English Devolution

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this White Paper will take away powers from local communities and risks making local government less responsive to the needs of local taxpayers. As my honourable friend in the other place rightly said:

“This is not bottom-up local leadership, but top-down templates for local government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/24; col. 38.]


In government, we supported joint working between local councils, which included some unitary restructuring as well as district mergers, but Conservative Ministers were clear that any unitary restructuring had to be locally led and have local support. It was not a condition of devolution deals.

If I may, I would like to raise some of the most pressing concerns of my noble friends on these Benches. Unitary restructuring does not necessarily result in better value for money for local residents, and alignment of council taxes across different councils has generally been upwards. Creating an additional mayoral tier above local authorities also risks wasting any savings achieved through unitarisation.

This has been proven in Labour-run mayoral regions, where we have seen eye-watering mayoral precepts imposed on residents. Ken Livingstone and Sadiq Khan massively hiked their council tax precepts in London, now topping £471 per band D household in London under Sadiq Khan. Only Conservative mayors such as Boris Johnson have cut council tax precepts; Andy Street and Ben Houchen—now my noble friend Lord Houchen—charged nothing at all. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government’s plans to change the structure of local government will deliver better services without imposing significantly higher council tax on local residents?

We expect Labour to invite proposals from councils for local government restructuring. The first wave of this restructuring would then result in county council elections in May 2025 in those chosen areas being cancelled. Does the Minister agree that no council should be bullied or blackmailed into local government restructuring?

The Government’s true attitude to devolution is clear from their approach to housing delivery. Their introduction of the concept of grey-belt land explicitly removes the green-belt requirement to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. When their assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land is considered alongside the imposition of mandatory housing targets, it is increasingly clear that the Government intend to concrete over as much of the countryside as they can, while cutting building targets in cities.

Despite these changes to the planning rules and the Government’s intention to deliver 1.5 million homes, the Government have cut new housing needs targets in areas where new homes are needed—minus 11% in London, minus 38% in Birmingham and minus 55% in Coventry—while increasing the targets in areas where the housing need is clearly less acute: it is 106% in the New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and 487% in Westmorland and Furness. These mandatory targets are just one example of the Government’s centralisation of control over local authorities and reduction of the power of local leaders, who know their communities’ needs best. Can the Minister tell this House why a Labour Government have cut housing targets in Labour-run London, Birmingham and Coventry while imposing higher housing needs assessments on the Conservative-run councils in the New Forest and North Yorkshire, as well as in the Liberal Democrat-controlled Westmorland and Furness?

This announcement could have been so much more. It could have been a chance to rethink from scratch the duties, responsibilities and funding of local government, and to ensure that its form follows its function. Before I sit down, I have a few final questions. Can the Minister reassure this House that local authorities will be fully consulted and given time to consider the Government’s plans fully before making any decisions about their future? Can she confirm whether local authorities will have genuine choice on restructuring? Most importantly, will local residents themselves be consulted directly before any decisions on restructuring are taken forward?

In order to ensure electoral equality across the country, will His Majesty’s Government also look at the representation per capita in London and in some of the other metropolitan councils? That is really important to ensure that every person in this country gets equal representation.

Finally, I understand that local councils have been asked to submit their expressions of interest by 10 January. Can the Minister confirm that councils will then have more time—the time that they need—to consider their further steps?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I note that the Statement says:

“We will deliver a new constitutional settlement for England”.


That is a very ambitious claim. What we have in the White Paper is a great disappointment by comparison. There is a deep confusion between what is “local” and what is “regional”, which are used interchangeably and loosely throughout the White Paper. We are promised “regional Mayors” who will, we are told, also be “vital local leaders”. They will take part in the Council of the Nations and Regions alongside Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers; they will also sit on a separate Mayoral Council with the Deputy Prime Minister. There is no link with Parliament here, I note, nor any link to Gordon Brown’s proposal to reform the Lords as a second Chamber to give us a role in representing the nations and regions in UK-wide debates. This looks to the Liberal Democrats like a plan designed in the Treasury both to save money, by shrinking local democratic institutions, and to convert elected mayors into agents of central government, spending funds that they hope to obtain by negotiations with the Treasury—the integrated settlements—without taking into account the importance of embedding democratic government in local and regional networks.

Chapter 4.1 of the White Paper begins:

“England is made up of thousands of communities—towns, cities and villages”.


It then proposes to squeeze those thousands of local communities into somewhere between 30 and 40 combined authorities, with fewer than 100 unitary authorities beneath them, each containing between 500,000 and 1 million people. That is not a unitary system; it is a new two-tier system in which strategic decisions will be taken by the upper mayoral tier—in effect, by one elected person. Local democracy rests on the relationship between voters in their communities and the councillors who represent them. It is the bedrock of democratic politics and of political parties, which draw their campaigners, their members and, often, their recruits into national politics from these local activities. But here is a proposal to cut further the number of elections and elected councillors and to remove them to a much greater distance from those they try to represent, with 15,000 voters or more in each ward.

England’s voters tell pollsters that they deeply mistrust Westminster politics and trust their local representatives more. This measure risks deepening public mistrust of democracy further and weakening political parties; it asks voters to identify with one elected mayor overseeing some millions of people and quite possibly elected on little over a quarter of the votes cast. I remind the Minister that, in July’s election, five parties won more than 10% of the national vote in England. First past the post risks producing some remarkably unrepresentative mayors elected on perhaps 27% or 28% of the vote.

We will need to strengthen the really local tier—the town and parish councils—to compensate for this shift of power upward. I could not find any discussion of parish and town councils in the White Paper. Did I miss some passing references? No other democratic state in Europe, North America or Australasia has such a thin framework of local and regional government. England will remain the most highly centralised state in the democratic world.

Chapter 4 declares:

“There is clearly an appetite for reorganisation in parts of England”.


We are given no evidence of such an appetite among the public. We have had multiple reorganisations in the past 50 years. Now we are going to have another one, which will cost additional money—as all reorganisations do—and disrupt services during the transition. Has the Treasury budgeted for the costs of transition? It then goes on to propose that there should be new rules on remote attendance and proxy voting for councillors at meetings. This is not surprising, given the size of some of our new councils. In the new North Yorkshire Council, it takes some councillors 90 minutes or more to drive to council meetings, so remote attendance and proxy voting are necessary. That is not local government or local democracy, however.

Lastly, in chapter 5 we are told:

“Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will be held to account for the outcomes associated with their Integrated Settlement”


by “reporting to central government”. That is mayors acting as agents of central government, not responding to local and regional issues. The Government seem to want to rush through this reorganisation without waiting for local consultation or the agreement of other parties. This is not the best way to deliver a long-lasting constitutional settlement for England at a time when trust in our local democracy is lower than it has been for a very long time.

Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations before the Committee. As we have heard from my noble friends Lord Mott and Lord Hayward, the timeliness of these changes is welcome. My noble friend Lord Hayward is right: it would be preferable to have any other changes come to us all at one time. I would also like to hear the Minister’s views on the possible changes to the May 2025 elections.

To go back to the SI, we on these Benches welcome the inclusion of the Armed Forces veteran card for use as voter ID. This is a sensible policy that allows our veterans to use a well-respected form of ID to exercise their democratic rights. I note that these regulations also allow for the national entitlement card issued by local authorities in Scotland to be used as voter ID. I also noted all the relevant changes to the forms required and the small changes outlined by the Minister.

These Benches’ primary concern is that the integrity of the ballot box is maintained. I therefore again seek the Minister’s assurance that this integrity will be paramount in any future changes that the Government may make.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will respond to some of the points raised.

I thank first the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for his support for these regulations. I will tackle the issue he raised about additional documents being added to the list, as he asked for more clarification. On the subject of accepted documents at polling stations, I recognise that there have been calls from the public and noble Lords to include various additional forms of documents since the original voter ID rules came into effect. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, also touched on this. We are pleased to bring forward this legislation to include the veteran card on the list of accepted documents, as this has been frequently called for since the card was fully launched.

I understand that many people would like further forms of identification to be added to the list. As I mentioned, we are continuing to review the voter ID policy. If further changes to the list of accepted documents are found to be necessary or appropriate, we will bring forward proposals in due course. I look forward to discussing them with noble Lords at that time. I make that point in particular. I have had really healthy discussions with all noble Lords who have spoken and want to ensure that I continue to have that conversation with them.

Many noble Lords touched on the theme of increasing democratic participation, as did the noble Baroness on the Benches opposite. The Government are committed to encouraging democratic engagement among all electors, including young people. We will help to encourage the engagement of young people by legislating to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all elections.

The Government are carefully assessing the postal voting process as part of our wider review of electoral conduct and the registration processes. We have begun work on this and will work closely with stakeholders from across the sector to gather their feedback, analysis and ideas. The Electoral Commission has published its final report on the general election. We will carefully consider its findings and recommendations. Once we have completed our review, we will bring forward firm proposals for changes and improvements to our electoral system. I look forward to discussing this with noble Lords in due course. On the point about when the review will end, we expect to have a report on it in spring 2025.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised a number of important issues on Electoral Commission reports and our report in particular. I thank the Electoral Commission for its ongoing research into the running of our elections, and for its feedback and advice on potential areas of improvement. The commission published its interim report on the 2024 general election in September, focusing on the impact of the voter ID policy. Officials are already considering its recommendations. Two weeks ago, the commission published its full report on that election. This draws on the full suite of evidence and data, including surveys of candidates, returning officers and polling station staff, and feedback from charities and civil society organisations.

We will be carefully reviewing the commission’s findings and recommendations from both reports, and providing a formal response to both reports in due course. We are very cognisant of the need to ensure that the foundations of our electoral system are robust and secure, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked about, as we introduce further reforms to the way in which elections are run.

We are undertaking a strategic review of electoral registration, conduct and funding processes, looking at the biggest challenges and the pain points in the current system. We are working in partnership with the elections sector to understand how we can address these challenges in a practical and pragmatic manner. I will provide noble Lords with an update on the Government’s overall strategic approach to elections and electoral registration, including the outcomes of this review, in due course.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Should I assume, since the Minister is saying that we will have nothing from the review until next spring, that there will be no further changes for the May 2025 elections?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am sorry for any miscommunication, but what we are saying is that we want to get everything ready for the May 2025 elections. The focus is on getting the review and I am sorry if I confused noble Lords on that point. It depends what comes out of the review: depending on what it tells us, we can act on that. That is our focus.

The noble Lord. Lord Hayward, talked about the IFF research and the point that the Minister in the Commons made on this. The Elections Act 2022 included a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish an evaluation of the implementation and impact of the voter ID policy on the first local and the first two UK general elections after the Act came into force. We have therefore contracted IFF Research, an independent research organisation, to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the July 2024 general election—we would have waited much longer for an evaluation of two general elections. It is essential that we understand how the policy has operated in practice, what has gone well and where there are any areas for improvement in the future. We expect that report summarising the work on the voter ID policy in the spring of 2025.

Landlords: Long-term Rentals

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord that for some people in the housing market, the only affordable housing is social rented. The Chancellor set out in the Budget that we will make an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million into the current affordable homes programme. I can confirm that that can be used to purchase property on the private market. That will support the delivery of up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. In addition, at the multiyear spending review next year, we will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. I hope our Deputy Prime Minister’s promise to deliver a revolution in the delivery of social homes will come to fruition.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, there will always be a market for rental accommodation and, under the Conservative Governments, the number of households in the private rented sector rose from 3.1 million to 4.4 million between 2009 and 2021. How does the Minister intend to ensure that the Government’s legislative agenda does not reduce the number of properties available for private renters and risk rent increases?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

First of all, I would say that the number of people who were able to own their own properties actually fell under the last Government. I am surprised, with the record that we have heard many times in this House of the number of people who are currently on housing waiting lists and 150,000 people in temporary and emergency accommodation, that the previous Government want to stand up and question this issue in the House. The PRS has doubled in size since 2002. We will continue to do what we can to support both landlords and tenants in that sector. We are about to introduce the Renters’ Rights Bill to this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have already engaged on that. If there is anybody who has not yet, do get in touch with me, but I look forward to working with the House to deliver a very effective piece of renters’ rights legislation.

Cladding Remediation

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the action she has taken already in this respect. The Government are committed to improving building safety, and to accelerating the remediation of unsafe social housing just as much as we are for those in private rented and private owned property. Investment in remediation will rise to record levels of over £1.5 billion across 2024-25 and 2025-26, and that includes new investment to speed up the remediation of social housing. The Government will set out further steps to accelerate remediation in the remediation acceleration plan. Social landlords have access to existing government grants, and the Government are committed to providing £400 million of grant funding to the social housing sector for the removal of unsafe cladding. With social housing, as with other types of housing, there is no excuse now for not getting on with this as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the Question of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, this Labour Government have allocated only £1 billion of funding for the removal of the cladding, in contrast to the £5.1 billion allocated by the previous Government to fix the most dangerous cladding through the cladding safety scheme. Can the Minister explain how the Government came to the figure of £1 billion, and will she commit to comparable levels of support to those seen under the last Government?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we have waited seven years for action to be taken on this. The remediation acceleration plan will set out the full details of how we intend to take this forward, and the funding that has been set aside. Of course, we would have wanted to put more into this, but with a £22 billion black hole, it has not been possible to do so.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important issue to the House to be debated. I also thank all those noble Lords who have given up their Friday to either take part in or listen to this important debate, which my noble friend Lady Sanderson and I know will be noted by the community of Grenfell. I have been involved with the community since just after the fire, first by working for the Government with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and then as the Minister responsible for the Grenfell community.

The date of 14 June 2017 is one that few of us will ever forget, least of all the wonderful, brave, resilient survivors and bereaved in the Grenfell community whose lives were changed for ever that day. The two reports produced by the inquiry answered some of their questions but left many unanswered, the most important of which are: when will we get justice and who is ultimately responsible? Can the Minister tell the House when he expects these questions to be answered? What engagement are the Government undertaking in the meantime with the communities, especially the bereaved and the survivors?

I will not repeat all the issues and questions raised by my noble friend Lady Sanderson, who, alongside the former MP Nick Hurd, has been a huge supporter of and friend to the Grenfell community, but I support and agree with everything she said. My noble friend and Nick Hurd have ensured that the voices of the Grenfell community have been heard at the very top of government over the last seven years. They understand the Grenfell community, and I urge the new Government to continue to listen to and engage with them.

In this debate we have rightly heard a great deal about the importance of safe housing. As this matter has been explored in great depth by noble Lords on all sides of the House, I will keep my comments about it short, but it is at the forefront of the Grenfell community’s minds. As they have said, no one is safe until everyone is safe.

As far as high-rise buildings are concerned, the Conservative Government allocated substantial funds to remediate and identify at-risk buildings. A £600 million fund was established to replace unsafe aluminium composite material—the cladding type used on Grenfell Tower—and a further £5.1 billion was allocated to the cladding safety scheme and the building safety fund. I hope this new Government will follow our lead and allocate the correct financial support needed into the future because, as we have heard today, there is much more to do.

Unfortunately, as we heard during the inquiry and testimony week, the tragedy of the Grenfell fire had its genesis years before the night of that terrible blaze. There are lessons that need to be learned, especially by local authorities, tenant management organisations and social housing providers.

That said, encouragingly, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has since gone through extensive change. Under the leadership of Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, its culture and commitment to its tenants have been radically improved. Even so, the council will admit that there is more to do, and it has just accepted all the recommendations from the inquiry.

The stigma attached to being a social housing tenant is real. Too often they are not listened to, and too often no action is taken regarding their concerns, and that results in an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness. The passing of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act by the previous Government was noted as a positive move in the inquiry report, and I thank all sides of the House, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the support that the Bill was given.

The Grenfell community wanted the social housing sector to be further regulated, and the Conservative Government delivered that. The new regulator now in place is listening to tenants and has the power, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to challenge providers which ignore their tenants’ concerns and provide poor or untimely services.

A further priority of the bereaved and the survivors was the future professionalisation of the social housing sector, ensuring that all staff are suitably qualified to work in that sector, with the skills to understand the tenants and their needs. I ask the Minister to update the House on the progress in implementing that part of the Act.

I also ask the Minister to update us on Awaab’s law. We are waiting for an SI to come through in order for that to be implemented, so I would be grateful for that update.

I thank the regulator. I have met its staff more than once, and their good work came into force very quickly. I encourage them to continue their strong liaison with the tenants and their voice, listening to those tenants for their valuable insights. In that Act we gave them the tools to deal with poor practice, but I ask the Minister to assure the House that those powers will be kept under review and strengthened if necessary.

Seventy-two people died in Grenfell Tower, but that terrible number is by no means the full extent of the suffering caused by the fire. Many others who survived or lived nearby are enduring the physical and mental effects of the fire. It is therefore important that health services for the community have been and will continue to be tailored to their needs.

Before leaving my post in DLUHC I was challenging the health service, both locally and nationally, to continue to provide a bespoke service for the Grenfell community, including monitoring of community health over years, if not decades. That included regular physical and mental health checks that can be easily accessible, including for those survivors who have moved out of area. I ask the Minister to assure the House that that work is continuing and is funded for as many years as necessary.

Of the 72 people who died in the fire, 18 were children. Those children had young friends who had to come to terms with their loss. Other children watched the fire happening that night and have had to live their lives in the sight of the tower ever since. They still walk to school past it every day. Schools and their teachers have played a crucial part in the lives and well-being of these children over the last seven years. These schools have supported, signposted, protected and cared for these children through very difficult times, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. However, additional services cost money. There was a question regarding how these school services were funded, and we want to know how they will continue to be funded to do this essential work. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that these issues continue to be discussed and solutions found.

Many of the children affected saw things no child should ever witness. Now these children are growing up and taking their first steps into the world as young adults. It is important not only that we support them in their career choices and further education, but that we support their mental health as they traverse this stage of life, so that they can manage their trauma and stand on their own two feet as happy and thriving adults. I urge the Minister to ensure that services are readily available in a timely manner and that they are properly funded.

The Grenfell inquiry is a damning indictment of 30 years of successive industry and state failures. The previous Government started to put these wrongs right, and it is now up to our new Government to continue this important work. For the Grenfell bereaved and survivors, peace will come only with justice. I urge the Government to ensure this happens as soon as possible, while paying all due regard to the complexities of the legal process. We will, as His Majesty’s Opposition, ensure that the Government continue to make the Grenfell community a priority and that the recommendations of the report are delivered. We are always here, as His Majesty’s Opposition, to help.

My thoughts are, as always, with the bereaved, the survivors, and the wider community that is Grenfell. You are always in my prayers.

Council Tax

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, when it comes to local government, the Chancellor is giving with one hand and taking away with another. The increase of employer national insurance contribution will hit local government hard, particularly through its contracted services. Can the Minister explain how the Government expect councils to cover their increased costs without raising council tax, or are His Majesty’s Government happy to see yet another tax increase on working people as a result of their Budget?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance costs. This applies to those directly employed by the public sector, including local government. We will set out further details of how this support will be delivered in due course.

Voter Registration and Participation

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I note my noble friend’s important points, but I assure him that the Government are committed to improving electoral registration and addressing low registration rates among various groups in society. We will examine different approaches and use the experience of other countries to inform our decisions.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the inclusion of the Armed Forces veteran card for use as voter ID but note that there will be a further review. Can the Minister assure the House that the integrity of the ballot box will be maintained in any future changes that the Government make?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for making the point about the addition of the Armed Forces veteran card to the list of accepted documents for voter ID. On her very direct question, yes—it is in our manifesto.

Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument and for highlighting the changes made. I know she has the misfortune of being from the south of England but, in Yorkshire, we call it “Orterbridge”, rather than “Outerbridge” as the Minister pronounced it. I know we have a lot of strange pronunciations in Yorkshire, but I think people there would appreciate it being pronounced as they do.

This is a sensible proposal. Populations move and expand; in response, political and administrative boundaries should move to make them fit local perceptions of place. While local government can and do respond informally to boundaries that do not make practical sense, such as by making arrangements about bin collections, local government boundary changes per se are less frequent. I wonder whether this is because the process is quite long. In this case, as the Minister said, the relevant local authorities made a formal request in April 2022, and despite broad agreement—the two local authorities in fact proposing the change—it has taken over two years to reach this final stage. Does the Local Government Boundary Commission encourage proposals for boundary changes that are supported by the relevant local authorities, especially where there is a clear anomaly?

One situation that is not raised in the Explanatory Memorandum is what happens if a councillor of either the existing parish or the existing council lives in the area to be moved to another council. If the councillor qualifies only by residency, I presume that that would result in their being unable to continue once their term of office ends. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case. I assume that, in this instance, that will not arise, because otherwise—I hope—it would be within the explanation. It would be useful to understand what will happen if somebody wants to continue serving their population but is then moved. From Barnsley to Sheffield, that is a big move. I jest not.

I have spoken to colleagues in Barnsley who agree that residents in Oughtibridge will feel that they belong to Stocksbridge in Sheffield, which is where they are moving, so they support the proposal in this statutory instrument.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this order provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole of the area of Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the City of Sheffield, as well as providing for consequential changes to corresponding wards and parish boundaries. I am pleased that the councils concerned both support boundary change, as do the affected parish councils. I also note that the LGBCE published a draft of this and asked for responses locally. There were 19 responses, I understand, including six from residents, five of whom were in favour and only one opposed. Therefore, one can say that the proposal is accepted locally.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not oppose these sensible boundary changes, as they suit not only local residents but the relevant public authorities and bodies. I also accept the late minor changes in the draft SI.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses who have made excellent and important contributions to this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her correction to my southern pronunciation of Oughtibridge. I am very grateful. I will not get that wrong again, will I? Thank you very much for that.

A number of points were made, which I will respond to. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the process for review. I have to say that the measure probably was slightly held up by the election, but it has still taken quite a long time. I will take that back, because all of us who have been councillors—I think that everybody taking part in this debate has been—will know that such anomalies often occur. If the process needs to be made more straightforward, we should look at that, because all the reasons given for this SI would apply similarly to other areas where there are revisions to boundaries.

As for councillor qualification, I understand that that is set out in Article 7 of the order, which allows for a change of councillor. I am not aware that there is an issue there in this case, but I understand the residency qualification issue. Of course, councillors can qualify if they have a business or for other reasons but, if it is a residency qualification, that would need to be taken into account. However, as both participants were supportive of this proposal, it is probably the case that there was no issue, but we will bear that in mind if any future SIs like this come forward. We have to be very clear about what is happening in relation to councillor representation, because if a residency qualification is at issue, there may be implications, but that is all set out in Article 7.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England recommendation meets the statutory obligation to secure effective and convenient local government while reflecting the interests and identities of local communities. That sits right at the heart of this SI. In short, the order makes a small boundary change, supported by both local councils and recommended by the Local Government Boundary Commission, and I beg to move.

Social Housing: Awaab’s Law

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to introduce legislation to implement ‘Awaab’s Law’.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Social Care Strategy

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for bringing this important debate to the House today. I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, to the House and congratulate her on her maiden speech.

It is estimated that 10 million of us are affected by adult care services in England at any one time. It is fair to say that there are few of us whom this issue does not touch. We saw that very clearly today when seeing and hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. Personally, it was lovely to see her in the Chamber once again, even though she was on a screen. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, made it very clear how important adult social care services are. Yet this is a sector facing profound challenges, and the Government are failing at the moment to provide detailed and costed plans on how they will support the social care system as it performs this most vital role.

The Opposition have concerns about the Government’s approach to adult social care for four key reasons. Many of the Government’s pledges lack detail, including on how exactly they will be delivered and funded; the Government’s policies fail to focus on the immediate challenges faced by the sector, with very little information on how the immediate industry stressors will be resolved; the Government have failed to set out a plan to end our reliance on foreign workers to fill vacancies in the social care sector; and they have failed to set out plans to recognise and support—as we have heard clearly today—unpaid carers. I urge the Government to listen the concerns of noble Lords in today’s debate and to take a pragmatic, detail-orientated and financially sound approach to reforming the social care system in England.

We have heard several pledges from the Government. The Labour manifesto pledged a “fair pay agreement”, with terms for pay and conditions, and training standards for adult social care workers. The Labour manifesto also included an aim to create a national care service and a “new legal right” for people in residential care to see their families. While these may be admirable statements, at the moment they lack crucial detail.

The “fair pay agreement” is set to be enmeshed in the Employment Rights Bill. However, this Bill is only being introduced to Parliament today. Although we welcome the Government’s intention to ensure fairness in the pay, conditions and training of carers, it is a shame that they have taken so long to publish the Bill, thereby failing to give the House ample time to examine the contents of the Bill before today’s debate.

It is also crucial that the Government focus on those who receive care, not just the workers in the sector. Can the Minister confirm to the House what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure that social care bills are affordable and that the services that people receive in the social care system are of the highest quality?

Given this lack of detail, it is unclear whether the Government have considered the most basic of governmental truths, “What is spent must be funded”. Unless pay increases for carers are matched by an adequate increase in local government funding, as we have heard, and direct financial support for older people, care providers and local council budgets will be further squeezed.

Regarding the national care service, there is little available detail on how this will evolve, how it will be set up or how much it will cost. Can the Minister confirm when we will see further plans for this service?

The Prime Minister has said that the Government are building a 10-year plan for healthcare reform which they expect to publish in spring 2025, after consultation. Although I am sure that this House will appreciate the need for a considered and long-term approach to social care, so any new system will be equipped to handle the care needs of an ever-ageing population, there are many pressing issues facing social care now.

With the Employment Rights Bill only just introduced, scant detail on the proposed national care service and the 10-year plan not due to be published for several months, it seems that the Government have no immediate plans to improve the state of social care in England.

In the year 2023-24, there were record levels of international recruitment for social care workers, while the sector struggled to recruit and retain domestic employees. More specifically, 105,000 international recruits started direct care roles in the independent social care sector in 2023-24, whereas the number of people in the workforce with British nationality shrunk by 30,000. Over the last two years, 185,000 international recruits joined this sector and the number of British workers fell by 70,000.

Clearly, the social care sector could not function today without the wonderful contribution of workers from overseas. We must be grateful to those who come from overseas to provide these vital services. Without them, many people would simply not receive the care they need.

However, in their manifesto, the Government pledged to

“end the long-term reliance on overseas workers in some parts of the economy by bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as health and social care, and construction”,

and to “reduce net migration”. The Opposition must ask the Government how they intend to honour their manifesto commitment to deliver lower immigration and wean the social care sector off overseas workers?

The 2021 census found that approximately 4.7 million people were providing unpaid care in England. This represented around 9% of the entire population and, as we have heard today—I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for making this very clear—that includes children. The report from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, noted the “huge contribution” of unpaid carers. It called for a “fresh approach” so that the NHS can provide unpaid carers with support and treat them as an “equal partner” when working up care plans. However, the fantastic work of these truly selfless and very kind people is notably absent from the Government’s social care reforms. What steps are the Government taking to better recognise the invaluable contribution that unpaid carers make in our society?

Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will provide greater detail on what the “fair pay agreement” and the National Care Service involve, and when can this House expect to see a detailed cost analysis of the proposed social care reforms? Do the Government have any policies currently in play that will ease immediate pressures on the social care sector in England? I reiterate my earlier question: how do the Government intend to honour their manifesto commitment to deliver lower immigration and wean the social care sector off overseas workers? Finally, how are the Government going to support unpaid carers and ensure that their voices are heard during the creation of care plans?

Having a functional, efficient and, above all, compassionate social care system in England is of critical importance to all of us. Without this, there will be no way to relieve the strain on the NHS, which is currently treating those who would be much better served by local community care services. The Opposition urge the Government to listen to our concerns and urgently provide this House with detailed, costed and pragmatic plans for the social care sector in England.