrations and the Government in Westminster, as well as those in charge of the existing support schemes, on how exactly those arrangements should be implemented. Can the Minister say how those discussions are progressing? Is she confident that, when applications for those payments open in October, they will open across the United Kingdom, as opposed to just a part or parts of the United Kingdom?

Secondly, the Statement made it clear that the regulations to establish the scheme would be made on 24 August, which, as the Act provides, is exactly three months after Royal Assent. How will that work, procedurally and legally? One risk that we identified when the Victims and Prisoners Bill was being debated was that a three-month deadline for making regulations might be too rigid if the Summer Recess, and/or an election campaign, meant that the regulations would have to be made at a time when Parliament was not sitting. Our solution was to create the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in shadow form, with a view to timing Royal Assent for a date some time in July, when we judged that the risk of a parliamentary recess or Prorogation interfering with the making of regulations would be reduced. Because of reservations expressed by Labour shadow Ministers, it was not possible to build any flexibility into the statute to allow for those risks, which, as things have turned out, may be seen as unfortunate, because Royal Assent had to happen as soon as the general election was announced. Can the Minister clarify what the legal effect will be of the regulations being made when Parliament is not sitting? At what point will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority be legally in being?

Next, one of the key reassurances that I gave when taking the Bill through was around the need to listen to the victims. We envisaged involving the infected blood community directly in two ways: first, in setting the final shape of the compensation scheme and, secondly, in assisting Sir Robert Francis as interim chair of the authority in ensuring that the scheme, when up and running, was implemented fairly and with the full benefit of input from those whose lives have been directly affected by this calamity. As regards the former, it is good news that Sir Robert Francis completed his engagement exercise last month and that he will be publishing the outcome in advance of 24 August. As regards the latter, can the Minister reassure the House that it is still the intention for the infected blood community to be represented in the compensation authority through its committees and subcommittees? If so, is work proceeding now to give effect to that intention?

Could I next ask the Minister to confirm a point that I know is still a matter of anxiety for the infected blood community? It is a question that concerns those currently in receipt of support payments. As the responsible Minister, I gave the House an assurance that no one will be worse off under the final compensation scheme than they would have been under existing support schemes, and that an additional top-up payment would be made to anyone assessed as being entitled to less money than would otherwise have been payable via the infected blood support schemes. In other words, I promised that those people who have a legitimate expectation of receiving a certain sum of money from support payments over their lifetime will have that expectation honoured. Can the Minister confirm the assurance that I gave? Following on from that, can the Minister clarify for me whether what are now classed as ex gratia payments under the support schemes are now in effect to be rebadged as compensation?

I shall touch also on a further concern within the infected blood community, relating to access to necessary treatment. Victims have told me that parts of the NHS have been slow to recognise the moral and clinical urgency of treating those whose illness, or multiple illnesses in some cases, stems directly from receiving infected blood or blood products. Will the Minister ask her colleague in the Department of Health and Social Care to look into this and report to the House on how any difficulties of this sort might best be remedied? The Republic of Ireland issues a special card to those registered as having been infected by contaminated blood or blood products, so that there is no argument when someone presents themselves to the GP or the hospital. Is that an idea that could be considered here?

While on the subject of treatment, can the Minister say whether everything is on track in NHS England and the devolved Administrations to roll out the bespoke psychological support service for those infected and affected by the infected blood disaster?

Finally, the Statement is right to pick up Sir Brian Langstaff’s finding that there is a culture of institutional defensiveness that can too often rear its head in areas of the public sector. The Government have stated their intention to bring forward a statutory duty of candour to address that issue—and, indeed, this was a proposal that we debated at some length during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It is an idea that has obvious appeal and no doubt the Government will bring forward legislation in due course when they are ready to do so. However, I said, during our debate, that it is an idea that merits a reasonably long run being taken at it before it is set in legislative stone—and I repeat that view today, because I do not in fact think that a duty of candour is of itself a magic bullet that is capable of changing what is often an ingrained culture.

The duty of candour that we have already in the NHS has not prevented some very serious and high-profile disasters arising out of poor care, or even criminal behaviour. Similarly, we already have the Civil Service code, which mandates honesty and transparency but has not, alas, prevented the kinds of cover-ups and dishonesty in departments of government that Sir Brian Langstaff has highlighted. So, finally, will any proposals to introduce statutory duty of candour for the public sector as a whole be preceded by extensive and thorough engagement with all those parts of the public sector to which the duty is intended to apply?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her place and wish her well in the role she is undertaking. We on these Benches also welcome this Statement and commit to a collaborative cross-party approach to this very important issue.

Victims of the infected blood scandal and their families have been waiting for decades to see justice. Tragically, as we know, thousands have died without ever having received compensation. The report of the inquiry into the scandal, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, laid bare the suffering inflicted, the cover-ups and the systematic failures of individuals and of the British state as a whole. Not only did individuals and the state fail to help these victims, but in many cases people were lied to, treated with contempt and dismissed outright. It is good to hear updates on progress, but victims have waited far too long and there are still some gaps.

I want to follow up on the comments by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the treatment and some dismissive approaches by the NHS. Rather than just having a card, now that patient records are electronic would it be possible to put an automatic flag in them so that the onus is on the service and not the individual to make sure that timely treatment is given by the NHS?

An infected blood compensation authority will be set up, but what framework is being set for a light-touch approach to those seeking compensation? We have seen that compensation schemes, such as for Horizon, can be complex and difficult for those who have been affected to navigate. What framework are the Minister and the Government asking the compensation authority to undertake that will make it as light-touch as possible but with appropriate probity in place?

Another problem with the Government’s proposals for compensation is that only infected victims and bereaved partners are entitled to the autonomy award. This is being used as a catch-all to cover, for example, clinical trials and the loss of the right to have children. Affected parents cannot claim this £50,000 award, but it is the only measure that looks to compensate for the financial outlay of supporting the child or children of the deceased and their partners over many years.

Another issue with the autonomy award is that it does not recognise infected and affected partners whose pregnancies have been terminated as a result of links to their blood infection. Does the Minister not agree that there is a good case for the autonomy award to be extended to specific affected individuals who can prove injury? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Scriven and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is a very relevant point. The point that has been made to us quite forcefully is that a lot of the software that is already in use is clunky and outdated, and that somehow a solution needs to be found. Clearly, the state in which systems are at the time any new system comes into play will vary from local authority to local authority. I will investigate that point further and, if I can elucidate the issue, I will gladly do so.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

In his normal calm and reassuring way, the Minister pointed out on Clause 81 that there may be some leeway regarding the software that could be used. However, I will read what is in the Bill, so that the Minister can explain why there will be leeway. The power is

“to require use of approved planning data software in England”,

and the clause says:

“Planning data regulations may make provision restricting or preventing a relevant planning authority in England from using or creating, or having any right in relation to, planning data … which … is not approved in writing by the Secretary of State.”


How will that leeway come in if the Bill says that the software has to be approved in writing by the Secretary of State, and that a planning authority in England cannot use it if it is not?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I simply come back to the point I am trying to emphasise, which is that the watchword here is collaboration, between central government and local authorities. We want to get this right to get a solution that local authorities themselves are comfortable with and which is compatible, authority to authority. Although the noble Lord is correct to quote the Bill as he has, our intention is not to require approval for all planning data software.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

That is impossible given how Clause 81 is written, because it makes provision for

“restricting or preventing a relevant planning authority”

if software is not approved by the Secretary of State. I understand the intention, but does the Minister agree that, as Clause 81 is written, what he wishes to see is actually not allowed by the Bill?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I can only supplement what the Bill says by saying that we do not intend to introduce any requirement for approval without the appropriate exploratory work and engagement with local authorities.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Scriven and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall focus straightaway on the provisions of Clause 77 in the round, in response to the concerns and questions that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Bennett.

Clause 77 creates a requirement for the necessary support to be obtained for any changes to street names. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked why the Government have included this clause in the Bill. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I must repudiate the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that this has something to do with the culture wars. The answer is that it addresses the issue that, in some places around the country, there has been considerable concern and disquiet where councils have taken it upon themselves to change the name of a street without any meaningful consultation with local residents.

Under the available legislation, which noble Lords have rightly said dates from the early 20th century, any council has the power to change the name of a given street without consulting the residents in the street. The provisions of the Bill will ensure that, instead, local residents will be properly involved in changes to street names that affect them—changes that, as we have discussed, can alter the character of their area. Street names are often an intrinsic part of an area’s heritage, cherished by the community for their history and representation of the place. Changing names involves both practical costs for residents and businesses and social cost to the community. We are clear that these costs should be borne only with the consent of those affected.

How that should be attained will vary according to the nature of the street and its importance in the community. A one-size-fits-all approach would be insufficient to properly allow the views of the community to be determinative. The clause will unify the approach to how changes to street names are made where currently the rights of the community depend upon where they live and, outside of London, the decision of the local authority as to how involved or not the community should be.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I totally follow the logic of what the Minister has just said, but would it not be the case that a solution would be, rather than a new provision, to revoke the part of the 1925 Act that a council can adopt, which says there should be no vote, in favour of saying that all councils must adopt the 1907 Act, which says there must be a vote?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The problem is that there are, I am advised, three Acts of Parliament that date from the early part of the last century, and that has led to a confusing mix of provisions across the country. Many provisions are over a century old, as I say, and there is no transparency over which Acts apply where. We thought it simpler to take the opportunity to be clear in this Bill that there should be more local determination of these issues. The current legislation is antiquated in its drafting, apart from anything else, so this updating is intended to make the process clearer for local authorities. All that should make the process for renaming a street more democratic and ensure that the voices of the local community are genuinely heard.

Amendment 173, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would add additional criteria for local authorities when considering the renaming of a street. We entirely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of history, archaeology and culture in this process. The last thing we want is anodyne street names divorced from the character and history of the area. However, as I have made clear, the Government are strongly of the belief that the final say on changes affecting street names should lie with local people. We fully expect those local views to reflect the historical or cultural associations of the names concerned and the importance that communities place upon them.

The amendment would create a duty on a local authority to consider the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a name change. It is not clear that a free-standing additional requirement of that kind is necessary, nor is it clear how that duty would work alongside the provisions of the Bill. It could, for example, make it harder to secure name changes that had local support but where new considerations, such as the need to honour a local person or event, took precedence over an archaeological interest. We saw some Olympians having streets named after them following the 2012 Olympics.

It is for this reason that, with the aim of being helpful to local authorities, the Government would be minded to set out in statutory guidance how factors such as the history and culture of the area should be considered in bringing forward proposals for street name changes under this clause. We have consulted on the prospective secondary legislation and guidance to deliver these changes, and respondents were over-whelmingly positive about our proposals: 91% of respondents agreed that regulations and statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name. In view of that support, and of the fact that heritage and cultural significance are matters that local communities are best placed to weigh up for themselves, I hope I will have persuaded the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The 1907 Act is very clear. It is not antiquated or in any way there to be debated. The 1907 Act power may be exercised only with the consent of two-thirds of the non-domestic rates payers and council tax payers in a street. That is what the Act says. What is it about the 1907 Act and that provision which seems to be non-democratic and does not give the power to the people on the street to make the change?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Because it is a one-size-fits-all approach and our judgment is that that is not an appropriate prescription for every situation.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The noble Earl is therefore saying that in one street it could be 51% and, in another street, maybe a couple of streets away, it has to be 75%. Is that what the noble Earl is saying? The provision in the 1907 Act is very clear. It gives a provision of what needs to happen and a percentage of the vote required to change the name. Is he saying that different streets need different percentages of the votes to change the street name?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We cannot, at this stage, prescribe particular percentages to particular situations. This is to be worked through in regulations and guidance, which was, as I emphasised, the approach that respondents to the consultation felt was right: we should not be unduly prescriptive in primary legislation, but rather allow for some flexibility at local level depending on the situation under consideration.

I turn to Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Baroness. As I outlined, our view is that local people should have the final say on these matters, particularly, as the noble Baroness’s Amendment 173 demonstrates, when it comes to their local heritage. In this context, I agree with the underlying intent behind this amendment. There should be clear processes for making sure that views from all relevant groups that might be affected by a street name change are taken into account. It is, however, important that we do this in the right way so that the processes are robust but can be adjusted if needed.

The approach in these amendments would be prescriptive and would limit our ability to go further than simply consultation by making local views determinative, as the clauses do at present. But I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we will be setting out clear, transparent and robust arrangements in secondary legislation, as we set out in the consultation I already mentioned. In addition, by setting out the detail for how consultation on street naming will work in regulations and guidance, we can maintain flexibility to update processes in line with different local circumstances and changes such as new technology. I hope these remarks are helpful in explaining the Government’s approach to what is a sensitive issue.

My noble friend Lord Lansley asked whether there were any local Acts of Parliament that might affect this issue. I am advised that the Oxfordshire Act 1985 might be relevant here. I think I had better do further research for my noble friend to find out whether there are others—but that was the advice that I have been able to receive.

On his other question of the power to name new villages, I have no direct experience of this. My understanding is that what normally happens is a conversation between a private developer and the local authority and an accommodation is reached. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who clearly has direct experience of this, is shaking her head, so I do bow to her experience. It would seem appropriate that I look into this further and write to my noble friend once again.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Scriven and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Well, does that not argue for having in certain circumstances a similar status for associate members, who can contribute on a par with the way that commissioners contribute to combined authorities?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The point I am trying to make to the Minister is that, if he is going to use an example, it has to be an example of someone who already sits on a combined authority and has that influence, rather than just someone who advises the mayor and does not have a formal role within the combined authority structure.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I think this was said earlier. I do not think you can take the model of the metropolitan areas and combined authorities and transpose that on to other areas of the country. Why should we not allow for difference, diversity and local decision-making on the way that people are used to best effect?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister does not seem to understand. It is not about transposing from an urban to a non-urban issue. This is a matter of principle about democratic accountability for taxpayers’ money being used and that, when people sit at a table, there is some form of democratic accountability back to the people for whom they are making those decisions. The kind of membership that the Bill proposes has no democratic accountability. It is not about transposing a model from urban to rural; it is a matter of principle. If people are spending taxpayers’ money as part of a mayoral combined authority, whether urban or rural, they should be democratically accountable back to the people whose taxes they are spending.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I sense that this is a matter that we will come back to at a later stage of the Bill. I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said on this subject.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Scriven and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, just pointed out, these amendments relate to consultant spend by councils and regional director spends, and their roles in the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

Amendment 51 is important, as the noble Baroness just pointed out. A freedom of information request showed that in the 245 upper and lower-tier councils, £26.9 million has been spent on levelling-up bids. That is £26.9 million taken away from social care, housing, cleaning, street cleaning and bin collection at a time when councils are finding things particularly difficult. Of that money, the vast majority went to external consultants. Does the Minister think it right that £26.9 million should be used on a lottery process pitting town against town and city against city to bid for levelling-up funds, only for the Government to move the goalposts at the last second by changing the criteria against which councils are bidding, which means not only that this money could have been spent on other services but that it has been wasted?

On Amendment 52, I wish to start with a general point, and here I do not necessarily share the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The concept of 12 regional directors controlled out of Whitehall somehow being the panacea for devolution is ludicrous. Let us be clear: what this will turn out to be is a system of crude decentralisation. Those of us who have been around for quite a while in local government know that when we had something similar in the past, the regional directors of the department dispersed to work with local area partnership boards came with “We are here to help and support you” as their mantra. However, they were used as government enforcers and the eyes and ears of government, going back to the department and saying which areas were in the good books and who should be put on the naughty step because they were not carrying out the Government’s agenda.

Reports back from such regional directors decided who got money and what sticks or carrots were deployed. I know that the noble Earl will pour out soothing words from the Dispatch Box, saying that is not the role, but history shows that it is. Look at the job advert issued in November 2022—it kind of gives the game away. It says that they will report progress to the newly established committee for levelling-up, which is exactly the same as the previous directors in the department did.

We are now told that these regional directors are on hold, but that they could be answerable and accountable to the mayors. Let us take Yorkshire as a region, as these are regional directors. We could have four mayors in Yorkshire with different agendas and from different political persuasions. To which mayor will the regional director be accountable—one of them or all of them? It is clear that these roles have not been thought through from a regional perspective but from an office in Whitehall, with a very Londoncentric view of how they can be used as government enforcers.

Talking of Yorkshire, we are a little perplexed—not that we are from Yorkshire, but perhaps the Minister can help with this. Civil Service World on 17 February had an interesting headline, stating that the department

“hires former … No. 10 official as levelling-up director.”

Ed Whiting, David Cameron’s former deputy private secretary has been hired, and he very helpfully tweeted that he has been recruited to the role of levelling-up director in the north, based in and working out of Leeds:

“I’ll be based in Leeds, hoping to be travelling round North”,


working with local councils and others on innovation. He also expects to travel to London often too—ah, yes, that newly established Cabinet committee for levelling-up has to be informed. He goes on, quite incredibly—he has been hired on a six-figure salary—to say that “details” of the new role are “tbc”.

We are perplexed, Minister, and some clarification would be helpful. Is Mr Whiting a regional director for levelling up and, if not, what is his role and how does it fit with the regional directors? When was he recruited, where was the job advert and who sat on the recruitment panel? Why have local authorities in the north not been informed officially who he is and how he is there to help them? Why has someone been recruited on a six-figure salary when their role is still to be confirmed?

That is why Amendment 52 is important. We need transparency and clarity on who the department is using in the regions and what roles they have, to ensure the Government do not establish an expensive decentralized bureaucracy, costing the taxpayers millions, trying to enforce their agenda in local areas.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments is related to consultants and the Government’s appointment of levelling-up directors. Specifically, Amendment 51, in the name of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Government to publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. I fear that requiring local authorities to report in this way would be disproportionate and unnecessary, but let me explain why.

The new burdens doctrine, established and maintained by successive Governments, requires all Whitehall departments to justify why new duties, powers, targets and other bureaucratic burdens should be placed on local authorities, as well as how much these policies and initiatives will cost and where the money will come from to pay for them. This provision already ensures that the Government must properly consider the impact of their policies, legislation and programmes on local government and fully fund any new burdens arising.

Further, local authorities are already bound by the Local Government Transparency Code, which mandates local authorities to publish data on all expenditure over £500 in open and accessible formats. I will come back to that point in a second, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness about expenditure by central government on consultants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It would depend on the circumstances. It would depend on whether the expenditure on consultants was classified as a truly new burden or not, and that is an arcane science on which I do not pretend to be expert. Perhaps I may provide the noble Baroness with clarification in writing on that point, because I recognise that it is of relevance.

As I was saying, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Baroness’s points on expenditure by central government on consultants. As a matter of principle, I think all Secretaries of State across government would agree that they should impose a self-denying ordinance on their departments where skills can be developed in-house. Where that can happen, it should. The problem is, I suggest, twofold. First, the skills needed are very often highly specialised; secondly, if one looks across government as a whole, it is very difficult to make general statements about the needs of individual departments. However, I think the noble Baroness and I are aligned in our antipathy to expenditure that may turn out to be unnecessary—certainly expenditure that turns out to be wasteful. No department wants to go down that road.

On expenditure, transparency, as so often, is key. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about consultancy expenditure by local authorities in preparing their bids. I would just say to him that the decision by some local authorities to appoint consultants in their bidding process was a decision for them, and such decisions will doubtless have reflected in part the point that I just made: that the necessary skills are not always on tap locally. I think that is all I can say about that, but I will write on his questions about Mr Whiting, as I do not have the necessary briefing on that in front of me.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I want to ask a specific question, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also asked. Has any regional director been appointed? That is the key question, particularly about Mr Whiting.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am coming to Amendment 52 in a second. It might be helpful if I added a few comments about local government funding more generally, because we recognise that the sheer number of different funds has become onerous for some councils to navigate and deliver. We have taken initial steps to address this complexity in the funding landscape. For example, the levelling-up fund provides cross-departmental capital investment in local infrastructure, and the UK shared prosperity fund provides resource-focused investment to support people, boost pride in place and strengthen communities. However, the levelling-up White Paper made it clear that we can do more, and we will set out a plan on funding simplification shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It is open for decision. We want to see local areas taking the initiative themselves. Where there is a functioning economic hub, for example, or a whole county, they may wish to apply for CCA status, but it is up to them to make those decisions. One can talk in general terms of “the north”, but until we know that the appetite is in those northern areas for taking advantage of the opportunities that we are trying to create, I cannot be more specific.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

For clarity, the issue with Mr Whiting, to whom I referred, is that, as the Minister helpfully said, no regional director has been appointed so far. However, Mr Whiting describes himself as a regional director for the north and not for a particular region. Therefore, it is important that, when the Minister writes to me, he clarifies exactly what Mr Whiting’s role is and how it fits with the regional directors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he keeps talking about complexity. This is complexity of boundary, not of reality. I will give him a situation where complexity may hold back the levelling-up agenda. Let us again take the top end of the east Midlands and South Yorkshire. If both the South Yorkshire combined authority and the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined authority have control of the skills money, the fact that probably about half the people from the north end of the east Midlands come up into South Yorkshire means that the skills required should be funded for jobs available in the South Yorkshire combined authority. If the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined authority decides not to invest in that type of skill, the issue is that the flow of labour will not be there for South Yorkshire businesses. How does that kind of problem get solved? It is not an administrative issue but the reality of having the skills where real people and businesses travel and work together.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point. The experience we have had with combined authorities is that local authorities’ natural tendency is to co-operate with each other. We have seen this all over the place: they do not want to operate in silos and they look outside their boundaries. Yes, there may well be cases where at the beginning there would seem not to be a particularly good fit, but that does not preclude two authorities, such as those he mentioned, getting together and finding a way through, if they possibly can, to address the mismatches of the kind he mentioned.

Amendment 99 seeks to amend Clause 23 to require a public consultation before any proposal to change the area of an existing combined county authority. We agree that those with an interest in the area should be consulted before a combined county authority is changed. As I said, we will have more to say about this in the debate on the next group of amendments.

Clauses 45 and 46 set out a requirement for a public consultation on any proposals from the local area on changes to the area of a CCA. Where a combined county authority has been established and subsequently seeks to change its boundary, Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for areas to achieve that. The Secretary of State may make regulations changing the area of a CCA if that is something the area consents to, the Secretary of State agrees and Parliament approves the necessary secondary legislation.

We fully recognise the crucial importance of residents in the local area having a say; that is common ground between us. That is why any CCA or local authority seeking to submit a proposal to the Secretary of State to change the area of a CCA must carry out a public consultation, as set out in Clause 45(3). This consultation must take place in the area covered by the CCA. This enables local residents, businesses and other interested parties to have a strong input into any such proposals. A summary of consultation responses is then to be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the proposal.

Clause 46 provides an additional safeguard to ensure that there is sufficient public consultation. This enables the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation prior to making any regulations to enact these changes if they feel that there has been insufficient public involvement in their development.

We completely agree with the sentiment of Amendment 99, but I suggest that we already have provisions later in the Bill to address this; we will debate some of these in a few moments. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw Amendment 60 and not to move Amendment 99 when it is reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is certainly the aim. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would agree with me that one of the downsides of referendums that we have seen in the past is that people are asked to take a binary decision. That very often does not allow for the nuances and subtleties of an issue to be presented in the question, to put it at its mildest. So we think the consultation model is more appropriate for this type of situation, particularly as the different constituent elements of a community will have different interests and viewpoints on the issue in question.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

It is clear that, even barring a referendum, under Clause 44(3)(c) the Secretary of State will ask for further consultation if they consider that it is required. I assume that the Secretary of State will not have a subjective opinion on that and that there will be some objective criteria. It therefore comes back to what my noble friend Lord Shipley said: would it not be wise for the objective criteria about what good consultation is to be shared and, potentially, to be in the Bill? That would stop the position where local authorities had to rerun a consultation because it had not met the criteria which the Secretary of State was looking for in the first place.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Yes, I take the noble Lord’s point. It comes back to one that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about minimum standards in this area. It might be helpful if I took advice on this and wrote to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, to see whether I can add some clarification.

Turning to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the levelling-up White Paper clearly states the Government’s ambition for devolution, including the devolution framework, which is underpinned by four principles. One of these principles is sensible geography. The White Paper clearly states that future devolution deals should be agreed over a sensible, functional economic area and/or a whole-county geography, with a single institution in place across that geographic footprint. We have already debated that issue on the previous group. The combined county authority model is being established in the Bill to provide a single institution that can cover such functional economic areas, or whole-county geographies, where there is existing two-tier local government and multiple upper-tier councils. As such, I reassure the noble Baroness that combined county authorities will be focused on single economic hubs.