Local Government Reorganisation
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, what local residents want from their local council are good quality services at a reasonable cost, however it is organised. When the Conservatives took control of Harlow Council in 2021, they cut council tax, and have kept it frozen ever since. Under this Government’s new local government funding formula, Harlow will lose approximately 30% of its grant funding next year. Why is the Government’s new formula punishing councils that are keeping taxes down and providing better value for money for taxpayers in their area?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I find it astonishing to hear the party opposite challenging us on funding issues in local government, when it has punished the whole of local government for 14 years in this respect. I agree with the noble Baroness about what the public want from their local government services. They are not worried about the overheads of additional councils; they want to see good public services at local level and good value for money. That is what the devolution and local government reorganisation programme is all about.
The review of the funding formula will happen as we go into the spending review in the spring, and is there to make sure that funding is directed where the need is greatest. That will be what we set out to do. It is what we said we would do in our manifesto, and we will continue to do so. Let us not take any lessons in that from the party that has starved local government and brought it to its knees over 14 years.
Political Parties: Funding
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I take it that that was a question about a cap on donations. That is not a current priority for the Government, but strengthening the rules around donations really is. Political parties play a vital role in our democracy, and it is important that they are able to fundraise effectively and communicate with the electorate as a very important part of our process. By law, it is the responsibility of political parties to take all reasonable steps to verify their donors and whether they are permissible. We will take necessary steps to ensure that those requirements are tightened and stuck to.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, during the Lords stages of the National Security Bill, the last Conservative Government and Conservative Ministers pledged to enhance data-sharing powers to allow public bodies to share data with political parties. That is what we need; it is not about the honest ones who come through but knowing who is coming through a tenuous route, so that political parties are assisted in their due diligence. Can the Minister tell me the status of those plans to provide more information to political parties?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I explained in my earlier Answer, we are reviewing all matters related to electoral donations. Those will be taken into account as we go through the process of developing any new legislation, including the issue raised by the noble Baroness.
Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this SI is a key step in advancing the devolution agenda, continuing the work set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 under the previous Conservative Government. As we have heard, it extends the borrowing power to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the North East Mayoral Combined Authority and the East Midlands Combined County Authority, empowering them to invest in critical areas, such as housing, regeneration, transport, education and health. This is part of a broader effort to decentralise power from Westminster and empower local authorities to shape their own futures, which His Majesty’s Official Opposition support.
In terms of economic development and regeneration, the regulations grant the EMCCA the general power of competence to support local businesses, tourism and other sectors. This is a notable shift, allowing the EMCCA and its constituent councils to carry out more comprehensive projects, including potentially accessing grants from central government, but we must ensure that, while these powers enable growth and development, there is robust accountability in place to ensure that resources are used effectively and in the best interests of those local communities.
A public consultation was conducted regarding the proposed changes, particularly focusing on the economic development and regeneration powers of the EMCCA. While the feedback was largely positive, with no significant objections, it is important to note that support for these new powers was not overwhelming. The absence of major concerns from stakeholders, including the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, suggests broad acceptance, although this should not be construed as unanimous approval.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. While the regulations aim to empower local authorities, several questions need to be answered to ensure these powers are used effectively and responsibly. On effective devolution, the work of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act promoted decentralisation, but how much autonomy will local authorities truly have under these regulations and at what point will central government oversight become excessive? On oversight, without a statutory review clause noted, how will the Government ensure accountability for these new borrowing powers? Are there safeguards in place to ensure that borrowing is managed prudently? Finally, on regional equity, could the new powers create disparities in regional development, potentially leaving smaller regions behind? How will the Government ensure that these powers, to be granted to certain areas, do not exclude or disproportionately benefit specific regions at the expense of others?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their participation and broad support for this SI. I will address some of the questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the powers of mayors; I simply point to the success of existing mayoralties, delivering real things for their communities that have made a huge difference—in transport, skills and, in some places, health economies—in the areas where people live. Of course, you can only really do that if you are part of the community that you are representing, and the Government’s push for devolution is to help those local areas with skin in the game to have the powers and funding they need to drive their areas forward, particularly for growth but also for the conditions for the people in their areas.
We now have the Council of the Nations and Regions, which is a very important body for driving forward growth in our regions and nations. It is very important that every part of the UK has a seat around that table. That was the thinking behind the English devolution White Paper—it is still out for consultation, so we will see what comes back from that.
On capital borrowing, it will be the responsibility of mayors to drive growth in their areas, but I realise that borrowing will have to be paid back. Debt caps have been agreed with the Treasury. There has been an extensive process to agree them, and it has been done on the basis of what is affordable for those areas within their current envelopes.
The noble Baroness spoke about powers in relation to housing and planning. The English devolution White Paper set out strategic and investment powers, and possibly development corporations that mayors will have powers over. Planning powers on a day-to-day basis will stay with the constituent local authorities, which is right and proper because they are the people on the ground.
The noble Baroness also spoke about local government funding. The last person in the world who would underestimate issues in local government funding is me. I lived with them on a daily basis for many years. There have been substantial steps forward in funding for local government. In spite of a very difficult financial settlement this year, our Secretary of State has achieved significant additional funding for local government. Off the top of my head, I think the figure is £3.7 billion altogether for local government, and I am sure that officials will wave at me if I am wrong. We know that will not solve all the problems. We have to increase growth in the country to improve that situation more substantially. I have just been given a great big written note which I am supposed to read, while I talk at the same time, but that is not possible, so I will answer off the top of my head and, if I do not answer all noble Lords’ questions, I will respond later in writing.
On the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and non-constituent members, the noble Baroness is quite right that we had substantial debates about them during the passage of the Bill. For one type of authority, there are not voting rights, but for the other type of authority, there are voting rights. As we move into the full picture of devolution, there will be further consideration of that. It is right that in mayoral combined authorities the upper tiers will take the decisions. How they decide to involve their constituent members will be broadly up to them. I have heard some really creative ideas, such as having key committees chaired by the constituent councils. As we move into a picture where we have all unitary authorities, I think we will continue to look at that and review it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The three of us are part of the LURB club who sat through many hours debating the Bill. I agree with her about what a key step this is and that the East Midlands Combined County Authority will need to undertake the more comprehensive projects that were set out in its devolution agreement, and it needs these powers to do that. Of course we need robust accountability for all of them.
There was some consideration of consultation, but extensive consultation had already taken place on this so, having looked extensively at what had been done before, it was felt that there was no need for further consultation. I take the noble Baroness’s point that support was not overwhelming, but there was enough support for us to feel comfortable that we could go ahead.
The question about autonomy is important. The way that we have set out the picture in the English devolution White Paper is that, the more established an authority becomes, the more autonomy it will have. It is perhaps the opposite way from what the noble Baroness suggested. Central government oversight will not overwhelm those authorities once they are established. Look at some of our more established mayoral authorities: Greater Manchester is always the standard example and it has extensive powers and funding to lead the way for growth, transport, skills and so on. We want to see that with the more established authorities. The more established they are, the more they prove themselves in terms of accountability of all kinds, especially financial, and the more powers they will get.
On accountability and safeguards for borrowing, that is why debt caps have been set with the Treasury. They have been looked at very carefully. The White Paper also sets out a wider process of accountability which may, depending on what comes back from the consultation, include something like local public accounts committees to have oversight at local level of what is going on within mayoral combined authorities.
I hope that answers all the questions but, if not, I will go through Hansard and make sure that we respond.
National Insurance: Employer Contributions
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have heard a great deal from that side of the House about NICs. If we had not had to fill a £22 billion black hole, we would not have had to do it in the first place. None of us on this side of the House would have made that choice unless we had to. We recognise the need to protect small businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers. The OBR expects 250,000 employers to gain from the changes to the employment allowance and 840,000 to see no change at all. That is more than half of all businesses, including charities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Is the Minister aware that the OBR has said recently that it assumes that most of the Government’s increases in national insurance costs will be passed directly on to workers and consumers? Do this Government still claim to serve the working people of this country, or will they now come clean and admit that they are raising taxes on ordinary working people?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The denial of responsibility from that side of the House is quite astonishing. Public services were broken by neglect from the party opposite for 14 years. I am surprised that they do not see the irony in complaining about the measures we are having to take to sort out that mess, including our commitment to an additional £680 million for social care, further funding for local government and a real-terms boost for local government funding. I would rather hear some other ideas from that side of the House than complaints about what we are doing.
National Policy Planning Framework: Housing
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises a very interesting point about space standards. Coming from a new town, I remember the standards that were introduced when my town was built. On the issues around the National Planning Policy Framework and the social aspects of it, as the Planning Inspectorate goes through the process of assessing local plans—it is important to remember that fewer local authorities do not have them than those that do—it takes account of the social aspects of the plans as well as of the straightforward housing numbers. That is part of the work of my department, and we will be looking at that closely. The social aspects of the planning framework are equally as important as the technical aspects.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I offer our condolences from these Benches to the friends and family of Baroness Randerson. She will be very much missed in this House.
Affordable homes should be built where they are most needed, meaning near jobs and existing infrastructure such as public transport networks, schools and doctors. With that in mind, can the Minister tell us why London’s mandatory housing target has decreased while some rural constituencies have seen increases in hundreds of per cent? Will the Government reconsider their targets to build more affordable homes in London, where there is the highest need for them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The new methodology has been carefully considered. It strikes a balance between meeting the scale of need right across the country and focusing additional growth on places facing the biggest affordability pressures by more than doubling the affordability multiplier, which is in the method. It produces a figure for London of nearly 88,000—more than double recent delivery—and London has the biggest proposed percentage increase against existing delivery of any region in the country by a significant margin.
Landlords: Long-term Rentals
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Council Tax
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(2 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Spending Commitments to Local Councils
Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Council tax increases, of course, are ultimately decided by local authorities, but the Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people and households as low as possible. We will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before making any decisions on taxes. Decisions on referendum principles will be part of the next spending review process and of course we will seek the views of local government before we take any decisions on those.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, since the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, tabled her Question, I understand that a number of local councils have had spending commitments suspended, including Harlow in Essex, which is now set to lose out on £20 million towards the rebuilding of its town centre. Can the Minister tell me how many councils have had these disappointing letters, and what the Government plan to do to support councils such as Harlow which were relying on these commitments to deliver growth and regeneration that I am sure His Majesty’s Government would want to support?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, there has to be a short pause while we seek clarity on existing funding commitments, as I said earlier. The Government are fully considering those funding arrangements and I know that a great deal of work has been put in. Many of those projects are aligned with the growth that we want, and we hope to be able to give all local authorities the answers in very short order.