Category Archives: Levelling Up

Maternal Health: Where does the government go from here?

In September 2024, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Wes Streeting labelled the state of maternity services in England a ‘cause for national shame’, describing it as one of the ’biggest issues that keeps him awake at night’.

His comments followed the publication of a damning report by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which brought together findings from 131 inspections and found that almost half of maternity units inspected were rated as ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’. The report called for increased national action and ring-fenced investment into services, warning that poor quality NHS maternity care will become normalised if action is not taken.

In January 2024, the APPG on Birth Trauma launched an inquiry to investigate the factors in maternity care that contribute to birth trauma and develop policy recommendations. By May, the APPG’s report, Listen to Mums: Ending the Postcode Lottery on Perinatal Care, presented findings from over 1,300 submissions by women recounting harrowing stories of inadequate and traumatic care. The report identified an overwhelming narrative that women felt belittled, ignored, and neglected at a time when they were most vulnerable, and concluded that a base standard in maternity services is needed across the UK.

Streeting has inherited a bleak forecast: urgent need for reform; mounting pressures on the NHS as a whole; and a poor fiscal climate. So where does Labour go from here?

Labour’s 2024 election manifesto promised to ensure that NHS trusts failing on maternity care are ‘robustly supported into rapid improvement’, to train thousands more midwives as part of the NHS Workforce Plan, and to set an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap.

However, the party’s manifesto lacked any concrete policies aimed at fixing the broken maternity system. This means all eyes now turn to the government’s 10-Year Health Plan, due to be published in spring this year, as the potential roadmap for change.

While the plan will focus on prevention, the transition from hospital to community care, and the digitalisation of health services, the government has given no indication of whether it will give maternal health the attention it desperately needs.

Despite rising demand, current services are stretched and under-resourced, meaning many women face significant delays receiving the support they need, if they receive it at all. Investing in early intervention, services that understand the needs of new and expectant mothers, and workforce growth is essential to ensuring that patients can access timely and effective support.

Various campaign groups are putting pressure on Streeting to make improving maternal health services a priority. The Maternal Mental Health Alliance is calling for all parties to demonstrate their support for new and expectant mothers. The Alliance claims ‘there is a vital opportunity for the new government to create positive change for current and future generations.’

The 10-Year Health Plan provides the government with the opportunity to address the alarming findings from both the CQC and APPG on Birth Trauma, restore public confidence in NHS maternity services, and show its commitment to fixing the systemic issues within maternal care. Inadequate support has devastating effects on families and adds huge costs to the UK economy, meaning it is vital that organisations engage with the government during the development of the 10-Year-Health Plan to ensure maternity services receive the focus they need. By leveraging industry platforms and policy development support, advocacy campaigns can emphasise the importance of maternal health and the challenges faced by women.

To discuss the government’s plans for maternal health in more detail, please contact Annabelle Black at annabelle@gkstrategy.com.

What does the Renters’ Rights Bill mean for the future of rented housing?

GK Associate Director, Will Blackman, explores what the government’s new Renters’ Rights Bill means for the future of rented housing in England.

The government’s Renters’ Rights Bill completed its passage in the House of Commons this week and is expected to receive Royal Assent in the coming months following the completion of its Lords’ stages. What does this significant piece of legislation mean for the private rented sector and the housing market as a whole?

The origins of this bill go back several years. The Theresa May government in 2019 first consulted on reforms to rebalance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, which included the ability of landlords to issue Section 21 notices, or so-called ‘no-fault’ evictions. This change continues to sit at the heart of the bill and is intended to give greater stability and security of tenure to tenants. It also provides landlords with reformed and expanded grounds for seeking possession of their properties under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. This includes cases where the landlord wishes to sell or to move into the property themselves. Other measures include stricter requirements around rent increases, the creation of a new ombudsman, new requirements on landlords to remedy mould and damp problems and a new right for tenants to request a pet.

The last Conservative government introduced its own version of this legislation – the Renters’ Reform Bill – however this fell away following the dissolution of Parliament ahead of the General Election. The Labour government’s version of the bill – now the Renters’ Rights Bill – includes some significant differences to its predecessor, almost all to the benefit of tenants rather than landlords. For example, tenants must now be in three months of rent arrears before landlords can seek possession, rather than the two months proposed by the Conservatives; the grace period after which landlords can seek possession in order to sell the property has also been doubled from six to twelve months and the notice period extended from two to four months. Moreover, the current version of the bill gives tenants new rights to terminate a tenancy from day one with two months’ notice – something previously not allowed under the last bill until at least four months after a tenancy started. This would have effectively created a minimum six-month term.

These reforms are the most significant changes to the regulation of the private rented sector for over 35 years. The residential landlord sector has been careful not to be seen opposing the legislation outright given the unhelpful optics around this. However, many individual landlords are concerned that the balance has tipped too far away from them, potentially leaving many unable to take back possession of their properties in reasonable circumstances. Court backlogs have provided an additional layer of concern, with delays in processing evictions claims already persisting in many parts of England, with many landlords calling for significant improvements in order to allay their concerns.

Some industry leaders such as Propertymark and the National Residential Landlords Association have warned that the proposed provisions could lead to landlords withdrawing from the sector, in turn limiting supply and driving up rents. The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government’s own impact assessment does not predict an exodus of landlords from the sector. Indeed, landlords have been subject to a raft of regulatory and tax changes since 2015, but these have not resulted in significant divestment from the private rental market, which many had predicted at the time.

However these changes play out in the long term, individual and institutional investors in the private rented sector will need to grasp this new regulatory landscape quickly, especially given its wide-ranging impacts for the sector and the prospect of significant disruption to their portfolio. It is the case that home ownership remains unaffordable for many and this is unlikely to change in the near term. However, as the government looks to tip the balance in favour of tenants, it is vital that investors engage with the new regulatory landscape to ensure they are well prepared and can take steps to insulate themselves from any emerging risks.

To discuss the government’s housing policy reforms in more detail, please contact Will Blackman at will@gkstrategy.com

Unlocking the built environment

Angela Rayner has unveiled two flagship pieces of policy that will shake up planning policy and the local government architecture to get growth going. Senior Associate Sam Tankard takes a look at what impact this might have for businesses that operate in this sector.

Housing, planning and the local government system have long been identified by Keir Starmer’s Labour party as major constrictions on growth, and he has talked before about taking a “bulldozer” to the planning system. His Chancellor Rachel Reeves has also cited the desire to get Britain building as a key, and relatively low cost, lever to unlocking growth. Over the last week, we’ve seen the culmination of this with Angela Rayner, arguably one of the most powerful cabinet ministers, presenting her two-step solution to injecting impetus into councils and the wider built environment.

Backing the builders

The updated National Planning Policy Framework was published on 12 December and is seen as the key to unlocking 1.5 million new homes. The most significant change is to mandatory housing targets which will see many councils, particularly leafier constituencies and suburbs, deliver as many as 5 times the number of new homes per year than they currently are under Local Plans, as she calls on councils to all do their bit to meet their housing need, as the question is shifted to “where the homes and local services people expect are built, not whether they are built at all.”

The Government sees prioritising low quality “grey belt” as key to this housing mission and is supporting these new changes with £100m for extra planning officers to speed up and deal with bottlenecks in the system.

Tackling the blockers

The structure of councils has been long overdue a refresh and given how many of this Labour parliamentary party come from local authority backgrounds, it is no surprise to see a Labour Government bring forward a “devolution revolution”.

The English Devolution White Paper – which will form the basis of the English Devolution Bill in 2025 – proposes more powers for combined Authority Mayors who will receive new integrated funding settlements covering housing, growth, retrofit, transport and skills and employment as the Government wants to empower local leaders and shed Whitehall control. However, Rayner will still have increased call in powers if significant projects are not making necessary progress.

It is also clear the Government hopes this will deal with some of the inefficiencies in the way councils deliver public services and procure contract support, which will be welcome to businesses who support local authorities. As such, many two-tier council areas will be replaced by unitary authorities, where boundaries are hindering ability to deliver public services.

Growth unlocked?

Rayner will hope that these reforms will address the bureaucracy that Whitehall and local government process has burdened on public service and housing delivery, and help unlock the investment desperately needed across huge swathes of the built environment. If successful therefore, businesses operating at this intersection of housing and councils should take confidence that healthy opportunities are on the horizon. The next challenge will be where will all these builders and engineers come from…

Adult Education: A Model for Devolution?

GK Adviser Rebecca McMahon explores the localisation of adult education and whether it could provide a template for devolution plans in other policy areas.

A rare win for the Levelling Up agenda?

Over the last 13 years, a series of Conservative governments have made various stabs at improving regional inequalities, and by the time of the Levelling Up White Paper 2022, there was a consensus that at least some form of devolution is necessary to heal regional divides and accelerate British growth.

However, plenty of obstacles remain in the way of a strong devolved power system in the UK, stemming both from central government (particularly due to reservations held by the Treasury) and local government (whose various financial difficulties over the last year have undermined their case for greater responsibility over policy and fiscal decision-making.) Plus, recent high-profile blows to the Levelling Up agenda – notably the collapse of the multi-billion HS2 project at the end of last year – have created further setbacks.

However, one of the more successful devolution efforts has materialised in the seemingly unexpected domain of adult skills. The Government kickstarted the devolution of the Adult Education Budget in the 2019-20 academic year, transferring decision-making powers over the pot of money to six Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) plus the Greater London Authority (GLA).

Since then, a further three MCAs have been handed these powers, and the trend of devolution suggests that more deals are to take place in the near future. The success of ‘trailblazer’ deals in Greater Manchester and West Midlands makes this more likely. The Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, confirmed that the North East MCA would also receive a deal as part of the continued ‘Skills for Growth’ agenda.

Labour’s thinking on Adult Education

Central to Labour’s skills agenda is the replacement of the Apprenticeship Levy with the Growth and Skills Levy. Notionally, this points to a more flexible skills and training landscape, with accommodation for all types of learners.

However, some people have expressed concern about the sustainability of this proposal, suggesting that an altered levy would be a step in the wrong direction for apprenticeship uptake, at a time when other viable further education alternatives seem more important than ever. In terms of devolution, Labour have made a lot of noise about their commitment to the cause, threading it through various ‘missions’ upon which they have built their policy agenda, and publishing high-profile reviews by legacy figures like Gordon Brown which showcase their support. But in practice, the landscape is less certain, owing to Rachel Reeves’ fiscal ‘iron fist.’ Given the pressure that the Shadow Chancellor placed on Keir Starmer to backtrack on their flagship £28bn pledge to the green economy, she will be hesitant to hand over budgetary responsibilities to local authorities given their recent track record on finances.

The increasing localisation of adult education budgets in the UK somewhat offers a model for the Government and potential future governments to further the devolution agenda. However, any party will inevitably face a gamble on whether to trust local authorities with increasingly large pots of money and whether this will ultimately reap long-term rewards.

GK Point of View – Raising the roof?

GK consultant Milo Boyd assesses the new proposals from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for nationally significant infrastructure, and if these will truly get the UK planning system firing on all the right cylinders.

The planning system has long been viewed as one of the things that has hamstrung the UK and its growth, particularly in the case of energy and transport infrastructure. Too often, the planning system has been the way that so-called ‘‘NIMBYs’ have been able to stymy any new developments that impact them locally, despite arguments in support of their national importance.

Planning remains a considerable hurdle for the Government if it is serious about achieving its net zero objectives. Onshore wind energy has perhaps been the best example in recent years of how the planning system has hindered the rapid and necessary development of cheap and vitally important infrastructure. In 2015, the UK Government effectively gave local communities the right to veto windfarms by stipulating that they have the final say over whether onshore wind farm applications get the go-ahead in their area. That move, coupled with a removal of subsidies, brought onshore wind installations to an immediate and almost complete halt, the cost of which we are all feeling.

According to IPPR, where England had previously been making modest yet steady progress with onshore wind before the effective ban in 2015, the years since have seen the number of sites receiving planning permission fall off a cliff. Of those which did receive approval, they generate just 0.02% of the target for onshore wind set by the National Grid Future Energy Scenarios, putting England thousands of years behind schedule of its targets for onshore wind.

Now, the Government and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) have outlined a number of new proposals which aim to deliver a system with more flexibility for nationally significant infrastructure (NSIPs) development to take place. The proposals fall broadly into 3 areas of reform:

Operational reform to support a faster consenting process;
Recognising the role of local communities and strengthening engagement; and
System capability – building a more diverse and resilient resourcing model.

These proposals form part of the Government’s wider ambitions to stimulate growth and create jobs, as well as ensuring that the UK power, waste and water, and transport systems are future proofed. Removing burdens is viewed as a one of the key ways that the Government can promote new opportunities, scale up training and build a more dynamic workforce. In doing, it provides a good deal more certainty and confidence for the promoters and developers of projects – something that is vital for investment. This is something that has similarly been trailed by Labour in recent months, advocating for planning reform to reverse the UK’s sluggish growth and remove barriers to investment in new industries. It is unclear as of yet what Labour’s response to this consultation will be, but it seems likely given recent announcements that Labour will follow a similar tack.

The most eye-catching of the Government’s announcements is a ‘new’ fast-track route for certain projects, which builds on the fast-track system first proposed in 2016 under the Housing and Planning Bill. What is most useful about this measure is that if infrastructure projects are deemed to deliver tangible environmental or community benefits, they can be fast-tracked through the planning process if they meet the proposed quality standards, and – owing to their tangible benefits – quickly sidestep any potential local opposition. The scope of this is also broad, covering energy, water and waste facilities, and transport, thus going beyond the Housing and Planning Bill’s ambition to galvanise housebuilding and meaning that a wide range of projects will be able to benefit from DLUHC’s new measures.

To complement the fast-track route, there is real focus on the pre-application stage of the planning process. and new, targeted input from the Planning Inspectorate for applicant projects. To ensure that those projects which successfully apply to the fast-track route speedily receive consent, the Government is effectively seeking to ensure that any practical hurdles are overcome at the pre-application stage. This would mean that the process for projects can essentially be streamlined to move from acceptance to decision within a shorter maximum examination timescale of 12 months, whilst striking a balance between external consultation and ensuring that involvement is very light touch. Government proposals aim to ensure a limited number of meetings are held during the pre-application process. Following this, any further meetings should only be held at key milestones of the project.

Overall, the fact that the reforms aim to considerably streamline processes for NSIPs is positive. Of course, what the final proposals look like is still up for consultation, but seeking to ensure that projects do not have to jump through a prohibitively high number of hoops will no doubt give investors and developers a heightened degree of confidence that their projects will get off the ground.

Get in touch with the GK team through milo@gkstrategy.com if you would like any further information.

Is levelling up a Conservative priority again, and what should Labour do about it?

GK Associate Sam Tankard analyses the recent announcement from Levelling Up Secretary, Michael Gove, on the Government’s plans to boost urban regeneration and kickstart new development, and what we can understand from the Labour Party’s response.

Michael Gove announced this week a long overdue relaxation of planning rules to boost urban regeneration, bringing life back into the Government’s neglected commitment to levelling up the UK. The plans include setting up more than a dozen new development corporations, that would be able to use compulsory purchase orders to boost building and attract investment, akin to the hugely successful regeneration of the London Docklands. It will also relax permitted development rights, making it easier for disused office buildings to be converted to residential, all of which should come as a welcome package of policies for developers, businesses, and aspiring homeowners alike, all keen to see the densification of key cities.

One of the flagship examples announced to bring forward new homes, is the proposal for a new Cambridge Urban Quarter. The Quarter is designed to couple gentle density seen in many European cities and parts of London, with improved landscaping and infrastructure, with the aim of unlocking investment in the city’s growth areas of life sciences and tech R&D. This is something the city has sorely missed out on over recent years, while international competitors like Boston have soared ahead.

Indeed, this set of policies is shrewdly targeted at voters most at risk of fleeing the Conservative Party to the Liberal Democrats, demonstrated by recent by-elections in Conservative heartlands. By focusing the message on urban development, it focuses any future housing development in building up density in cities rather than urban sprawl into green space. This combines neatly with Sunak’s recent commitment to protecting the Green Belt around cities, and criticising Labour for the opposite.

However, the limitation of the Green Belt poses a much bigger problem for all stakeholders, having traditionally driven housebuilding in out-of-town developments instead of expanding cities themselves, therefore often encouraging urban sprawl further.

If properly implemented with the ambitious devolution agenda that has been set out, including 20 regeneration zones and investment zones, we could see the investment into the built environment required to really level up our industrial centres. Sunak will also hope it appeals to the middle of the road millennial voters who feel they are being priced out of cities, as well as those who oppose new homes due to lack of infrastructure.

What is Labour’s response?

This presents a significant challenge to Labour, who themselves are being urged to embrace a new levelling up agenda, which has so far been absent from Starmer’s Five Missions. However, Shadow Levelling Up Secretary Lisa Nandy has openly committed to radical planning reform to boost building, including building on the Green Belt, restoring housing targets, and making social housing the second highest form of tenure. In response to Gove’s plans, Nandy has criticised the Government for offering more empty promises, and for overseeing housebuilding which is at the lowest rate since WWII. Importantly, however, levelling up goes beyond just housebuilding, and revolves significantly around investment into local public services, prioritising education and early years, as well as attracting and supporting businesses in growth areas.

Therefore, Labour needs to look to capitalise on the separation created between Conservatives and Labour on the issue of Green Belt development and be braver to articulate what is possible from a comprehensive levelling up programme. This programme must reflect the full suite of issues that comprise sustainable and equitable levelling up. This will not only present a more ambitious levelling up agenda that delivers on chronic housing supply issues, but also brings disillusioned renters with them.