No. 10 North

My Lords, No. 10 North is central to the Prime Minister’s commitment to get good growth in every postcode, drive devolution and bring government closer to the communities it serves. It will put senior decision-makers in the same room as mayors, employers, councils and public services, so that decisions about this country’s economic future are no longer taken only in Westminster. The cost of establishing No. 10 North is covered by existing departmental budgets.

I am grateful to the Minister. Having known the Minister for a number of years, I congratulate her not just on rejoining the Government but on her additional responsibilities at the Cabinet Office. As a proud northerner, from God’s own county of Lancashire, I am genuinely delighted by the Government’s emphasis on the north, but I would hazard a guess that most people care more about fixing the issues that matter to them than the postcode from where it is being done. So, first, what specific and material issue will No. 10 North fix that Whitehall has been unable to? Secondly, am I right to assume, based on the Answer I just got, that the overall cost and the size of government will increase as a result of this additional Downing Street?

On the second point, it will not necessarily increase but we will make sure that invoices and costs are reported in the normal way. On the noble Lord’s first point, I wrote down that he is from Pendle, just in case he went for an anti-Manchester perspective. From my perspective, I went to No. 10 North and spoke to the people working there. They are passionate about rewiring the state and making sure it works for people in every part of the country. Clearly, having the same conversations with the same people in Whitehall, in the same way, is not necessarily going to deliver anything other than the same results. No. 10 North carries the authority of the Prime Minister to drive forward his objectives, bringing decision-making long held by Ministers in Whitehall closer to the communities we all serve.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that 14 of the 15 cities with higher than average productivity are in the south; the only exception is Edinburgh. No cities in the north, no cities in the Midlands—not even Birmingham or the famed Manchester. Will the Minister ensure that, to get value for money, she reports annually on how the Downing Street of the north is making a difference to our cities in the north and the Midlands particularly?

We intend that No. 10 North will make a difference for every part of the country. The noble Lord rightly identifies that not every part of the country has benefited equally from economic success in the past. People will not be able to stop us shouting about the success of No. 10 North in terms of delivery once we get going, but I am very happy to come back to your Lordships’ House and talk about it in more depth over the coming months.

My Lords, it is an interesting Question from the noble Lord, and of course, every Government should be mindful of the costs of doing business and the return on investment. With that in mind, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could inform us of the benefits that will accrue to the country from establishing No. 10 North.

My noble friend is right, and as the Question identifies, there have clearly been some costs associated with establishing No. 10 North. However, it is important to recognise that this office is going to sit at the centre of this Government’s agenda to deliver economic growth across all our regions. As the First Secretary of State informed the other place last week, it is vital that, to do this, we rewire the state to deliver the change people up and down the country voted for.

My Lords, No. 10 North is approximately 200 miles north of where we are. Perthshire, where I am from, is more than 200 miles further north than that. The north of Scotland is another more than 200 miles north of that. I wondered whether there were any plans to rethink the name “No. 10 North”—it does not feel right to someone who lives 200 miles north of it.

The noble Earl makes a valid point. No. 10 North is in the north of England for the purposes of general geographic designations in this country. On the points he made about Scotland, in making sure that we recalibrate how the state works, including in respect of the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we will be taking into account the needs of all those areas. We feel that this is a project, a way forward and a way of working that should benefit every part of the country—even those for whom No. 10 North is in the south.

My Lords, I see that Ministers and senior officials will be mainly working from No. 10 North. Why does No. 10 south lack the prime ministerial authority to make good decisions?

It is quite clear that No. 10 just across the road does have the authority to make those decisions. As I said to noble Lords earlier, having the same conversations in the same place in the same room is not necessarily going to produce a different outcome. A number of Ministers have spent a considerable time in No. 10 North, and the Prime Minister is committed to working there on a regular basis. So far during his premiership, he has done so at least once a week.

My Lords, I welcome the establishment of No. 10 in the north of England. If the Government agree that centralisation in London is a problem, should the answer not be to strengthen devolution across these islands, giving the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the powers and resources to act in the best interests of their peoples, rather than simply relocating functions within England?

I am not sure how it would have gone down with the Governments in the devolved Administrations if we had suddenly popped up with a new central government office. It is clear that there is no way we will succeed in rewiring the state if we do not take into account the devolved nations and their needs. Collaboration with the devolved Governments will be required to ensure the benefits of regional empowerment and of doing things differently, so that people feel that growth in every area. We need to make sure that we work very closely together, and Ministers are looking forward to close collaboration with the devolved Administrations to succeed in this.

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place—again. Having worked in No. 10 and having had the enjoyable task of managing a Prime Minister’s diary, I know that time is the most precious commodity. There are sudden, unexpected events and logistical pressures. Can the Minister explain how practical implications such as the convening of a high-security meeting at short notice will be managed when the centre of government is effectively split between two centres—No. 10 and No. 10 North? Will there need to be a duplication of resources so that both centres are equally well equipped?

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. I think both centres will be equally well equipped. I am very glad that I have never had to manage a Prime Minister’s diary. I would like to think that those who do and who are organising these meetings, which are often at very short notice, as the noble Baroness rightly said, are better equipped than I would be to make sure that everything is absolutely in the right place at the right time—including the Prime Minister.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, whatever the cost of No. 10 North, it pales into complete insignificance compared with the £1 billion in PPE contracts that the party opposite fraudulently gave its friends and others?

My noble friend’s words speak for themselves; I am not sure I have anything further to add.