Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister would have wished that this was my valedictory speech. I thank her in advance for her kind words about me.

I want to speak about rural mayors and specifically about my large rural area of North Yorkshire, the largest single county area in England, with a combined population, including the City of York Council, of around 838,000 people.

When single-authority status was agreed in 2021-22, combined capital plans were around £220 million. We were told that the region would gain £540 million over 30 years—that is, about £18 million per year—35% of which would be spent on capital plans and 65% on revenue. If this is equated to the population of York and North Yorkshire, it comes out at roughly £21.50 per person. I wonder whether this small amount of extra funding for local government is really going to be worth all the hassle.

I have looked carefully at the Bill but cannot find the split of responsibilities between the proposed mayor and our two councils. It is simply not defined. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me.

I certainly applaud devolution, but this is not devolution as I would characterise it, because the Secretary of State has almost infinite powers to meddle in its construct. From making provisions to making regulations, there is precious little that anyone entwined in this legislation can do off their own bat. That does not sound like a good deal to me.

I am concerned about the split of responsibilities between the mayor and the chief constable—or the deputy or, indeed, anyone else the mayor deems capable of doing the job. It appears, from the Bill, that chief constables could have responsibility for the fire and rescue service. Does the Minister not think that they have enough to do? Admittedly, in my county area, the police and crime commissioner has taken over that responsibility—but will every combined county authority wish to do that?

I will also ask about the functions that the CCA has, and, especially, how they relate to the present status in my area, which has two leaders and two authorities. How will that work with the mayor being in charge? Does the mayor single-handedly run the combined authorities? How will the money from central government be apportioned, and to whom?

I would also like to know the extent of the mayoral reach. For instance, how will she or he work with the proposed four local councillors, two each from North Yorkshire Council and the City of York Council? It will be called a mayoral combined authority, but does this differ from a county combined authority? As I understand it, an MCA will be chaired by the mayor, with the local enterprise partnership having a business voice but no vote—but where does the voice of the community come in all this? There is so little detail in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will help me understand how all this will work for the people of North Yorkshire and the City of York, because I was struck, while reading the debate introducing the Bill in the other place, by just how many Conservative Members —let alone those from the Opposition—were concerned about local communities being given the opportunity to decide what is right for their area. Where will mayors place local communities in their decision-making? Who, ultimately, will make these local decisions? Confusion will reign about who is responsible for what, just as it does now.

Mayors may have their place in large cities and urban areas, but I am far from being persuaded that they are right for huge rural areas. We are not going to be better off than we are now, and we will be adding an unnecessary extra level of local government on top of what we already have. I am not at all sure how the North Yorkshire and City of York communities will take to that.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

The notice to oppose Clause 32 standing part of the bill would remove provisions allowing chief constables to exercise certain fire and rescue functions.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my policing interests, which are set out in the register. The stand part propositions on Clauses 32 to 38 all highlight to your Lordships the ridiculous state that North Yorkshire will be in should these clauses remain in the Bill. For the sake of the Deputy Chairman of Committees, I say that at this point I will not be pressing these propositions.

At Second Reading, I raised the question of the split of responsibilities between the mayor and the chief constable. I have done a bit of digging since then. I was concerned that the chief constables would be given responsibility for the fire and rescue service, alongside their duty to manage their forces. I am very grateful to the Minister for addressing this in her letter to us of 27 January. However, I wonder whether the Government have fully understood or considered the dilemma that the police, fire and crime commissioner will have if the single-employer model is used in North Yorkshire, which is destined to become a unique—as far as I am aware—mayoral combined authority or MCA.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in which the policing protocol sets out the independent direction and control of a chief constable, would be in conflict with the employee status of the current fire chief model. How do the Government propose to change this to have the same independent direction and control if this model is chosen?

The staff of the fire service are employees, employed in an entirely different way from police officers, who are servants of the Crown. Police staff are employed on different terms and conditions of work again, albeit under the direction and control of the chief constable. Of course, fire staff have different pay structures and a completely different pay negotiation mechanism. I leave to your Lordships’ imagination the chaos that would be caused should these two entirely different organisations be merged into one. There would be equal-pay concerns and pay rise inequality unless the staff were transferred into one organisation, which would have to be done if you used the single-employer model, in order to resolve these complexities.

However, in such a model, the legislation would still have to afford independent direction and control of the fire service to the chief officer for it to be viable for the practical, day-to-day delivery of the service. The outcry from police officers, who may be offered a meagre pay rise when fire officers are offered more, because of the different way their employment models are constructed even though they work alongside each other, will be a recipe for disaster.

At Second Reading, I was anxious to point out that the chief constable, certainly in North Yorkshire, will have this unique MCA and should not have to take on the responsibility of all the fire officers and staff—around 900 persons. This is not what chief police officers are about. In reality, it would fall to the chief constable, as the chief officer. What a conundrum for her; I am not sure that she has the capacity to do that. I am not sure that the chief constable—any chief constable—faced with the single-employer model would want to be responsible for that.

Unfortunately, when the first of our three PCCs in North Yorkshire decided to take on to herself the responsibilities for overseeing the fire service as well as the police, she cannot possibly have envisioned the mess that would ensue if a combined authority—now a mayoral combined authority—were to come under a mayor’s jurisdiction. Nor do I think that any incoming mayor in my county would relish being immediately responsible for 900 fire personnel. What a muddle.

There are significant problems too with data protection and vetting standards when sharing IT systems, which would have to be overcome. We have already seen in our recent North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service’s HMICFRS report that there are concerns surrounding a shared support function that is in place in North Yorkshire. HMICFRS commented that:

“It needs to make sure collaboration activities, such as those with police”


are effective and “provide value for money”. It currently shares some business services with North Yorkshire police and the office of the police, fire and crime commissioner, but there is little evidence to show its benefits to the service.

These problems were well highlighted by both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Fire Chiefs Council back in 2018, when it was proposed that PCCs could take on the responsibilities of fire authorities too. The PCC for North Yorkshire at that time decided to grow her empire and take on the task. It was proved to be wrong then and it is certainly being proved to be wrong now. In the recent HMICFRS report cited above, the inspectorate stated that the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire had actually deteriorated during this time. I do not know how many other PCCs have taken on the role—most, I believe, just stick to their policing role—but we still have this problem in North Yorkshire.

These problems have not been thought through properly at all, which is why I was so keen at Second Reading to address them. There are enough problems in policing today without them having to take on fire services as well. A number of forces apart from the Met are in special measures, so how would they be able to take on the added responsibility of the fire service? This needs to be clarified, and quickly, before even more of a mess is allowed to get into legislation around policing.

I think that we need to take out the whole section of the Bill about chief constables being responsible for fire authorities, certainly unless and until this quirk in the proposed legislation would see the North Yorkshire problem solved. As I said at the beginning, I will not press for their removal at this stage, but I will listen intently to what the Minister has to say about them. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, it is a power for the Secretary of State.

The amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to such legislation. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could still apply police and crime commissioner legislation in relation to a combined county authority mayor or chief constable but could not make any necessary consequential amendments to reflect a change of circumstances. This limitation is undesirable and would result in flawed and inconsistent legislation in this area.

Finally, I will address the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 38. This clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying legislation that relates to a police and crime commissioner to a combined county authority mayor or a chief constable where the combined county authority mayor has adopted the single-employer model. Removing the clause would hinder the effective full implementation of the single-employer model because it would mean that the Secretary of State could not make further regulations applying local policing enactments or new corresponding provisions in relation to mayors of combined county authorities who have implemented the model.

I hope that my explanation will reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord of the importance of this group of clauses to the effective conferral of fire and rescue functions on combined county authority mayors, specifically on those opting to use the single-employer model to exercise these functions, and will therefore enable her to withdraw her opposition to them standing part of the Bill.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. All the clauses stand together, so I need to read Hansard carefully and go through her comments on each clause. I believe there was some contradiction in what she said, so it is important that I am quite clear going forward that I have understood absolutely what has been said this afternoon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will withdraw my opposition at this point to the clauses standing part, but we will come back to this on Report.

Clause 32 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Pinnock has just said. I put my name to her amendment because in my rapidly disappearing district council of Richmondshire a motion was almost unanimously agreed to support a system of voting proportionately. It was proposed and seconded by two of my colleagues on that council, Councillors Richard Good and Clive World. It is almost unheard of to have a council in Richmondshire vote together on an issue as contentious as this, so I was delighted when they agreed to forward a letter to the Government requesting a move away from the first past the post system to a fairer and more representative way of voting.

As it was, only two Conservative councillors voted against the motion. The motion they presented was as follows:

“First Past the Post (FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men … In Europe”,


as we have heard,

“only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for general elections. Meanwhile, internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect parliaments in more than 80 countries. Those countries tend to be more equal, freer and greener … PR ensures all votes count, have equal value, and those seats won match votes cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of local communities and the nation. MPs better reflecting their communities leads to improved decision-making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions taken … PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. PR also prevents ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974 … PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So why not Westminster? … Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws to enable Proportional Representation to be used for general, local and mayoral elections.”

I could not have put it any better myself. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment and hope that the Government will consider it seriously before Report.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Harris of Richmond. I will really restrain myself and not make general comments about PR but speak only about a specific element of democracy.

I am tempted to make a one-sentence contribution, which is, “Democracy: it would be a good idea, wouldn’t it, if we had it?” We are talking about a local area deciding how to elect its own representatives. The amendment does not say, “You have to have proportional representation —the system that we know means that the number of councillors matches the number of votes and that the council or the Parliament reflects the views of the people, and that we know produces a better quality of governance.” It does not say any of those things. It merely says that each local area should be able to decide the system under which it governs itself.

Of course, I have to make some reference to the better quality of governance which is demonstrably the result of proportional electoral systems, and indeed to look at the other side of this, which is what has just been happening in Plymouth City Council, where a Tory council has gone out in the middle of the night to cut down more than 100 mature trees in the city centre, despite significant local resistance. That, of course, is a replay; they seem not to have learned at all from what happened a few years ago in Sheffield, where a Labour council, again in a one party state-type set-up, did the same thing, sneaking around the streets in the early hours of the morning to try to ensure that it could cut down trees against the will of residents. So we have there a case study, which is not even slanted in any particular political direction, of our current system not working.

Again, I stress that the amendment does not say that it will force the change on anyone; it simply says that people should be able to decide for themselves. In the previous group of amendments, we focused on the lack of power in local government because of its lack of resources. Well, take back control: that was crucial and remains a very strong, passionate feeling among the British people. This amendment gives a chance to take back control at the local level, which is clearly urgently needed.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I will speak specifically to Amendment 163.

I should first declare an interest that I am the high steward of Ripon Cathedral, and although Ripon is technically a city because of its cathedral, the cathedral is also regarded by many as its parish church. The crypt is the oldest built fabric of any English cathedral, and worship there has been continuous since 672. Ripon was the first place in England where the Benedictine rule was lived out. It is a grade 1 listed building. The surrounding lands are a scheduled ancient monument. However, although it is a place to encourage pilgrimage and sanctuary, it is also a space to encourage imagination, exploration and debate. It is used extensively to promote local innovation and many events, and is a space for the community of Ripon to come together. However, it needs urgent support if it is to flourish for the next 1,350 years or so.

All churches and cathedrals have a really desperate job not just trying to stay open but, in these straitened times, to be heated. They try to raise whatever money they can but tend to be fighting a losing battle, as the maintenance costs of caring for such large buildings is astronomic.

It is a complete anomaly that parish councils cannot help to support their local church or religious building if they so wish. Almost certainly it will not be a huge grant: parish councils are as bereft of money as our churches are. As we have already heard from my noble friend, the two conflicting bits of legislation pertaining here—Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1894 and Section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972—give rise to concerns that parishes can, if they want, grant the local church some much-needed money. What should have happened of course is that, when Section 137(3) came in, the Government of the day could have struck down Section 8, which, as we have heard, says that funds cannot be given to churches, whereas Section 137(3) says that they can. Unfortunately, this was probably overlooked at the time and now we have an opportunity for the Government to accept this wholly reasonable amendment, which will clarify matters.