Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, before we begin Report, I want to make some points to draw the House’s attention to our concerns about the Government’s approach to the proper and timely legislative scrutiny of this Bill.

First, when we received the Bill into this House and prepared for Second Reading back in January, I and others were surprised to see that it contained three chapters that had not been scrutinised in the other place but had been added in after it had moved on to here. Then, following our debate in Committee, ahead of Report and with no prior warning, the Government added in a whole new schedule—nine pages in length—along with further amendments on childminding provisions, and altered the Long Title to reflect this.

I know that the Minister understands my concerns, and I thank her for arranging a meeting at short notice last week to discuss this. Can she now confirm, as we agreed in that meeting, that Committee rules will be used for the debate on the childcare amendments and any amendments to them on Report, and that, if deemed necessary, amendments will be accepted at Third Reading on this part of the Bill alone?

Finally, on Friday evening I had an email from the department apologising for the late tabling of further amendments, apparently to allow substantive discussions with the devolved Administrations prior to tabling as they relate to the devolution settlement and securing legislative consent for the Bill. Late discussions with the devolved Administrations unfortunately seem to have become a regular occurrence, but it would have been helpful if we had been made aware and alerted to any impact on timings in advance.

To be quite clear, I hold the Minister in the highest regard, I am not complaining about her as a Minister and we very much appreciated her apology. However, it greatly concerns me that the department has shown a lack of respect for the need to have proper legislative scrutiny from both Houses if we are to secure legislation of the expected highest standards.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I fully endorse the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. It is most unfortunate and not the responsibility of the Minister at all. She has been considerate and helpful with her time and that of her officials throughout our scrutiny of the Bill. Nevertheless, three chapters were added to an already very large Bill after it left the House of Commons, and then more than 150 amendments were tabled last week—some, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, late on Friday. Then we find that a whole new schedule on childminding has been added and is so out of scope that the Bill’s Long Title has had to be altered.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is very important legislation to be considered by this House, is already being brought into a bit of disrepute by the addition of chapters, a new section altogether and amendments. I am sure the Minister feels as uncomfortable as we do about the way that this has been dealt with, but I wish to express my concern, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock..

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “Parliament” insert “within 30 days of the passing of this Act”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the statement to be laid within 30 days, meaning the statement could not be laid any later than the deadline for the statement detailing the application process for round three of the Levelling Up Fund which would, under a new Clause after Clause 5 also proposed by Baroness Hayman of Ullock, also have to be laid within 30 days of the Act being passed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, all regarding the funding for the levelling-up proposals that the Government have been working on for some time. One of the reasons I have brought this back at this stage is that I was not satisfied with the responses we received in Committee. Since we debated this matter in Committee —I think we started Committee back in February/ March; we seem to have been doing this Bill for a long time—the House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee produced a report in May, Funding for Levelling Up. It expresses a number of concerns about the inadequacies of the Government’s method of delivering funding for levelling up, the allocation process and the extent to which different funds are compatible with the needs of communities in the short and long term. The committee also believes it creates several obstacles to delivering success in this area.

One concern that the committee raised in its report is about the lack of data available from DLUHC. DLUHC has conceded that it does not have sufficient data in relation to Whitehall departmental expenditure on the full range of levelling-up funds or on combined authority income or expenditure. Our concern is about how DLUHC can make significant policy decisions in relation to priority areas or funding allocations or even on the measurement of success or failure of this policy of levelling up. How can it achieve its objectives or measure those objectives if it is not given adequate data to support those tasks?

The White Paper commits DLUHC to reducing the requirements to access competitive funding and simplifying the funding landscape, so we are pleased that the department has recently announced measures to simplify the funding landscape for local authorities. However, this must be seen in conjunction with the fact that local authority revenue funding has reduced significantly since 2020.

Levelling-up funds generally do not replace grant funding because, first, they are capital not revenue and, secondly, they cover specific projects rather than necessarily covering the priorities of the local authorities.

We talked quite a bit in Committee about our concerns over metrics. There was questionable use of metrics in the first round, with additional metrics in the second round to make it easier. We feel that the management of the fund has ultimately contributed to diminished perceptions of trust and transparency, with this mismanagement leaving the Government open to criticism that they have not based funding decisions on need or, indeed, on merit.

The investment zone policy, for example, was reopened and reframed after it was reported that over 100 applications had been submitted for its first iteration. The problem is that, if there is a change in the approach and a reframing after submissions have been made, it means that the local authorities have wasted a significant amount of resources. We are concerned about that, and it raises further questions about the transparency of the process that DLUHC has been applying to such funding initiatives.

Funding the implementation of the levelling-up policy is clearly complex and challenging; we recognise that. Further parts of the report say that DLUHC does not know which pots of money across government contribute to levelling up, and nor does DLUHC appear to have oversight of how these objectives can be delivered strategically through—importantly—departmental co-ordination.

As a result, the Government’s current approach is characterised by one-off, short-term initiatives, which we think will be insufficient if the geographic, economic, social and health inequalities are to be reduced and, ultimately, overcome. To change this, we believe the policy requires a long-term, substantive strategy and funding approach: things that it currently lacks. Without this, levelling up risks joining a number of other short- term government initiatives.

In light of the committee report’s findings, I would ask the Minister and noble Lords to support my amendments in this group, which ask that the third round of the levelling-up fund takes place in both a timely manner and as part of a reformed process. If the Minister is unable to do so, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on this matter, because we believe that proper use of the levelling-up fund and other funding is one of the key drivers as to whether the ambitions in this Bill will actually be achieved.

Very briefly, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has an amendment in this group regarding an issue that has come up in the negotiations between the Department for Transport and the Isles of Scilly Council and the steamship company. I will let my noble friend explain the detail of his amendment and his deeply held concerns. I want to assure him that we very much support his position. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully and work with him to find a solution going forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that introduction. It is my job to speak to Amendment 11 in my name. It has a rather odd objective, which might not be clear from the text: I am trying to help the Government to honour their very welcome commitment to a levelling-up grant of about £48 million which they have offered to the Isles of Scilly Council to supply new vessels for the journey to the mainland. Unfortunately—we discussed this in Committee—new information came to light last week which prompted me to put this amendment down.

As I said, the department offered £48 million to the council on the basis that the council would have control of the fares, the timetable and the freight costs, and would put out to tender the operation of building a ship and the service. Noble Lords will probably be interested to know that Transport Focus did some market research earlier this year, which showed almost unanimous support from the 2,500 islanders for the idea of having a competition to get the most efficient and best value for money service, rather than just continuing with the existing operator, which has been there for many years. Many people think that it needs to be subject to competition.

The operator, the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company, asked whether it could have half of the £48 million without competing in a tender because, it said, it was a very good company. Ministers rejected that, thank goodness, in a very robust way. I could quote from the letter of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, but I do not think I need to. She and her colleagues are being very supportive of the concept of levelling up to get the best possible deal for the fares and the service quality for passengers and freight for the people who live on the Isles of Scilly.

The trouble is that the existing operator has now announced that it wants to go ahead and finance its own ship, without saying what the fares or the timetable will be. Will it run in the winter, for example? If you are going to raise £48 million or so in the private sector, that will of course put the fares up—but the operator will not tell us what the fares are going to be. Over the weekend, we have done a few calculations of what the fares might be and compared them with those for journeys of a similar distance from the mainland of Scotland to Islay, which some noble Lords will probably know. It is actually quite frightening, so perhaps I might offer a few examples.

Since 2012, which is 11 years ago, the fares to Scilly have gone up by 47%—I repeat, 47%—and, when compared with those for Islay, the difference is getting more and more. It was seven times different; it is now going to be 12 times different. I will quote just one figure. In 2027, which is in four years’ time, a return fare for a passenger to and from Scilly, with no car, will probably be about £204—£204 for one person to get to the Isles of Scilly and back. Think of taking a family there. If there was a husband, wife and two kids they would be almost broke before they got there. It is lovely when you get there—I love it—but the equivalent fare if you are going to Islay is £16.

I was very pleased to hear from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, who wrote to me and said:

“I am concerned about the potential impact on fares and freight charges”


from the steamship company

“and the consequential impact for islanders”.

The department offered £48 million to fund the new vessels, but it cannot really go ahead and give the money, even on a tendering basis, if somebody else is trying to build a ferry at the same time and operate the same route. If it does manage it, the fares will be, as I said, over £100 for a single, and that is all contrary to the Minister’s wish to see levelling up applied to the Isles of Scilly.

In this amendment, I have attempted to come up with an idea that would frustrate any other operator trying to compete with what the Government are so generously offering, in their £48 million for what the islanders need, to ensure that the harbour authorities and the council would not be able to give this company permissions—there are plenty of permissions that we all know.

I am sure that the wording is wrong, as the Minister will probably tell me quite soon. But this is an attempt not to save the Government from themselves but to save their wonderful commitment to the Isles of Scilly from being debunked, irritated or cancelled, for very good reasons—Treasury rules and everything. If the Minister is interested in keeping this going—I hope she is—I would be very pleased to sit down and talk with her at some time before Third Reading. If that were possible, one of us could come up with an amendment, at Third Reading, that would hopefully work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think the House prefers not to have any amendments at Third Reading.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, and the Minister for her, as always, very thorough response. However, I do not think that she has been able to demonstrate categorically that any future funding rounds are going to be properly tied to the delivery of the missions. The Government seem to have taken a bit of a scattergun approach to this, if I can put it like that. As I have already said, the Government’s approach is categorised by one-off, short-term initiatives which are insufficient if the geographic, economic, social and health inequalities are to be reduced and ultimately overcome, which is what the Bill aims to do.

To me, as I said before, getting the funding allocations correct, getting the analysis of the results of previous allocations of funding correct, and having that information and data at our fingertips to be able to properly target the funding to ensure that we get the outcomes we want, is critical to the success of the Bill. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but I have been informed by the clerks that my Amendment 17 is consequential on my Amendment 1. So I thank the Minister, but I am not satisfied with the Government’s future approach, so I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on these amendments. In doing so, I declare my financial services and technology interests as set out in the register.

We are talking about levelling up, which can really be reduced to enabling human talent, yet two of the key enablers of that talent get scarce a mention in the many pages of the Bill: regional finance, and all the new technologies that I believe can do so much to help in this overall and overarching levelling-up mission. That is why I have brought back Amendment 14 on the underuse of robots throughout manufacturing, the country and our production processes.

My question to my noble friend the Minister is simply this: when we consider the UK’s robots per 10,000 of the workforce, the issues we have on growth, which would lead to levelling up, and the multiple roles—economic, social and psychological—in which robots are already being deployed around the world in comparable nations and economies, does she recognise that we need a robotics task force? We need to unleash a community of robots to assist in this levelling-up mission, which will be of benefit right across the United Kingdom. With the ability to deploy robots into the economy and society, it can be done in a far quicker and far more economically, socially and psychologically effective way than some of the measures currently set out in the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 12. It asks for an evaluation of progress towards each mission from an independent advisory council, to include the variances of delivery between different nations and regions—the geographical disparities that we have heard about from other noble Lords in this debate.

As I said in Committee, where we had a similar amendment, we believe that independent oversight enables good governance and good government. Clear, trusted and impartial analysis makes for better policy decisions. It delivers far better outcomes, and it can be only a good thing for our democracy. An independent body such as this can also ensure that progress in the development of the missions is being monitored on the road to being achieved. One of the things that concerned noble Lords throughout Committee and now on Report is that it is all very well having missions written down, but how do you achieve them and how do you monitor that progress? We already have good examples of independent scrutiny within government. The Office for Budget Responsibility is one example, and the Select Committees that sit here and in the other place also do independent scrutiny and provide advice and recommendations.

I am aware that in Committee the Minister said in answer to my proposals on an independent advisory council that scrutiny is in place through the Levelling Up Advisory Council. I appreciate that such a council could provide scrutiny, but where is the proper, clear independence in where it sits and how it reports? On the understanding that the Minister is going to mention that again, I ask her what reassurance she can provide that it is the Government’s clear intention that this council will be fully independent and that that independence can be demonstrated and achieved.

I will comment on some of the other amendments in this group, and I thank noble Lords who have introduced them today. When he moved Amendment 2, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made some extremely good points about the timescales. When we look at the length of time before we see some of these reports, things can change an awful lot, not just with government but with policy and priorities. We were both involved in the debates on the Procurement Bill, for our sins, and we made progress on some of these kinds of issues in that Bill. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, because it is important that Parliament gets the opportunity to consider the statement and to have a look at whether it thinks it is the correct statement for the time or whether changes need to be made—or it needs to be started over again, for that matter. The noble Lord made very important points.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It is of course important for Parliament to be able to debate the missions, but he came back to the question of how successful government is on delivery, or otherwise for that matter. That is one of the core areas of concern coming through in our debates when we look at missions and even the term “levelling up”.

The noble Lord also made the important point that this is about cross-departmental delivery, priorities and funding. We all know that government likes to work in silos, in individual departments; it is not straightforward. Even when I was in the shadow Cabinet—so looking at this from the shadow perspective—it was not easy to get cross-departmental working in the long term, although you could do it on short-term issues. This will be critical if we are going to deliver, so his amendment looking at the indicators of how we can achieve cross-departmental working is really important. I assure him that, if he wishes to test the opinion of the House on this matter, he will have our support.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. He very clearly laid out why his amendment is needed. As someone who has spent their life living in rural communities and was brought up in a rural community, he does not have to convince me. Every Government seems to talk about rural proofing to ensure that rural areas are considered, yet the concept as it has been formatted, both previously and now, has clearly failed. Had it been successful, we would not have so many existing challenges facing our rural communities.

We know that rural communities are being hit hard. My area in Cumbria is a good example of this: young people leave to seek better opportunities, older people move in to retire and then you have what they call “super ageing” rural communities without so many young people to work in them. It is therefore harder to deliver care and support for an ageing community. We also know that there have been cuts to rural police services, and we hear that houses in rural areas are less affordable, yet these areas have twice the proportion of officially “non-decent” homes as compared with suburban residential areas.

We talk about rural proofing in relation to the impact of policies on rural areas. I think we are looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. Policies should be developed for rural communities in the first place, reflecting the challenges that we face. If are going to rural-proof properly, we need to do both. I have probably said enough on this, but I am sure noble Lords have gathered that, if the noble Lord, Lord Foster, wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will be very happy to support his amendment.

Finally, on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, as we said in Committee, he is absolutely right to raise the potential of robotics to assist with the levelling-up missions. It is an opportunity that we should not miss, and which could also provide jobs in this country—much-needed jobs in skilled work. I hope that the Government will work further with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on how this could be achieved.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support a number of amendments in this group. I absolutely endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in identifying disparities that should be taken into account when we assess the impact of this levelling-up Bill, and taking action as a consequence seems to make logical sense. I particularly support the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Carrington, and the amendments that they have tabled on rural proofing. I share the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in having cantered round this course so many times before without having had a satisfactory conclusion.

This is no way a reflection on the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, but because the responsibility for rural proofing currently lies with Defra, its influence within government as a whole is very limited. Yet it is essential that the whole of government engages in the rural-proofing agenda, which is why it is important that this item is discussed and considered within the Bill, so that it is seen as a government responsibility to deliver rural proofing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, a number of proofings have been done on the Bill. I will ask for those and make sure that they are brought forward. It is not about giving money; it is about knowing where money is required in rural areas to make life better for people, as well as making sure that policies are rural-proofed. If we find out through that rural-proofing that some policies are not delivering as well as they could for rural areas, we have to do something about it, and that is what the Government are doing.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, if the policies have been rural-proofed, what happened to the metrics? Clearly, they have not been rural-proofed. I raised public transport, which I think needs looking at.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group on a range of issues. We have had some of these debates before. As far as the independent Levelling Up Advisory Council is concerned, we had that debate in Committee. We are now five months on, and we asked then for there to be greater transparency around its work and the advice that it gives, but we have not yet seen it. I hope my noble friend the Minister might take away from this debate that, when it comes to the point of issuing a report on the levelling-up missions, it will include—as is done for the Budget, for example, by the OBR—an independent assessment by the advisory council for the purposes of transparency. For it to work wholly within government and never see the light of day does not strike me as terribly independent, so I hope we see that change.

The point about public transport and rural-proofing was well made. The idea that the metric on public transport is how close one gets to the way that public transport works in London is hardly a basis for comparison or for the measurement of public transport connectivity in rural areas, but hey ho. The point is a good one: getting it into the metrics is potentially more important than including it in the reporting process. That is exactly why parliamentary scrutiny of the statements is important, not just parliamentary scrutiny of the reports of the missions after the passage of time.

None the less, I take my noble friend’s point about the flaw in my argument, which is a very simple one. We spent a lot of time debating the statement on the levelling-up missions, because the missions were published before the Bill was received. We spent a lot of time debating what is in them and what the alternatives might be; so far, so good.

In the next Parliament, we will no doubt have a new statement on the levelling-up missions at some point. It will be very interesting to see that and, following the points made by my noble friends and opposition Front-Benchers, in Committee and today on Report, I hope that there will be opportunities for debate when the statement is laid. That is especially true of and relevant in the other place. If there are objections and a desire for a debate, I hope that the Ministers will accept and understand that.

--- Later in debate ---

Devolution to the lowest common denominator must be the answer because it means that the electorate have the last say and can therefore make the difference in how that money is spent. It will help to deliver levelling up. I support the amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say that we also welcome these amendments and that I support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Hope of Craighead, as well as to my noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lady O’Neill, in addition to noble Lords opposite.

The levelling-up missions have been set by the UK Government but outcomes are a shared interest for the whole of the UK. We fully recognise that some of the missions cover areas where public services are devolved. The purpose of the missions is not to alter existing areas of responsibility but rather to align and co-ordinate how different areas of government work towards a common goal. As I have mentioned, work is already under way between officials in the UK Government and devolved Administrations to explore collaborative work on various missions.

However, what I want to stress is the point well made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about working together across the union. We are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to align policy, and towards a goal shared by everyone: to reduce geographic disparities across all of the UK. These amendments provide further assurance of that commitment by making it explicit and binding in the Bill.

To pick up a further point raised by the noble and learned Lord, we are taking specific action in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including putting local voices at the heart of decision-making through the UK shared prosperity fund, launching an innovation accelerator in Glasgow City Region and establishing a UK national academy to provide a first-class education to all children in the UK.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose spoke about establishing a framework. My best response to that is that one of the benefits of devolution is that it allows local places to take tailored approaches to tackling common challenges, enabling experimentation and innovation. We want to do more to bring together evidence and insights from across the UK, learning from our different approaches and experiences, so that we can improve our collective evidence base about what works and what does not work in different contexts. That, to my mind, is a win-win and it could be described as a desire to establish, over time, a framework that works for everybody. Ultimately, working together to improve our collective evidence base will help us all deliver better outcomes for people across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

17: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Levelling Up Fund: round three(1) Within 30 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before each House of Parliament detailing the application process for round three of the Levelling Up Fund, including criteria for applications.(2) The Secretary of State must take steps to simplify the application process and reduce the requirements, and resources necessary, for applications.(3) The Secretary of State may not introduce additional criteria for applications after the publication of the statement being laid under subsection (1).(4) Within 60 days of the statement being laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay a statement before each House of Parliament listing the allocations of the third round of the Levelling Up Fund and explaining how each allocation supports the delivery of the levelling-up missions.(5) In determining the allocations, the Secretary of State must only make allocations which support the delivery of the levelling-up missions with a long-term and strategic vision.(6) The Secretary of State must not make allocations which are based on political and electoral motivations. (7) A Minister of the Crown must provide feedback on unsuccessful applications.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that the third round of the Levelling Up Fund takes place in a timely manner and as part of a reformed process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

18: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Capital spending: impact assessmentWithin 60 days of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish an assessment of the impact of the requirement that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities seeks consent from His Majesty’s Treasury for all capital spending, on the delivery of Part One of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to probe reports that DLUHC require Treasury consent for all capital spending.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a short group with just my Amendment 18 in it. I have laid this amendment to probe the reports that the department, DLUHC, now requires Treasury consent for its capital spending. In February this year, the Financial Times published an article stating that DLUHC had been “banned” by the Treasury

“from making spending decisions on new capital projects … after concerns were raised about the ministry’s ability to deliver value for money”.

Lee Rowley MP, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DLUHC, confirmed to the House of Commons that the department was now

“working within a new delegation approach”

that involved

“Treasury sign-off on capital spend.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/23; col. 1028.]

Furthermore, in March it was reported that DLUHC had not managed to spend even 10% of the levelling-up fund since its launch in 2020. This media report closely followed news in the Financial Times that

“DLUHC intends to spend £2.42bn less on capital projects in 2022-23 than originally planned”.


This sum includes £1 billion in unspent money from the affordable homes programme, while two government officials the article quoted said that the level of underspend “was unusually high”. Can the Minister give an explanation as to what the ban on capital spend sign-off means for the future of levelling-up projects? It is apparent that the Treasury must have serious concerns regarding the department’s ability to monitor and deliver as it now has to work with the Treasury to seek all necessary approvals.

The department has also acknowledged that it lacks data of sufficient quality about government departments’ expenditure on the full range of levelling-up funds. It also lacks data on combined authority income and expenditure. Can the Minister say how DLUHC intends to measure the success or failure of its levelling-up policies, initiatives and objectives? DLUHC’s solution to the lack of data appears to be the creation of the spatial data unit, the SDU. Having said that, it is unclear exactly what data will be produced and by when. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on this.

The delay and lack of information regarding what the SDU is working on, what the unit intends to produce and when these datasets will be available are clearly unsatisfactory. Does the Minister think that this is a good use of public resources? For levelling up to be a success, it requires a long-term strategy with a long-term funding plan backed by data, and this is currently not the case. For the Treasury to take the step of coming in and removing DLUHC’s ability to sign off on capital expenditure is extremely concerning.

My amendment seeks fundamentally to understand what impact this will have on the delivery of future DLUHC-funded projects, particularly future funding under the levelling-up policy. I await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 is a new probing amendment, because we all assumed that, if the Government are committed to levelling up and understand, as they will, that it is dependent on long-term capital investment, that would therefore be available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, quoted the Financial Times, and I too did a bit of research on what capital was around. The Financial Times raised this issue earlier this year, reporting that John Glen, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—perhaps he still is—has

“now stepped in to prevent DLUHC from signing off spending on any new capital projects, because of concerns about whether the department is delivering value for money. Such interventions are typically reserved for departments about which the Treasury has particular financial concerns”.

The Financial Times report went on to say:

“The decision to rein in Gove’s expenditure, taken last week, means that any new capital spending decision ‘however small, must now be referred to HMT before approval and the department is not allowed to make any decisions itself’”.


It is a fairly damning indictment of the spending already undertaken by DLUHC if that is the Treasury’s view of its value for money. As I said at the start, levelling up depends on capital investment. It is difficult to interpret the Government’s—the Treasury’s—decision to have tight controls on capital spending as anything other than putting a big brake on levelling-up funding, to the detriment of communities that are desperate for investment.

A House of Commons Select Committee also reported on levelling-up funds, which we referred to in debates on earlier groups today. It made the salient point that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is apparently not able to demonstrate how the funding fulfils the aims of the White Paper for sustained investment to tackle long-standing inequality—these are the points that I have made today and throughout the debates on the Bill. That was a cross-party committee. The National Audit Office also published a report, making a similar, stark plea to the department to urgently increase the capacity to assess and manage levelling-up funds.

So here we are, with a significant Bill carrying one of the Government’s key objectives, set out in a detailed report, and before it has really got going the Treasury is saying, “Well, you can’t spend anything without us first checking and signing it off”. We also have researched reports from the House of Commons Select Committee and the National Audit Office, both pointing to funding not being spent in perhaps the best possible way.

So the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has posed an important question. We ought to hear from the Minister that the Government are prepared to continue to invest significant sums in levelling up because, without that, levelling up will not occur. You can tell that from the White Paper, which I keep pointing to—it has done its job. Unless there is investment, levelling up will not happen. If the Treasury is putting a big brake on it, how are we going to level up? Perhaps the Minister can give us some pointers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to officials publishing an assessment of the impact of the requirement that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities seeks consent from His Majesty’s Treasury for all capital spending on the delivery of Part 1 of this Bill when it becomes an Act.

Noble Lords will be aware that the department is working within a new delegation approach, which involves Treasury sign-off on new capital spend. However, there has been no change to the budgets of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and no change to our policy objectives. It is reported that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities requires approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for new capital projects, but this will not impact the levelling-up agenda. The recent change relates only to new projects; there is no change to the decision-making framework for existing capital programmes and no change to the department’s budgets. Moreover, noble Lords will be aware that, in the usual course of departmental business, the majority of programmes would require HMT approval in any case, so there is little change with this new capital spending approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked what implications the new spending control would have on the levelling-up agenda. The amendment to capital delegations referred to in press coverage has absolutely no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. The Government’s central mission remains to level up every part of the UK by spreading opportunity, empowering local leaders and improving public services. There has been no dilution of levelling up. There have been no changes to the size of DLUHC budgets, both capital and revenue, or to its policy objectives; neither does this impact how large programmes already agreed are being delivered—for example, the towns fund or the levelling-up fund.

I hope this gives the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, enough reassurance that she will not press her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her comments in this debate and the Minister for her response. Although I am not absolutely and entirely convinced by everything she said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

25: Clause 7, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must consult, and have regard to advice provided by, the Boundary Commission for England regarding the boundaries of a CCA when making regulations under subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State has a duty to consult the Boundary Commission in regard to the boundaries of a CCA.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, as do other noble Lords. I shall talk your Lordships’ House through why I felt we needed to put these amendments down.

First, let us look at my Amendments 25, 27 and 53. Our concerns are around the fact that the Government seem to view devolution settlements as evolutionary. Although we do not necessarily object to them refining these agreements over time, our concern is that, if they are going to refine them and the settlements are going to evolve, clearly they need to be changed both for the benefit of and with the consent of the local communities that will be affected by any changes. If we look at what is in this part of the Bill and what it does, we see that it adjusts the mechanisms affecting when changes to combined authorities can be made. With my amendments, I am trying to ensure that due process is applied at all times to such changes.

I want to look at one particular area of concern, which involves a change that could be immediate and will be able to be exercised through these powers if they are put into statute: the potential addition of Warwickshire to the West Midlands combined authority. This could be done shortly ahead of the next election for the mayor of the region in May next year. Our concern is that it could happen shortly ahead of an election without proper agreement with the community and wider authorities. Because of that, I have tabled Amendments 25, 27 and 53.

My Amendment 25 states:

“The Secretary of State must consult, and have regard to advice provided by, the Boundary Commission for England regarding the boundaries of a CCA when making regulations under subsection (1)”.


My Amendment 27 says the same—it is just placed in a further, appropriate part of the Bill—whereas, if noble Lords look at my Amendment 53, they will see that it looks at another part of the Bill and aims to ensure that

“the Secretary of State has consulted, and had regard to advice provided by, the Boundary Commission for England”.

I know that we have discussed this issue. I thanked the Minister for her time either last week or the week before—I cannot remember when—when we discussed it previously. However, because the Boundary Commission has a responsibility to review parliamentary constituencies —I know that the argument from officials was that my amendment does not necessarily apply in this case because it looks just at county or district boundaries that already exist and are already agreed, for example— we feel that, because of the potential implications of boundaries being expanded by a mayor to suit their next election, this is something that should be supplemented. There should be this additional role for the Boundary Commission in such cases so that there cannot be any questions, concerns or even accusations of gerrymandering where that may not be the case; we just think that it would add an extra layer of security and transparency to any changes in this area.

My Amendment 35, which is also in this group, would insert a new clause:

“Mayors for CCA Areas: boundaries”.


The amendment says:

“Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, a Minister … must publish a report of a consultation on the boundaries of each Mayor for a CCA Area … The report must also include a criteria which must be fulfilled for any future expansions of boundaries”.


Also, and this comes back to the point I have just made:

“The criteria must include that the extension is not being made for political advantage”.


This is something that we are concerned about.

We are trying to really stress the point here that any additions and changes to boundaries should not be motivated or be able to be motivated by any political purpose. We know that concerns have been raised that this may be the case in the West Midlands, for example. It is extremely important that the Government heed these concerns in order that people can have the greatest confidence possible in any changes to boundaries and powers that will be brought in with the proposed legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has Amendments 37 to 39 in this group. They all look to do a similar thing: to remove Clauses 40 to 42 to avoid confusion about the number of different mayoral titles that are possible. I genuinely think he has a bit of a point here. I find that many members of the general public get confused about what councillors do and what we all do. When I was a Member of Parliament—other noble Lords may have had the same experience—I was told to go and sort my councillors out. There is not necessarily a huge amount of understanding about local government and government structures. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to do here to make it as simple as possible.

I now want to look at Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt, my Amendment 53, as I mentioned earlier, and Amendment 53A, the new amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt to which I have added my name. I will leave my noble friend to go into the detail of this, but we strongly support what he is trying to achieve with this amendment and strongly support his concerns here.

I hope that I have been clear to the Minister about exactly what our concerns are. I think that they could be resolved with discussion, but these are genuine concerns about the way the boundaries may potentially be manipulated and we think that the Government should take them very seriously. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend said, I have two amendments. Amendment 52

“would prevent the Secretary of State making amendments to the membership of a combined authority in a 12 month period running up to a mayoral election, which could have the effect of altering the prospects of a sitting or proposed mayor being elected or re-elected”.

Amendment 53A puts some

“additional requirements which must be satisfied before local government areas are added to an existing Combined Authority within nine months of Royal Assent”.

Obviously, it is late and noble Lords wish to prepare for tomorrow, so I am not going to speak at length, as I could do on this. I just want to make two or three points. This is all about the Government’s deplorable efforts basically to gerrymander the boundary of the West Midlands Combined Authority. So much does the current Tory incumbent, Andy Street, suspect defeat in ten months’ time that he has conspired with Michael Gove to shoehorn Warwickshire, a shire county, into the metropolitan combined authority. If this happened to Wiltshire, for instance, I know exactly what the noble Baroness would be thinking. The sole purpose, of course, is to try to improve his fortunes at the 2024 election. He has similar designs on some of the other shire counties in the West Midlands. He will not be stopping there; he wants to be police commissioner as well, and we will come on to that later.

This is being done over the next 12 weeks, so there is scant time for consultation, and no time for full consideration of the impact on the district council and certainly not on the public, who I doubt wish to have their lives run from Birmingham. Nor do I think it will be successful, because the most likely outcome is a Labour mayor running Warwickshire and the West Midlands. Noble Lords might think that I would welcome that, but I have principled objections to using legislation in this way—basically, to protect a sole political incumbent. I particularly object to this happening without the agreement of the existing constituent members of the combined authority. For me, such power vested in one person damages our democracy, undermines the trust on which the combined authority was established and surely risks threatening its future success.

One of the things I find the most objectionable is the haste in which this is being done. A paper going to Warwickshire County Council’s cabinet meeting tomorrow indicates this. The council has to rush into a governance review, followed by publication of a scheme that would contain details of the proposed expanded area of the West Midlands Combined Authority; its proposed membership, voting and other constitutional arrangements; its proposed functions; the way it will be funded; and any property, rights and liabilities that would be transferred to the extended combined authority.

A public consultation has to be undertaken. If the Secretary of State then decides to proceed, an order will have to be made which would expand the area of the combined authority and provide for the election of a mayor. This all has to be done incredibly quickly. Ministers have told the county council that it must be in a position to do all that and submit an application in early October. Allowing for August and the summer break, what sort of consultation is likely by early October? I suggest, a very scanty one.

In this paper, the council openly admits that it may require consideration of urgent decisions being made during the process; in other words, the consultation is a sham, because the decision has already been made. So much is unknown, not least the financial consequences; so the cabinet paper airily says that what this means financially for Warwickshire in the context of the current West Midlands devolution deal and the being-discussed West Midlands deeper devolution deal would need to be worked up in negotiation with the Government. So that will not be sorted out any time soon, and the public in Warwickshire will have no idea at all about the financial implications; nor will the non-metropolitan district councils in Warwickshire have any idea what it means for them, or of the financial consequences.

The paper that I have read is mistaken. It says in paragraph 2.7:

“A change in membership status to ‘constituent member’ for Warwickshire County Council”


—in other words, Warwickshire coming in means it becomes a constituent member of the combined authority—

“would also have implications for the five District and Borough Councils in the County who would automatically be admitted as constituent members”

of the combined authority. The paper goes on to say:

“It is recognised that the level of financial contribution as a constituent member could be challenging for the District and Borough Councils and if levied at the current ‘constituent member’ level would mean Warwickshire Councils as a whole contributing a disproportionate amount compared to other members”.


Well, that would be a matter of concern. I am sure that this, if successful, would have financial consequences for the non-metropolitan district councils. But the paper is wrong. Again, in paragraph 4.16, it says that district councils will be constituent members of the combined authority.

I take the Minister back to our debates on district councils. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made it clear that

“the combined county authority is a new institutional model made up of upper-tier local authorities only. Only two-tier county councils and unitary councils can be constituent members of a CCA”.—[Official Report, 27/2/23; col. 111.]

I suspect that this error was made in the rush to produce all this paper, but a district council in Warwickshire would be left very uncertain about what all this means.

We can see a proud, independent and delightful county, Warwickshire—I am a member of Warwickshire County Cricket Club—being more and more absorbed into the West Midlands Combined Authority, where urban interests are bound to dominate. Do the people of Warwickshire really want this? Do other shire counties and the people in them want it? I very much doubt it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 25, 27, 35 and 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, regard the boundaries and memberships of CCAs and combined authorities. The Bill includes our intended criteria for establishing and changing boundaries of CCAs and CAs in Clauses 44, 46, 62 and 63.

Proposals to change the area of a combined county area are generated locally in line with our principle of locally led devolution. The process to propose a boundary change must include a public consultation being undertaken. The Secretary of State has to assess any such proposals, including the results of the consultation, against a set of statutory tests and will consent to making the requisite secondary legislation only if they are content that the statutory tests are met. The legislation is therefore subject to a triple lock of agreement from the Secretary of State, the consent of the local area and parliamentary approval. I think it is important that we look at that as a triple lock.

Any proposal from the local area has to demonstrate that it will improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all of the people who live and work in the area, suitably reflecting their identities and the interests of local communities, and will deliver effective and convenient local government. As such, the expansion of a CCA or CA cannot be pursued for political advantage. It must benefit the local area.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I want to ask for clarification. The test is to carry out a consultation. When the Secretary of State takes that consultation with the local community into account, can he make a decision against what the majority of that community voted for?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is more complex than that. It is not a referendum but a consultation. Therefore, there will be many views for, against, in the middle and all over the place, but he will obviously have to take account of views. If everyone said they did not want something, I am sure the Secretary of State would take note of that; it is part of those tests.

The main focus of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, which the noble Baroness brought up, is a rolling programme of electoral reviews of local authorities; this is where its skills and experience mainly lie. It would not be appropriate to consult it on the proposed boundaries of CCAs and CAs. The requirement for public consultation and statutory tests for regulations provide, we believe, sufficient protection that further consultation is unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.

Amendments 37 to 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to remove Clauses 40 to 42, which set out the process to allow the mayor of a CCA to change to a locally appropriate title that resonates with local stakeholders. Some areas are reluctant to adopt a mayor governance model as they feel the word “mayor” would be confusing and inappropriate for their area, preventing access to a strong devolution deal.

We had this discussion in Committee. There are many areas in this country where every town in a county, or even a district, will have a local mayor. That has been an issue for some authorities when they look into a CCA for the future. The noble Lord talked about directly elected leaders. Some authorities have said to us that they would prefer to call the person who leads—doing the same job as a mayor in a county authority—a “directly elected leader”. It is just a name; the job itself is the same.

To minimise confusion, the clauses include the protection of a shortlist of possible titles—it does not have to be used; it just gives some ideas—as well as a mechanism for areas to use any other title they choose, providing they have regard to other public officeholders’ titles in the area of that authority. We are trying to give as much local flexibility as possible to allow for local circumstances, so that the name of the directly elected person to lead that combined authority is the best name to use in that area.

Amendment 52, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, regarding the timing of an order changing a combined authority’s area, would add further inflexibility to the process. An MCA can be expanded only at the time of a mayoral election, for reasons of democratic accountability; those affected by the mayor’s decisions will have had the opportunity to take part in that mayor’s election. Consequently, it can already be several years between an area expressing an interest in joining an MCA and such expansion coming into force. Introducing additional inflexibility would impede and potentially further delay—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not delay the House for long but, with the greatest respect, this was a twinkle in the eye of Mayor Street a few months ago when the Wolverhampton Express & Star reported it. People in Warwickshire were innocently going about their own business, then along came Mr Gove to put pressure on them to make this application. The Minister is indulging in a fantasy that this is somehow driven by Warwickshire people desperate to join the West Midlands.

I joke about Wiltshire but the Minister will know about the sensitivities of shire counties and their relationship with urban metropolitan districts, which I well understand. My noble friend Lady Anderson’s Staffordshire would be another case in point; it would not wish to be ruled, in a sense, from Birmingham. It really is too much: the rules are being changed to allow for one gerrymander, in a foolish attempt to save Mr Street’s political career. That really will not do.

I am not going to go on because we have two other groups. In the next—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are finishing at the end of this group.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Sorry, I know that, but we are going to have further debates on this because the amendments have been split between groups eight, nine and 10. That is why I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as we have said before, there are clear regulations that the Secretary of State will look at when he considers any bid. We have made it clear that they have to be geographically sensible economic areas, so I cannot think of anything growing and growing, because it will not. But it will be local people who put forward the bid; the Government will not be saying to any local area, “You have to join”. These are locally led bids for areas that local people think are the right economic areas to do business in and to deliver for them. How big will they be, realistically? They will not be what the noble Baroness suggests, of course, because those would be too big to be really good economic areas, but it is up to local people to do this, as I keep saying.

One of the principles that underpin our devolution agenda is that devolution deals are agreed and implemented over a sensible geography. We want to remove any barriers to neighbouring local authorities joining a combined authority where there is a strong economic, social and environmental rationale for doing so. The new local consent arrangements under Clause 57 mean that the decision would be given to the mayor and council wishing to join the CA. The mayor is democratically accountable to the whole existing CA area, so it is right that they should be the decision-taker for decisions on changes to that whole area.

The arrangements proposed in this amendment could mean that an expansion of a CA area that evidence shows would be likely to improve outcomes for the proposed whole new area could end up being vetoed by just one existing constituent council if the CA’s local constituency requires unanimous agreement from its members on this matter. This has been an issue in the past. This potential impediment to furthering devolution cannot be right; one small authority cannot stop a larger area that wants to grow to be more economically viable.

In his explanatory statement for Amendment 53A, the noble Lord references

“reports that areas may be added to the West Midlands Combined Authority prior to the 2024 Mayoral Election”.

Warwickshire County Council’s plans are part of a local process for the area—county and district councils—and it is up to it to apply to join the WMCA. If Warwickshire decides to pursue this, it will undertake a public consultation, following which it may submit its proposals to the Government. The Government will carefully consider any such proposals, as statute provides. No decisions have been taken by the Government. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to not move his amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to quite a charged debate. I thought I was quite good on the geography of the West Midlands, but I learned a bit tonight. We are not entirely satisfied with where the Bill is on this issue at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, I feel sure that we will return to this.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.