UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Local Government

  • Steve Reed – 2021 Speech on Liverpool City Council

    Steve Reed – 2021 Speech on Liverpool City Council

    The text of the speech made by Steve Reed, the Labour MP for Croydon North, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2021.

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and the report and, indeed, for his openness with me throughout the process.

    This report raises grave and serious concerns about decision making in key functions of Liverpool City Council. All councils are under an obligation to meet their best value duty to ensure value for money at all times. In these respects, Liverpool City Council has been found severely wanting. Labour, both here and our leadership at the city council, accepts this report in full. The council will respond to the letter from the Secretary of State in detail, but we support his intention to appoint commissioners, not at this stage to run the council, as he says, but to advise and support elected representatives in strengthening the council’s systems.

    This is a measured and appropriate approach. I want to reassure people in Liverpool that it does not mean that Government Ministers are coming in to run their city directly. This is not, as some would put it, a Tory takeover. It is about the Government appointing independent people of the highest professional standing to help the council improve as quickly as possible, and intervening directly only if the council’s elected leaders fail to implement their own improvement plan.

    Investigations are currently under way into matters raised in the report and I will not pre-empt them. I do, however, want to reiterate my party’s absolute commitment to protecting the public interest at all times and upholding the highest possible standards in public life. Given the concerns raised in this report, the general secretary of the Labour party intends to appoint a senior figure to lead a review, and reassure the people of Liverpool that the Labour party takes these concerns seriously and will take action against anyone in our ranks who was involved in wrongdoing of any kind. Our councillors in Liverpool have already met senior Labour councillors from other parts of the country who will support them in strengthening the city council’s defences against any risk of fraud.

    The overwhelming majority of councillors and frontline staff will be shocked by what they read in this report. As the report and the Secretary of State have made clear, the severe institutional weaknesses identified do not obscure the outstanding work they have all done together over many years. The Prime Minister was right to praise the council’s impressive work in getting the city through the pandemic, and I want to add my thanks to everyone who continues to play a part in that. In particular, the report praises the council’s chief executive, Mr Tony Reeves, and I offer my support to him and to the acting mayor, Councillor Wendy Simon, for the work they have already started to put things right. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Mr Max Caller and his team for putting this very important report together.

    This is a moment for change, and I know that everyone who cares about the great city of Liverpool and its wonderful people will accept this report and use it to strengthen the council for the future.

    Robert Jenrick

    Can I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has just made and for the way in which we have worked together over recent months? He has been most helpful and constructive, and I hope that can continue. I thank him on behalf of the Government for the remarks he has made with respect to the Labour party and the Labour group on Liverpool City Council, which are extremely welcome. The step we have taken today is unusual, and it is better to do it in a cross-party way. We all share the same interests, which are the delivery of public services, ensuring that the people of Liverpool get the value for money and the council that they deserve, and ensuring that the city can attract the inward investment, regeneration and good-quality development that it certainly needs and that we want to see delivered as we come out of the pandemic.

    The hon. Gentleman was right—I thank him again—to highlight the praise for the chief executive, Tony Reeves, who has done an outstanding job. In my remarks earlier, I praised his conduct and that of the other statutory officers at the council. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that this report focuses on particular functions of Liverpool City Council and does not comment on the wider delivery of public services in the city by the council. There is no reason to question the delivery of adult services, children’s services or other important functions that people in the city rely on. He is also right to praise the work of many people in Liverpool, including within the city council, in their response to the covid-19 pandemic.

    I would underline my remarks once again that this is a report about Liverpool City Council. It is not about the neighbouring councils across Merseyside, and neither is it any reflection on the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, to whom I extend my thanks once again for his co-operation and support. It is right that we take this action, and I hope that we can continue to work together on it. None of us does this lightly. Localism is our objective, but localism does require local accountability, transparency and robust scrutiny, and that I hope is what we can now achieve.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    I would just like to say before I call any other Members that, although a number of individuals are under investigation, I understand that there have been no charges. There is therefore no sub judice involved, but I would caution Members not to compromise any of the ongoing investigations in anything they may or may not say.

    Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and welcome the steps he has outlined in relation to Liverpool City Council. I welcome the steps he is taking to preserve the good name of local government, too. I regularly hear from constituents with concerns about the level of commercial activity that councils are now undertaking. Does he agree with me that some of the transactions are incredibly complicated and well beyond what councils would have traditionally been involved in, and that external audit and public scrutiny need to be reviewed and greatly improved to protect taxpayers’ interests?

    Robert Jenrick

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. We asked a lot of local councils, and we will do so once again as we come out of the pandemic. We want them to be regenerating town and city centres and investing in new housing, but we want them to do so carefully and not to invest in risky investments or transfer toxic assets from the private sector to the public sector. We have taken action as a Government through reforming the Public Works Loan Board. We are providing further guidance to local councils, including through the work of the report we commissioned from Sir Tony Redmond, to ensure that the sector improves the way it handles this situation. The allegations made against Liverpool City Council are of a different magnitude to the ones that we have seen in other parts of the country, so I do not want to draw direct comparisons, but there is more work to be done with some other local authorities as well.

    Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]

    This is clearly a very serious situation. It is obviously a very major step to take powers away from elected representatives, so I really appreciate and accept the proportionate and correct response from the Secretary of State, as well as from the shadow Secretary of State. I also appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments about the many hard-working staff in Liverpool, including the chief executive, who bear no blame for this crisis, and his comments about the generally excellent performance of local government as a whole. The Secretary of State has set out very clearly his list of requirements from the city council and by when he expects them to be met. How will monitoring against these requirements be undertaken and how will Parliament be updated about them? Of course it goes without saying that if there is anything the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee can do to assist in that process, we stand ready to do so.

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee. I would be happy to work with him should he require any further information or wish to discuss this matter further. If we go ahead with the proposal that I have made today, then the commissioners, once appointed, would report to me on a six-monthly basis and I would be happy to keep the House informed of the information they provide to me. We will ensure that there is an improvement plan in place for the city that is produced by the newly elected Mayor and their cabinet and supported by Liverpool City Council, but advised and guided by the commissioners. Then it will be absolutely essential that that plan is delivered. It will be for all of us in this House, and particularly for those Members of Parliament representing parts of Liverpool, to hold the council to account for the successful delivery of the plan. Our objective is to restore public confidence in the council as quickly as possible so that residents can have confidence that they have a well-functioning council in all respects, and so that all the legitimate businesses, developers and people wishing to contract with the council have complete confidence that Liverpool is a city open for business and they can work to drive up the city’s prosperity as we come out of the pandemic.

    Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)

    I praise both Max Caller, who is a superb inspector, and the Secretary of State’s decision to send in commissioners. Although the problems in Liverpool City Council are far worse, in 2018 Max Caller was sent into Northamptonshire to do a best value inspection, and subsequently the Government sent in commissioners. Since that point, under the leadership of Commissioner Tony McArdle and the new political leadership of Councillor Matt Golby, the situation in Northamptonshire County Council has been transformed and its performance has been raised beyond all expectations. Is it not the case that if councillors and officers in Liverpool City Council respond positively to the challenge set to them by the Government, public services in the city can be raised once again to the standards expected of them?

    Robert Jenrick

    My hon. Friend raises a very important point. My predecessors have used their powers of intervention very sparingly. They have done so on a small number of occasions, in Doncaster, Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Northamptonshire. Each occasion was very different, but in most of those cases the intervention has proved successful and has turned councils around. The commissioners will behave sensitively, support the elected leadership of Liverpool City Council, and ensure that confidence is restored, public services are delivered properly, and taxpayer money is spent wisely. This now requires leadership from the politicians in Liverpool—those who will be elected in the local council elections to come. I look forward to working with them, and if we do appoint commissioners, I expect the commissioners to work with them constructively and productively at all times.

    Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)

    I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    I will read the report in full today when I receive it. It has been a great honour to work alongside many Liverpool councillors and council staff who worked so tirelessly to protect the people of Liverpool before and during the pandemic and, indeed, who have been recognised for that work in this Chamber. Will the Secretary of State assure my great city and its people that this crucial work, on which so many of our constituents rely, will continue and that these vital services will be both resourced and protected?

    Robert Jenrick

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I share his thanks and his praise for many of the staff of Liverpool City Council, and for the good work over the year done by the wider health and social care sector across the region, which the Health Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have praised on many occasions. We want to ensure they continue to have resources, and we want all of government to see this as a moment in which, far from stepping away, we should redouble our efforts to support the city through a potentially difficult period.

    I will be convening my Cabinet and ministerial colleagues in the coming days to reiterate that message and to ask them to do even more to support Liverpool. There has been good news in recent weeks, including from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that Liverpool was successful in its application for freeport status. That is just one example of good news and investment that I hope will take the city forward in the years to come.

    Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear that too many senior people at Liverpool City Council failed that great city during this pandemic, but it is not just Liverpool. Nottingham City Council has given its councillors a bumper pay rise, even after bankrupting the council. Durham County Council, Labour run for 102 years, is spending £50 million-plus on a new county hall on a floodplain and, at the height of the pandemic last year, it approved a new 3,500 square feet roof terrace for itself. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows it is not only in Liverpool that the Labour party has its priorities wrong and Labour councillors are putting themselves above the people they serve?

    Robert Jenrick

    All councils have a fundamental duty to their residents to provide good value for money. At the heart of our decision to intervene in Liverpool, and to commission Max Caller and his report, was persuasive evidence that it was falling below that standard, and that is what Max Caller has indeed concluded today. All councils need to ensure they are providing good-quality public services and are taking care with the money entrusted to them. I hope we can correct the situation in Liverpool, which has now gone on for too long, and that other councils across the country in different situations also take note and take particular care when spending the public’s money.

    Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)

    I also pay tribute to the incredible staff at Liverpool City Council at this very difficult time. I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today, and I hope he will agree to meet the five Members representing Liverpool at the earliest opportunity.

    I, for one, do not doubt the seriousness of the issues that have been raised today, and I look forward to receiving a copy of the Caller report. That public resources have been put at risk is deeply worrying, because resources are needed for investment in the vital services on which my constituents depend, even more so at a time when funding has been cut year on year. Will the Secretary of State take this chance to reassure my wonderful city, and anyone concerned, that commissioners will be totally independent and their focus will be on working in the interests of the people of Liverpool?

    Robert Jenrick

    I certainly can. The commissioners will be appointed by me and will report to me. Their task is to support the city and its elected leadership to ensure that a good and credible improvement plan is brought forward and implemented as quickly as possible, and that the mistakes, errors and omissions of the past are put right, so that confidence can be restored to the city and the hon. Lady’s constituents can know and have confidence that they have a well-functioning city council and we can move forward as swiftly as possible.

    I share the hon. Lady’s support for the city. It is a great city, and it deserves a good, functioning city council, which is exactly what we want to achieve.

    John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]

    Does this sad but very welcome action not send a firm indication to all councils that we will step in where irregularities over best value, particularly in planning, occur? Will my right hon. Friend comment on his remarks about the need for whole-council elections, and does that mark a change across the whole country, in trying to rid ourselves of those councils that go for elections every year?

    Robert Jenrick

    The report that we have laid today makes two specific recommendations with regard to Liverpool City Council, as I outlined earlier, first recommending that we move as swiftly as possible to whole-council elections, and secondly recommending single-member wards. That recommendation will, subject to the views of those who come forward over the coming weeks, be implemented, but I agree that it has wider application. A thread that we have seen in a number of failed councils has been a lack of scrutiny and accountability for members where they have been in multi-member wards and where having elections time and again in thirds has led to a lack of scrutiny and a lack of focus in the council. I would like to see more councils take note of these recommendations and implement them.

    Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

    I am a very proud Scouser, but listening to the Secretary of State read the contents of this damning report makes me angry, as it will the whole city when the report is made public. But we are a resilient city, and we will fight back from this. The city deserves a well-run council, with stronger, more transparent governance procedures, that is more able to manage public finances. Important steps have been made to right the wrongs at the council by the current chief executive, Tony Reeves, and the acting Mayor. Can the Secretary of State confirm the timetable for the proposed intervention by commissioners? Will that be reviewed and monitored, and reduced if progress is made at speed? What role will the chief executive and the elected councillors who have supported our community so well during this crisis play in rebuilding the public’s trust?

    Robert Jenrick

    Like her fellow Liverpool colleagues, I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which spoke. The timetable for the period ahead is that the report is now available for members of the public, colleagues in Parliament and the council to review and consider at length. The council has until 24 May to revert to me with comments and representations. We have chosen a longer than normal period, reflecting the fact that the local elections will now take place, to give the new council and the newly elected Mayor the time after the local elections have concluded to meet to consider this and make those representations to me. Once those representations have been made, I will consider them carefully and decide whether to proceed with the proposal that I have outlined today or to change it in any way, and I will then revert to the House with my final decision. If that is to appoint commissioners, we will set out the process and the names of the individuals I have chosen.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]

    The allegations that my right hon. Friend describes will be familiar to many residents of Sandwell borough. As a former local councillor, I know how important it is that elected members are able to both guide and scrutinise officers. Does he think that Liverpool city councillors have been unable to do that in this instance due to lack of powers, lack of capacity or lack of capability?

    Robert Jenrick

    I recommend that my hon. Friend reads the report by Max Caller, which sets out his observations, having spent the last three months working in and around the council and having dozens, if not hundreds, of conversations and interviews with councillors and officers. He concludes that the council needs to raise its game substantially in respect of some officers and also some elected members; that there needs to be much greater scrutiny and accountability; that there needs to be much greater care in the way that those elected members manage public money and how they manage directly owned and operated companies that the council has chosen to use; and that it needs a greater sense of vision for the future and a business plan for its activities. There is a great deal of work ahead for those individuals who are elected in May, and I hope that they will show the leadership that is required to turn the city around. It will be a big task, but we are here to support them.

    Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As he knows, my constituency of Southport, although not in the Liverpool city area, is part of the Liverpool city region. Given our proximity, this situation is causing alarm to my constituents. Will he take further action to allay any fears that my constituents have about our own local authority, and will he meet me to discuss better scrutiny arrangements for local authorities such as mine to give further reassurance to constituents?

    Robert Jenrick

    I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I should have said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) that I would of course be happy to meet Liverpool city Members too. I believe that they met the Local Government Minister earlier today, but I would be happy to have a further conversation with them. I should say again that this report is specific to Liverpool City Council—it is not a comment on the neighbouring councils that make up the Liverpool city region—but I understand that my hon. Friend may have concerns about his own council, and I would be happy to discuss those.

    Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) [V]

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for their statements. We all appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Clearly, we need to see real change and robust new safeguards that guarantee transparency and accountability, but the people of Liverpool must be part of that process. This week, I have been contacted by local people concerned that sending commissioners into Liverpool amounts to a takeover by Whitehall, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to outline to my constituents how their voice and their democratic rights will be respected?

    Robert Jenrick

    The elections will go ahead in May, and they will see the election of a new directly elected Mayor. They will also see new councillors elected to the council, and the cabinet appointed by the new Mayor. It is important, first, that those individuals make representations to me about the report and what they want to see happen. Depending on the ultimate course of action that I take, having listened carefully to those views, if we do choose to appoint commissioners, as I have proposed today, those commissioners will be going to Liverpool to stand behind the elected Mayor, the cabinet and the elected members of the city council—not to tell them what to do but to guide and support them.

    I very much hope that the members elected by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will rise to the occasion and drive the change and reform that is needed on the city council, and that the commissioners will never need to exercise their powers. We have given them the authority to act should they need to, given the seriousness of some of the allegations, but it is not our hope or expectation that those powers will be exercised.

    Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]

    As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), said, my party supports the seven Nolan principles on standards in public life, be it in town halls or Whitehall, underpinning the councillors’ code of conduct and the ministerial code. The Standards Board, which promoted high ethical standards in local government and oversaw the nationally imposed code of conduct, was abandoned in 2012 by the Secretary of State’s Government. Considering today’s statement, does he think that was a mistake?

    Robert Jenrick

    A significant piece of work has been undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life with respect to the way ethics and standards are applied in local government at all levels, from parish councils, where unfortunately we do, very rarely but on occasion, see issues of misconduct, bullying and harassment, right the way up to larger councils of the scale of Liverpool City Council. I am carefully considering the committee’s views on how we should proceed, and we will respond in due course, setting out the Government’s view and the actions that we are minded to take to ensure that there are always correct processes and always routes for redress, regardless of who is at stake. I think that will provide many of the answers to the right hon. Lady’s questions.

    Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)

    The report outlined by my right hon. Friend mentioned a number of very serious failings by Liverpool City Council over many years. Does he agree that, in addition to the steps being taken to improve the council’s financial position, an entirely new culture needs to be embedded at the council that puts residents and Liverpool first?

    Robert Jenrick

    Yes, the report is clear that a major cultural change is required at the council. Mr Caller concludes that that will require radical change both by some members and some officers, and I hope that those steps will now be taken. They are absolutely essential if we are going to restore confidence in the council. That is our objective. I am sure that it is the objective of most reasonable people in the city of Liverpool, and we will be working together to achieve it.

    Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]

    I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    Having served as a local councillor, I have seen the positive difference that local government can make in our communities, despite tough financial circumstances. I know that there will be thousands of councillors and council officers going above and beyond during the pandemic—including in Liverpool—who will be shocked and saddened by the report’s findings and today’s announcement. Would the Secretary of State agree that today’s announcement is the exception, not the norm, for local government, so that we can reassure those from across all our political parties who are standing for election in May and who want to do the right thing by serving their local communities to the best of their abilities?

    Robert Jenrick

    The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point; it is one that I made in my opening remarks. This is a rare intervention. Interventions of this nature have been made on only a handful of occasions in the last 20 years. We do so carefully and with a heavy heart, but because it is necessary to ensure that this council can reform and change its ways and that we can ensure that people in Liverpool get the good-quality government that they deserve. This is not a reflection on local government more generally across this country. In fact, we are taking this action to defend the good name of local government across the country, and I pay tribute to officers and councillors the length and breadth of England for the good work they do day in, day out.

    Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]

    I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for the comments that they made in a bipartisan manner. Clearly, one of the issues of concern to Liverpool residents will be what extra costs may be borne as a result of this decision. Clearly, the commissioners may be in place for some considerable period of time, so will my right hon Friend reassure us that Liverpool council tax payers will not be picking up the costs of these commissioners, if they are duly appointed, and that if the commissioners recommend further proposals to him on expenditure, he will consider those appropriately?

    Robert Jenrick

    The costs of the report that has been undertaken by Max Caller and of the commissioners will be borne by Liverpool City Council. However, I expect that the work to come will save the taxpayers of Liverpool a great deal of money, because underlying the report by Mr Caller is the sense that many millions of pounds have been wasted as a result of mismanagement by the city council, and I very much hope that we can put that right.

    Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

    Newspaper headlines in this kind of situation can often make it appear that a whole council or, indeed, a whole city is being traduced, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition that there are a number of good people in the council doing a good job. I also welcome his emphasis on partnership moving forward because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) said, no one likes to feel that things are being done to them, and it will be much better all round if this is done in a collegiate manner.

    I want to ask about transport. Many of my constituents use Merseytravel facilities to get to work and visit families. The Secretary of State did not expressly refer to that in his statement. Does he know whether that was looked at as part of this investigation?

    Robert Jenrick

    I do not believe that was looked at as part of this investigation. The highways function of Liverpool City Council was investigated by Mr Caller. He has made some remarks on some of its processes and contracts that have been entered into with regard to that function, but I do not believe that he has looked at the broader transport network across the Liverpool city region or made any comment one way or another on that.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    We now go by video link—

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    I was not expecting that link. I was expecting Tim Farron, but you are clearly not Tim Farron! It has been switched again. I call Wera Hobhouse.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Not so long ago, Liverpool was the European capital of culture, under the Liberal Democrats, and it is a shame to see it in its current position as a result of the failings of Labour government. I know that my council colleagues, who have a lot of experience on Liverpool City Council, will do their utmost and co-operate to turn the city around. Many of the problems in Liverpool have been caused by creating the post of Mayor, concentrating a lot of power in one hand. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the people in cities and city regions have a democratic choice on whether they want to have an elected Mayor or not, and not leave the decisions to councils and politicians?

    Robert Jenrick

    I hope that, given the remarks the hon. Lady has just made, she is supporting the report that Max Caller has produced and our proposed intervention, and that the Liberal Democrat group on Liverpool City Council will make similar comments to those made on behalf of the Labour group on the council by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). The report concludes that the issues faced by the city council are much greater than one individual and much wider than simply the role of elected Mayor, so I do not think it would be correct to say that this issue emanates from the decision to have an elected Mayor. However, the hon. Lady is correct to say that that creates a degree of concentration of power, which means that accountability and scrutiny are all the more important. I very much hope that that will be corrected as a result of the work to come.

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    You are keeping me on my toes, Wera. Well done.

    Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]

    I am shocked by the findings that the Secretary of State has outlined to the House today and I assure him that I will read the report extremely carefully once it is published. Does he agree that the priority now must be to protect Liverpool council tax payers’ money and the services the people of Liverpool rely on? Does he also agree that it is in the public interest to put in place effective procedures for obtaining best value in all that the council does going forward? Given that the council is to pay the costs of the interventions, as he has set out, is there an opportunity, if swift improvement is made, for the intervention to be shorter than the three years he has set out today?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful, once again, for the constructive way in which the hon. Lady has approached this issue, like her fellow Liverpool MPs today. The intervention I am proposing is for a maximum of three years, so she is correct to say that there is no need for the commissioners, if they are put in place, to be there for that full term if progress is made faster than that. They will report to me on a six-monthly basis. We can review the matter on each of those occasions, and I will keep the hon. Lady and her colleagues fully informed of my decisions on each occasion. She is absolutely right to say that our sole interest here is the people of Liverpool, the taxpayers of Liverpool, and ensuring that their public services are delivered properly, their money is safeguarded and the city is one in which people feel complete confidence to invest, do business and work with the city council. I hope that, together, that is exactly what we can achieve.

    Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)

    The report concludes that the cycle of elections in Liverpool reduces scrutiny and inhibits long-term focus. Of course this problem is not just unique to Liverpool. For example, Calderdale, where I was formerly a councillor, is one of the handful of local authorities still yet to approve a local development plan, 10 years into the process. The Labour administration there kicks the can down the road from year to year because it elects in thirds. To help avoid the issues in Liverpool being replicated elsewhere, would the Secretary of State support a review of the current electoral cycle in metropolitan borough councils?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will give further thought to my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but I agree that it would be better for councils to move to all-out elections, and—unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary—it would be better if councillors were elected in single-member wards. Max Caller’s report clearly makes that recommendation for Liverpool, and he had made that recommendation in the past, having witnessed dysfunctional councils with poor scrutiny and accountability in other parts of the country. It seems to be a thread running through those councils that have got into extreme difficulties. That is something we should reflect on, and I will refer to it in due course.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Liverpool City Council

    Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Liverpool City Council

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2021.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Liverpool City Council.

    Merseyside police have been carrying out an investigation involving a significant link with Liverpool City Council. Last year, this led to arrests on suspicion of fraud, bribery, corruption, misconduct in public office and witness intimidation. On 17 December, I informed the House that, additionally, persuasive evidence had been presented to me regarding the council’s planning, highways, regeneration, property management functions and associated audit and governance arrangements.

    In light of that evidence, I commissioned Max Caller to conduct a best value inspection of the council. I want to thank Max and his assistant inspectors, Vivienne Geary and Mervyn Greer, for their thorough and evidence-based review. I have today placed a copy of their report in the Library of the House.

    The report paints a deeply concerning picture of mismanagement, the breakdown of scrutiny and accountability, and a dysfunctional culture, putting the spending of public funds at risk and undermining the city’s economic development. The report identifies multiple apparent failures by Liverpool City Council in complying with its best value duty. This includes: a failure of proper and due process across planning and regeneration, including a worrying lack of record keeping—indeed, documentation had sometimes been created retrospectively, discarded in skips, or even destroyed—a lack of scrutiny and oversight across highways, including dysfunctional management practices, no coherent business plan, and the awarding of dubious contracts; a failure of proper process relating to property management, including compliance with the council’s own standing orders, leading to a continued failure to correctly value land and assets, meaning that taxpayers frequently lost out. When selling land, the report states that Liverpool City Council’s best interests were not on the agenda. There were also poor governance arrangements for council-operated companies and an overall environment of intimidation, described as one in which

    “the only way to survive was to do what was requested without asking too many questions or applying normal professional standards.”

    The review finds that there was a fundamental failure by members to understand and appreciate the basic standards governing those in public service and, with no regular ethics or standards committee and no means of monitoring complaints effectively, there was no established way to hold those falling below those acceptable standards to account.

    As a whole, the report is unequivocal that Liverpool City Council has failed in numerous respects to comply with its best value duty. It concludes that the council consistently failed to meet its statutory and managerial responsibilities and that the pervasive culture appeared to be “rule avoidance”. It further concludes that changes need to be radical and delivered at pace, and that there was no confidence that the council itself would be able to implement these to any sensible timescale. There may also be further issues of which we are not yet aware, and the report is careful not to speak to matters that might compromise the ongoing police investigation.

    I want to underline that the report is not a verdict on all the staff working at Liverpool City Council. In fact, it commends the hard work and dedication of many. The report is also clear that the current chief executive, Tony Reeves, and statutory officers have taken positive remedial steps, and I wish to thank Tony for his dedication and service. Neither does it comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Mayor Steve Rotheram, or other councils in Merseyside.

    Despite the good work undertaken by Mr Reeves, there is a clear picture showing that there has been a serious breakdown of governance at the council. If unchecked, it will allow improper conduct to persist, further undermining public confidence and putting public services at risk. It will damage the city’s ability to attract investment from reputable developers and investors for regeneration, or to take full advantage of new economic opportunities, such as the recent successful application for freeport status.

    Expressed in formal terms, I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty. Therefore, I need to consider exercising my powers of intervention to secure compliance with the duty. To that end, in line with the procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, I am writing today to the council asking it to make representations, both on the inspector’s report and on a proposed intervention package. This package is centred on putting in place commissioners, whom I will appoint to exercise certain and limited functions of the council as required for a minimum of three years.

    I am also proposing that the council will, under the oversight of the commissioners, prepare and implement an improvement plan. This would require the following provisions: within six months, to approve a suitable officer structure providing sufficient resources to deliver the council’s functions in an effective way, including the improvement plan and its monitoring and reporting; within 12 months, to review and change the council’s constitution; within 24 months, to conduct a review of the roles and case for continuing with each subsidiary company of Liverpool City Council; to create a detailed structure and strategy for the highways function; to establish a plan to deliver an effective file management system; to implement a programme of cultural change, so both members and officers understand their roles, and so that the council’s activities are regulated and governed, and breaches are rectified swiftly; and to require the consent of commissioners before either member or officer level agrees heads of terms for any property transaction and subsequent consent before any legally binding commitment is entered into.

    I also propose to direct that prior agreement of commissioners must be obtained to any dismissal or suspension of statutory officers or the assistant director of governance, audit and assurance, or equivalent. Furthermore, any appointments to positions designated as a statutory officer or the head of internal audit must be conducted under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, the commissioners.

    I hope and expect Liverpool City Council to take the lead in this path to improvement. However, given the gravity of the inspection findings, I must consider what would happen if the council fails to deliver the necessary changes at the necessary speed. I am consequently proposing to direct the transfer of all executive functions associated with regeneration, highways and property management at the authority to the commissioners. These are for use should the council not satisfy the commissioners in their improvement processes. As I say, I hope it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use those powers, but they must, in my view, be empowered to do so to deliver the reforms that are required. The commissioners will report to me at six-monthly intervals on progress being made.

    The report also considers the impact of the council’s cycle of elections, where every year is an election year, concluding that this system reduces scrutiny and inhibits long-term focus. It recommends that the council should move to “all-out elections”, and for the council’s size to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I am also proposing to use my powers under the Local Government Act 2000 to provide for Liverpool City Council to hold whole-council elections for the first time from 2023. That will be in addition to proposals for a reduced number of councillors, elected on single-member wards, which the report also recommends. I believe it would be preferable to move to a single-member ward system at the earliest available opportunity.

    I am now seeking representations from the council on the report and the decisions I am proposing to take by 24 May. The forthcoming elections will proceed as planned, and the Liverpool City Mayor will be elected on 6 May; the cabinet will then have time to provide its views. If I decide to intervene along the lines I have set out today, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint the commissioners, and I will update the House on any conclusions in due course.

    This is a rare occasion when central intervention is required. In addition to the measures I propose today, the Government will work closely with the political, the business and the cultural leadership of the city and with the wider region, including with Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool city region. We will do all we can to support the city as it recovers from the covid-19 pandemic, and to give confidence to those who want to invest in the city, to contract with the council and to do business in Liverpool.

    As the son and grandson of Liverpudlians, I know Liverpool and I appreciate the sense of humour, the loyalty and the warmth of its residents. I also understand the city’s independent spirit, so I am clear that we are embarking on a partnership—to mend a politics that for too long has been rooted in a pervasive and rotten culture.

    I am hopeful that this is the start of a new chapter for Liverpool City Council, because in all of this it is the residents of Liverpool who are being let down, whose regeneration is being undermined, whose taxpayers’ money is being wasted and whose city is being besmirched, rather than cited with municipal pride.

    Despite the rare cases like Liverpool City Council, as a whole, councils in this country have a good record of transparency, probity, scrutiny and accountability. It is a reputation worth protecting. I will take whatever steps are necessary to uphold the good name of local government and to weed out practices that do it down. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2012 Statement on Pensions for Councillors

    Brandon Lewis – 2012 Statement on Pensions for Councillors

    The statement made by Brandon Lewis, the then Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 19 December 2012.

    On 12 September 2001, the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced plans to give taxpayer-funded pensions to councillors, through access to the local government pension scheme.

    The proposals came into force in 2003. The Councillors’ Commission report of the last administration noted that 912 councillors in England had joined that pension scheme by 2004. A Taxpayers’ Alliance survey in February 2009, across the whole United Kingdom, found that 3,527 councillors had pensions as of 2007 to 2008; a further survey in January 2012 found that figure had increased to 4,548 councillors by 2010 to 2011. The trend is clear.

    Abolition of taxpayer-funded pensions

    Ministers in this government take a fundamentally different view to the last administration. We do not believe that taxpayer-funded pensions are justified. Councillors are volunteers undertaking public service; they are not and should not be employees of the council dependent on the municipal payroll. They are not professional, full-time politicians, nor should they be encouraged to become so.

    Councillors do not receive a salary; rather, they receive allowances to compensate for their out-of-pocket expenses. Yet following changes made by the last administration, allowances have slowly become a form of salary, a situation worsened by the state-funded pensions. This is a corrosive influence on local democracy and independent thought, blurring the distinction between council staff and councillors.

    Every bit of the public sector needs to do its bit to help pay off the deficit inherited from the last administration. Local government grants are being reduced. Ministers have cut and then frozen their salaries. Public sector pensions, including parliamentary pensions, are being reformed to reduce the burden on taxpayers. It is only right that councillors do their bit as well.

    We do not believe that an occupational pension scheme intended for employees, and paid for by taxpayers, is an appropriate vehicle for councillors.

    Existing pension rights

    Subject to consultation, we propose that there will be no access for councillors to the local government pension scheme in England from April 2014. In the interests of fairness, those councillors already in the scheme would have their accrued rights up to April 2014 fully protected, but would not be able to accrue any further benefits after that date in the existing scheme.

    This will not prevent councillors contributing to a personal pension: if they put aside part of their (taxable) allowances into such a pension, then that is a matter for them; they will continue to receive income tax relief like any ordinary member of the population, subject to the prevailing tax rules.

    Although central records on councillors’ participation in the scheme are not held by my department, initial rough estimates suggest that this could save £7 million a year in taxpayers’ money. There is absolutely no case for increasing councillor allowances to compensate. Instead, councils may want to consider earlier, voluntary closure of the scheme to their councillors as a sensible saving.

    Civic duty

    Eligibility regulations for the local government pension scheme are overseen by my department. Although this is a centrally mandated change (as was its original introduction), we believe these reforms will assist localism and local democracy by encouraging a greater separation between councillors and officers. Robust local scrutiny of council spending requires councillors to be substantively independent of means and of thought from the body they are overseeing. Civic duty should not be bought.

    We do not believe it will have any detrimental effect on people choosing to become councillors. The best thing we can do to encourage more people to take part in municipal public life is to decentralise power to local communities so being a councillor is a meaningful and rewarding role.

    Elected mayors

    We recognise that there is a greater expectation that an elected mayor is a full-time position. We therefore propose to consult on allowing elected mayors to remain in the scheme as a voluntary option (but not as an expectation), subject to local scrutiny, challenge and determination. The salaries of the mayor of London, members of the Greater London Assembly and police and crime commissioners will remain pensionable.

    Timing

    Statutory consultation is required and will commence in due course, as part of the planned consultation on the wider reform of the local government pension scheme. We will consult with the Welsh Assembly government in respect of access to the local government pension scheme for councillors in Wales.

    As a former councillor myself, I would like to pay tribute to their often unsung and ongoing work in standing up for their local residents. We hope these reforms will further strengthen the integrity and independence of councillors and increase the respect within their communities for the voluntary work they undertake as champions of the people.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2012 Speech at the Community Budgets Conference

    Brandon Lewis – 2012 Speech at the Community Budgets Conference

    The comments made by Brandon Lewis, the then Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 29 November 2012.

    Introduction

    Welcome. It’s great to see so many people from right across the local authority spectrum here today.

    And the issues we’re discussing couldn’t be more pressing. In fact, they go to the very heart of why we entered public life in the first place.

    Complex issues require local responses

    Now, the one thing I have learned as a local councillor and as an MP is that in every local area you will find a complex cauldron of issues requiring a sophisticated local response.

    So, in my old patch of Essex, they’re wrestling with the increasing demands of an elderly population on overstretched hospitals and care homes. But they’re also wondering how to address the rise in re-offending and domestic violence.

    Meanwhile, up the other end of the country, in West Cheshire, they are looking to deal with persistent pockets of long-term unemployment, and low-economic activity. And they too are having to face down the problems of domestic violence.

    The pilots

    Our pilots were set up precisely to address these entrenched, many sided issues.

    We know these are the sorts of things governments have been talking about tackling since the year dot. But the point is our pioneers are actually involved in something radically different from what’s gone before.

    In the old days, we grew used to the man from the ministry dipping into his ever diminishing bag of tricks and pulling out another quango. We got used to broad brush, one-size fits all solutions – which actually suited nobody.

    What we ended up with were ill-thought through, inefficient and unnecessarily expensive, public service silos.

    We saw cash funnelled to places that were most likely getting funds from another quarter.

    We saw, in Essex’s case, the proliferation of services – a staggering array of eighty agencies and over 116 phone numbers offering services to victims of domestic abuse.

    And we witnessed inequality, lack of access – a society less free, less fair and less united.

    I’m no actuary but when I heard that some London boroughs spend more than £25,000 on an individual with serious health conditions and less than £300 on those with minor health conditions, I sense a problem…

    Example of the problem: West Cheshire

    But, you only really get a sense of the problem when you start to consider the people.

    So let’s consider the experience of one woman from West Cheshire. For the sake of her privacy let’s call her Jane.

    Jane’s husband has been going through a difficult time since he lost his job and he’s started drinking. One day Jane calls the police and reports her husband for hitting her.

    But, as her GP knows, this isn’t the first time it’s happened. It’s the 30th. And, shockingly, that’s not untypical. Nationally it takes on average 34 incidents before domestic abuse is reported.

    And it’s no coincidence that (in West Cheshire) £1.2 million is spent by GPs on managing the consequences of domestic abuse.

    Back to the story. The police assess Jane’s husband as a standard risk and order him to stay away. But within days he’s back. Smashing down the front door, putting Jane in hospital and later finding himself in prison.

    West Cheshire: the solution

    Now West Cheshire realised the tragedy of this situation, was that it could have been avoided. They found that almost all of the £20 million spent on dealing with its 9,000 cases of domestic abuse was reactive.

    So thanks to a subtle rewiring of the system they will now make sure Jane doesn’t have to end up in a hospital bed before anyone raises the alarm.

    What will they be doing differently?

    First, they’ve recognised prevention is better than cure. So they’ve developed a volunteer outreach programme providing mentoring support. It’s made up of people who have been through what Jane’s been through.

    Second, they’ve understood that local people can easily get bewildered by the many different “front doors” agencies. So they are ensuring Jane has a single point of contact. Someone to work with her whole family to join up the dots. That way Jane will speak to the right people at the right time to get the support she needs.

    And thirdly, West Cheshire have made sure all relevant local services are in on the act. The police, local authorities, GPs and voluntary services all working together. So Jane will get beefed up security. While her husband will be made to face up to his actions and helped with his broader drinking problems.

    Delivering in this way will make a real difference to the whole family and at the same time it will save the public purse £17 million over the next five years.

    Local people at the heart of the system

    What’s key to West Cheshire, to its fellow pilots, to the whole of our open public service reform programme – of which these initiatives form an integral part – is that they put local people at the heart of the system.

    People’s lives are complicated enough. We don’t need to make things even more confusing. What we do need to do is reduce dependency and give individuals a greater sense of independence.

    We know our services would be better if they were more responsive to local peoples’ needs, better serving the people that pay for them and use them.

    Equally, different areas work best when you, our public sector leaders are unconstrained. What’s more, free people up to innovate and they come up with ingenious, inventive solutions to complex, previously unsolved problems.

    And the magic of this approach is that it will save money. Lots of it. Greater Manchester alone, for example, reckons that improving its early years service will save £215 million over the next couple of decades for each year-group of children.

    Radical? Revolutionary? Perhaps. But isn’t it also plain common sense?

    There’s plenty more I could say about the pilots. About how they’ve got eight Whitehall departments working hand in glove with local authorities. About how we’ve taken civil servants out of their ivory tower and parachuted them into the places where the problems lie. About how we’ve managed to get people from all the relevant services, in a room, round a table, talking. But actually I hope you’ll use today to find out more for yourself.

    Community budgets

    Instead, I’d like to turn to another group of pioneers. I’m talking, of course, about our neighbourhood community budgets. Now these are only part way through their work, yet the signs are already encouraging.

    White City, has established that around £40 million is spent on services in their neighbourhood from housing and employment to welfare benefits and adult social care.

    Yet it remains one of the most deprived areas of Hammersmith and Fulham with high levels of unemployment and crime, low educational attainment and high mortality rates.

    But now local providers and residents are sitting down together to redesign local services. At long last we’re making progress.

    Meanwhile, Ilfracombe, in Devon, is developing an innovative virtual bank that shows local people the annual public sector investment in the town and what they are getting for it.

    What better way to encourage local people to take the big decisions that affect their area?

    Conclusion

    So our Whole-Place and neighbourhood pilots are showing us the way forward. Helping us rethink how we’ve always done things. Showing us the merit of going back to the drawing board, following the money and working together.

    I don’t expect we will find all the answers here today. But this isn’t about looking for new panaceas or new wonder cures for every one of our country’s ills.

    This is about using innovation and imagination to make the most of what we’ve got. And if you’ve ideas and thoughts on what else we can do and where we can go next, I’m all ears.

  • Angela Rayner – 2021 Comments on Postal Voting

    Angela Rayner – 2021 Comments on Postal Voting

    The comments made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on 27 February 2021.

    Yet again Ministers are burying their heads in the sand with voters set to go to the polls in the biggest set of elections we have ever seen outside of a General Election in just ten weeks’ time.

    The Government has had nearly a year to sort this out and protect our democracy, but Ministers have once again been too slow to act. With ten weeks to go, we are yet to see a proper plan from the government setting out how these elections will be run safely, while councils face shortages of electoral staff, lack of venues, and funding uncertainty.

    The government’s failure to take any action to encourage people to sign up to vote safely from home risks creating a perfect storm of the disenfranchisement of millions of voters and potentially dangerous crowds at polling stations.

    It is clear that fairly stringent measures will still be in place in May, so it is completely inexplicable that the government is not taking urgent action to get people signed up to vote from home by post, hugely undermining their own public health messaging emphasising the ongoing threat of Covid and the need to proceed with caution in lifting restrictions in order to avoid a surge in infections, hospitalisations and infections and a devastating fourth national lockdown.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Local Government Reorganisation

    Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Local Government Reorganisation

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2021.

    As I told the House on 12 October 2020, c. 6-7 WS, I have issued invitations under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (the 2007 Act) to principal councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire, and Somerset, including associated existing unitary councils, to submit proposals for moving to unitary local government in those areas.

    On 9 December, I received eight locally led proposals—four from councils in Cumbria, two from councils in North Yorkshire and two from councils in Somerset. In the case of each area there is a proposal made by the county council for a unitary authority covering the whole area. In the cases of North Yorkshire and Somerset, there is a proposal from district councils for two unitary authorities in each area. In Cumbria district councils have made three proposals, each of which involves establishing two unitary authorities.

    Today I have launched a consultation on all eight proposals. I would welcome views from any interested person, including residents, and I am consulting the councils which made the proposals, other councils affected by the proposals, and councils in neighbouring areas. I am also consulting public service providers, including health providers and the police, local enterprise partnerships, and certain other business, voluntary sector and educational bodies.

    The consultation period will run for eight weeks until Monday 19 April. The consultation document is available and those responding may do so on the Department’s online platform “Citizen Space” or by email or post. The consultation will provide information to help my assessment of the merits of each proposal, and I will carefully consider all the representations I receive, along with all other relevant information available to me.

    The context of this consultation is that the 2007 Act provides that before any proposal is implemented I must consult any council affected by the proposal that did not make it and any other persons I consider appropriate. Once the consultation is concluded, I will decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions I will have regard to all the representations I have received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available to me, and reach a balanced judgement assessing the proposals against the three criteria—whether they are likely to improve local government and service delivery across the area of the proposal, whether they command a good deal of local support as assessed in the round across the whole area of the proposal, and whether the area of any new unitary council is a credible geography.

    I am also announcing today that I intend as soon as practicable to make and lay before Parliament orders under the Local Government Act 2000 to reschedule the ordinary elections to principal councils in the three areas due to be held on 6 May 2021 for one year to May 2022. The elections for local police and crime commissioners, as well as elections to any town or parish councils, will continue to take place in May 2021.

    In deciding to reschedule the 6 May 2021 local elections to principal councils in the three areas, I have carefully considered all the representations I have received including the views expressed by councils. I have also had regard both to the importance of local elections as the foundation of our local democracy and ensuring the accountability of councils to local people, and to the risks of continuing with the May 2021 elections in the areas when consultations are taking place on proposals which could, if implemented, result in the abolition of those councils. Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.

    Accordingly, I have concluded that, irrespective of what my future decisions might be on the restructuring proposals, the right course is to reschedule the May 2021 local elections. If no unitary proposal is implemented in an area, the rescheduled elections will take place in May 2022. If a unitary proposal is implemented the rescheduled elections will be replaced by elections in May 2022 to the new unitary authority or authorities which could be in shadow form or a continuing council taking on the functions of the other councils in the area.

    Finally, I would reiterate that the Government will not impose top-down Government solutions. We will continue, as I am now currently doing, to follow a locally led approach where councils can develop proposals which have strong local support. This has been the Government’s consistent approach since 2010, when top-down restructuring was stopped through the Local Government Act 2010. When considering reform, those in an area will know what is best—the very essence of localism to which the Government remain committed.

  • Matt Western – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    Matt Western – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    The speech made by Matt Western, the Labour MP for Warwick and Leamington, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2021.

    I welcome the Government’s interest and their recognition of the importance of Royal Leamington Spa to be a recipient of potentially £10 million. As an important sub-regional shopping centre, it is a vital part of the region’s economy and quality of life, so let me praise the council officers at Warwick District Council for the quality of their original submission and the work they have done since in refining the proposals against a reduced contribution proposed by the Government. That said, £10 million is a sound amount for them to work with, and I hope it can do much to address the air quality in the town, highlighted by the World Health Organisation as an issue, while revitalising the commercial centre more widely.

    However, let me cut to the chase. Over the past decade the Government have cut £15 billion from local authorities across the UK, yet handed back just £3.6 billion to some towns which they invited to bid for moneys. Members will know that back in October I questioned the Prime Minister—did I have the guts, he asked me—about how it could be that the Secretary of State could approve tens of millions of pounds for his Minister and his constituency town of Darwen, while that Minister could return the favour and approve tens of millions of pounds for the Secretary of State’s constituency town of Newark—beyond belief. But how were the 101 towns selected in the first instance? Surely, if the Government were honest in their claim to level up, they would have allocated the moneys to the most deprived communities across England, but they have not. In the past year, we have heard many cases of the Government using algorithms, or more often malgorithms, but this is back-of-a-fag-packetithm. While Housing, Communities and Local Government officials may have recommended that the Government did one thing—namely, allocate funds to the most deserving communities—instead the Secretary of State and Ministers allocated moneys to towns in the lowest priority category.

    It is also worth noting that the Government chose to allocate by region, not need, so the north and the midlands were disadvantaged by their political ploys. How else could Bournemouth benefit but, shockingly, South Shields be left off? Both are seaside towns, but I think I know which is in greater need of the funding. It is something Harry Redknapp would have appreciated more than most. I will not even go into Cheadle. While Big Ben no longer bongs, this Government bung, and they are doing it on an industrial scale. A simple analysis of the towns that have received moneys underlines the political tactics laid bare. Certainly the timing of the announcement, in the last few weeks before the last general election, might give us a clue. It was carefully targeted at marginal seats. Interestingly, the impartial cross-party Public Accounts Committee concluded in its investigation that the selection process was not impartial. It took evidence from Christopher Hanretty, a professor of politics at Royal Holloway, who said that

    “the process by which towns were invited to bid for money from the Towns Fund was driven by party-political electoral advantage”,

    riding roughshod over any pretence to be levelling up this country. Any section 151 officer in a council would be sacked if they acted like this.

    Any impartial observer will see this for what it is, and certainly the public do. It is grubby government of the worst order.

  • Sarah Olney – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    Sarah Olney – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    The speech made by Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2021.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak in this debate. It has been fantastic to hear the stories of how the towns fund has helped individual town centres, and I am pleased for those communities that have seen a boost from the fund. Members will know that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, have expressed doubts about the transparency of the decision making relating to the fund’s distribution. I do not want to reiterate these concerns, as they have been expanded on by various Members in this debate, but I note that the approach of selecting certain town centres for funding while excluding others is bound to lead to inequalities. Town centres that could have benefited from funding will miss out. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) made an excellent point about London suburbs, and obviously I, too represent one. There are lots of opportunities in London’s suburbs for levelling up, not least now that we are seeing less commuting, and lots of town centres will be looking for funds to revive, to help those who are working from home more often.

    In the interim, our town centres have had to weather the unprecedented economic blow of the pandemic lockdown and a further decimation of the retail industry. Once the restrictions are lifted, there will be an urgent need to make a substantial economic offer to town centre businesses, not just to help revive them, but to provide jobs, and to deliver local goods and services, and, most importantly, public spaces, where local people can come together and meet each other. It is those informal meetings that we are all missing out on during lockdown. All our town centres will need assistance to bounce back from this crisis, so I call on the Government to take measures that will support all our communities, and abandon this winners and losers approach that we have seen with the allocation of funds from this towns fund.

    The need to review our approach to business rates has been aired many times in this Chamber, and I hope we will hear more on it in due course, in order to level the playing field between physical and digital businesses. Similarly, I would like to see a change in the way in which commercial leases are granted and an abolition of upward-only rent reviews. I have heard that ask from many, many businesses in the past year. We should also reform local authority funding to give all councils more money to spend on investing in their own town centres. There are great opportunities for our retail and hospitality sectors, and our cultural organisations, once the lockdown restrictions are lifted, and they will bring new employment to every part of the UK. I urge the Government to put the investment necessary into those sectors to help them all recover from the current downturn.

  • Charlotte Nichols – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    Charlotte Nichols – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    The speech made by Charlotte Nichols, the Labour MP for Warrington North, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2021.

    Every one of us in this House wants to see investment in our constituents and our communities, particularly after a decade of Tory-imposed austerity, so I welcome the £22 million that has been allocated to Warrington from the fund. As part of the town deal board, I pay special thanks to all the stakeholders and officers of Warrington Borough Council for drawing together this successful bid. But—you knew that there would be a “but”, Mr Deputy Speaker—this is not a sustainable alternative to proper, long-term funding of our towns and their needs, and cannot and should not be sold as such by the Government.

    As has already been mentioned, the past 10 years have seen core funding for local authorities cut by £15 billion, and our councils are struggling even more with the understandable impact of covid on their income streams and spending expectations, which the LGA estimates will be a further £2.6 billion. In comparison, the towns fund programme replaces only a fifth of the shortfall. We cannot expect our towns to thrive, as I would like to see, if our funding is stripped to the bone and sometimes the marrow, and we are left hoping for a special handout from Westminster once a decade. How does that assist long-term planning, or the development of sustainable local economies? We need a more holistic approach.

    In Warrington, I want the certainty of a long-overdue new hospital Bill. I want assurances that there will be funding for the restoration and redevelopment of local leisure and library facilities, including Culcheth Community Campus and Padgate library. Above all, I want a guarantee that Warrington Borough Council will be reimbursed for the moneys it has had to spend because of the pandemic, or else all the work that has gone into this bid will be fatally undermined. I want towns such as mine to be self-sustaining and able to offer opportunities for young people and well-paid jobs so that they become hubs of prosperity, rather than being emptied out. We in Warrington benefit greatly from the high-skilled and highly rewarded employment opportunities provided by the nuclear industry. I want the Government to do more to deliver the next generation of new nuclear, which will provide more such quality prospects in Warrington and elsewhere, and to commit to an industrial strategy that makes levelling up the north-west about deeds, not words.

    In his response to today’s debate, I hope the Minister will set out how he will judge the success of the towns fund, and how he will ensure that continuous financial support for towns is restored, rather than acting as though we should be grateful for a chance to bid for funding in a once-in-a-decade competition.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    Alex Cunningham – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    The speech made by Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2021.

    The towns fund might be a good idea, but the lack of transparency in decision making has led to understandable concerns about the impartiality of the process, and from what I have seen of it in the Tees valley, those concerns are well founded.

    In December, I wrote to the Secretary of State about Billingham, soon to be the home of Novavax vaccine manufacture. The town is home to 35,000 proud Teessiders as well as the Billingham Forum, which is a huge sports and theatre venue including pools, gyms and an ice rink. The town is a cultural hub, but it desperately needs help to further develop. As the singer of Maxïmo Park, Billingham-born Paul Smith, sings, it is

    “where industrial tunnels were our fairytale castles”.

    In short, it is a town bursting with potential.

    Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council approached the Government to request that Billingham be included in the cohort of towns eligible to bid for funds, but it was refused. Back in October, Billingham councillors wrote to the Secretary of State asking why other Tees towns such as Thornaby in Stockton South, with a Tory MP, were fortunate enough to have been included in the selection of the first 100 towns for the fund when Billingham was not, even though it clearly fits the criteria every bit as well, if not more so, than Thornaby—although rest assured that we celebrate with the people of Thornaby that they do have the investment that they need. The decision led to confusion and concern locally that could have easily been put to bed if Ministers had responded to the request from the Billingham councillors to explain why their town had been passed over. Instead, the Minister fobbed off the councillors’ request for information and did not even engage with their concerns.

    I followed up with my own letter, which was responded to, but with only slightly more information. It said that Billingham will get the chance to apply to the £300 million levelling-up fund, which has been designated for a towns fund competition. I personally find this quite astonishing. If the Government had sufficient information to select the first 100 towns that were eligible for a deal, why do we have to have more wasteful bidding processes that pit deprived communities against each other for scraps from the Government’s table? Why can the Government not use existing data and provide investment now—and cut out the middleman, saving our councils time and money in doing so?

    It does not matter what money is being dished out these days by the Government: whether it is to the NHS, to councils or for town centres—Ministers are quite happy, and not even embarrassed, to pass over some areas and favour their own. It is time for fairness in the system; time for real, true levelling up and proper resources; and time for towns like Billingham to get the support that they need.