The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Wednesday 2 February. “Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a
Statement on the Government’s plans to level up and unite our
country. The White Paper we are publishing today sets out our
detailed strategy to make opportunity more equal and to shift
wealth and power decisively towards working people and their
families. After two long years of Covid, we need to get this
country moving at top speed again....Request free trial
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Wednesday 2 February.
“Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the
Government’s plans to level up and unite our country.
The White Paper we are publishing today sets out our detailed
strategy to make opportunity more equal and to shift wealth and
power decisively towards working people and their families. After
two long years of Covid, we need to get this country moving at
top speed again. We need faster growth, quicker public services
and higher wages, and we need to allow overlooked and undervalued
communities to take back control of their destiny.
While talent is spread equally across the United Kingdom,
opportunity is not. Our country is an unparalleled success story,
but not everyone shares in it. The further a person is from one
of our great capitals—whether it is London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or
Belfast—the tougher life can be. For every local success, there
is a story of scarring and stagnation elsewhere, and that must
change. We need to tackle and reverse the inequality that is
limiting so many horizons and that also harms our economy. The
gap between much of the south-east and the rest of the country in
productivity, in health outcomes, in wages, in school results and
in job opportunities must be closed. This is not about slowing
down London or the south-east, or damping down animal spirits,
but rather about turbocharging the potential of every part of the
UK. This country will not achieve its full potential until every
individual and community achieves everything of which they are
capable. Our economy has been like a jet propelled by only one
engine, now we need to fire up every resource that we have.
The economic prize from levelling up is potentially enormous. If
underperforming places were levelled up towards the UK average,
unlocking their full potential, this could boost aggregate UK GDP
by tens of billions of pounds each year. So, how do we achieve
success? First, we do so by backing business. The economic growth
that we want to see across the UK will be generated by the
private sector, by businesses and entrepreneurs investing,
innovating, taking risks and opening new markets. We will support
them every step of the way, by cutting through the red tape, by
making it easier to secure investment and, as our White Paper
today outlines, by creating the right environment on the ground
for business.
As the Chancellor laid out in The Plan for Growth, we need to
invest in science and innovation, improve infrastructure and
connectivity, and extend educational opportunity to underpin
economic success. This White Paper makes clear our commitment to
improve education, investment and connectivity fastest in those
parts of the country that have not had the support that they
needed in the past. We have set out clear, ambitious missions,
underpinned by metrics by which we can be held to account to
drive the change that we need.
On productivity, science and innovation, our mission 1 is that,
by 2030, we pledge that pay, employment and productivity will
have risen in every area of the UK, with each containing a
globally competitive city; closing the gap between top performing
areas and the rest. Mission 2 will see a massive increase in
domestic public investment in research and development outside
the greater south-east, increasing by at least a third in the
next three years, and we will use the shift in resources to
leverage private sector investment in the areas that need it
most.
On infrastructure and connectivity, we will have better local
transport, bringing the rest of the country closer to the
standards of London’s transport system. We will also improve
digital connectivity, with billions of pounds of investment,
bringing nationwide gigabit-capable broadband and 4G coverage to
the whole UK, and we will expand 5G coverage to the overwhelming
majority of the population.
On education and skills, we will effectively eradicate illiteracy
and innumeracy, with investment in the most underperforming areas
of the country. There will be 55 new education investment areas
in England alone, driving school improvement in the local
authorities where attainment is weakest. Our sixth mission is to
have new, high-quality skills training, targeted at the
lowest-skilled areas, with 200,000 more people completing
high-quality skills training annually.
We know that, to achieve these missions, we will need smart,
targeted government investment. That is why we are investing more
than £20 billion in research and development to create a science
and technology superpower. Today, we are allocating £100 million
specifically to three new innovation accelerators in the West
Midlands, Glasgow and Greater Manchester. It is also why we are
investing £5 billion in bus services and active travel, with new
bus investment today in all our mayoral combined authorities and
the green light for bus projects in Stoke-on-Trent, Derbyshire,
Warrington and across the country. It is also why we are
investing in new academies, new free schools and new institutes
of technology. Today, we are establishing a new digital UK
national academy—just as the UK established the Open University
to bring higher education to everyone, we are making available to
every school student in the country high-quality online teaching,
so geography is no barrier to opportunity.
We will also use the freedoms that we now have outside the EU to
reform government procurement rules to ensure that the money that
we spend on goods and services is spent on British firms and
British jobs. We will unashamedly put British workers first in
the global race for investment. Economic opportunity, spread more
equally across the country, is at the heart of levelling up, but
levelling up is also about community as well. It is about
repairing the social fabric of our broken heartlands, so that
they can reflect the pride we feel in the places we love. That is
why we are investing in 20 new urban regeneration projects,
starting in Wolverhampton and Sheffield and spreading across the
Midlands and the north, with £1.8 billion invested in new housing
infrastructure to turn brownfield land into projects across the
country like Stratford and King’s Cross in London.
By regenerating the great cities and towns of the north, we can
relieve the pressure on green fields and public services in the
south. A more productive, even prouder and faster-growing north
helps improve quality of life and well-being in the south, which
is why we are refocusing housing investment towards the north and
Midlands.
Our housing mission is clear: we will give renters a secure path
to greater home ownership, we will drive an increase in
first-time buyers and we will deliver a tough focus on decent
standards in rented homes. A new £1.5 billion levelling-up
homebuilding fund will give loans to small and medium-sized
builders to deliver new homes, the vast majority of which will be
outside London and the south-east. Our housing plans will set a
decent minimum standard that all rented properties must meet.
Our White Paper this spring will include plans to cut the number
of poor-quality rented homes by half, address the injustice of
‘no fault’ evictions and bear down on rogue landlords, thereby
improving the life chances of children and families up and down
the country.
We will also take action in law to tackle the problem of empty
properties and vacant shops on our high streets. Building on the
work of my honourable friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North,
, we will ensure that
properties cannot remain unloved and unused for months, dragging
down the whole high street. Instead, we will put every property
to work for the benefit of the whole community.
Also central to improving quality of life for all will be further
investment in sport, culture, nature and young people. That is
why we are investing £230 million extra in grass-roots football
and using the community ownership fund to help fans take back
control of clubs such as Bury FC. It is also why every extra
penny of Arts Council spending will now be allocated outside
London, from celebrating ceramics in Stoke to supporting pride in
British history in Bishop Auckland. There will also be another
£30 million allocated to improving parks and urban green spaces,
as well as plans to re-green all of our green belt.
We will also invest an additional £560 million in activities for
young people, and we will invest in reversing health disparities,
tackling obesity and improving life expectancy. We will also
ensure that the communities in which we are investing are safer
and more orderly. Fighting crime and anti-social behaviour is
essential to giving communities new heart, so we will invest an
additional £150 million in our safer streets fund and ensure that
those who drag down our communities through vandalism, graffiti
and joyriding pay back their debt to those communities. They will
be set to work on improving the environment, cleaning up public
spaces, clearing away the drug debris in our parks and streets
and contributing to civic renewal.
Critical to the success of our missions will be giving
communities not just the resources but the powers necessary to
take back control. That is why our White Paper sets out how we
will shift more power away from Whitehall to working people. We
will give new powers to outstanding local leaders such as and Ben Houchen—and, indeed,
. We will create new mayors where people want them, we
will give nine counties including Derbyshire and Durham new
powers as trailblazers in a programme of county deals and we will
strengthen the hand of local leaders across the country.
We will also take back control of the money that the EU used to
spend on our behalf, ensuring that local areas can invest in
their priorities through the new UK shared prosperity fund. With
power comes responsibility, so we will also ensure that data on
local government performance is published so that we can hold
local leaders to account.
Central government will report back to this House on our progress
against our missions and on the impact all our policies have on
closing geographical inequalities. Because building long-term
structures matters, we will also create the institutions,
generate the incentives and supply the information necessary to
drive levelling up for years ahead.
This White Paper lays out a long-term economic and social plan to
make opportunity more equal. It shifts power and opportunity
towards the north and Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. It guarantees increased investment in overlooked and
undervalued communities, in research and development, in
education and skills, in transport and broadband, in urban parks
and decent homes, in grass-roots sport and local culture and in
fighting crime and tackling anti-social behaviour. It gives local
communities the tools to tackle rogue landlords, dilapidated high
streets and neglected green spaces, and it demonstrates that this
people’s Government are keeping faith with the working people of
this country by allowing them to take back control of their
lives, their communities and their futures.
I commend this statement to the House.”
5.26pm
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, if the Statement and the paper with it are the sum
total of the Government’s ambition, their legacy will be to have
held back the aspirations of towns, cities and villages across
the UK. Britain is the birthplace of industry and of towns,
villages and cities with huge plans for their future. But over
the 11 wasted years of Conservative Britain, our country has
stalled.
This paper was meant to mark a turning point, but instead, we
have more of the same: no new funding, no new ideas and certainly
no new plan. Instead, we have 332 pages, which show just how
divorced the Government are from the ambitions of the local
communities that make up this country. Above all, what we needed
from the Government was a strategy to bring jobs and prosperity
to the places that need them most. People should not be expected
to leave their home towns to build a successful career, but there
are no credible solutions to end this in the paper, only recycled
slogans.
The Government need to come forward with a plan to rebuild
British industry—buying, making and selling more at home and
giving public contracts to UK companies, both big and small. What
plans do the Government have to encourage high-skilled industries
to move to the areas that the IFS has determined to have the
highest net loss of graduates? And how will Ministers reverse the
sharp decline in people aged 16-24 studying apprenticeships?
Our town centres have the potential to once again be local hubs
of growth, but since this Government came to power over a decade
ago, British high streets have lost 10,000 shops, 6,000 pubs and
more than 7,000 bank branches. If the Government are serious
about reversing this trend, they need to completely reform and
replace the system of business rates, which is burdening
businesses of all sizes. The solution is not just to tackle the
tax burden but to incentivise investment and provide more
security to small businesses, which will themselves face the
consequences of the Government’s cost of living crisis. Does the
Minister accept the warning of many high street chains, which
have called for the wholesale reform of business rates?
As much as the paper falls short because it lacks ambition, it
also relies on the broken idea that towns and villages only exist
to feed off cities. So much of the narrative still relies on the
notion that investing in cities is enough to spur growth in
nearby towns. For example, look at how any talk of building new
transport links is about bringing people from towns into core
cities, rather than connecting the towns together. Look at the
focus on the largest cities in each region.
No one would doubt that cities deserve the Government’s support
to grow, but towns should also be seen as distinct places with
proud identities, and the Government really should respect that.
Towns and villages need their own industries, jobs, culture, good
quality homes and high streets. They should not be the places
people are expected to leave if they are to live well. So, what
assessment has the Minister made of the recent findings of the
House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, which has called for
greater transparency in the awarding of levelling-up funding to
towns?
Ultimately, the only way that cities, towns and villages will be
able to realise their ambitions is if the Government give them
the power to do so. That is why the Government need a new,
place-based approach, up-ending the current settlement so that
local areas have real powers and resources to make long-term
investment decisions that work for their own communities.
The Statement also makes no mention of net zero, green jobs or
the climate crisis, while the full White Paper dedicates just
three pages exclusively to net zero—two of which are entirely
picture based. The Government have failed to detail any new green
economy funding beyond previous commitments. Just how serious are
this Government about tackling climate change and investing in
the green jobs of the future?
One theme is staggeringly absent from the Government’s paper:
safety and security. People deserve to feel protected in their
town, their village, their city, but the fear of violence and
crime casts a shadow over millions of families. Across the UK
only one in 20 crimes leads to a charge; that is half the figure
since 2015. Today violent crime is at record levels, with nearly
2 million violent offences last year, and an epidemic of violence
against women and girls, with only 3.3% of sexual offences
leading to charges.
This is why the Government urgently need to introduce new police
hubs and new neighbourhood prevention teams to tackle anti-social
behaviour and put more police on the beat in local communities.
Does the Minister agree that, if levelling up is to have any
meaning, it must include addressing the threat of violent crime,
which disproportionately impacts different areas across
Britain?
I finish by drawing the Minister’s attention to the words of one
of his party colleagues, the deputy leader of Shropshire Council,
as reported by the BBC’s Jo Gallacher. Councillor Potter, who
represents the county which witnessed the birth of the Industrial
Revolution, said that the report shows that Shropshire is
“overlooked, unrecognised, taken for granted and completely
undervalued”
by the Government. Those words will ring true across England,
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because the publication of
this report shows what many already knew—that levelling up is a
slogan, and behind it are only empty promises.
(LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a member of
Kirklees Council, a vice-president of the Local Government
Association and someone who lives in a part of west Yorkshire
where there are significant areas of deprivation; I see it every
day.
Nearly three years have passed since the levelling up slogan was
first used. It is good at last to read some definition of what it
may mean. It is good that there is a recognition that deep-seated
economic and social deprivation can be tackled successfully only
through long-term sustained change. Batley in west Yorkshire,
has, for example, been the recipient of City Challenge and Single
Regeneration Budget funding—the earlier iterations of levelling
up. Yet, sadly, Batley remains an area of considerable
deprivation, partly because this earlier funding failed to deal
with the basic issues of a lack of well-paid jobs, poor transport
links and health inequalities. Therefore, a commitment to
sustained and very long-term investment for change is
welcome.
However, the challenge for the Government is that of
investment—or, in this case, the lack of it. Fundamental and
continual gradual change such as that described in the White
Paper takes many years to achieve. Without substantial additional
funding, change will be imperceptible to those who live in the
towns and cities described. Further, any additional funding is on
the back of huge cuts to the very local services in the so-called
12 missions.
Let us take public transport. We already know that HS2 to Leeds
has been axed, HS3 is a pipe dream and even basic electrification
of the trans-Pennine route is to be partial. What about bus
investment? Even today, mayors and council leaders in the
Midlands and the north have exposed a 50% cut to improving bus
services. Access to jobs and opportunities are rightly emphasised
in the White Paper. Will the Minister explain how mission 3, on
public transport, can be realised when the starting point is even
more cuts to services?
Then there is the issue of enabling all children to reach their
potential, especially in the crucial areas of numeracy and
literacy. It is a great metric to measure, but the widespread
closure of Sure Start children’s centres due to major cuts in
funding, combined with schools funding falling, is hardly the
backdrop to enabling school improvement. At this point I ought to
bring the House’s attention to my interest as a local school
governor. Does the Minister agree, and will he point to an
increase in funding that would enable the skills, literacy and
numeracy targets to be reached?
A key metric, which I was genuinely pleased to see, is narrowing
the gap in healthy life expectancy. This is such an important
measure because it is linked to many key determinants of health:
quality of housing, affordability of healthy food, access to
skills providers and the quality of local health services and the
environment. Perhaps the Minister can say how the Government will
improve access to GPs for residents in my area, which has many
fewer GPs per capita than the average.
Access to dental health is also vital. Yet Dentaid, a dental
charity that operates in developing countries, also provides
services in my area due to the lack of NHS dentists. It is
shameful. Will I be able to assure those residents that the
Government will provide easy access to NHS dental care for all
who need it?
The creation of skilled, and thus better-paid, jobs is a basic
requirement for improving the economic well-being of areas such
as mine. Perhaps the Minister can explain how inward investment
can be achieved and combined with providing local people with the
skills to take up the higher-skilled jobs that are created.
Seeing cities as the centre of development is insulting to the
local towns that are supposed to be providing the jobs for these
cities.
Finally, the governance issues are not highlighted but are
slipped in almost under the radar. I have come to the conclusion
that the Government despise local government. They want to
abolish district councils and create more mayoral authorities
without any evidence that reducing democratic representation and
involvement leads to better decision-making and
accountability.
Levelling up, however desirable, will not be effective without
also levelling up funding. The shared prosperity fund, for
example, shows the direction of travel the Government are going
in. The north of England loses over 50% of that replacement
funding for EU structural and regional funds. In total, it
amounts to nearly £100 million lost money for the north. Will the
Minister commit to levelling up funding through fair funding for
councils, equivalent transport funding with the London area, and
the shared prosperity funding for the north of England that
fulfils the promises made during Brexit? Until any of that can be
agreed to be a starting point, levelling up will remain a pipe
dream for most of us.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling
Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult to follow those two speeches because we
have had a speech that is more balanced from the noble Baroness,
Lady Pinnock, and, I am afraid, quite a pointed speech from the
noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.
As a relatively new Minister, I understand that there are so many
examples of government policy that never get published. Those who
have served in government will know that there are very many
areas where policy is discussed, debated and raised but never
sees the light of day. The first thing I want to do is to pay
tribute to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, as
well as one of the most tireless, policy-heavy and thoughtful
Ministers I have had the pleasure of working alongside: Neil
O’Brien. Minister O’Brien has even signed my copy of the
levelling-up White Paper, which, in decades to come, will be
worth a lot of money.
I think it is a tremendous document with a very clear plan to
level up this country. As someone who spent 20 years in local
government, with some of the most deprived areas alongside some
of the wealthiest, I believe in the mission to level up without
levelling down. That is not to forget the technical annex of this
plan, which, I have to say, I have not read yet but I am happy to
say that I will be reading it, probably after this Statement.
There is no single policy or intervention that can achieve change
on its own. This is a plan for England, Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland. Levelling up across the United Kingdom does not
mean levelling down, as I have said; it means boosting
productivity, pay, jobs and living standards by growing the
private sector. We on this side of the House recognise the
importance of the private sector and spreading opportunities and
public services, especially in those places where they are
weakest, and restoring that sense of community.
I am very interested that both the Opposition and the Liberal
Democrat Front Bench accuse this of being a White Paper without
the necessary resources to level up. I did a word count of this
document—that is the kind of thing I did. In first place,
mentioned nearly 1,000 times—994 times—were “fund”, “funding pot”
and “grant”: plenty of opportunities to channel the money that
was committed in the spending review at the end of the last year
into the means by which we will level up. In second place, with
only 31 mentions, was “tax” or “taxation”. This is a plan with
plenty of opportunities to channel that money precisely to ensure
that we level up this country.
I want to deal with the two specific points around skills and an
area I feel very strongly about—as a former deputy mayor for
policing and crime at City Hall, serving the then mayor and our
current Prime Minister—that is, ensuring that we reduce violent
crime and that our cities are safe. It is fair to say that if we
do not feel safe walking around and being part of our community
then there is no chance for some forgotten areas to regenerate
and to revive. I take very seriously that commitment around
public safety.
Surely, if you have a clear mission around crime, which is safer
streets by 2030—homicide, serious violence and neighbourhood
crimes will have fallen—focused on the worst-affected areas and
you back that up with money channelled into the safer streets
fund, you are doing precisely that. You are ensuring that
communities that are riven by crime and violent crime have the
funding they deserve on top of their existing funds to tackle the
very thing that has been raised.
There is a very clear mission on skills—how we can improve skills
and therefore see the productivity improvement that this nation
really yearns for. I discussed this today with , who is very much a champion of skills in the other
place. He said it was so great to see skills front and centre in
an agenda and see it with its own mission statement.
Interestingly enough, when we want specific examples about how
skills will be improved, we should look at the plans in Blackpool
and Walsall, two of the three pathfinder areas that bring
employment and skills provision together. Bringing employment and
skills provision together will enable people to get into work and
to get on in their lives.
Frankly, it is quite hard to stomach the idea that this is an
empty vessel when there is so much detail in here. I could spend
the next 45 minutes—although time eludes me—explaining point by
point what levelling up means and how we can deliver those 12
missions. This is a Government who want to deliver—not over a
couple of years; these missions are set to 2030. This is clearly
a Prime Minister who does not want to be elected again but again
and again. That is why this levelling up is precisely what this
Government will achieve. It will take time but here is the
mission and we will deliver it in due course.
5.47pm
(Con)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend will sign my copy of the
levelling-up White Paper. The Public Services Committee, ably
chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, produced a report
on levelling up last year and I am delighted that the Government
have responded to two of its recommendations: first, that there
should be clarity about what levelling up means; and, secondly,
that there should be regular milestones so that we can see
whether progress is being made. We also commented on transparency
and I wonder whether my noble friend will recognise that under
the levelling-up White Paper very substantial sums of central
grants will continue to be allocated to local areas. So I ask my
noble friend whether there will be total transparency about the
basis of those decisions.
(Con)
I always thank my noble friend for his comments and his probing
in the right areas. I failed to mention in my response to the
Front Bench that, of course, there will be an annual report that
will measure progress on that mission to 2030 and beyond. The
point that my noble friend raises is precisely right. We need to
have transparency. It is important to track the money. I think a
policy that was actually delivered under, I believe, the Blair
Government, the Total Place agenda, is a very important one to
ensure that we get the money into the right areas across the
piece, whether it is funded by central government, regional
government or, indeed, local government and make sure that the
money gets to the people who need it most. Transparency is a key
part of achieving success and we will take that point on
board.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has somewhat depressed me today.
(Con)
Oh, I am sorry.
(Lab)
We are fed up with joyous optimism which does not have much
underpinning. Can we have real attempts to tackle the things that
are affecting people fundamentally? In the north-east, the
difference between those who are doing well in schools and those
who are not has increased over the last two years. When does the
Minister expect that they will be able to get the same sorts of
opportunities because of them being levelled up to what, for
example, young people in Surrey Heath will be able to expect?
When, on behalf of my noble colleague from Darlington, will they
have the jobs that they were promised by the Treasury—300 within
the next month, or six weeks, I am told? They have not arrived at
all. On transparency, I urge the Minister to look at what the
National Audit Office has said and then come back to the House
and tell us that the Government are following the advice of the
National Audit Office on transparency.
Noble Lords
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords, can I answer?
Noble Lords
My Lords—
(Con)
Sorry, maybe noble Lords do not want to hear my response. I was
pretty depressed at leading a council from 2006 to 2012 in one of
the most deprived parts of the country, according to the index of
multiple deprivation: White City—
(Lab)
[Inaudible.]
(Con)
Can I respond? I listened to the noble Baroness, and I hope that
she can listen to me for just a moment. I was depressed to watch
the grant farmers at work, filling in forms and collecting the
money—whether it was local, regional or national money—and not
making a blind bit of difference. That was during the Labour
years; I saw no progress at all, so I was depressed. But here we
have 12 key missions, all measurable, backed up by an annual
report. Admittedly, this is not the end of the programme and plan
for levelling up—I would say that we are at the end of the
beginning—but it is now a substantial plan, with 12 clear
missions set out and milestones to get there, which will be
measured in an annual report. I do not think there has been a
Government who have tried to be more transparent than this
one.
The Lord
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the enthusiasm of his
presentation but also for looking forward to the rest of this
decade. I also want to speak about those communities in which I
have served that are the inheritors of decades of deprivation and
need. I was intrigued to see in the executive summary that, even
in the affluence of Sussex, where I serve, there are deep pockets
of deprivation and need which are recognised. What I do not see
recognised here is the vital importance of the social capital of
faith groups, of which the Church is one, which make a
significant contribution not only to sustaining life in those
areas of deprivation but to sustaining hope for a better
future.
When I was newly ordained and serving in Devonport in Plymouth
back in the late 1980s, in those days, it was recognised by the
statutory agencies that were our partners that funding to
Church-monitored projects by the statutory agencies—such as the
probation service, mental health service and social
services—enabled those projects to be delivered in the most acute
areas of need through a voluntary agency, the Church, which
already had levels of trust that enabled the services to be more
easily received than they would be from statutory agencies, for a
wide range of reasons. I hope that the Minister will reassess the
place of those faith and community organisations, which are part
of our social capital. It has been the privilege of the Church to
be a co-ordinator with other groups in that respect.
Finally, the focus here has been, understandably, on our towns—we
have mentioned our cities and the balance between them—but I am
also responsible for an area of huge rural deprivation, and
looking at how levelling up in those rural areas can occur is
another major need. I hope, once again, that the social capital
of faith groups such as churches will be recognised.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing up two
very important points, the first of which is the role of faith
communities in helping us to bring about opportunity and enable
and support people to get on in life. I saw that for myself as
the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, where we saw the
extension of a church in Hammersmith, which was particularly
active in providing skills training and reaching parts of the
community that, frankly, the statutory agencies never got to. We
do recognise that, and it is a very important point to build on
that insight.
I am told by my ministerial colleague , who is a PPS in the
department, that he will be looking at building on the narrative
because apparently this thinking is tucked away in the technical
annexe, which, as I say, unfortunately I have not yet read. Some
of that needs to be brought out—the importance of working with
faith groups and the wider community in helping to level up the
country. Of course, poverty does not happen just in cities and
towns but in rural areas. That point is well made, and that is
why we need to ensure that the levelling-up agenda embraces those
rural communities as well.
(CB)
My Lords, I first declare an interest: I used to be the convenor
of One Yorkshire. At the last general election, the Labour Party
and the Liberal Democrats committed themselves to bringing in One
Yorkshire, if elected. The Conservatives were slightly equivocal.
In the light of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up saying
that we need mayors of the type that we have in London, and,
given that the need that quickly comes up is to have one for the
whole of Yorkshire because of its economy, people and geography,
will the Minister give the House his further thoughts on One
Yorkshire, because it is still committed to that dream and
ideal?
Secondly, the Prime Minister has told us that the pandemic has
been the biggest challenge we have faced since the Second World
War. At the end of the war, there was a huge social impact on the
people of the United Kingdom. Most noble Lords will remember that
it was the Beveridge report that began the work of transforming
this great nation. Beveridge said there was want, caused by
poverty; ignorance, caused by the lack of education; squalor,
caused by poor housing; idleness, caused by a lack of jobs or
inability to gain employment; and disease, caused by inadequate
healthcare provision, which resulted in the National Health
Service and social welfare. I read the whole report. What are the
giants that the Minister thinks need to be slain so that we can
get to where we ended up at the end of the Second World War, when
the Beveridge report led to real transformation?
Finally, the greatest thing that has been bedevilling a lot of
people who feel left behind is the great gulf of income
inequality, but I did not hear or read it—maybe I have missed it,
but I did not see it in the report. Will the Government continue
to pursue the whole question of income inequality? If that is not
dealt with, I am afraid you may level up some people, but you
will leave a lot in poverty. Maybe I could give the Government
the motto of Barnsley to become the motto for levelling up. It is
in Latin, but I will give noble Lords the translation in English:
spectemur agendo—let us be judged by our actions. That is what we
are looking for in levelling up, not big words.
(Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord raised three principal points.
The first is whether, as part of levelling up, there is still
enthusiasm for One Yorkshire. My name is Greenhalgh, a
Lancastrian name, and when I look at the map, Lancashire seems to
have almost disappeared; it has disappeared to Cheshire and
Greater Manchester, and there is a little county called
Lancashire. Meanwhile, Yorkshire on a map looks absolutely
humongous. I am not sure that creating a humongous entity called
“One Yorkshire” will necessarily accelerate the levelling up.
Maybe it will ensure the independence of Yorkshire from the rest
of the country, but I am not sure that it will help us in any
way.
However, there is a huge commitment to help mayors who represent
functional economic areas. We have the mayor of South Yorkshire,
, who is part of the education investment areas; there
is regeneration of one of the 20 places in Sheffield. We are
extending brownfield and bus transformation funding, exploring
further flexibilities to raise CA funding thorough business
rates, and looking at further and deeper devolution. There are
also measures in West Yorkshire with , who is far keener on this
levelling-up White Paper than the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman,
who managed to dredge up some person I have never heard of in the
Conservative Party—an individual in Shropshire. welcomed it. She is receiving
education investment areas, extended brownfield funding, support
for family allocations and bus transformation funding—all of it
seems to be going into West Yorkshire. There is a commitment to,
at least, parts of Yorkshire that shows a true commitment.
I am not going to say that this is the Beveridge report—even
though it is a signed copy—but it is a substantial document with
technical annexes, and only time will tell whether we deliver
against our missions.
On the third point, on income inequality, I do not think that is
an end point. I do not think we are all equal; I believe that the
starting line needs to be equal. Everyone needs an opportunity
and we need to equalise opportunity, but some of us will take
that opportunity and go further in life, and that is why I am a
Conservative.
(LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the National
Association of Local Councils. It is good to see a recognition of
the role of parish and town councils in developing improvements
in their localities and creating a better quality of life, but is
the Minister aware that most of the funds that have emerged from
the shared prosperity fund are not available for parish and town
councils to bid for, even though they are delivering the
services? Will he undertake to have another look at that, so that
they can really do a good job instead of having to recreate
structures especially for bidding purposes?
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising that on behalf
of parish and town councils. I think she is saying that they are
excluded from the UK shared prosperity fund, as things stand. The
UK shared prosperity fund money has not yet been spent. There has
been the community renewal fund, which is like a pathfinder. I
will take that away, go back to my department and understand some
of the thinking; it is a fair point. Another fair point is that
we need to make it easy for people to apply. We do not want to
see a lot of money spent on the bureaucracy of grant
applications; we want to help people back into work and to get on
with their lives.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a non-exec at Ofsted. I am far
less depressed than the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, although
I was on her committee. I was delighted to see education as a
mission in the Statement. That key stage 2 ambition is highly
ambitious, and so it should be. What I cannot quite see is how
early years fits into that and how the foundation years have been
addressed. Given that they are quite literally the foundation
years, can my noble friend please say a bit more about that?
(Con)
My Lords, I first pay tribute to my current boss, the Secretary
of State, for his role in building on the substantial achievement
of the noble Lord, . I served in local government
when the noble Lord pioneered the academy programme, and I worked
very hard to open up the first academy in my council, which
transformed the lives of people in Hammersmith. Then the free
school programme, like a lot of government policy, built on that
thinking. We know that schools are the engines of opportunity,
and in this White Paper we see a real commitment to continuing
that programme of introducing more academies and more free
schools.
My noble friend is quite right: it is far harder to achieve
success if you do not have that strong foundation in early years.
People’s potential is often almost set for them. If you do not
get—
Sorry, I just heard a bit of chuntering. I am not sure it was
adding very much.
(Lab)
Sure Start.
(Con)
The noble Lord is throwing out words such as “Sure Start”. That
was an example of how not to govern: to throw loads of money in
an incontinent way, set things up and then see it slowly
withdrawn. That is not the way to transform people’s lives.
I will respond to my noble friend in writing on how we deal with
the issue, because it obviously involves DfE and others.
(Lab)
My Lords, 2030 will be 20 years since became Secretary of State for
Education. Two-thirds of pupils currently achieve the expected
standards in literacy and numeracy at the end of primary, which
the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, just referred to. Mission five of
the White Paper anticipates this jumping magically to 90% by
2030. The child who takes those SATs in 2030 starts reception
this September. What is going to change for that child’s journey
through primary school? The Minister talked about the details
earlier. Let us have the details on the transformation of primary
school that is coming.
(Con)
Okay, test the Minister’s knowledge on the details of a policy
area he is not Minister for—I am not sure that is very
constructive. It is important to measure progress; that is a
start point. I remember schools in my part of London at which 50%
did not meet the minimum standards of employability, so we start
in a better place and are setting a mission to be in a far better
place by 2030. As I said, the commitment in this White Paper—and
I am sure there are many other commitments—is to continue
ensuring that there are schools of choice in local areas to which
parents want to send their kids to give them the best possible
start in life.
(CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking questions on this
Statement, and in so doing declare my interest as chairman of the
Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research. I welcome
the focus on health and extending healthy life expectancy as part
of this levelling-up agenda. Are the Minister and Her Majesty’s
Government content that the opportunities afforded by the passage
of the current Health and Care Bill through your Lordships’ House
and this Parliament are being fully exploited and addressed in
terms of the levelling-up agenda for health, with particular
reference to the co-ordination between local government and
institutions providing healthcare with regard to addressing the
disparities that drive inequalities in health outcomes and the
research agenda at a local level, which needs to be addressed to
achieve these objectives?
(Lab)
Good question.
(Con)
My Lords, it is an incredibly good question from someone who
actually knows what he is talking about. I thank the noble Lord
for raising this. I declare an interest as the son of a vascular
surgeon who ran his service for more than 30 years in our local
hospital. One of the great frustrations, of course, is the Berlin
Wall between health and social care, which this Bill is trying to
address. As someone who spent 20 years without becoming a
vice-president of the Local Government Association—it did not
give that to me, so I cannot declare that interest—I can say that
it is important to address that. The systems need to come
together, which is the commitment, to ensure that we do not have
that friction between the two and that we get the care organised
in the most efficient way possible to give people the best
possible start and a healthy lifestyle so that they can reach
their potential.
|
