Social Housebuilding
Lord Shipley Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Question relates primarily to new social homes, but it was reported at the end of September that around 70,000 council and housing association homes are now lying empty. Can the Government say something about what is planned for those 70,000 dwellings?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, there are multiple reasons why properties may be empty, but it is important that we bring as many homes as possible into use. Councils are being given greater powers to charge additional council tax for empty properties, and I know that they will be looking very carefully at the stock of housing to make sure that it is brought into use as quickly as possible. We are also looking at things such as compulsory purchase order powers and so on. Councils already have those but it is very important that we give councils as many tools in their armoury as possible to prevent houses falling into dereliction or simply being left empty because they have been bought as investments and are not let out or used.
Teesworks Programme: Audit
Lord Shipley Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for raising those important issues. It is true that the previous Government scrapped the Audit Commission and replaced it with a fragmented, locally led audit regime that is failing. This Government are committed to overhauling local audit and restoring better value for money for taxpayers. We are looking closely at all the evidence, and we will set out our plans, including legislation, shortly. I must remind the House that until we get the response of the Mayor of Tees Valley we cannot explore the options. We will wait for the response to the 26 recommendations which the mayor was asked to look at and then take further action.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that scrutiny is important and has committed the Government to undertaking further action when the mayor’s response has been received. What is the Minister’s expectation of the timescale? The mayor will respond quite soon, as I understand it, and the Government then have to say what they want to do. Can the Minister tell us how long that might be? Will he take into consideration the fact that the Tees Valley Combined Authority plans to have only five meetings of its cabinet in the period from September this year to the end of June 2025?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I cannot comment on the meeting schedule of the Tees Valley Combined Authority. That is something for it to look at. In relation to the timeline, I have said to the House in previous answers that until six months have passed and the mayor has had an opportunity to address the concerns in relation to the 26 recommendations, we cannot work on this further. In the meantime, we recognise the point made by my noble friend that local audit needs transformative change, and noble Lords will very shortly hear the plans for changing the way local in which audit takes place.
Tees Valley Combined Authority: Best Value Notice
Lord Shipley Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
There is a strengthened governance code for all the combined mayoral authorities and all these types of devolved government. I am sure that, as we progress with this, we will see those governance systems start to work more efficiently and effectively.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, on 5 March 2024, the Government issued a best value notice to the West of England Combined Authority. On 24 January 2023, it issued a best value notice to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, and it renewed that on 30 January 2024. Why are the Government refusing to implement an enforceable best value notice on Tees Valley Combined Authority when it imposes them on other combined authorities?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
To assist the House, let me say that best value notices are similar to the Department for Education improvement notices, which are issued following an Ofsted inspection and are a step before statutory intervention. A best value notice is issued to a local authority exhibiting indications of future best value failure. The notice is posted on GOV.UK and outlines the Government’s concerns with the authority and the clear expectations of the actions needed to ensure continuous improvement. The examples given are a clear way in which those non-statutory instruments can be used. With regards to Tees Valley, it has just undergone a major independent review with 28 recommendations; we will see in six months’ time if it has been conformed to.
Social Housing: Right-to-buy Sales
Lord Shipley Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I am afraid that is not my understanding of what has happened historically, and I understand that some Members of this House may have been involved in setting up the original scheme.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I remind the House of my register of interests. Can we go back to the issue of the right to buy? In the last year, 10,896 homes were sold through right to buy in England and only 3,447 houses replaced them—a net loss of 7,449 in 2022-23. How would the Minister explain that to a family stuck in temporary accommodation which is gradually becoming permanent?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I do not recognise those figures. The figures I have in front of me are that, in 2022-23, local authorities reported 10,896 eligible sales, which was very similar to sales in 2021-22, and delivered 8,900 homes that same year. Overall, there was a net increase of 4,600 affordable homes in that year.
Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Lord Shipley Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this and I see some logic in some of the provisions within the regulations. However, paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum raised my eyebrows. It asks:
“What is the approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation?”
It then states that:
“The Government has no plans actively to monitor this legislation; the majority of provisions are already in operation without problems for combined authorities”.
Tell that to people who have sat on the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s overview and scrutiny committee. They would tell you that things were not working properly. It got to such a point that the dysfunctionality of that combined authority and the poor or lack of oversight of what was happening led to the Tees Valley Review, which was produced by an independent panel and made some quite interesting observations on what was happening there. The report said that:
“The former monitoring officer advised TVCA oversight and Scrutiny Committee they had no remit to scrutinise”
South Tees Development Corporation decisions. That was quite interesting because Tees Valley Combined Authority had given over £200 million-worth of loans to the South Tees Development Corporation and therefore there was a direct link to why overview and scrutiny needed to take place.
In the report, previous members of the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s overview and scrutiny committee
“expressed frustration at the lack of information provided which they felt undermined their ability to scrutinise the activity of STDC and TWL”—
Teesworks Limited—which is now a privately owned company, 90%-owned by the private sector. Two businessmen with a 90% stake are making super profits on the back of £500 million-worth of public sector investment and again, the overview and scrutiny committee has not been able to scrutinise most of that money.
Recommendations 6 and 7 of the Tees Valley Review report relate directly to overview and scrutiny and show why it was not working, what the deficiencies are and how things need to be improved. The Minister pointed out that new guidance is coming forward, but if the Government are not going to monitor actively the legislation, how will they know whether another Tees Valley Combined Authority issue could happen or is happening? What mechanisms do the Government have in place to ensure that this kind of dysfunctionality can never happen at a combined authority again? It is an important question that the Minister needs to answer, especially since this new legislation will not be monitored. If arrangements are not in place centrally to determine whether there is this kind of dysfunctionality, what arrangements will be put in place to ensure that this could not happen again in any of the existing combined authorities or the new combined county authorities?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will wait for the Minister to reply to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Scriven. In her introduction, she talked about the review that is taking place but not the timescale. It would help the House to know when the Government expect the response, which we all expect, to be produced.
I understand that this instrument maintains parity between combined authorities and combined county authorities and that it is necessary. However, I was concerned to read in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Notes that
“several of the combined authorities with whom the draft legislation was discussed asked if provision could be included enabling committees to meet virtually or to reduce the quoracy requirement for the transaction of committee business from its current level of two thirds of committee members”.
I am very pleased that the Government concluded
“that face-to-face attendance of meetings”
of overview and scrutiny, and of audit, is important. It is and, having worked on the levelling-up Bill and moved amendments in relation to overview and scrutiny, and audit, I think that the Government’s position is correct.
It is very easy for those who are running overview and scrutiny, and audit, to want to reduce the workload and so suggest “Can we meet virtually?”—that means that, rather than all the conversations that take place before or after a meeting, people are only discussing these matters online—and, “Can committees have a lower turnout/attendance rate?” When we moved these matters in previous legislation, the figure of two-thirds mattered because overview and scrutiny, and audit, must be taken very seriously. I hope that the Government understand this.
We will see when we get the report that the Government are due to present to your Lordships’ House, but, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said, my eyes lit upon the words at paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Notes saying that:
“The Government has no plans actively to monitor this legislation”.
I think that this means relating only to whether people take up the option of allowances—it may mean that; however, it may mean something else. I hope that the Government do not mean the wider definition of “legislation”, because all the evidence suggests that the Government need to keep a very close eye on overview and scrutiny and audit, and how it is being carried out.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, who have asked some very important questions.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 provides for the establishment of combined county authorities, which typically cover more rural areas; the existing combined authorities typically cover cities. The purpose of these regulation is to ensure that the same membership and proceedings provisions apply to the overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees of combined county authorities as apply to the same committees in combined authorities.
The regulations aim to create uniformity across both types of local authority in terms of committees that scrutinise the spending of public money and enable their members to be paid. We on these Benches would like to raise some specific issues. The measures mirror powers given to local authorities and the current combined authorities. We must be careful that we do not create legislation that allows combined authorities to create overview and scrutiny functions and audit functions if they do not have the specialist teams that are needed to support them properly.
This is a point my honourable friend Jim McMahon MP raised in the other place; he had no satisfactory response. We all know that when local government excels in scrutiny, it is because it has a well-resourced team that enables it to do proper, deep-dive reviews and investigations, to call in expert witnesses and to really go through things. I do not see that provision of finance in these regulations, so I would welcome a response on that.
Will overview and scrutiny committees have the power to conduct a “best value” review? Will remuneration for members of the committees reflect the type of members the committees want to attract? For instance, getting a specialised accountancy perspective may cost more than getting a residential view; will remuneration for each be the same or different? Have overview and scrutiny committees been reviewed yet? How effective have they been so far at ensuring that there are checks and balances in place on local authority spending? Who will pay for the provisions of these regulations? Will the cost come out of already-stretched local authority budgets?
Local Government Finances
Lord Shipley Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
That this House takes note of current local government finances and the impact on local communities.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank all those who are taking part in this debate, and I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We have debated local government funding and the impact of cuts in spending on essential public services on many occasions, but things are getting worse. There is a gap in funding in the face of rising costs and rising demand, and it is widening. In its commentary on the recent Budget, the OBR predicted a four-year squeeze for local government services. It said that local authority funding is due to fall from 7.4% of GDP in 2010 to 4.7% in 2028-29. Indeed, just two years ago, it was only 5.1%. The National Audit Office put it another way: between 2010-11 and 2021-22, the real spending of English councils was reduced by 29%.
Council spending has fallen in all services except social care. At the same time, council tax is having to carry a bigger burden. In 2010, council tax accounted for 40% of councils’ core spending power. It is expected to be 56% in 2024-25. We must conclude from this that the Government have passed on the burden to local council tax payers.
On 26 January, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, wrote to me after a discussion in this Chamber on the proportion of councils’ revenue spending on social care. He said that, in 2022-23, 69% of the discretionary service spending of councils with social care responsibilities was spent on social care of both adults and children. Some have a slightly higher figure than 69%; others, slightly lower. It follows that only 31% is available for everything else. It is simply not enough, and the Government have knowingly let, and are knowingly letting, it get worse. They have been forcing up council tax to meet the rising cost of social care.
Social care has two elements to it—children’s social care and adult’s social care. A few weeks ago, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee issued a report referring to local authorities’ financial distress and said that one cause was higher spending on children’s social care, with high agency costs, high placement costs and rising demand. I know well that the Government are trying to address that issue, but it needs urgent action and I hope the Government will do that. The number of looked-after children has gone up from 68,000 to 84,000 in the last 10 years. I remind the House that the Children and Families Act 2014 introduced new requirements for additional support, but that has never been properly funded and has not kept up with demand.
The Government’s White Paper on long-term reform of adult social care was published in December 2021. They said that they would set out their plans for adult social care by October 2025—four years’ delay. Meanwhile, the Public Accounts Committee recently said that adult social care demand is not being met. Sir Andrew Dilnot recently said that there has been “no serious addressing” of the problem. Many have concluded that this matter must be decided by all-party agreement, led by the Government. I am clear that that is the right approach. After consultation on an all-party basis, the Government should establish their policy for adult social care and then pay for it, rather than forcing closures of neighbourhood and community facilities and services that are used by everyone.
I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say, when the final settlement for next year was announced in January, that:
“The Government is committed to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases”.
I found that a bit rich because, since 2016, the Government have been increasing council tax by 2% a year, compounded, to help pay for rising demand in social care. He went on to say that councils should set out how they will
“improve service performance and reduce wasteful expenditure, for example on consultants or discredited equality, diversity and inclusion programmes”.
The sums involved are very minor compared to the costs of social care. Anyway, in practice, the Government have forced local councils to employ consultants to write all the competitive bids for funding on which Ministers love to adjudicate.
Council tax is regressive and out of date, and there are not enough bands. Some 46% of homes in England—46%—are now charged a higher rate of council tax than Buckingham Palace, which, on band H in the London borough of Westminster, has a comparatively low council tax rate. I was grateful for the reminder about this in the 27 January edition of the Economist. Surely, we need more bands at the top end.
A lot has been said recently about Section 114 notices. We know that several councils face bankruptcy as they try to meet statutory demands and balance the books. One in five says that it is in danger of issuing a Section 114 notice in the next year or two. In the last six years, eight councils have issued Section 114 notices, but it is important not to confuse this issue with the few councils that have not managed their finances well or have made bad investment decisions. They are the exceptions; the real problem is the Government making decisions for local government to fulfil without making the money available to do it—hence all the cuts in a range of discretionary services, of around one-third to 40%, over recent years.
For example, a third of libraries have closed in the last 10 years. Temporary accommodation for people who are homeless now costs £1.74 billion; 104,000 households are in temporary accommodation. We have seen cuts in parks and green spaces, in culture, museums and theatres, in youth services, and in sports, leisure and swimming pools. We have also seen a drop in spending on preventive services that can save money in the medium to long term.
I heard in the news on Monday that half the local road network could fail within the next 15 years. The Local Government Association estimates that there is a £14 billion backlog in local road repairs. To take an example of the Government not funding things, the national living wage will apply in social care and that is excellent to see, but it needs to be fully funded; otherwise, council tax payers will have to make up the difference.
The question for this debate, and for this and all future Governments, is what to do. There is an urgent need for reform of local government funding, and it needs to be done with all-party agreement. We need long-term funding that is not based on competitive bidding. As we have seen, the levelling-up allocations are centrally managed with central deadlines, and only 10% have been spent so far, as the Public Accounts Committee told us last week. Not enough of the projects were “shovel-ready”, and local capacity has not been available because of cuts in funding, so there have not been enough people to do the work to deliver the outcomes. As I say, government deadlines have been far too strict.
What happens now is that we have one-off, sticking-plaster allocations of money. They are not enough, as the recent extra £500 million for adult social care has demonstrated. Local authorities are accused of having reserves that are too big. Let me say clearly that they do not. If I were a chief finance officer of a local council, I would be extremely worried about the projection that the OBR has given of finances for my council over the next four years, and I would want a healthy reserve in place. That is normal—strong reserves are normal for capital investment and for the rainy day that we may well have. Public money requires good stewardship, given the further cuts on the way.
Local authorities need greater freedoms. I have never understood why the Government are so determined not to allow local planning authorities to decide their own fees. Why on earth should they not be able to do that, and recover 100% of the cost of doing it?
We also have to encourage local authorities to invest to save. That requires a national discussion as to how you really can do that—there are things that can be done. If you invest to do something, you will save money in the long term.
We need an acknowledgement that council tax is regressive and needs reform. We need two bands at the top, and quite soon in my view, because otherwise more and more poorer people will pay a higher proportion of their income to support local services.
I have not mentioned business rates. We have had many debates on business rates in this Chamber, and perhaps that is why. It has become a national tax; it is no longer a local tax. I remember when, in my days as a councillor, business rates were managed by local authorities, which decided what the rates were, but that was a long time ago. I repeat what I said during the passing of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill: business rates have simply got too high.
The Government are failing to produce long-term settlements. For the last six years, we have had one-year settlements for local authorities. I do not understand why the Government cannot do better than that. It would really help people to plan.
The Local Government Association has told us that cost and demand pressures have now led to a £4 billion funding gap over the next two years simply to maintain the level of current services, not to increase them. That is a substantial sum of money, and local government finances will be in a precarious state unless action is taken.
I do not want us to end in a permanent state of crisis. With thinking and all-party discussion, that can be avoided, but I wish the Government would do a bit more on audit. The Audit Commission was abolished just over 10 years ago, and I have no doubt that it had suffered mission creep. Equally, I know that having a proper audit system underpinning local government, and feeding information to the Government about how things are going and where extra investment is needed, is really important. In your Lordships’ Chamber, I have previously welcomed the Office for Local Government, Oflog. It should be at the centre of all this but, to be honest, I do not know whether it is. We now have a huge gap in audit, which is starting to cause us some concern.
Finally, we need the fair funding review. We also need to reflect, as we used to, the needs element of local government spending, which has gradually over time been eroded. I hope we will have a helpful debate, and that this Government and any future Government will be able to take action on the things identified by noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who took part in this debate. I must say, I have appreciated the richness of what we have heard today. I hope that the Government will take note of a lot of the valuable comments made. I pay particular tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who picked out the five key words in this debate: the impact on local communities. We have a tendency to debate funding settlements and fiscal policy but the impact on local neighbourhoods, people and communities was the objective of this debate.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply and was pleased by one thing. I agree about the work being undertaken to make residential placements for children more sustainable; I hope that that is going to be completed fairly rapidly.
The Minister said that there has been no decline in the support for councils by the Government. I do not agree. She quoted a whole set of examples of new things happening across a range of local authorities but, first, you cannot generalise from the particular, and, secondly, they were capital projects. I am talking about the impact mostly on revenue of the switch into adult social care, which is not being recompensed for local community services.
The Government capped local authorities on council tax. Since 2016, they have required local authorities to increase council tax for the social care precept by 2%. Had all that money been supplied by the Government nationally, that 2% each year compounded would have been available for those services to those local communities. The whole point of my debate is trying to point out that we have got out of kilter here and that something needs to be done.
I am very interested in the Minister’s statement about reserves. We used to have clear rules about reserves and contingencies in local government. When we had the Audit Commission, we had all of these things. Given the, I think, £31 billion that she cited, I would love for the Minister to write to me to say what proportion of that is earmarked, what proportion is unearmarked and, indeed, what proportion is actually in-year contingencies. It would be helpful to know that.
I thank everyone for this debate; it has been helpful. I hope that this Government, and any future Government, will listen. I hope that the Government will undertake a fair funding review, which has been promised over so many years but has never happened. At that point, we might get the word “local” back into government.
North East Mayoral Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2024
Lord Shipley Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
With permission, I would like to respond to that tribute. I have been in local government for nearly 30 years now, and I knew Mr Rowsell for most of that time. He was a formidable public servant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said. He was one of the great experts on local government finance—there are not many of those. Paul probably knew more about local government finance than anybody else in the country. I remember the trepidation that you would feel—I was a deputy leader of the LGA for many years—when you went into a meeting with him because you knew, however good your arguments were and however well you had been briefed by the LGA, he would pick it apart in five minutes and decimate your argument.
In spite of his tough approach to those of us who came up against him in meetings, he was very much a trusted member of the team in DLUHC and its predecessor departments—it has had many names over the years. I first encountered him way back when we were working on some of the “best value” initiatives. He was trusted, effective, incredibly knowledgeable and a consummate professional. His public service to this country in the local government department—that is what I will call it—was exemplary. I hope that he will rest in peace and that, for those who knew him personally, his memory will be a blessing. I thank him from our side of the Committee for his wonderful service to local government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it is deeply sad news to learn of Paul Rowsell’s death. I think back to the advice that he gave me during the passage of the Localism Act in the period of the coalition Government from 2010 to 2015. He had the ability to listen, to explain and to stay very polite, even if I was completely wrong on the issue. He had the ability to make things clear so that the understanding of those of us who were dealing with legislation was improved. It is a sad day for local government. He will be sorely missed. I appreciated his presence as part of the Bill team so many times. You knew that if Paul was leading a team, the work had been done and was of an enormously high, professional standard. It is with deep regret that we say that we will miss Paul profoundly.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to implement the devolution deal agreed between the Government and seven councils across the north-east—County Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland—on 28 December 2022.
We have been working closely with these seven councils. On 2 February 2024, they consented to the making of the order. The institutions that are to be abolished by the order—the two existing combined authorities and the North of Tyne Mayor—consented to the making of this order, which also provides the foundation for the deeper devolution deal for the north-east that we announced in the Budget on 6 March 2024. This trailblazing deal deepens and extends the devolution settlement in the north-east and provides new tools for the future mayor and local leaders to drive regional economic growth.
The order provides for the establishment on 7 May 2024 of the north-east mayoral combined authority, comprising as constituent councils the seven north-east councils. It simultaneously abolishes the existing North East Combined Authority and the North of Tyne Combined Authority, together with the office of Mayor for the North of Tyne. It provides for a new mayor for the whole of the north-east to be elected by local government electors across the area of the seven constituent councils with the first election to take place on 2 May 2024.
That elected mayor will take up office on 7 May with a four-year term ending after the next mayoral election in May 2028. Thereafter, there will be elections every fourth year to be held on the ordinary election day for that year—that is, the first Thursday in May. Following the enactment of the Elections Act 2022, the mayoral election will use the first past the post voting system.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I first welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, whose experience as an MP in the region, and of living in Northumberland, have been extremely helpful to the cause of the north-east in economic development terms. I agree with a number of the comments of my noble friend Lord Beith. He said that the order is underpowered, which is true, but I think it can become more powered over time—that will need to be done. I have always shared his concern about the concentration of powers in one person, and I am also concerned by those major potential capital investment projects that are outside the remit of this mayoral combined authority, not least the A1 and trains.
As this is such a big geographical area—I think it is the biggest of any of our mayoral combined authorities—there are issues around the availability of skills training, particularly in further education, and of T-levels. One thing that it would be helpful for the Government to pursue is whether the availability of T-levels is as successful in the rural and coastal areas of this combined authority as it is in the urban areas.
That said, I congratulate the north-east mayoral combined authority on getting to this stage. Having been the leader of Newcastle City Council, a regular member of the Association of North East Councils and a board member of the regional development agency One North East for seven years, I think that this measure is a tribute to its vision, ability and willingness to work together over such a large geographical area. I see what is happening as a partial return to the status and powers that regional bodies had just a few years ago.
This is an important step for the north-east. It is particularly pleasing to see the successful all-party work that has gone into its delivery to this stage. Durham County Council has a Liberal Democrat leader; Northumberland County Council has a Conservative leader; and each of the five Tyne and Wear local authorities has a Labour leader. It helps drive public confidence and consent when the leadership across the region has such a common purpose, despite their political differences. That is because political consent is vital, as we know from recent debates on the West Midlands.
As the Minister said, this order generated more than 60% support across the north-east, which is very encouraging. That consent needs to be maintained; I hope that this new mayoral combined authority will reflect on the problems that have arisen further south, in Tees Valley. I hope that the north-east mayoral combined authority will review its procedures on scrutiny, audit and risk to ensure that they are sufficiently robust. That said, I strongly welcome this further step towards devolved powers in the north-east of England.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the seven authorities involved in negotiating this deal with the Government. We are all aware of the additional challenges that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, were present in the north-east in achieving consensus across political, geographical and demographic boundaries. Not only has that been achieved but the deal has gained trailblazer status, which will hopefully enable it to attract the high levels of funding needed to tackle the many challenges faced by the north-east.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Quin for bringing her great experience in the area to this debate. As she said, having a single voice for the north-east will be helpful. We on this side are committed to devolution, so we will not put any obstacles in the way of a deal that has been subjected to such thorough and intense negotiation and collaboration at local level, but that does not mean that we do not have some questions for clarification purposes. I appreciate that, as I did not submit them to the Minister in advance, it might be necessary for some of them to be answered in writing. I would be quite happy with that.
It is good to see that, in the negotiations that took place over this deal, local government put place before party; that has always been my experience and it certainly shines out from this deal. That is the real power of devolution. We recognise the potential benefits of creating this new combined authority, which will have functions to grow the whole economy of the north-east. We are hopeful that, if our outstanding candidate for the mayoral election, Kim McGuinness, is successful, she will soon be working across the areas of her seven local authorities to grow the economy for all its people and businesses.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, can I add one thing to her list? In relation to the mayoral development corporations, she talked in terms of scrutiny and audit and said that guidance will be issued at some point—I hope sooner rather than later. However, it is not just the question of scrutiny and audit; it is also about risk. In my view, mayoral development corporations should quite separately think about their structures for assessing risk. Scrutiny tends to come slightly after an event as opposed to alongside a decision being made. Audit normally comes significantly after, in practice. It is that management of risk in a mayoral development corporation to which I think greater attention needs to be paid.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I absolutely agree; I think that is the same in all local authorities, however small or large. I see that as part of the overview and scrutiny. We have used “scrutiny” too often without using the word “overview” before it. I would expect that the overview, before anything is delivered, should look at the risks of delivering.
In conclusion, this order, which is strongly supported locally, is a significant step forward for the north-east, for its businesses and its communities. It is key to the future economic development and regeneration of the area, and it will enable local leaders to effectively invest in and address local priorities. I commend the order to the Committee.
Housing: Young People
Lord Shipley Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the enormous contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has made to the cause of housing over so many years. I jotted down a number of things that he said, and I will mention the top three in order of importance.
First, watch the Treasury like a hawk. For issues such as how you convert the very high amount paid to the private rented sector in housing benefit to construct homes for social rent, which would be a much better use of the money and increase the housing supply, that kind of debate needs to be had with the Treasury. Secondly, the best way to help younger buyers is to help older buyers—that is so true, for this should not become an intergenerational issue. Thirdly, we need more planners. That is quite clear. It must be done through enabling local planning authorities to charge and set their own fees. The noble Lord will remember the debates we had on the then levelling-up Bill, when the Government gave a little ground but nothing like enough to deliver what is needed.
A number of things have been said about net immigration by two or three noble Lords. What is being said is a misconception, because our housing problem has been developing over 30 years and the increase in immigration to its current level is comparatively recent. There is much published evidence to show that, over the last 30 years, we have built around 2 million homes too few. There has been a spike in net immigration figures in the last couple of years, one of the key reasons for which is the fact that the Government insist on counting overseas students in them. Many of those overseas students—
Lord Lilley (Con)
They also count them when they go out. So, if they come in and go out, they account for zero in total.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct, but the Government, through deliberate policy over the last few years, have been increasing the number of overseas students. The result is that there are more coming in than going out. Statistically, the number is currently in decline, as we were told in a debate a few days ago, so I think he needs to take a slightly longer-term view. As the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said, many of those students are in the student accommodation units that have proliferated in many of our university towns and cities. When we debate housing, we need to be a little more measured about what the cause and effect actually are.
A key reason why the population is rising is that people are living longer. Another reason why we need more houses is that our housing stock is poorer than those of a number of other countries. We absolutely have to increase the supply overall, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. I am not sure whether the Centre for Cities estimate that we have a deficit of 4.3 million homes is right—it may be.
This debate is about the first-time buyer. I remember owning my own home at the age of 25. My wife and I bought our first home on a 95% mortgage, worth 2.5 times my income. Many more young people were able to buy or to secure rented accommodation at an affordable price in those days. That is what this debate is about: in recent years, the number of young adults who own their own home has fallen. As we have heard, more young adults are living at home. Too many are priced out of ownership and into the high rents of the private rented sector, because investment in social housing has been so low. Had those homes been properly replaced between the Government’s decision to sell council homes and now, we would have many more homes than we currently do.
Housing has become so expensive at a time when incomes are under greater stress. The number of first-time buyers fell to a 10-year low in 2023, partly due to the cost of mortgages. I find these facts disturbing. It is particularly disturbing when you realise that the people who are suffering most are those young people who are not graduates. A lot of research evidence has been published on this. We have to increase the supply side, and in that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is absolutely correct.
The Government have tried a number of initiatives that we should support. I think we need more long-term, fixed-rate mortgages and more gradual home ownership schemes, and not just for new build. It is a worry that last week’s Budget lacked so much real substance on housing. It did not address the basic problem of high house prices caused by high land costs leading to insufficient supply. We have had this shortfall in new homes being built year after year, with the Government counting conversions from business premises to homes as new homes. These are often flats and quite small. The real problem is the need for more homes that families can use.
There has been a lot of discussion around brownfield sites. I have believed for a long time that we have to move to a brownfield presumption. I am quite content with the views of the Secretary of State on that matter. Lichfields says that 1.6 million homes could be unlocked on brownfield sites. Homes England has just published its plans for the next five years and it is really good that its top key performance indicator is the amount of brownfield land reclaimed. However, are there enough brownfield sites? The Northern Housing Consortium said in a report published two weeks ago that there is an 82% shortfall of brownfield capacity in the north of England. If the Centre for Cities is correct that we need more than 4 million new homes and Lichfields is correct that only 1.6 million can go on to brownfield sites, there is a gap which can be filled only by better planning, proper housing supply policies and faster building on the brownfield sites that we can build on.
I see much to recommend the proposal that we should move towards a rules-based system. I am very taken by the report from the Competition and Markets Authority which recommended a streamlining of the planning system, with more homes built and more homes that are genuinely affordable. The regulator has called for significant intervention, which I welcome.
However, I am very surprised to learn that nearly half of local planning authorities lack a five-year housing supply; of the 72 northern local planning authorities, 23 have no five-year housing supply. As a number of noble Lords did, I listened on the “Today” programme this morning to the experience of a community-led housing initiative in Bristol which plans to have 100 units of 100% affordable housing. It has been months in the planning system, unable to get its applications through. One application had a six-month wait simply to get a case officer. The solution is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said: let local authorities set their own planning fees. The solution of going straight to the inspectorate is not adequate.
In conclusion, a number of noble Lords have said that we need more small construction companies. Post Covid, this really matters. We cannot just rely on the big housebuilders. The small construction companies are building only 15% of homes today; they used to build 40% before the housing crash. If Homes England could look at how it gets smaller construction companies back into the market, it would help enormously with solving some of the problems of first-time buyers.
Local Regeneration: Industrial Areas
Lord Shipley Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for enabling us to have this important debate. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It has been a helpful and thought-provoking debate. Some very important points have been made and some very interesting reminiscences shared. The noble Baroness said three words in her speech which struck me as being at the heart of what we are debating: “Deindustrialisation has consequences”. It does have consequences. Things change. Parts of the industrial revolution and our extraction industries have come to an end, but there has to be a plan for coping with that, and the record of the past 50 years has not been entirely good in that respect.
The noble Baroness raised the question of best value. Having been a councillor at that time, I praise her for what she did, because best value is a very good way of operating; the more of it, the better. We also heard quite a bit about the issues in Tees Valley. I hope the Minister will be able to answer the very specific questions that were raised. I have twice spoken on the Tees Valley issue—once when the first press publicity came out and then in a statutory instrument debate on the east Midlands, on whether the scrutiny, audit and risk structures inside combined authorities were fit for purpose or not. That was a general point I was raising about them, and I shall raise it again when we come to the next combined authority statutory instrument.
I hope the Minister will be in a position to respond to that, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, this needs to be in writing, it needs to be very clear, and it needs to be quick. I think there needs to be an investigation by the National Audit Office. If the Secretary of State is not minded to do that, there needs to be a clear explanation why so that we can debate it on the Floor of the House.
There are some significant examples of success in brownfield regeneration, such as with a number of railway stations. A number of colleagues will be aware of the proposed major development to the west of York station and it was announced only a little while ago that there will be over 1,000 new homes to the west of Newcastle Central station, underpinned by the work of Homes England. According to the press announcement from 15 February, Peter Denton, chief executive of Homes England, said:
“It’s hard to overstate the importance of this acquisition. Not only will the site deliver around 1,100 quality, sustainable new homes, but bringing Quayside West into public sector ownership will act as a catalyst for the wider regeneration of Forth Yards, a key regeneration area for the city that has been stalled for more than 20 years. It’s a complex, challenging brownfield site that could have a transformational impact in the city, but it needs up-front public sector intervention to unlock its full potential … Newcastle City Council and North of Tyne Combined Authority have a clear vision for Forth Yards, and we’re working with them and Network Rail to take a holistic approach and ensure that it delivers for the people of Newcastle. This will include, if necessary, using our statutory powers to make this happen”.
I welcome that, because that is public intervention which will input public cash to deliver that outcome. By the way, it also meets the brownfield presumption recently announced by the Secretary of State and demonstrates that it can be done. It is really good that, of the 18 key performance indicators that Homes England has, the very first is the amount of brownfield land reclaimed. That is a measure we will all be able to see.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said, 23 million people live in older industrial Britain, many with lower-than-average earnings, a higher-than-average amount in manual jobs and many with a lower proportion of degrees and lower jobs growth in their areas. Many of the newer jobs in those areas are in the service sector—retail, warehouse fulfilment, call centres; they do not pay big salaries and they are not high-productivity jobs. As we have heard—and I agree entirely—the Government should encourage local leadership, end competitive funding and put in place single-pot funding. It needs money of the kind we used to have when we had regional development agencies. When I look around the north-east of England at what has happened in, say, the automotive industry, pharmaceuticals and renewable energy, that sectoral approach has worked well.
We will now have the combined authorities and combined counties. I wish them every success. I think they have a capacity problem and do not have enough planners or planning officers. We lack an industrial strategy, which the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, mentioned. There needs to be one. We also need pension funds to increase their investment in the UK. I give due credit to Legal & General, which has invested in northern cities in recent years.
Let me move briefly to the impact of HS2. One of my great fears about HS2 was that if the track did not reach the north of England, private sector development money would follow the track. On 20 February, I opened my copy of the Guardian to read the executive chairman of HS2, Jon Thompson, say that:
“For too long the debate on the wider economic benefits of high-speed rail in the UK has relied on anecdotal evidence. This report gives definitive proof that investor appetite, regeneration activity and investment close to HS2’s regional assets has surged”.
It has become clear that there is significant investment into the West Midlands as a consequence of HS2. Of course, the track is now to stop at Birmingham. It is reasonable for anybody in the rest of the United Kingdom to ask: what is the impact on our areas? Are we actually losing investment in the rest of the country as a consequence of what is happening in the West Midlands? Good luck to the West Midlands, but we do not wish to see investment sucked out of the north of England.
This issue is finally about gap funding, and I thank the Library for its brief on this. The brownfield presumption will work only with money to help with infrastructure such as roads, schools, trains and buses, yet the lack of money is plain to see. We saw how much gap funding was needed for urban development corporations. The APPG on Coalfield Communities described this as a Catch-22 situation whereby the private sector will not invest on the speculative basis because the local economy is too weak, but the shortage of good-quality premises constrains local business growth. Stakeholders suggest that gap funding would encourage private sector investment in brownfield sites, new workspaces and historic assets. I hope the next Government will read the report of this debate and then act on it.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will certainly commit to making sure we follow up on this in detail to the noble Baroness. Given that publication is imminent, I hope we can follow up as and when that happens.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I literally have only a minute and a half to finish, and I have about seven responses.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I will happily wait a bit longer if that helps. As part of that letter, because the Minister has said that it is not the job of the NAO to audit this body, will she tell the House whose responsibility audit is?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
As I have just agreed, I will come back to noble Lords with a response on this, and we can follow up in detail.
I will try to flip through a few points; I will not be able to do them justice, given that we have 45 seconds. The reality here is that there are lots of things going on. On the funding allocation through the towns fund, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, asked how much has been spent. The towns fund, one of our flagship local growth funds, is on track to be spent by 2026, and the rates at which the projects are being completed is consistent with the delivery timelines we have already set out. We are aware that major regeneration projects take time to deliver, and it is expected that all the funds not spent at this point will be on track to be delivered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, referred to the long-term plan for towns. Its key features include an allocative rather than a competitive process over a 10-year period, giving local authorities the flexibility to invest in interventions based on evolving local needs and priorities. I hope that helps with that. There were also various comments on transport. With regard to working with others in the community—the right reverend Prelate raised this—we have all sorts of answers we can give noble Lords. I will follow up in writing to many noble Lords.
I will conclude by saying that we recognise the scale of the challenge to regenerate former industrial areas. We believe wholeheartedly in their potential to thrive, not least because of the pride, spirit and resilience that these communities continue to show. I agree with all noble Lords that this is about people. We need to work hand in glove with local communities to make sure we deliver the regeneration they need. I look forward to continuing discussions and working with all noble Lords to deliver for these communities.
East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024
Lord Shipley Excerpts(9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for setting out the contents of the regulations before us, which follow the same sort of model that has been used for the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and its mayor, as well as the North East Combined Authority and its mayor. I have a couple of questions.
If the housing responsibilities are transferring from the combined authority to the mayor, what will happen in the instance of planning for a major housing scheme? For example, if people have concerns about the impact of flooding and the lack of sustainable drains or similar, which authority will consider that application? It concerns me that the planning process seems to be separated out from what has previously happened in a straightforward way. If all the county councils to which my noble friend the Minister referred are now being transferred to a higher authority, it may not have the facility or means to understand planning issues. It may focus on what it perceives to be the need for increased housing; for example, it may focus on a four or five-bedroomed housing scheme and not on a one or two-bedroomed scheme, which might be preferred or more required in a rural setting.
My noble friend referred to the power to issue a precept. How much of the funding that she set out to the Committee this afternoon is new funding and how much is simply replacing what is already available in the terms of schemes? I will draw a parallel with the area that I know best. For example, if we look at the Tees Valley Mayor, he has an awful lot of new funding at his disposal at virtually every turn. I understand that that will not be the case for new combined authorities and mayors, such as the subject of these regulations. What new funds are going to be available? Are the funds being transferred from the combined authority to the mayor? Is it going to be the case that there is no new money so, in fact, as set out in the regulations, the power to raise a precept will be relied upon in virtually every case, in which case the council tax will have to go up? Was that put in the consultation that was put to the public to which my noble friend referred?
Finally, on the consultation, as a democrat I find it incredibly difficult to accept that when 52% of those responding, if I understand the Minister correctly, rejected the model for a mayor in this instance, the Government and the Minister’s department are proceeding. Would it not be a good idea to pause, reconsider and go back on the proposals? Even though my noble friend says authoritatively that all the legal requirements of the consultation have been met, I urge her to consider the democratic implications of rejecting what 52% of the population said.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has raised a number of pertinent points and I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them. She particularly raised the consultation and the responses. There has been a continuing problem with consultation on combined authorities because the number of people who respond is very low. In the case of the East Midlands, I think Ministers have taken the view that elected councillors would have to make the decision about the mayor. Nevertheless, there is a question about how the Government and combined authorities can engage with people to a much greater degree so that response rates to any question would be much higher than in this case. Having said that, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations. It is very good to see the close working of the local authorities in the East Midlands Combined County Authority. I wish it every success in its work. We want it to succeed.
I have previously raised issues of scrutiny, audit and risk in relation to this combined county authority and other mayoral combined authorities. I noticed that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commented on this public consultation. Paragraph 45 of the report cites the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities explaining that
“the Secretary of State has noted respondents’ concerns about the EMCCA’s governance model and the position of a Mayor but is satisfied that these draft Regulations would ‘provide the necessary check and balances on the governance of the EMCCA and its Mayor’”.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the Tees Valley Review dated 23 January 2024. I will quote from it, because what it says is important to all combined authorities. The question I pose to the Minister relates to whether any of the deficiencies identified in that report, published a few weeks ago, could occur in the East Midlands Combined County Authority. I quote specifically from paragraph 1.7 of the report’s executive summary, which said that
“there are issues of governance and transparency that need to be addressed and a number of decisions taken by the bodies involved do not meet the standards expected when managing public funds. The Panel have therefore concluded that the systems of governance and finance in place within”
the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the South Tees Development Corporation
“at present do not include the expected sufficiency of transparency and oversight across the system to evidence value for money”.
Recommendation 6 then went on to say that the Tees Valley Combined Authority cabinet should
“review its current delegations and directions to STDC to ensure it meets its statutory obligations, including appropriate oversight by Overview and Scrutiny Committees, to enable value for money to be delivered and evidenced through effective scrutiny of significant decisions”.
The Secretary of State has said that the draft regulations would
“provide the necessary check and balances on the governance of the EMCCA and its Mayor”.
Can the Minister, either now or perhaps later in writing, explain how these draft regulations actually provide the checks and balances necessary to ensure that a report such as that written on Tees Valley could not be written on the East Midlands?
The Minister is aware that I have raised issues of security, audit and risk repeatedly during the passage of the levelling-up Bill and on other occasions, and I find those words in the Tees Valley Review worrying. I hope that this cannot possibly happen elsewhere. I am surprised by what has been said on Tees Valley but, given that, what structure is in place—I cannot find it in these regulations—to prevent a repetition of what seems to have occurred in the Tees Valley from happening in the East Midlands or in any of the other mayoral combined or combined county authorities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the basis for this new type of mayoral combined county authority. The regulations establish the East Midlands combined authority and are required in advance of the first planned combined authority mayoral elections in May this year. We consider them to be very important for the economic and social development of the region and its population, so we will not be objecting to this important SI, but that does not mean that we do not have any questions about it. Indeed, we are very excited and hopeful that our candidate, Claire Ward, will be the first East Midlands mayor elected and, as mayors do up and down the country, will make a great difference to communities in the areas that the Minister set out—housing, transport, public health, and education and skills.
We also noted the degree of consultation that took place from 14 November last year to 9 January this year, but further note, as did the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the numbers are very low in these consultations. We need to think about how we engage the public more in these very important discussions about the future of their areas. We also noted that there is a distinctive emphasis in this devolution deal on the combined authority reflecting the local communities within the combined authority area. We can do more of that, and I think that might help to engage people even more.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly for their support for the East Midlands. I know that will be well received. Once again, we all wish it well. I will respond to a number of questions— I will look at Hansard and write if I miss any—starting with my noble friend Lady McIntosh.
The response rate to the consultations the constituent councils did was very low. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned that 4,800 responses from 1.6 million people is not a lot, but you cannot force people. My experience is exactly the same. People will tell you, “We just want people to lead our council, keep us safe and economically viable and to spend our money wisely”. Sadly, that is what happens in all these cases, but that is how it is.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked whether this funding is new. Yes, the funding to the East Midlands is new, as was the case in Tees Valley; that was new funding, too. My noble friend also mentioned planning powers. No planning powers or housing powers are being transferred from existing planning and housing authorities. We made that clear in passing the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is now an Act. Therefore, those authorities will be responsible. That is part of the challenge; they must work together for the good of their area.
The East Midlands devolution deal is a level 3 deal, with strong devolution alongside the establishment of a mayor. There was concern that 52% of those who responded to the consultation did not want a mayor; the problem is that they also said they wanted a level 3 devolution deal, with the large amounts of money and power that come with it. It was for the Secretary of State to make the decision that the result of the East Midlands consultation should be a level 3 deal, which requires a mayor.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh brought up Tees Valley. As they will know, the report came through very recently. We are considering the two recommendations in it. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is absolutely right: risk, scrutiny and audit are very important here, as they are in all local government. The mayor from Teesside has been asked for his response by early March; once it comes through, I will write a further letter on the Government’s response. What I think will happen is that we—the Government—will learn from that report, as will the East Midlands. As with all local government, as I say, scrutiny, audit and risk are important.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Since we are on that specific issue, may I ask two questions? The Minister said that there were two recommendations but, actually, there are 28 altogether.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Right, but there are others which relate indirectly to the scrutiny, risk and audit function.
Secondly, this is not just about the East Midlands Combined County Authority. This issue relates to all mayoral combined authorities: those that currently exist and those that are about to come into existence. I hope that, when the Minister writes to us, there will have been an in-depth examination by the department of how the criticisms of Tees Valley’s arrangements could not occur in all of those other authorities. I hope that I am making myself clear: there needs to be an examination of the constitutional and working arrangements in all those combined authority areas.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. This is what we will do: we will look at the report in detail and respond accordingly on the things in the report that reflect, first, on the department itself and, secondly, on future combined authorities of whatever type because of the importance of that.
There are currently no limits on mayoral precepts; the power does exist to set limits. That would need the approval of the Commons, though, if it were to happen so we will watch that as it moves forward. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who brought up the issue of a political adviser. The combined county authorities can have one political adviser; the post, like local authority political advisers, is not politically restricted in the way that other officers’ posts are, but they can have one.