English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Tuesday 2nd September 2025
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 367 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 365 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Government were elected on a manifesto to deliver change—real change for working people; change that people can see and feel around them. That means more money in their pockets, decent jobs, new homes, good transport links, thriving high streets and opportunities for young people. But after 14 years of a Tory Government unwilling to take the tough choices to make life better for working people, it is no wonder that people have lost hope that real change is possible. And we have a plan to change that—a plan to give people with skin in the game real control over their lives and the power to have a real stake in their place and share in our country’s success.
Our landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will deliver this and more. It will help us to build a modern state based on a fairer, stronger partnership between Government and local people, with the aim of renewing people’s faith that the state can work for them. That faith has been sorely tested in recent years. After more than a decade of broken promises from those on the Conservative Benches, people associate Whitehall with failure and decline. The communities that once built Britain have seen good jobs disappearing, secure homes crumbling and once-strong communities divided. Things that our parents and grandparents once relied on—that I relied on as a young mum—have fallen by the wayside. It is my mission to rebuild those foundations of a good life for all communities in all parts of our country.
I worked on the frontline of local government and I saw how it changes people’s lives. I know that I will not achieve our goals unless we fundamentally change the way that our country is run. That means handing power back to where it belongs—to local people with skin in the game—so that they can make decisions on what really matters to their communities. This Bill will drive the biggest transfer of power in a generation out of Whitehall to our regions and communities and end the begging bowl, micro-managing culture. It will make devolution the default setting by: giving mayors new powers over planning, housing and regeneration to get Britain building as part of our plan for change; rebuilding local government, so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on; and empowering local communities to have a bigger say in shaping their local area.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In the right hon. Lady’s attempts to drive forward this carthorse of devolution, will she tell us where the accountability and scrutiny will come from and where the voice of local people will really be heard?
Angela Rayner
I am really disappointed, because I thought that the previous Government were the ones to turbocharge devolution, and we are moving on that agenda. We actually do believe that devolution is a good thing and that these measures will enable mayors and local areas to be empowered more to drive that growth that we desperately need in all parts of the country.
This Bill is long overdue. England is one of the most centralised developed countries in the world. Too often, the system works against rather than with local people. Too many decisions affecting too many are made by too few. That, combined with short-term, sticking-plaster politics, has left the country in a doom loop of worsening regional divides.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you many wonder why a Scot would make an intervention at this point in the debate. May I advise the right hon. Lady to look north, to Scotland, to see how this should not be done? The Scottish Government have centralised powers, taking them right away from communities such as mine. That is how we should not do it. This is a cautionary tale.
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for his guidance. I always look north—contrary to what other people believe. I am very proud of the north. I gently say to him that the challenge at the moment lies with the Government of Scotland. Hopefully, we can reverse things and have a Government who truly believe in putting the power in local people’s hands.
We only have to look at the difference being made by our mayors to see that there is a better way. From building tens of thousands of new social homes with Mayor Rotheram in Liverpool, to fighting child poverty with Mayor McGuinness in the north-east, to making people’s commutes quicker and cheaper with Mayor Burnham in my own Greater Manchester, and to creating London’s summer of al fresco dining and world-leading culture with Mayor Khan—
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr Frith
We are very proud of the work of our Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham. On the issue of driving change, I would like to raise a point about drivers. Half of private hire taxis in Greater Manchester are licensed outside the area. That undermines local enforcement and accountability as well as local drivers who do the right thing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a chance to fix that, protect passengers, raise and maintain standards, and back the best in trade?
Angela Rayner
As another Greater Manchester MP, my hon. Friend will know that Mayor Burnham has been trying to address taxi licensing for some years. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were here for the previous statement, which I listened to intently, in which the Minister made it clear that there is a commitment to introduce that legislation as quickly as possible. We need to make sure that that vehicle is there, and sitting next to me is the Leader of the House, whose job it is to make sure that happens.
We have also increased opportunities and given young people a voice in decisions in the east midlands with Mayor Ward. We are driving forward a new mass transit network for West Yorkshire with Mayor Brabin, supporting women and girls into activity and sport with Mayor Skaith in North Yorkshire, and, not to forget, working to secure the future of Doncaster Sheffield airport with Mayor Coppard in South Yorkshire. We are also securing the extension of the Birmingham tramline with Mayor Parker.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
For many years under the Tories, the west midlands was at the bottom of the league table for regional transport investment, but Mayor Richard Parker has secured £2.4 billion of investment to extend the metro. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the powers in the Bill will make it easier for combined authorities to deliver these kinds of projects in the future, including, I hope, further extensions of the metro to south Birmingham?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and again give full credit to Mayor Richard Parker, who has been working tirelessly with the Labour Government to invest in the future of Birmingham. I also thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning, pressing the case that his constituents are better off for such an investment, which will bring new jobs and better transport links. This Bill is just the start of that.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
On jobs, in Sadiq Khan’s first two terms as London Mayor, he has seen the creation of more than 330,000 jobs by the Greater London Authority. These are high-quality, well-paid jobs that bring huge opportunity to Londoners from all walks of life. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is the testament to growth that devolution can deliver, which will be further boosted by this Bill?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about unlocking growth in all parts of the country. I hope that most hon. Members can see that people with skin in the game are working across the board to make sure that that potential is reached. I am talking not just about London—although London is incredibly important to that—but about all regions across our country.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
First, I thank Mayor Tracy Brabin for her investment in mass transit across West Yorkshire, including a new bus station in my town of Dewsbury. I am grateful for those investments, but how will this Bill stop a council from making the decision to distribute funding unequally across its borough? How would it stop a council from, for instance, making a decision to shut down a sports centre that is used by people of all ages on the pretence of there being reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and then not taking steps to investigate or having a plan to reopen?
Angela Rayner
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments on the mass transit network for West Yorkshire, which I am sure will bring added benefits to his constituents. To his other point, obviously elected officials in local councils make decisions, and I would gently say to him that councils have faced significant pressures since the austerity measures of 2010, which I am sure he is aware of. I was in local government at the time, and I remember being a union rep and seeing the devastation.
We are trying to restore and empower local government, instead of this situation where they have to make incredibly difficult decisions that are harmful to their constituents. It is about being able to grow our economy and have a bigger slice of the cake. We are already investing more into local government so that we can deliver the services that people want. Within this Bill is the community assets element, which may be able to help communities in relation to high streets and to sports facilities, which can be utilised as an asset that they value in their local area.
We are also improving local transport for people in the west of England with Mayor Godwin. Our brilliant, ambitious mayors are making a difference every day for their regions. Working with them, we have already achieved so much after just a year in office. We are on track to achieve devolution across almost 80% of the country, covering 44 million people. We have created integrated funding settlements for Greater Manchester and the west midlands, giving their mayors the tools and freedoms to make decisions to get growth going, with Liverpool city region, London, the north-east, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire set to benefit from the same freedoms next year.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We are in London, the greatest city in the world—some would say anyway—and we have all just come back from holiday, have we not? Our Mayor Sadiq Khan has ambitious plans for an overnight accommodation levy that would put us on a par with Paris and New York and would harness our growth. Those funds could help regenerate the tourism sector and improve the visitor experience. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would be open to using this devolution Bill to give mayors everywhere the power to make decisions about those kind of things.
Angela Rayner
I can hear much provocation from the Conservative Benches, but any new tax is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor at the Budget, and it must balance the potential revenue and benefits against the impact on taxpayers and the economy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I really welcome the Bill’s efforts to strengthen communities and local democracy. However, I am worried that not enough is being done to protect private renters. In Lambeth, nearly a third of residents are renters. Rents are rising faster than wages, and the average renter is paying 72% more than the national average, which is leaving many families struggling and in poverty. The Renters’ Rights Bill was definitely a step in the right direction, but it fell short on rent hikes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is an opportunity to give metro mayors the power to bring in rent controls and protect renters in their cities?
Angela Rayner
The Renters’ Rights Bill does contain measures that mean that renters can challenge unfair rent hikes. The previous Government said many times that they would do something about section 21 no-fault evictions but they did not. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that we end those evictions, which are causing so much harm to my hon. Friend’s constituents and many around the country.
Our devolution revolution is well under way, with others queueing up to join it. This what we committed to in our manifesto, and we are delivering it through this Bill. Crucially, the Bill will make devolution the default for how the Government do business, with new strategic authorities having powers to pilot and request new functions and Government having a duty to respond to certain requests. It will mean that we can deliver devolution further and faster.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
On devolving the ability to run pilots, and following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), Bristol city council—including Labour councillors—voted cross-party to have the power to pilot rent controls. Recent figures show that typical private renters in my constituency spend 45% of their income on rent. That is not sustainable. This Bill could offer the opportunity for that pilot—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions have become far too long. There are many Members in the Chamber who wish to contribute, which the Secretary of State might think about before she takes more interventions.
Angela Rayner
I will pay attention to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Lady is right that there is a challenge in housing at the moment, which is also contributing to the rental situation for people. That is why we have a big ambition to build more houses. The Bill gives us more powers for strategic planning so that we can get on with building the homes that people need. The Renters’ Rights Bill does start to make progress toward making housing fairer for renters—something that the previous Government promised but failed to deliver.
I will now make progress, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Before the Secretary of State makes progress, will she give way? [Laughter.]
Angela Rayner
The strategic authorities will be created as a new category of authority in law. They will make it easier for local leaders to work together over larger areas to drive through big pro-growth projects such as integrated transport networks and housing. These will operate at three levels—foundation, mayoral and established mayoral—and the particular powers and responsibilities that each of them will have are to be defined by the Bill.
Working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, mayors drive forward the delivery of people’s priorities—driving growth, unlocking infrastructure and powering a national renewal from the ground up. That is why the Bill will give mayors wide-ranging new powers in areas such as transport, planning and economic development.
Angela Rayner
I will make progress.
We will create new planning powers to raise the mayoral community infrastructure levy, which has generated over £1 billion since 2012 in London and, alongside investment and leadership from Mayor Khan, has helped to fund the Elizabeth line. With the expansion of their remit, the Bill will allow mayors who choose to raise a precept to spend it on the full range of functions, ensuring that local taxes are spent on local priorities.
I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), will welcome this change given that it was the Conservatives who first introduced the mayoral precept nearly a decade ago and that Mayor Boris Johnson used a business rates supplement to help pay for Crossrail. I hope the shadow Secretary of State will wholeheartedly support the new powers in the Bill, which will mean that mayors can intervene in major strategic planning applications to unlock housing—as long as that housing is nowhere near his constituency, of course.
We will also introduce powers to license shared cycle schemes so that they work for everyone and so that bikes are not lying across pavements. The Bill will see more mayors take on police and crime commissioner functions and become responsible for fire and rescue functions, allowing them to take a joined-up approach to improving public safety.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Alaba
In Southend East and Rochford we are a proud coastal community, but we have been left behind when it comes to connectivity, educational outcomes and investment in skills. Does the Secretary of State agree that through this Bill we have a chance to deliver the long-term meaningful change that my constituents deserve?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about all areas being able to join up and create inclusive growth for their areas, and that is broader than at local authority level. By combining those efforts we can unlock the potential, and his constituents will feel the benefit of that as we take this forward.
The new powers also mean new duties, including to produce a local growth plan demonstrating how mayors plan to unlock growth through planning and house building. There will also be a duty to co-operate with local government pension scheme managers so that mayors can attract investment into their local areas, unlocking jobs and opportunities. Mayors across the country will also be able to appoint commissioners to support them as their responsibilities grow, just like in London. The Bill also strengthens the ability of mayors to work with the public sector, convening local partners so that they can lead with a helicopter view of public services across their region.
We are backing the ambition and untapped potential of local areas with a more ambitious role for the mayors representing them. That must be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. Because of changes made by the last Government, mayors can be elected on just a fraction of the vote, despite serving millions of people and managing multimillion-pound budgets. We can do better than that. The Bill will therefore revert to a supplementary vote system for electing mayors and police and crime commissioners after the May 2026 elections to provide greater accountability and a strong, personal mandate for mayors. In addition, the Bill will bar mayors from also sitting as MPs, ensuring that local places benefit fully from having dedicated local champions.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
If the Deputy Prime Minister feels that elections for mayoral authorities should have a supplementary vote as that gives them sufficient authority, why does she not feel the same for Members of this House?
Angela Rayner
Millions of people are represented by mayors, who have huge powers over big regions. We want mayors to have strong personal mandates for the communities they serve rather than being elected on a fraction of the vote. It is right that first-past-the-post remains in place for general elections to maintain the constituency link.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Angela Rayner
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been very patient.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am truly grateful. This is, I hope, a non-party political point. The White Paper in advance of the Bill mentioned rightly that there had been consultations on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities, which relates to a campaign many of us have been involved in to try to protect local council clerks against bullying. We were pleased to be called into that consultation. There is, however, nothing about that in the Bill. Does the right hon. Lady plan to bring it forward in separate legislation?
Angela Rayner
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. We intend to bring forward legislation. Our response to the local government standards consultation sets out our plans for whole-system reform, including empowering local authorities to suspend councillors who are guilty of serious misconduct for up to six months, with the option to withhold allowances and institute premises and facilities bans. We are committed to ensuring that misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly across the country at local and regional mayoral levels. We do want to take action on the issue.
Let me be clear that stronger mayors and strategic authorities will not replace councils, nor the crucial work of the House. MPs on both sides of the House will continue to be vocal champions for their areas, and we expect mayors to engage in regular and constructive dialogue with MPs, working together in the best interests of their constituents. Alongside the freedom for mayors to focus on local priorities, my Department is continuing to explore a local Public Accounts Committee-style model to improve the system of accountability and scrutiny of local spending.
The Government expect mayors to use their new powers to deliver real change, not retain the status quo. This is not about grandstanding or making a political point; it is about using the levers of growth to unlock infrastructure and drive investment. The role of local authorities in delivering vital local services and improving local neighbourhoods is essential, and it will continue. We also expect to see strategic authorities working hand in glove with their constituent councils to deliver for their residents.
The Bill will help rebuild local government for the communities who depend on it day in, day out. As a fit, legal and decent foundation of devolution, the Bill will establish the Local Audit Office to help fix the broken, fragmented local audit system. We will also reform local authority governance, requiring councils with a committee system to move to a leader and cabinet model and putting a stop to new local authority mayor roles being created. That change will streamline decision making across all councils and make it easier for people to understand how their council is run. It will also give the Government the tools to deliver local government reorganisation, resulting in better outcomes for residents and significant savings that can be reinvested in public services and improving accountability.
At all levels, we are backing local people to drive growth and greater opportunities for all, because, from top to bottom, the best decisions for communities are made by those who know their area best. That is why the Bill will also give local communities across the country much-needed new powers, like a bigger say in shaping their place through effective neighbourhood governance, with councils required to make sure that this is happening, as well as the tools to transform their high streets and neighbourhoods through a new community right to buy—to save much-loved community assets, like pubs and shops, from being lost and to protect sports grounds, which are at the heart of so many communities and a source of great local pride. The Bill will also support our high streets by banning the unfair practice of upwards-only rent reviews, preventing the blight of vacant shop fronts, because it is only when every community succeeds that our country succeeds.
The Bill and our reforms herald a new era for Britain: a new way of governing that puts politics back in the service of working people. Where previous Governments promised and failed the British people, this Government are keeping faith.
I note the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment. I must say that after they left the country with the worst housing crisis in a generation, I am dismayed that they would oppose a Bill that will unlock housing and planning on a vast scale. This Bill will empower local communities to take back control of their high streets by ending the Tory policy of upward-only rent reviews, and it will end the begging-bowl culture of the last Government.
While the Tories made empty promises to level up the country, this Labour Government are getting on with the job. Within days of taking office, Secretaries of State were passing down newly-won powers for the sake of our towns, cities and villages, with the Prime Minister leading the way. It has not always been easy, but real change takes hard work. We are rewiring Britain and, with it, growth and opportunity. This is how the British people will take back control, and how we will unite our country in times when we have never needed it more. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, because the Bill does nothing to empower local communities, but instead contains measures reducing the democratically elected representation of communities and enables the Government to impose local government restructuring on communities, irrespective of local opinion, disregarding local geography and identity; because bureaucratic restructuring of local government will cost money and reduce focus on housing delivery with no evidence that it will deliver better services; because the Bill will lead to greater costs for residents by creating new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, and raising parking charges on motorists, and adding more local bureaucrats as mayoral-appointed commissioners; and because the Bill will result in higher council tax bills for hardworking families, at a time when local government is facing increased costs pressures due to unfunded rises in employers’ National Insurance contributions.”
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it is a title straight out of the Ministry of Truth. The Bill is not about devolution; it is clearly a blatant power grab by the Deputy Prime Minister—a right hon. Lady for whom I have a huge amount of respect—and her Department. It is not about community empowerment at all; it is about stripping power from local authorities and concentrating it in Whitehall and the hands of the people in Whitehall.
Big Brother would be proud. Centralisation is devolution. Whitehall diktat is community empowerment. The fact that the Bill does the opposite of what it claims is, as we set out in our reasoned amendment, why we cannot give it a free pass. This Bill sidelines communities. This Bill forces restructuring without consent. This Bill wastes money while families are facing higher bills because of Labour’s mismanagement. This Bill disrupts and distracts councils from building the homes that local people need. Those are our objections. That is what we have set out in our reasoned amendment.
If the Government want to win the confidence of this House rather than just shoehorning their Back Benchers through the Division Lobby, they need to justify the demands embedded in the Bill. During the debate and when summing up, I sincerely hope that they answer our questions. Why centralise control? Why raise taxes? Why deny residents their voice? Those are the questions that those on the Treasury Bench need to answer before this Bill can make credible progress through the House.
The case has been set out, but before Members on the Labour Benches get too excited, let me put to bed a few spectres that have been raised. The Conservative party believes in devolution, not just in theory but in practice: we created many of the existing mayoral roles; we created police and crime commissioners; we empowered parish councils and neighbourhood planning; and we gave families the power to block excessive council tax rises. We devolved by consent—by agreement with local leaders—and not by Whitehall diktat.
The simple truth of the matter is that Labour does not and has never believed in devolution, and it does not deliver meaningful devolution. It is a centralising party and it centralises. This Government are abolishing councils without consent and forcing them to sign up to their model of restructuring. They forced the postponement of elections in nine county councils. That was unprecedented. Elections are the foundation of democracy, and denying them undermines public trust and confidence. In truth, denying residents their democratic voice was done for a very specific reason. It was done because Labour feared what people would say to it at the ballot box.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has just listed a load of things that the Tories did with devolution. He cannot deny that the reason we need devolution and local government reorganisation is because his Government significantly underfunded local government, which is now on its knees. We therefore have to take action to get local government back in a good place, and devolution and local government reform is one of those actions.
Sir James Cleverly
I think the hon. Member said the quiet bit out loud: this is about putting up taxes on local people. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about; we know that to be true. I promise the House that I did not tee up that intervention—it was the next bit in my speech. Labour, by imposing this restructuring from the centre, is leaving local people without a voice. This legislation is about creating what this Government want, which is a cohort of subservient Labour mayors.
Let us look at what Labour mayors actually deliver—as I say, this speech was written before the previous intervention. Labour mayors put up taxes. Labour mayors increase the tax burden on local people. The Liverpool city region—up by 26%; Greater Manchester—up by 8%; West Yorkshire—up by 6%; and London, since Sadiq Khan took office in 2016—up by over 70%. Labour Members are quiet now, aren’t they? The truth hurts.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, then, why Labour keeps getting re-elected to mayoralties?
Sir James Cleverly
I will mention Paul Bristow later in my speech.
The difference is that under Conservative mayors, we keep costs down. Ben Houchen, for example, is delivering a zero precept. If more places get mayors under this Labour proposal, how much more will local people pay? Will Ministers—whether that be the Secretary of State or whoever responds to the debate—guarantee that costs will not go up under this model and that council tax will not rise under this model, or is this another set of taxes on hard-working families by stealth? The truth is that the record of Labour mayors is that they increase taxes by well above the rate of inflation. Also, will the pressure on parish council precepts also hit hard-working local people in the pocket? The Conservatives are in no doubt that, once again, it will be hard-working families and local people who will pay the price for Labour’s ineptitude.
It is not only families that will be hit. This Bill forces councils to merge, and prudent councils—those that have been careful with their money—will be forced to inherit the debt of others. How on earth is penalising good financial management at local government level fair? What protections will be in place to protect people from higher bills? Looking through the Bill, there are none that I can see.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
How does my right hon. Friend think my constituents on the Isle of Wight feel about being fused under a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire without having a single say?
Sir James Cleverly
My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of these proposals. For all Labour’s warm words about community engagement, community voice and communities actually having a say, that is a classic example. I have visited the Isle of Wight, not only in a personal capacity but as a guest of my hon. Friend, so I know full well that even though the county of Hampshire has many, many excellent things, the people of the Isle of Wight want to maintain their autonomy—and they should have the right to do so if that is what they want.
It is not just that local councils will lose control of their finances; they will also lose control of their powers, which are being stripped from them in this Bill. Mayors are gaining sweeping planning and transport powers without council consent or representation. Let me give an example: what if communities oppose punitive anti-driver proposals from a mayor in their local neighbourhoods? How can they make their voices heard? Who will win? Will it be the mayor who has been imposed upon them, or will it be the local communities? What will the accountability model be for those mayors? We can see nothing in the Bill about people holding their mayors accountable. There is no provision for meaningful scrutiny during the tenure of the mayoralty.
The Secretary of State made reference to the upwards-only rent reviews. I completely get that that is a superficially attractive set of proposals, but what assessment has been made of the effective valuation of commercial property, including properties that are owned by the local authorities themselves? If she is confident that this is such a good idea, why was there no scrutiny? Why was there no consultation on these proposals? Do Ministers really think that that is best practice when it comes to creating a stable investment environment and confidence for people spending money in the high street commercial properties that keep our communities alive?
The silence on those questions about the Bill is frankly deafening, because the Government have no answer. This Bill is not about empowering local communities, and it is definitely not about empowering local councils. It is about creating a cohort of puppet mayors controlled by the right hon. Lady’s Department. I respect her enormously, but her ability to strip power not just from local councils but from the Prime Minister is something well worth watching. I think we should at least be impressed by that. I put this to Labour Members: if this is about community empowerment, why does it reduce local representation? If it is about fiscal responsibility, why will it burden ratepayers—council tax payers—with debts that their local authorities did not create? If it is about more homes, why does it hamper and suffocate councils with increased bureaucracy?
Devolution can work, and indeed does work, when it is done properly. We know that it works because Conservative mayors have delivered. Ben Houchen saved Teesside airport, delivered the UK’s largest freeport with 18,000 quality jobs and secured Treasury North in Darlington with 1,400 high-skilled roles, all with a zero mayoral precept. Paul Bristow in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is ending Labour’s ideological attack on drivers. Boris Johnson, while Mayor of London, delivered the 2012 games and secured Crossrail. In the west midlands, Andy Street was a genuine champion for his region and a household name. Who has he been replaced by? A person who is not even a household name in his own household. That says it all. We Conservatives deliver. We delivered devolved government that delivers infrastructure, jobs and economic growth. What has Labour delivered? Higher costs and broken promises—[Interruption.] More tax, less delivery. That is the Labour way.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—sorry for treading on his punchline. I was very pleased to hear his new-found enthusiasm for Teesside. That is something we all share, but it seems to stand at odds with the comments he made to my predecessor about the town of Stockton. Does he stand by those terrible comments that he made, or would he like to take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents?
Sir James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman really does need to keep up. I addressed those comments at the time. I have been to Stockton. I have campaigned with my good friend and colleague the Conservative mayor of the town. I have knocked on doors in Stockton, and I have a huge amount of respect for the town. The point I was making was about the then Labour representative, who I was not terribly impressed with, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case.
We were always deeply sceptical about whether the content of the Bill would match its aspirational title, so we set five tests, framed in the form of five simple questions. First, is this a genuine choice for councils? Secondly, do all the affected tiers agree with the changes? Thirdly, is there genuine public support for the changes? Fourthly, will the changes keep bills down? Fifthly, will the changes protect social care? Having looked through the Bill, it is clear that the answer to every single one of those questions is no. Five questions, five failures.
As I have said, Conservatives are in favour of devolution when done properly, but only if that devolution is meaningful and only if local communities and their immediate representatives have the power to deliver. We are its champions because we delivered it. We have proven that it works, but it must be by consent; it cannot be by compulsion. It should be by partnership, not imposition, and by empowering councils and councillors, not by erasing them. This Bill is not devolution; it is central control. This Bill is higher taxes and weaker local democracy. This Bill is a power grab by the Secretary of State. It fails to deliver on its promise, and that is why the House must decline to give it a Second Reading and demand that the Government rethink these proposals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the exception of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be an immediate five-minute time limit.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I rise to support the Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is a vital step towards modernising local government and delivering fairer investment and greater accountability across England. I do so with 17 years’ experience as a local councillor, for five of which I was leader of South Ribble borough council in Lancashire, which forms part of my constituency. Although the scope of the Bill covers many distinct subject matters, I intend to focus my brief comments—listening to what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker—on part 3, chapter 1 on local government reorganisation.
Let us be clear: Lancashire is now an outlier. While 74% of England’s population live under unitary authorities delivering all local services through a single accountable body, Lancashire remains part of the shrinking 26% operating under a two-tier system. Frankly, no one would design the two-tier system today—it is inefficient, confusing and expensive. Residents do not understand why one council is responsible for potholes and roads and another for pavements and parks, why education sits at county level while planning sits with district, or why one council collects their waste and another disposes of it. They do not understand why they are paying for two different sets of local councillors for the same geographical area, and for 15 chief executives and senior management teams when they only actually require three or four, or why our neighbours in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region are all unitaries, but Lancashire is left with two tiers of bureaucracy. The result? Duplicated services, inefficient staffing and confused accountability.
We know that change works. In South Ribble, through shared services with our district council neighbour, Chorley, we have saved over £1 million for local taxpayers—real money back into local budgets. Imagine what could be achieved with a fully unitary structure across Lancashire. In my time as leader of South Ribble borough council, I froze council tax for three consecutive years while still delivering effective and efficient frontline services. Yet our residents’ council tax bills kept rising as Lancashire county council increased their taxes annually due to its inefficiencies. My community were confused by these council tax bills, not understanding that the local district council only accounted for around 11% of their overall bill and, in fact, that they were paying more to the police and crime commissioner than to their district council.
Beyond efficiency, this is about fully unlocking devolution. Lancashire has been left behind. We will end up being one of the largest counties in the north of England without a metro mayor. We have missed out already on hundreds of millions of pounds of investment seen in Greater Manchester, the west midlands, West Yorkshire and the Liverpool city region. That is why I welcome the powers in the Bill that allow the Secretary of State to mandate reorganisation where appropriate from a two-tier system to a unitary model. It is a necessary tool to drive reform, and I commend the Secretary of State and the Local Government Minister for their bold vision.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
May I start by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), to his place on the Front Bench. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Transferring powers closer to communities through devolution is critical to getting service delivery right and developing trust. The public consistently say that they have more faith in local government than in national Government, and the Bill was meant to deliver on that promise. As the Secretary of State noted, the Prime Minister said in his first weeks in office that he wanted to give power to those with skin in the game and pledged to help citizens to take back control. The Liberal Democrats absolutely agree with that desire.
However, what we see here is a Bill that centralises decision making, limits community influence and, because it leaves areas unsure of their future, risks deepening inequalities between regions. The White Paper promised mayors for all regions and community-led reorganisation, but the Bill provides powers to merge councils from Westminster and fails to strengthen the councils closest to people—our towns and parishes. It even allows councils that have directly rejected a combined authority to be forced into one with their neighbours.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives have some nerve talking about top-down reorganisation when, against people’s wishes—as expressed in a poll—they imposed an unwanted and unpopular unitary council on the whole of Somerset? Does she also agree that the Bill should introduce fair votes, in this place and in councils across the country, to restore faith in democracy and politics?
Vikki Slade
A similar thing happened in Dorset. In fact, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) voted against a merger in our area but failed, even under his own Government. I will come to the issue of proportional representation.
Strategic mayors have the potential to be our regional champions. The Liberal Democrats recognise the benefits that they have brought to many cities, including London and Manchester. However, the Bill fails to standardise their role or to put all regions on an equal footing. Some areas have been selected for early adoption and funding, while others—Kent, Medway and my own area of Wessex—are left behind with no timeline or support.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is unclear for some areas, including Shropshire, where they will end up being made to form a combined authority. Shropshire shares borders with Wales and Cheshire, which is in a different region, so there is no clear partner for it. I am concerned that Shropshire will end up being forced into a combined authority with an area that does not look like Shropshire or give any benefit to its residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be better thought through?
Vikki Slade
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that some areas risk being left behind by this muddled approach. I ask the Secretary of State for assurances on how she will ensure that such areas do not fall further behind neighbours that are further along in the programme.
We Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government are reversing the Conservatives’ disastrous decision to use first past the post for mayoral and police commissioner elections—it is ridiculous that one of the mayors elected this May won on just 25% of the vote—but the Government must go further in making votes fair. We believe that the Government should bring in the alternative vote system so that voters’ voices are properly heard. We maintain that if the Government believe in majority support for elected officials, they should extend that mandate to MPs and councillors, too.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Sussex mayoral elections that are due to take place in May next year will use the current first-past-the-post system rather than the proposed system that the Government say they favour. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unfair on Sussex residents that everybody who is a year behind in the programme will get to vote using a better system?
Vikki Slade
I will come to that later in my speech, when I will share the concerns of electoral officials about whether the legislation can deliver in time for any of the changes scheduled for next year. Although I recognise that there is an anomaly for next year, even electoral officials are worried about the Bill’s timeline and the ability to make any changes for 2026 and for those who have already had elections delayed.
Across the sector, there are serious concerns about the power of the commissioners that will be appointed by mayors—people with significant influence but little scrutiny. There is concern that they will hold more sway than elected leaders of local authorities but without any democratic accountability. In the very centre, the Secretary of State will retain sweeping powers to merge authorities and extend functions without parliamentary oversight or local consent. I am seeking an explanation of how and when those powers would be used, so that we can assure our local leaders that they will not be overridden.
There is widespread concern about the loss of highly skilled, experienced councillors through the removal of district councils. I noted the Secretary of State’s concerns about putting power into the hands of too few people. How will she ensure that there is not a democratic and skills deficit and that people are properly represented across these larger regions?
For the last decade, the Conservative Government have cut funding to councils but forced them to do more. Their economic mismanagement and failure to fix social care has left many councils on the brink of collapse. This Bill was an opportunity for real local government reform, but it is an opportunity missed.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
A particular concern of my constituents in Tiverton and Minehead, where we have one local authority in Devon and one in Somerset, is the real difficulties around special educational needs and disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could create difficulties for local authorities that are struggling to deliver good SEND education for so many of our children?
Vikki Slade
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Special educational needs are a huge passion of mine—I am sure Members have heard me talk about them many times—and this issue will take so many councils to a very dark place. I trust that the Minister hears that on a regular basis and that we will see in the fair funding review something really serious about special educational needs provision.
Local authorities have unique access to every household and business, which gives them a huge opportunity to improve people’s health and wellbeing. The Bill requires strategic authorities to improve the health of their communities, but I am concerned that it does not provide substantial funding to do that, and without that funding, I cannot see how it can be achieved. While the Bill makes substantial improvements to the workings of audit, it misses the opportunity to shine a light on all the places that taxpayers’ money is spent through the introduction of local public accounts committees. I was reassured to hear the Secretary of State refer to that being in her thinking, but rolling them out alongside strategic authorities would really aid transparency, improve value for money and enable organisations to share resources for the good of the community. I urge the Government to reflect on that as we go towards the Report stage.
The Bill also proposes that strategic authorities take on the functions of police and crime commissioners and fire authorities. However, because of the disparity in boundaries, there is a real risk that community priorities will not be maintained, and the control of such things by appointed rather than elected commissioners further reduces democratic accountability. How will the Government ensure fair funding and effective policing and fire services where strategic authorities cover vastly different communities?
Councils have expressed similar concerns about a mismatch between places within those authorities—for example, the different needs of urban and rural areas, or the inclusion of a single authority among a cluster of places with very different levels of deprivation or demographics. Some communities feel that where decisions are made by simple majority vote, their voice will not be heard. Weighted voting and the meaningful inclusion of town and parish councils can ensure that local insight is retained, particularly around issues such as planning and transport.
Representation must not end there. This Bill was an opportunity to ensure that local services draw on and are informed by the full range of lived experiences in an area.
Freddie van Mierlo
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill could make it more difficult for residents to access services, because where authorities that currently deliver services on a county-wide basis are split into multiple authorities, it will create borders within counties?
Vikki Slade
My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
There is the opportunity to use more effectively our town and parish council system to drive community empowerment. Instead, the creation of neighbourhood committees feels like a top-down solution. Without statutory powers or budgets, they risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. While it is welcome that existing town and parish councils can participate, the Bill does not provide a framework for communities wanting to establish new councils or the funding to do so.
District councils have long underpinned the civic identity of towns and driven the activities that reflect their origins. With their loss in ancient towns and cities such as Colchester and Winchester, and without the funding to support smaller community-led councils, there is a real risk that our distinct history, culture and civic pride in our communities could be eroded. We cannot allow that to happen.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the replacement of the community right to bid with a right to buy with first refusal. I have seen some fantastic examples of the right to bid working, such as the Anchor Inn in Shapwick in my constituency, but these successes are few and far between.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Communities such as Teddington in my constituency will very much welcome the new community right to buy. At Udney Park, playing fields have lain derelict for more than a decade. However, although the Bill makes provision for what happens when there is a disagreement over price, it is silent on what happens when a community bid is refused by a buyer even at market valuation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look to go further on that point?
Vikki Slade
I agree that there is opportunity to do much more as the Bill moves into Committee. Communities’ long struggles to save such assets is not because of a lack of passion or volunteers, but because the system feels stacked against them. “The Museum of Broken Dreams”, a display on the parliamentary estate, shows some good examples of where community groups have lost out to commercial developers who have demolished buildings and walked away, or where the groups cannot get support.
We are pleased to see sporting assets included in the right to buy and we welcome their indefinite inclusion on the register, but we want environmental assets to be included as well, so that we can protect our land for restoration and nature management. We also want restoration of the funding for neighbourhood plans, so that smaller authorities, which will now struggle to make such plans for their tiny communities, can do so without onerous costs to their residents.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
To pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about environmental concern, at the moment local authorities have a weak duty on biodiversity—to consider from time to time what they might do to conserve or enhance biodiversity—so does she agree that the Bill offers a real opportunity to strengthen such environmental protections, to get this country back on track?
Vikki Slade
I believe that the community right to buy has huge opportunities for councils. In Committee, I hope that we will be able to improve and enhance the Bill for everyone.
As a former retail business owner, I welcome the removal of upward-only rent reviews. Businesses should not be locked into rising costs when market conditions shift. This is a long-overdue reform that will help small businesses to adapt and survive. The Bill makes interesting and welcome changes on things such as pension schemes and transport devolution, but misses the opportunity to improve council standards and attendance, and it fails to establish in statute the promised council of regions and nations or the local authority leaders council, both of which would be important in giving local government a stronger voice in Whitehall.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the principle of devolution. We recognise the crisis in local government funding and we welcome the fair funding review promised later this autumn. The Bill, however, does not deliver the ambitious shift in power that our communities need. It risks disenfranchising places left at the back of the queue with no funding or timeline to work toward. We cannot support a Bill that centralises control, weakens local accountability and misses the chance truly to empower communities, as we laid out in our reasoned amendment. We urge the Government to think again, and to revise and recommit to genuine devolution and community empowerment so that we can support the Bill.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes the fact that I remain a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. My contribution is to assist the Secretary of State and the Government in ensuring that this important Bill will truly deliver on my right hon. Friend’s ambition for a transformative change in our communities—a vision that we share. Others in the House will want to articulate the advantages of devolving power and increasing strategic focus for the English regions, but I have expertise in commercial leases, so the House will forgive me for focusing on that one point.
The Bill represents a crucial step in the vital work of promoting economic growth and opportunity for our communities. Our constituents will all have witnessed at first hand how the previous Government’s failure to promote growth and support economic activity has contributed to the decline in the wellbeing of our communities.
I have spent 30 years in the commercial property industry and, as a result, numerous organisations and businesses have contacted me directly about the proposals to ban upwards-only rent reviews. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is already working to make lease terms, including about rent reviews, more transparent. Since 2020, the “Code for leasing business premises, England and Wales, 1st edition”, which includes advice on rent reviews, has been in place for chartered surveyors to adhere to when advising both landlords and tenants. The proposal to implement by legislation a universal ban on clauses within commercial leases for the provision of upwards-only rent reviews creates uncertainty for the funding of property development. My concern is that this legislation would apply to all commercial properties, not just high street retail or small business properties. As currently drafted, the Government’s proposals would impact high street retail, as well as all other commercial sectors.
The ambition to protect high street retail and small businesses, particularly in tough economic conditions, is certainly not to be underestimated, and nor is it unwelcome. There is a surplus of vacant, unsuitable, poorly configured and energy-hungry retail units crying out for regeneration in most towns across the United Kingdom, including in the towns of Paisley, Renfrew and Erskine in my constituency, but I do not believe that it is just upwards-only rent reviews that are preventing the regeneration of our towns and cities.
With my professional background, I can help to improve this technical aspect of the Bill in order to prevent unintended consequences for the Government’s growth agenda. I understand the desire to support small businesses on our high streets and I understand the pressures faced by those businesses because of difficult trading conditions. Property development can be the foundation stone of economic growth in our regional economies. My experience is that new sustainable development, in the right place, can be transformative, a source of jobs and training in construction, and a source of employment and opportunity in operation. New transformative sustainable development adds vitality to an area, acting as a spur to further development and wider investment.
I know that all Members will intuitively feel that upwards-only rent reviews are unfair, but that is a simplistic view. Among the earliest pioneers of upwards-only reviews were the Church of England’s Church Commissioners, who implemented them to ensure certainty of income for the Church and remain among the largest landowners in the country. My concern is that the well-intended focus on the genuine problems of small business and the high street could have unintended consequences for the broader property development sector.
In closing, I encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider an amendment to the clause to ensure that it is focused where it is needed most, without impacting on all property sectors. I stand ready to help with that endeavour.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This Bill is supposed to be the Government’s flagship piece of legislation to empower England’s cities, regions and communities, but there is disappointingly little in it about strengthening accountability in existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority.
It is right that power is returned to cities, regions and communities, but those who hold devolved power must also be held accountable for their decisions, actions and delivery. Nowhere in England enjoys more devolved powers than London. That is in part why it is the only area with a directly elected Assembly, devoted to scrutiny. However, as the Mayor of London’s responsibilities, powers and budget have grown, the Assembly has become weaker and weaker in comparison. A notable issue is the two-thirds majority required to amend the mayor’s budget and strategies, but that is impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.
Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making. That means the mayor does not have to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, it effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people. That political fracture was made clear when Mayor Khan imposed the ultra low emission zone expansion on outer London, despite overwhelming opposition.
There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, which is why so many of my constituents—and, I know, the constituents of other Members—are now questioning the place of the London borough of Bromley in the Greater London Authority. They have never paid more to City Hall, yet people feel that they are ignored on every issue. Mayor Khan has increased council tax by 77% in nine years, meaning that Londoners pay nearly £500 a year on average to fund his policies. Let us not forget the huge sums that Londoners now pay City Hall thanks to his road charges. In the first three months of this year, motorists forked out nearly £220 million thanks to his ULEZ charge, the Blackwall tunnel toll and his hiked congestion charge. What do they receive in return for all that money? ULEZ cameras, too few police officers and green-belt protections being ripped up.
Anyone who wants to see devolution in London succeed must support measures to make the Mayor of London more accountable. First, this Bill introduces simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but it stops short of doing that in the London Assembly. That is a mistake. It should abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies, allowing a simple majority of Assembly members to force changes. That alone would transform London’s politics and force mayors to the table. Secondly, this Government should consult on a new model to give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that Bromley can no longer be ignored. Finally, this Bill should give the London Assembly the power to call in mayoral decisions.
My constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill have had enough of being ignored by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. If the Government want to maintain the support of Londoners for devolution, the London Mayor must be made accountable.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Devolution and local government reorganisation must not simply be a sticking plaster over the problems of today; instead, we must determine what we want the coming decade to look like for our local communities. We must ensure that people in places such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine our own futures. We can end the fragmentation of services and decision making that has at times hampered progress and instead usher in a new era of energy, ambition and delivery.
It has been really encouraging to see all Suffolk’s district and borough councils, led by different political parties, working collaboratively and with compromise to form a forward-facing submission. However, there is a stark and disappointing contrast with Suffolk county council. It has been really concerning to see that more time is being spent on aiming to discredit alternative ideas and proposals, rather than promoting why the plans are right for our county. Tactics have at times been bizarre, but there is a serious point here. Residents are entitled to proper information, not a spin-heavy PR campaign.
I fully accept that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, but I expect local authorities to hold themselves to a higher standard. While running such a misleading campaign betrays a lack of confidence in their own proposals, it does them a disservice and, more crucially, treats local residents with a lack of respect and no little disdain. Residents will question why the Conservatives at Suffolk county council are spending so much money and resources on such an overwhelmingly negative campaign at a time when our potholes go unfilled and our children with special educational needs are so badly failed, all the while raising council tax by its maximum level every single year. Suffolk county council looks not like an authority that is ready to grasp the future, but like one that looks to keep power and status for itself.
Alongside the investment in our communities by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, this Bill and the wider efforts of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister offer Ipswich, Suffolk and East Anglia a once-in-a-generation chance to turbocharge investment, growth and opportunity, giving us the chance to determine our own future. While I am supportive of the Bill for the transformative effect it will have on our country, on a local level, a Greater Ipswich council could do far more than just regenerate our town and the surrounding area. It could become a nationally leading economic powerhouse, and our friends and neighbours in east and west Suffolk would also greatly benefit from being able to set the direction of their local communities. This is not just my personal view; it is a view shared by every district and borough council in Suffolk, as well as by political parties of all stripes across Ipswich. From my discussions with local residents, including at my recent town hall event, it seems to be the option that they favour, too.
A Greater Ipswich will renew our area’s economic foundations and deliver the infrastructure we need after years of neglect. Lowestoft and the energy coast will be able to power new jobs and investment for their area, and Bury St Edmunds will be better able to align itself with the opportunities offered by the growth around Cambridge and Peterborough. People want their councils to deliver public services effectively, responsibly and accessibly, which is why I believe our devolution settlement needs to produce unitary authorities of sufficient scale to achieve that. However, people rightly also want their councillors and councils to be rooted in their local community so that they can listen, understand, and act in their best interests. I believe that three unitary authorities in Suffolk, working alongside a Mayor for East Anglia, would achieve that balance.
This is not about loosening the fabric that holds our county together—it is about strengthening it. I moved to Suffolk when I was 10 years old, a quarter of a century ago. It is my home, and I care deeply about what happens next. For a long time, we have been ill served as a town and a county by short-termism and a do-nothing approach. Every day I have entered this job, I have thought about all the ways in which we can leverage the change we need to set us on a new path. The Bill we are debating today will be the driving force behind how we do that. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has set out time and again, the goal of devolution must not be to tinker around the edges of our current system, sticking with a system that is not working for anyone. Instead, we should look to the future and take this opportunity to transform local government, our public services and our communities for the better. I proudly support this Bill, and in doing so, I will continue to work for an ambitious devolution settlement that meets the needs of people in Ipswich, Suffolk and East Anglia.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is still a sitting councillor. In fact, when I came into this place, I sat on three different councils, so I speak from a good history of local council knowledge.
This Bill focuses on mayors, yet we hear about putting power in the hands of local people. Having a Mayor of Greater Manchester, which has a single identity, is quite different from having mayors in Devon, which is a vast area containing different sorts of places—let alone, perhaps, a mayor of Devon and Cornwall. That is not power in local hands, and the idea that reorganising councils will save money is a fallacy. We will see a few senior executives go, but the numbers of people on the bins, doing the work in the streets that needs to be done across Devon, will not be reduced. Reorganising councils will not save money; in fact, it will cost a huge amount of money, which is not being funded.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Government have claimed that the measures in this Bill, including merging councils, will save significant amounts of money. However, the County Councils Network has revealed that reorganisation could make no savings and cost money. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in this Bill are based on out-of-date reports that risk further bankrupting local authorities?
Martin Wrigley
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. However, in my remaining minutes, I will focus on two or three other areas that were not covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). In all the powers and broad strategic aims of this Bill, the key roles played by town and parish councils are forgotten; in fact, the Bill barely mentions them. It also omits the role played by our national park authorities.
Parish and town councils are the first port of call for residents. They are closest to the ground and most responsive to the day-to-day needs of their communities—these are the truly local hands. As district councils disappear, their local assets of less significant value to the new unitary authority will likely suffer, or be overlooked or sold off without considering local input from the town or parish council, despite any changes to the community right to buy, whose successes—as we have heard—are few and far between. This Bill must contain a statutory obligation to work with the most local and community-rooted bodies, which are our parish and town councils. A duty to co-operate must be put into the Bill. Neighbourhood committees or areas, as vaguely set out as they are in the Bill, may play a part in keeping planning and other functions local within the wider unitary geography, but they must also consider and work with the town and parish councils that they cover. This must be a statutory requirement. The Bill allows mayors to convene partners and request collaboration, but those are discretionary powers. They may be used, or they may be ignored. There is no enforceable duty and no statutory requirement to co-operate, and that is a profound weakness.
National park authorities are mentioned not once in the Bill, yet they carry the legal responsibility for some of our most precious landscapes. National park authorities, such as Dartmoor, have a majority of members from a mix of local authorities—five, in Dartmoor’s case—and a minority of Government-appointed members. Without changes, if Dartmoor ended up completely within the boundaries of a new unitary, it would effectively be managed as part of that unitary and lose its unique identity. Its planning authority will be overridden and its strategic vision may be subsumed. We must protect Dartmoor and the other parks for people to freely access and enjoy, and not let greed rip things apart for mere profit. The Bill must address how these authorities will maintain independence and protect the identities of the areas they serve.
Another missed opportunity is the need to make the provision of public toilets a statutory responsibility. Too often, councils in financial difficulties cut these vital facilities, and in Devon we know that there will be no money left over once the special educational needs and disabilities overspend has been paid for by the carefully managed districts and their reserves. It will still be a case of there being no money left.
Finally, I welcome the return of the alternative vote for mayors, but urge the Government to go further and introduce full proportional representation for all the new unitary councils, making every vote count.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on bringing forward this Bill, which embeds our ambition and champions the promise of devolution. It will mark the biggest transfer of power from Whitehall to our regions in a generation. It means that the protection of our public spaces will result in the improvement of our infrastructure and the strengthening of our local economy. Devolution should promote local accountability and bring decision makers closer to the people who feel the impact, and I wholeheartedly welcome the parts of the Bill that will ensure that. The creation of a community right to buy, offering more oversight on local policing and placing a duty on authorities to improve health and reduce health inequalities are also welcome steps in the right direction. The spirit of the Bill is one we should all support.
I bring clause 57 to the Government’s attention. It effectively abolishes the committee structure and introduces a measure that will impact on Sheffield, one of 38 councils running under the committee governance system. More than 80,000 people in a democratic referendum in Sheffield voted decisively in favour of a modern committee structure over the leader and cabinet model that clause 57 imposes. Through the referendum, Sheffield citizens chose collaboration through their committees, instead of decision-making powers being concentrated in fewer hands. Six years on from that referendum, the committee system works for Sheffield. It has delivered meaningful scrutiny where it was lacking before, and it has proven its worth in those moments where public trust has been under threat.
However, we are not here to discuss the merits and disadvantages of these two models of local governance. What matters is that residents have made a democratic decision at a local level, and it is important for that mandate to be respected and upheld. If the Bill passes in its current form, Sheffield is one of several councils that will be forced to undo those years of democratic engagement. I have received countless emails from constituents and campaigners, such as It’s Our City!, who have stressed just how important this democratic engagement has been for Sheffield, and they are right. One size does not fit all, and the LGA echoes that view.
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member is making an extremely informed and important point in her speech. Does she agree that for Sheffield and her council the committee system has been better, more inclusive and more democratic for her residents than the original cabinet system? Does she endorse the view that any council that wants to go down a committee route, or any community that has already decided to do so should retain that right?
Abtisam Mohamed
The point that I am going to make is about existing committee structures retaining their models, rather than about new committees.
The Local Government Association has also called for councils to be able to retain their structures until local communities choose otherwise, and for my constituents, similarly, this is a matter of principle. Until the people of Sheffield choose another structure in another referendum, as promised, their decision should be allowed to stand, with the same flexibility that is being offered to those who chose to directly elect council mayors. There is still time to reflect that flexibility in the Bill, so I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and me, as well as our local council leaders, to discuss the impact that these proposals will have on our communities and their trust in local governance and, more importantly, to ensure that devolution works for Sheffield.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I am a sitting member of East Cambridgeshire district council.
We can surely all agree that power should be devolved as close to communities as possible, because they know what is best for their areas far better than anyone else. Strong and empowered parish, city and principal councils that are accountable to residents help our democracy and make better decisions for the communities that they serve. Sadly, the Bill does not deliver that. Although the Government’s intention of devolution by default is commendable, the Bill represents centralisation by choice. Instead of providing for genuine decentralisation of power to communities, it empowers regional mayors at the expense of local councils, and the Secretary of State.
Local councillors have expressed concerns, including about the uncertainty that these proposals have caused at a time when councils are trying to set their budgets amid the wider crisis in local government funding, and fears that bigger authorities, particularly in rural communities, will lead to weaker connections with the areas they serve. The Bill has caused considerable uncertainty locally because it comes at a time when integrated care boards are being changed, which means that relationships with key health partners are being doubly unsettled.
Councillors in my constituency fear that because the Bill has been drafted hastily, it will not fix some obvious anomalies in our existing boundaries, such as what some people have called the “Newmarket bite”. The town of Newmarket is almost completely surrounded by my constituency. Many of my residents look to Newmarket for some of their services, and many in Newmarket look to Cambridgeshire for some of theirs. Newmarket and the surrounding villages should have had the opportunity to choose between a Cambridgeshire-based and a Suffolk-based unitary.
I am particularly concerned about the Bill’s provision to enable mayors of strategic authorities to appoint seven unelected commissioners to deliver specific areas of policy. We already have an established system for that very purpose. In most councils, we have an administration consisting of elected councillors, from which the leader of the council chooses a small group to form their cabinet. In other councils, we have committees that are responsible for oversight of policy areas. Like an earlier speaker, I am also worried about the Government’s plans to impose a leader and cabinet model on these authorities. East Cambridgeshire district council has kept the committee system because that is what our residents tell us they want. We cannot have a Minister telling us that we cannot run ourselves in the way our local community wants.
Appointing commissioners rides roughshod over the current system of democratically elected councils by allowing mayors to nominate unelected commissioners to lead on policies. How can the public hold these commissioners to account, if not at the ballot box? Who will scrutinise their judgment calls? How can we improve the transparency of their decision making at a political level?
The Bill is a missed opportunity to meaningfully decentralise power to our communities and make a fundamental shift in where power lies in this country. Where the Government are claiming to make devolution the default, they have introduced centralisation. These proposals weaken existing systems of accountability, and even in parts of the Bill where progress is made, such as on electoral reform, it tinkers at the edges. We urgently need a system where every vote counts, so we need proportional representation.
True devolution comes as a result of grassroots consultation rooted in communities. Top-down attempts at devolution, such as this Bill, sadly end in being well wide of the mark. People in my constituency do not want to be forced into a unitary authority that is, on the one hand, too big to understand local needs and, on the other hand, too small to cover the areas where they work, spend leisure time and receive healthcare. They do not want decisions to be taken by appointed commissioners rather than elected councillors. They would value real devolution and a proper say in the changes they want. I urge the Government to reconsider this Bill so that it delivers the devolution in England that people want.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I enormously welcome this Bill. It is a thoroughly rare thing for a Government to seek to actively give up power, but this Government understand that we are going to deliver an economy that works for everyone, with a new way of governing that shifts powers away from Westminster once and for all. At its heart, this Bill is about putting power back in the hands of communities, recognising that decisions should be made by those who know their communities best and who are fully accountable for the consequences of those decisions.
For somewhere like Lancashire, this Bill is a great opportunity to address the fundamental issues that have held us back for so long. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) explained the dysfunctional nature of Lancashire eloquently, but I will recap: we have 12 district councils, two unitaries, a county council, and a police and crime commissioner. This confusing two-tier structure—hollowed out by austerity, with little accountability and remote, fragmented decision making—sits in stark contrast with the clarity of leadership and devolved resources of our neighbouring city regions. We have had to watch Manchester, Liverpool and West Yorkshire forge ahead while we have been stuck in the slow lane.
This lived reality is the status quo that the Conservatives—including the shadow Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place—have sought to defend and maintain, but this Bill gives us a chance to change all that. It is a chance to take back control and empower our communities, and a chance to rebuild local government—to make it more effective and to save money that can be reinvested in local services. It is a chance to bring in resources that can turbocharge growth and deliver on our potential. I urge Lancashire leaders to work together with a sense of urgency in order to grasp this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
But there is an additional challenge. Even with clear determination from local leaders, it will be at least two years until Lancashire has a mayor and a restructured combined authority. It is likely to take much longer before we have the sort of capacity and capability that is already in place in the likes of Liverpool and Manchester. In that time, those city regions will move further ahead. The risk is that Lancashire will fall further behind, yet as the new Lancashire growth plan shows, there is a bright future for the county if we have the tools to create it. The plan identifies 12 transformational projects that will be game changers for us, ranging from transport infrastructure to world-class innovation zones. Overall, the proposed project pipeline has the potential to attract over £20 billion of additional investment to our county, but as things stand these are just bold ideas and possibilities. Taking them to the stage where they are fully worked-up, investable proposals requires the sort of capacity and capability that Lancashire no longer has.
That is in contrast with our neighbouring city regions, which have been able to use devolved resources to have full business cases and shovel-ready projects ready and waiting for the green light. We can see the result, with the vast majority of infrastructure pipeline projects located within strategic mayoral authorities. The stark contrast between the investment in established mayoral authorities and in areas like Lancashire, which is just starting the devolution process, risks embedding inequality in our regions. Places like Lancashire cannot wait until the devolved authorities are in place. To stop inequality taking root, we need support now to ensure that we can progress our transformational projects and deliver on our growth potential.
The recent Green Book review rather fortunately recognises this issue and helpfully identifies some ways of addressing it, including expanding the Treasury’s better business case programme, progressing the National Wealth Fund’s strategic partnership programme and, crucially, secondments from central Government to the regions. That is exactly what we need in Lancashire so that we can start to deliver on our growth plan, with our projects taking their place in the infrastructure pipeline.
Although I strongly welcome the Bill and call again on councils to come together to seize the opportunities it offers, I ask the Government to work with Lancashire MPs and local leaders to ensure that Lancashire receives the up-front support we need to start to catch up with our neighbours and to play our full and rightful role in delivering growth and prosperity for all our communities.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Democracy matters; accountability matters. I am afraid that this Bill strips away both. At the heart of this Government’s attempted reforms lies a democratic deficit where planning committees lose their powers; councillors may scrutinise but cannot decide; and local councils are diminished, while in their place a mayor is handed sweeping powers over planning, housing, infrastructure and even development orders. This is not devolution downwards to communities; it is centralisation.
Let us be absolutely clear. In the west midlands, the Labour Mayor has shown time and again that his focus is on Birmingham, not communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. This Bill will entrench that imbalance. It gives a licence to concrete over the green belt and drive a coach and horses through local democracy, leaving the elected Member of Parliament with no formal way of holding the mayor to account or even to question his decisions.
The Government say that this Bill empowers local communities, but they have cut the very funding that made neighbourhood planning possible. The neighbourhood planning programme, supported by the National Association of Local Councils, helped more than 2,000 communities to write neighbourhood plans, yet Ministers have scrapped it—at a time when they seek to railroad development across communities. The NALC is right that this move by the Government weakens the very tier of democracy that should be strengthened. It is not empowerment; it is a contradiction. My constituents know exactly what that means. Aldridge-Brownhills is all too often treated as the dumping ground for housing numbers decided elsewhere.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s devolution proposal is an urban-based model that cannot be applied to rural areas without fundamentally distorting the character of that area?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. His communities, not dissimilar to mine, are on the edge of a large urban area—the west midlands; Birmingham—and yet we are not deeply rural. We are at real risk of being subsumed into the suburbs of Walsall or Birmingham with no say in the matter.
My constituents know what this all means, with communities feeling “done to”, not “worked with”. We have seen what happens when contradictory housing targets are imposed from above. Take the Black Country plan, which was meant to be a model of strategic planning, but it collapsed. It fell apart because residents across the Black Country lost confidence, and rightly so—it was plain wrong.
The Bill repeats the same mistakes, introducing powers to push development through, riding roughshod over local objections and concreting over our communities’ green spaces. Look at the imbalance: Birmingham’s housing targets are falling while Walsall’s are rising by 27%. My constituency is told to take the strain as our second city offloads its numbers. It is not devolution, but displacement, and it will only deepen distrust. Take Stonnall Road, Longwood Road, Longwood Lane and Bosty Lane; the list of speculative planning applications across my constituency goes on and on—and all this before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and even this piece of legislation have been enacted.
If this Government were serious about empowerment, they would have put a brownfield-first duty into their reforms, but they chose not to. The west midlands has hundreds of hectares of derelict land that could be brought back into use, and there is funding for this already: the brownfield housing fund, the national competitive fund and the brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. However, there is no requirement for the mayor to use those funds first before launching into our precious green belt and green wedges.
Without a statutory brownfield-first duty, we know that developers will always go for the easy option first. Take the Birch Lane proposal in Aldridge—hundreds of homes on green-belt land now rebranded as grey belt. It is precisely the kind of inappropriate development this Bill will make it harder to resist, with local consultees weakened and mayoral powers strengthened. This Government are not building communities; they are dividing them.
What about infrastructure? My constituents were promised Aldridge train station—as many Members know, I talk a lot about that. Funding was secured and the business case made, yet the Labour mayor diverted the money elsewhere. If he cannot deliver on those commitments, why should this House be handing him more?
There are serious questions to answer about what exactly is grey belt. Regulations suggest that it can be used to redefine a green-belt site with building on three sides. That should alarm all of us in this place. We in Aldridge-Brownhills are now at serious risk of being subsumed within a Greater Birmingham and a Greater Walsall. Do not get me wrong, we do need houses, but let us give it some thought. Let us put them in the right place and let us not lose our identity or our communities because of Government diktat—because that is exactly what it is.
This Government are making a complete mockery of what we call green belt and green wedges, which were there to protect communities from urban sprawl. And all this at a time when Birmingham city council cannot even empty its bins. The mayor has washed his hands of it and the Deputy Prime Minister does not seem interested. This Bill is not devolution or empowerment. Quite simply, it is a developer’s dream and a neighbourhood nightmare, and I shall be voting against it tonight.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Having served as a town councillor and deputy mayor before my election to this House, I have witnessed at first hand the critically overdue need for reform of our local and very local council systems. Town, parish and very local councils have been plagued by inefficiencies and toothless standards for too long, which is why I particularly support the reform of our local audit system outlined in the Bill. My experiences, and those regaled to me by others over the years, have underscored the urgent need for an overhaul to ensure transparency, efficiency and accountability within our local governance structures. The Government’s commitment to reforming the local audit system is both timely and essential. The Bill prioritises the establishment of a more coherent and reliable audit framework, which will undoubtedly build trust within our communities and foster a more robust democratic process.
By addressing these systemic challenges, we are sending a clear message that councils must be accountable and that the integrity of their operations is paramount. Furthermore, these reforms represent a significant step towards greater devolution, empowering town and parish councils, such as those in North Somerset, to take decisive action tailored to the unique needs of their locals.
However, we must go further. It is crucial to introduce greater accountability through a compliance scoring system that clearly indicates to the public whether their elected representatives are undertaking best practice and demonstrating financial competence with their money. Internal audit parameters should be set nationally to ensure consistency and transparency, and we should focus on establishing effective minimum standards for councillors, ensuring that there are proper consequences when acceptable behaviour is breached. That would not just improve outcomes for local communities, but restore confidence in our local democracy.
It would also help to alleviate the ongoing issue with recruitment and retention of town and parish clerks nationally, who are the impartial and objective legal advisers to the very local councils and are tasked with ensuring that those councils operate lawfully. I am sure that many colleagues will have been made aware of the totally unacceptable behaviours that some town and parish clerks are subjected to, which are enabled by a lack of effective recourse against the perpetrators.
The ongoing loss of highly trained and experienced experts is a great loss to the sector. This recruitment crisis also hits the number willing to stand for very local councils, as potential councillors face the same unacceptable behaviours. We need professional regulation for councillors as an important first step. Monitoring officers must be properly funded through professional regulation fees paid by councils based on the number of councillors. This would enable monitoring officers to perform their vital oversight function effectively.
We cannot continue the current slide towards empty council chambers across our towns and villages, declining community involvement, and, in some areas, poor standards of behaviour and conduct. The Localism Act 2011 that came into force during the coalition Government dismantled essential structures of accountability by abolishing the Standards Board for England.
Since then, powers to suspend councillors who breach standards have been repealed, leaving councils with no substantive recourse against poor conduct. There is now no recourse against poor standards of behaviour. This legislative deficiency has allowed pockets of inadequate behaviour to persist unchallenged, undermining the very essence of local government. We must take this opportunity to effect new systems and processes and to foster a new model of accountable politics at the local and very local level.
I have seen myself how unacceptable behaviours in local councils can go entirely unchecked, eroding trust. The Bill represents a chance to establish a higher standard and ensure that we have appropriate people serving our communities, cutting out the rot in some of our councils. If town and parish councils are to play a larger role in the devolution of local services, which undoubtedly brings the benefits of greater ownership and influence to local communities, it is essential that all councils are effectively held to the same high standards.
I wish to point out that there are very many local councils across the country that do a fabulous job, and there are some great ones in my constituency. They are governed extremely well and enrich their communities, but the minority of councils risk tarnishing the wider reputation of the sector and creating a disparity in community benefit. This Bill represents the foundation that we should build on to do better in order to establish proper standards at the local level of democracy and ensure that we have appropriate people serving our community.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As I am sure all Members in this place do, I support the principle of devolution and empowerment—two of the words on the face of the Bill—but this Bill is about centralisation and disempowerment. For the Isle of Wight, it is about fusing our island with Hampshire under a combined mayoral authority, where 93% of the population live in Hampshire on the mainland and just 7% live on the island.
There is no empowerment, because island people will not have a say. This plan was last crystalised under the previous Labour Government, who gave islanders a say through a local referendum. Islanders voted no, and the previous Labour Government respected that vote. This Government do not respect my constituents enough to ask them whether they are happy to be fused with a much, much larger county that sits across the water. It is centralising because my local authority, the Isle of Wight council, will lose some of its powers. It will lose powers over strategic planning, so a mayor who represents largely Hampshire voters will be able to allocate more housing on the island, and any mayor who is interested in getting re-elected will, of course, be responsive to the much larger voter cohort in Hampshire.
There are three particularly offensive things about the Bill that the Government are imposing on my constituents. Our police authority is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Our health commissioning body is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Our fire and rescue service is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. The vast majority of organisations that operate across our two counties are named after our two counties—Hampshire and Isle of Wight. This Government are going to call our mayoral combined authority Hampshire and Solent, potentially removing our name from all the organisations that the mayor will end up having power over—from our police, our fire and rescue service, our health commissioning body, and who knows what in the future. That will be done without anyone on the Isle of Wight having a say.
The second offensive thing about this proposal for my constituency is the powers that it gives the mayor over local transport. The authority will have Solent in the title, yet the mayor will get no contingent powers over the biggest transport issue facing my residents: crossing the Solent on ferries. Solent is in the name of the combined authority, but the mayor will get no powers over ferries. Our ferries are the only unregulated, entirely privatised, foreign-owned, debt-laden key transport provider in the UK.
The Government are prepared to nationalise railways, extend the arm of Government in buses and put more money into roads, but they are not prepared to do anything about my constituents being left at the mercy of foreign-owned, debt-laden companies. I will acknowledge that they have used some warm words, and the Minister has visited the island, but this is the opportunity to deliver on those words and put powers in the hands of the mayor to regulate cross-Solent transport.
To make a really important point on ringfenced funding, because the Isle of Wight will be fused with Hampshire, the mayor will be able to spend money as they wish across a homogeneous single zone. There is no special provision in the Bill to ensure there is ringfenced funding for the Isle of Wight that cannot be raided for Hampshire. The local integrated care board is already raiding money from our hospice to spend on Hampshire hospices. In the mayoral deal, we need powers to stop that from happening.
Finally, in the consultation of my constituents on the key issue of transport, the F-word—ferries—was not mentioned even once.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 5 March this year, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said these words:
“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]
Since arriving in this place on the back of a pledge to ensure Cornwall is given the devolved powers and funding that we have been craving for centuries, and in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver on the greatest ever devolution powers out of Westminster, today is a significant milestone. With the Prime Minister’s commitment to Cornish national minority status clearly reaffirmed, I support a Bill that delivers tangible devolution to Cornwall. However, I would like to explore clarifications on the implications of the Bill for the people of Cornwall.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the land that you call Cornwall we know as Kernow, a term believed to have been in use for over 2,000 years that means “people of the promontory”. However, the English word Cornwall has a different meaning: it means “peninsula of foreigners”. For centuries, the English have recognised the people of the land at the end of the peninsula as different from them. Right up to modern times, the UK Government have continued to honour the distinct territorial integrity of Cornwall, treating us in unique and exceptional ways.
Our constitutional status was perhaps most clearly outlined in a newspaper article in 2013 by the House of Lords researcher Kevin Cahill, who stated that
“the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire county of Cornwall is vested in the Duke of Cornwall…So Cornwall is a separate kingdom.”
He continued:
“I know the Cornish have been shouting about this for a long time, but they turn out to be right.”
The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 recognised the distinct history, identity and territory of Cornwall, a unique and exceptional constitutional settlement that we enjoy to the present day. In recent times, Cornwall has been the first rural area outside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to gain a devolution settlement over aspects of transport, education and renewable energy. More recently it has done so over adult education, Cornish distinctiveness and the Cornish language. Indeed, Cornwall already enjoys some of the benefits offered by the Bill for mayoral combined authorities.
I am often asked—even by colleagues in this place—whether as a Cornishman I consider myself English. Along with hundreds of thousands of Cornishmen and women, I am often sadly mocked for my reply. Let me be absolutely clear today: I am Cornish, not English, although I freely admit that some of my very best friends are English. To those at home, particularly young people, who have been equally ridiculed, I say, “Be loud and proud. It is okay to consider yourself Cornish and British.”
Let me deal with the issue of identity versus status. Cornish national minority status and Cornish identity are sometimes conflated, but when discussing the former, references to identity can sometimes be considered belittling. It is not about identity; it is about a legally binding national minority status. Our status, formally agreed by the Council of Europe 10 years ago, must be respected, upheld and celebrated.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Meur ras—I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He will be aware that in previous Parliaments I led campaigns to secure the recognition of the Cornish language and the Cornish people. Does he agree that this is not an issue of isolationism? It is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity and having the identity of a place properly recognised and respected so that it can grow rather than be supressed. Surely devolution is about enabling places rather than controlling them, which is what I fear this Bill will do.
Perran Moon
As a result of our geographical location, for centuries we have been a safe harbour—a port in the storm—for peoples from all over the world. We are an inclusive society.
Let me get straight to the nub of the issue. The Council of Europe framework convention for the protection of national minorities makes it very clear. Article 16 says:
“The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.”
In 2016, when passing comment on the then Government’s plans for redrawing boundaries, the Council of Europe advisory committee on the framework convention highlighted
“that Article 16 prohibits restricting the enjoyment of the rights of the Framework Convention in connection with the redrawing of borders.”
In the Bill as drafted, Cornwall is prevented from accessing the highest level of devolution, because to do so would require us to compromise our national minority status. During the passage of the Bill, I will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill as passed respects Cornish national minority status and delivers an historic devolution arrangement that fulfils our manifesto commitment; provides for the economic development support that we need to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger; gives us the funding and resources to deal with our crippling housing crisis; and celebrates Cornish national minority status.
This responsibility weighs not just on the mind. For us, this is not just about functional local government; it goes way deeper into our souls, to a centuries-old desire for increased autonomy and self-governance in our place on this multinational island. I urge Ministers: together, let us grasp this once-in-a-generation opportunity.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
When the Government get something right, it is important to acknowledge that. The community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill represent the genuine empowerment that constituents need. I therefore acknowledge that.
In my constituency, I have a village community that is desperate to buy the local pub—an asset of community value that has been up for sale for some time. They have raised the funds for the asking price and they have community support, but the owner simply refuses to sell to them. Under the current system, they have no right of purchase and no right of refusal, and although they have raised the money, more time to organise the complex legal and financial arrangement required for community ownership would have been appreciated. The new community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill are therefore welcome.
Just as the Bill gets community empowerment right in one policy area, it misses the opportunity to do so in many others. I draw a contrast with one in particular: the skills architecture. The Bill creates new skills responsibilities for strategic authorities without clarifying how they will co-ordinate with the national role of Skills England—another new body—or the existing employer-led local skills improvement plans, or LSIPs. We have a system in which Skills England sets national priorities, LSIPs identify local employer needs and strategic authorities deliver adult education funding, but the Bill has no clear mechanisms for ensuring that those layers align or avoid costly duplication.
This fragmentation is compounded by the separation of adult skills from the broader skills and education ecosystem. The Bill devolves responsibility for adult education to strategic authorities but leaves 16-to-19 education with central Government and provides no clear role at all for universities in local economic development. This is despite the Education Secretary herself calling for universities to make a stronger contribution to economic growth through closer alignment to skills needs and economic growth plans. How can we develop coherent local skills strategies when we artificially separate the pipeline that feeds skilled employment?
The funding arrangements are also concerning. Strategic authorities will hold the adult skills budgets but have only joint ownership of the LSIPs that should guide their spending priorities. It is difficult to see how democratically accountable bodies can be responsible for outcomes when they lack control over the full planning process. Furthermore, current LSIP boundaries do not align with the proposed strategic authority boundaries, and the Government’s solution appears to be to hope that it all works out in the end. The Bill provides no mechanism for resolving conflicts and no timeline for achieving the geographical coherence that effective planning requires.
Possibly most troubling is the absence of any performance framework linking those different institutional layers. Strategic authorities must produce local growth plans, but there is no requirement for them to align with LSIPs or with Skills England workforce forecasting. We risk having three different bodies in each area producing conflicting skills priorities with no clear co-ordination mechanism. That is a recipe for confusion, waste and ultimately a failure to address the skills shortages that our economy desperately needs to resolve.
I wanted to draw a contrast, so here it is. On community assets, the Bill trusts local people and provides clear, enforceable rights. However, on skills—one of the most critical challenges facing our economy—it creates institutional complexity and lacks accountability and clear lines of responsibility. I hope the Government will go away and think again, and come back with a more coherent approach that actually delivers the local responsiveness on skills that communities and our economy so desperately need.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK is one of the most centrally run countries in the world. For decades, Whitehall has made every major decision on growth and investment, while the communities impacted were too often an afterthought. This has left communities poorer and trapped, playing a game that they can never win. For regions such as mine, physically the furthest away in England, it has meant that we have felt removed from decisions and decision making. This Bill is a chance to change that failure.
In the north-east, during her first year, our Mayor Kim McGuinness has launched important local projects including tackling child poverty and bringing buses back into public control, but she is unable to tackle some of the big economic challenges that we face because she does not have the powers to change them. This Bill makes it easier for the Mayor to decide how local money is spent by putting the pen in local hands, so that our own priorities come first, rather than an agreed list made years ago with Whitehall. This will allow the Mayor to create a growth plan showing where investment is needed most, so that Westminster can follow that lead.
The north-east growth plan sets our priorities so that we can then work with this Government to deliver the projects identified. By creating these local growth plans, the Government can see the shared priorities in areas such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy and digital innovation. Regions are able to create a list of projects ready for investment; we know where the blockages are in our area because we live with them every single day.
Of course, one such priority that politicians, businesses and communities have identified for our region is the case of Moor Farm roundabout in my constituency—something I have spoken about many times in this place. It has already been identified as a priority, because upgrading it would not only address the misery that it causes for local people every day, but unlock investment in manufacturing, clean energy and housing and support business growth.
Alongside changes in the Green Book to a local place-based business case, we can ensure that we approach these priorities with a cross-departmental, mission-led approach. For too long, departmental silos have prevented a cross-Government approach, but now we can ensure that the likes of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport, the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury work together with regional leaders to deliver local priorities.
It is not just new mayoral powers that we benefit from. I am absolutely thrilled to see in the Bill steps to protect communities and community sport for the future. The Bill takes heavily from one that I introduced in May, creating a change to safeguard sporting assets of community value. It would automatically protect football clubs, leisure centres and other sports facilities by giving local communities the first chance to buy them if they go up for sale.
Dr Opher
Just briefly, as my hon. Friend explains about the sporting, economic and social interests, does she believe that environmental interests should also be taken into account? That would allow communities to claim other different types of funds and also to protect the environment.
Emma Foody
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We should look at what communities prioritise and make considerations as to what they value.
Going back to sporting assets in particular, there are over 6,000 sports grounds in England alone. Protecting them under the current system is complex, buried in red tape and made far too difficult. It has meant that fewer than 100 sports facilities are protected community assets across the country, meaning that almost 99% of sports facilities across the country cannot be preserved if developers try to buy up land.
We want to give people the authority to make decisions about their own areas. This summer I was absolutely delighted to visit so many facilities in my constituency: Cramlington Rockets, Burradon Juniors and Backworth Hall cricket club, as well as working with the likes of Hazlerigg Victory, Wideopen football club and many more. These clubs and facilities are at the heart of our communities, providing not just sport but community activities, running holiday clubs and being a welcoming community space. They are the lifeblood of many of the villages and towns across the Cramlington and Killingworth constituency. I am delighted that this Government are protecting these vital pillars in the community that are so important to local people.
For too long, Whitehall has left communities and regions like mine trapped and poorer because decisions were not taken with them in mind. This Government are changing that with the biggest shift of power out of Westminster to the north-east and my communities. It will boost growth, raise living standards and deliver services for local people. It is about giving power to those who know our communities best. I am delighted that this Labour Government are putting our regions, our communities and our neighbourhoods first.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I rise to make the case for Kernow, or Cornwall, and its unique status in this United Kingdom. My constituents have been crystal clear with me: Cornwall must never be forcibly joined with Devon or merged into any wider regional authority. But that is not to say that Cornwall wants to go it alone. It is not about separatism at all; this is about respecting our distinct status and history. Cornwall has proudly partnered with other UK regions for decades. It has a proud and unique language, culture, history and—crucially—national minority status, which was granted over a decade ago. We were afforded the same status as our Celtic brothers and sisters in Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and so the people of Cornwall deserve a devolution deal that recognises that.
This status is not just symbolic. It creates a duty on public authorities to promote equality for the Cornish people, to support our culture, language and identity and, specifically, to avoid any assimilationist policies. Under the UK’s Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty, Ministers and local authorities alike must consider the impact of their decisions, including in this Bill, on the Cornish people. If they fail to do so, their actions can be challenged in the courts using an array of legal claims, including judicial reviews, an Equality Act claim and a Human Rights Act 1998 article 14 differential treatment claim. Therefore, these rights carry real legal and political weight. To disregard or dilute Cornwall’s status in this Bill would be insulting, unlawful and dangerous. I am alarmed that the Bill would grant the Secretary of State power to force combined authorities without local people’s consent. Devolution, in essence, should give power to the communities, regions and counties that it aims to empower, not to a mayor, a Secretary of State or an unelected commissioner.
At Prime Minister’s questions last October, the Prime Minister told me that he believes that
“Those with skin in the game know what is best for their communities.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 834.]
The Secretary of State has repeated that today. I agree with them both: decisions should be made for Cornwall and in Cornwall by a fully elected Cornish assembly—and not in Plymouth, Bristol or Westminster. They should be made by those from within the duchy who understand our unique way of life and our unique economic and social challenges—the immense challenges of funding rural transport; the unfair and unequal investment in our schools over decades; the plight of our farmers and fishers, who seem to be left out in the cold by Government after Government; and the enormous proliferation of second homes and holiday lets, which lock local people out of our housing market, generation after generation.
In my office, I proudly display a famous painting of the Cornish rebellion of 1497. It illustrates the Cornish spirit of fairness, justice and persistence, of proud Cornish men and women who had taxes imposed upon them by the Government in London. That spirit lives on. Given Cornwall’s history and that strength of feeling, if the Secretary of State imposed a mayor of Devon and Cornwall —completely disregarding Cornwall’s national minority status, as well as legal battles—she might have a full uprising on her hands.
The Bill would likely limit Cornwall to a foundation strategic authority with limited powers, funding and control. That is why we are fighting for a bespoke devolution deal. The Bill should have mechanisms in place to allow such a bespoke deal to take place. Cornwall’s MPs look forward to working together for the good of Cornwall, onen hag oll—one and all—to make that happen. I call on the Government to fully respect Cornwall’s national minority status; to create a Minister for Cornwall, who could sit in the Wales Office; to consider the feasibility of an elected Cornish assembly instead of a mayor; and to commit to a devolution deal that respects Cornwall’s historic identity by excluding it from combined strategic authorities with other regions. Kernow bys vyken!
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Few matters have occupied as much of my first year in this House as the question of Cornish devolution. For decades, if not centuries, the people of Cornwall have spoken of their desire to have a greater say in the decisions that shape their lives. That desire is founded in our distinct needs and our more than 1,000-year-old national identity. That is why the arrival of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill has been watched in Cornwall with keen anticipation and, in some quarters, with understandable apprehension.
Having pored over the text of the legislation, my conclusion is this: far from being the bulldozer that many feared, the Bill leaves Cornwall’s position intact. It formalises our single foundation status and—once and for all I hope—a single geography. Crucially, it does not strip away the strategic powers that Cornwall already exercises. Recognition of our national minority status is now firmly acknowledged in this place, and, as one of the largest unitary authorities in England by geographic footprint, we retain the ability to deliver many of the functions that are only just being handed to combined or mayoral bodies elsewhere.
Perran Moon
Does my hon. Friend agree that the historic Cornish constitutional status must be considered as part of the devolution discussion?
Noah Law
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. On top of the many examples he has given of Cornwall’s constitutional status, and aside from our devolution arrangements with Westminster, the leader of Cornwall council was in 2023 given permission to attend ministerial meetings of the British-Irish Council, much like the other Celtic nations and the Channel Islands. In the same year, Cornwall council and the Welsh Government signed a historic collaboration agreement, reflecting the shared culture of these two Celtic nations.
Perhaps more weightily in this place, the Crowther and Kilbrandon report of the royal commission on the constitution in 1973 acknowledged that the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337
“established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown. Use of the designation on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall”.
It went on to say that what the Cornish want is
“recognition of the fact that Cornwall has a separate identity and that its traditional boundaries shall be respected.”
Let me be clear: while the letter of the Bill does not necessarily offer the content of devolution that so many in Cornwall have long called for, I have no doubt that it will be very welcome in cities and other regions across England. But Cornwall is different: a remote coastal community, an existing administrative unit, a functional economic geography and a very good brand, if nothing else, as many Members will know from their summer holidays. Above all, Cornwall is a proud part of the United Kingdom with a distinct national identity, a resurgent language and a desire to be heard after centuries of dismissal. With the right powers, we stand ready to not only shape our own future but help lead the way in a United Kingdom that values local voices and unlocks prosperity across all nations and regions.
I greatly welcome the inclusion of new powers such as the community right to buy. That is exactly the sort of measure that can put power back into local hands, giving people in my constituency the chance to ensure that public assets like the Dolphin Inn in Grampound or the sites of the former General Wolfe in St Austell and the Fowey community hospital remain in public hands and continue to serve local needs.
Andrew George
The hon. Member makes a very strong case for Cornwall. He should urge his colleagues in government to welcome amendments to the Bill that strengthen Cornwall’s ability to achieve its unique and very special status, which we believe needs to be enshrined in this legislation as well as the historic record.
Noah Law
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is incredibly important that Cornwall’s national minority status is respected by the Bill, and that the powers and investment required to meet Cornwall’s distinctive needs—if not enshrined in the text—are considered as part of the devolution process in the months ahead.
Finally, we should acknowledge that while the Bill streamlines England’s devolution architecture, the mayoral model will not suit every part of our country. Cornwall has shown for over 15 years as a unitary authority that there are other effective ways to deliver devolved functions. What we need now is a plan for Cornwall—one that equips us with the powers we require over housing, transport, skills and industrial growth to meet the challenges we face. The truth is that the statutory framework set out in the Bill is not the central issue at stake. What really matters is that we secure a settlement for Cornwall that recognises our unique circumstances, protects our ability to make strategic decisions for ourselves and gives our communities the tools to thrive.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to raise a few issues, all of which I know are very much on my constituents’ minds.
First, I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring that boroughs such as Reigate and Banstead, which have been managed well and are not loaded with debt, are not left footing the bill for the failures of other councils that have been less prudent with their finances. Reigate and Banstead borough council has a commendably strong record of financial prudence, so please will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that protection will be put in place to safeguard our community assets, such as the Harlequin theatre, and our community and leisure centres?
On the Harlequin theatre specifically, I emphasise how important the asset is to the people of Redhill and beyond. It has now been closed for more than two years, following the discovery of RAAC, and residents and community groups—notably, the Harlequin Support Group—have been resolutely campaigning for its repair and reopening. I am delighted that, under the leadership of Councillor Shelly Newton, who is one of the most tenacious local councillors I have ever come across, it has now been confirmed that the £4.5 million needed for repair has been allocated. All being well, the theatre is expected to reopen by Christmas 2026. I mention that because my constituents would appreciate hearing directly from the Secretary of State and Ministers that the local government reorganisation will not hamper such projects, which have been agreed but will take some time to complete.
I also make the point that the reorganisation is not the only challenge faced by Reigate and Banstead borough council, which has just had its housing target more than doubled by this Government, at a time of great uncertainty and transition—a recipe for disaster.
I want to focus mainly, however, on the future of the civic mayoralty in Reigate and Banstead. Reigate has had a mayor since 1863. Great history and tradition is associated with the role, and the importance placed on it can be seen physically in the mayoral robes, the chain of office and the mace, which are still very much in use. The Government have been clear that their intention with the Bill is to provide a consistent model for how local government will be structured across England. What is rather less clear—I hope that the Minister or Secretary of State will be able to provide clarity—is what that means for boroughs such as mine, where a borough council is intermeshed with a long-standing tradition of civic leadership in the form of a borough mayor.
Unlike metro mayors, the mayor of the borough of Reigate and Banstead is no kind of political executive. The role is that of a civic figurehead, non-partisan, ceremonial and community focused. We have a truly outstanding mayor, Councillor Rich Michalowski, and, before him, Councillor Eddie Hughes was another dedicated and hard-working public servant. In the past civic year alone, the mayor responded to more than 350 engagement requests, hosted 25 town hall tours for schools and community groups, and oversaw 32 civic and charity events attended by nearly 1,500 people, not including the thousands more who attended Remembrance Sunday. The position of borough mayor does real, practical good. Their attendance at an event brings that extra sparkle, which residents so appreciate.
Through the mayor’s trust fund, 38 families in my constituency have already been supported with grants this year. A single funding workshop led by the mayor’s team unlocked more than £50,000 for local charities. Through sustained community engagement, the mayor helps connect employers with jobseekers, donors with good causes, and schools with mentors. They promote local artists, support care homes, champion the armed forces covenant, and offer practical help to residents in crisis. I hope that Ministers will agree with my constituents in recognising the great value of a borough mayor, and that they will provide clarity on whether such roles will be preserved under the Bill and, if so, how in practical terms that will be achieved.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on what may prove to be one of the most impactful and transformative pieces of legislation of this Parliament. The Bill represents one of the most significant shifts in local government in more than half a century. It sets out a clear ambition to move power out of Westminster and into the hands of local leaders who know their communities best. For areas such as Cheshire and Warrington, that has the potential finally to give us the tools we need to unlock our full potential and to deliver real, tangible benefits for our communities.
On transport alone, the opportunity is to talk no longer about the decline in bus services but about how we are providing new routes; and to hear, instead of that we have been campaigning for a bridge or railway link for 40 years, “We have a plan to deliver.” On skills, instead of the 92% drop in adult education starters that has occurred in my area between 2015 and 2020, we can talk about how we will fix that.
It is important to recognise, however, that the approach set out in the Bill is not without risks for Cheshire and Warrington with respect to police services. The Bill gives power to the Home Secretary to redraw the policing boundaries to match the mayoral combined authority. There is no consensus in Cheshire that Cheshire police should be reorganised to exclude Halton, which is currently part of the Liverpool city region. Indeed, quite the reverse: it is felt that such a move would be explicitly bad for Halton and would damage the viability of the remainder of Cheshire police. When the Minister sums up, I hope he will provide reassurance that there will be a full consultation before Cheshire police is reorganised, and that it will not be reorganised against the wishes of its communities?
Let me turn to the Bill’s provisions on adult education. The new duty placed on strategic authorities to secure appropriate facilities for the education and training of adults aged 19 and over is a welcome step. In the focus groups that I have run with technology businesses across Cheshire and the wider north-west, there has been a clear divide between mayoral areas and non-mayoral areas, where—with some exceptions—businesses did not feel that there was a good understanding of their needs, nor a plan to deliver on them. The mayoral combined authority presents an opportunity not only to fix that, but to think strategically about taking advantage of projects like HyNet, which will require miles of new hydrogen pipeline and people with the right skills to build it.
An important gap that the Bill does not address is post-16 education. Local authorities currently have a duty to secure enough suitable education and training provision to meet the reasonable needs of all young people in their area who are over compulsory school age, but they lack any powers to deliver this and neither can they meaningfully affect how further education is organised. That is a real challenge, particularly in my constituency, which has been left with big gaps in provision following the 2016 review into post-16 education in Cheshire and Warrington, contributing to NEET levels in Winsford being five percentage points higher than the borough-wide average.
There is an opportunity for the mayoral combined authority to deliver better outcomes for young people in my constituency, but it needs the powers to do so. I urge Ministers to work with colleagues in the Department for Education so that we can use mayors to tackle entrenched inequalities and ensure that every young person, regardless of background, has access to high-quality education and training that prepares them for the future.
This Bill is not just a handover of power, but a partnership between central Government and local communities—between elected leaders and the people they serve. For Cheshire and Warrington, it is a chance to lead by example, and to show what empowered communities can achieve when given the freedom to flourish.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I also used to be a councillor, like many Members across the Chamber. I was deputy leader of Chelmsford city council for five years and an opposition member at Essex county council. I have seen at first hand the work of local councils and I know that they do it in very difficult circumstances—circumstances that have got harder and harder, with dwindling funds and increased demands on council services.
Despite the very best efforts of council leaders across the country and council officers, who are often the unsung heroes local government, there are crises in housing, in special educational needs and in adult social care. We do not seem to have a plan to fix any of them, yet we seem to be rushing ahead with local government reorganisation and devolution, which to me seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Is the best way to fix the crisis in special educational needs or in adult social care, or to truly deliver all the housing we need a different form of local government? Why are these really important issues not part of the mix? Why do we not have a plan to fix them first—before we reorganise local government and trap ourselves in a corner?
I am in favour of devolution: it is right to have power closer to the people it affects. I want local communities to be empowered, but this Bill does not deliver that. In fact, although it devolves powers relating to transport and skills—and other things in the Bill are good, too—the local government reorganisation that goes with those measures means that this legislation does the exact opposite of delivering devolution.
Let us take Essex as an example. I choose Essex because I represent the constituency of Chelmsford in the very heart of Essex, because I used to be an Essex county councillor and because Essex is in the first wave of reorganisation. Essex will not benefit from the scrapping of first past the post, so my constituents will not benefit from their votes truly being represented. There is a proposal to replace Essex county council plus the district councils with either three, four or five unitaries. If we include the other existing unitaries plus Essex county council, we are talking about 15 councils in total. Replacing them with possibly three unitaries would be the exact opposite of devolution; it would take power away from the people and make the councillors elected to represent the people further away from them.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady’s speech. She and I are both Essex MPs, and I agree that we should not create these huge unitary authorities, because local councils are truly in touch with local communities and local needs. However, does she agree that as Havering is also part of Essex, we should be part of that discussion as well? If my borough wants to be part of an Essex unitary authority—such as Central Essex, which would include Chelmsford—does she agree that my constituents should have the right to make that decision in a democracy?
Marie Goldman
Absolutely. My problem with this Bill is that it feels rushed. More people want to contribute to the discussion. Constituents want to be represented and to have local government reorganised in a way that they have been able to contribute to. That would truly be democracy. What we are seeing right now is rushed and is not a proper representation of democracy.
The three-unitary model is not the only proposed model. That is being proposed by the county council, but the model that has the most support from the local district councils—nine of them—is the five-unitary model. I certainly support that, because if we have to go ahead with local government reorganisation, surely it should be with the model that keeps power closest to people.
Andrew Rosindell
Will the hon. Lady clarify if she would support the people of Havering if they chose to be part of an Essex unitary authority—if that was their democratically chosen wish?
Marie Goldman
I think we are in danger of getting into the weeds on exactly how local government would be reorganised.
We talk about the size of the unitary authorities that would be created. The three-unitary model in Essex would instantly create three of the top five biggest unitary authorities in the country; after growth, they would be three of the top four biggest unitary authorities. It would create enormous councils with considerably less connection with the local communities they served. That is the opposite of devolution, and I worry a lot about the loss of identity that it could lead to.
A lot of the talk is about savings. The Deputy Prime Minister talked a bit about savings from reorganisation, but there is very little evidence to support that using real-world data. Past models produced by consultancies have not used real-world data. However, according to real-world data, if the five-unitary model is chosen, local government reorganisation is expected to save only £105 million across the whole of Essex after five years. If the three-unitary model is chosen, we will end up with £49 million less than that. This is a huge undertaking, with a lot of resources going in for very little, and we still do not have a plan for special educational needs, adult social care and all the things I mentioned earlier.
The really important point is that Greater Essex contains Thurrock, which has a very, very big debt problem: about £800 million of unsecured debt. There is no model of local government reorganisation or devolution in Greater Essex—even keeping the existing structure, frankly—that would be financially sustainable without central Government stepping in and providing funds to cover Thurrock’s debt. The maths simply do not work. I am looking directly at the Minister, because we need a solution. There will be much more unity in Essex on how to move forward if we can work out how to deal with Thurrock’s debt. It cannot be that other local residents, such as my constituents in Chelmsford, are asked to shoulder the blame for something that they did not bring about in the first place.
I turn to Essex county council elections, which were cancelled last May. We have absolutely no idea whether they will go ahead next May; it would seem a bit strange if they did, but equally we want democracy. Can the Government provide some clarity?
Finally, why is first past the post being scrapped for mayoral elections, but not for local government or general elections? That seems rather inconsistent.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I cannot say that devolution is a topic that comes up very often on the doorstep, but the issues that this Bill is designed to address—too much power exercised by people far away, too little say in shaping the places where we live, and too much confusion over where to go when we have a problem or an issue that needs resolving—certainly do. My constituents have raised those issues with me time and again, and devolution and the measures set out in this Bill will tackle those challenges. They will return power to local people, empower communities and power growth in areas of the country like mine in Norfolk.
In Norfolk, devolution means opportunity. It means innovation and investment, helping create new jobs in emerging industries such as clean aviation, and bolstering our existing strengths, including financial services, life sciences and clean energy. Devolution means connectivity, unlocking better and sustainable transport, which is essential in rural counties like ours. It means enhancing Norfolk and Norwich’s reputation and reach, amplifying our voices, our contribution and our impact nationally. As such, I welcome the Bill and the fact that Norfolk is part of the devolution priority programme. Current proposals will see an elected Mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk alongside the establishment of a combined authority, but we must get the structures below that level right in order to take full advantage of this opportunity. That is why local government reorganisation, and the tools set out in the Bill to deliver it, are so vital. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to provide more efficient public services, to end the overlap of councils and to deliver better value for money.
I am pleased to back the proposals, supported by six out of seven of Norfolk’s district councils, to create three unitary authorities. In Norfolk, there would be a Greater Norwich unitary with extended boundaries and two unitary authorities broadly covering the eastern and western parts of Norfolk. I grew up in Norfolk; we moved there when I was three. I know how essential it is that what is delivered is rooted in place and identity, and I believe this proposal will reflect Norfolk and what is needed there. Of course, the specific boundaries still need to be shaped with the support of community engagement, but it is the shape I believe our county needs. With it, we can unlock the full potential of Norwich. It is already a key city for the region and our country, with its economy having grown by 64% since 2010, but we can do so much more to unlock our full potential as a city of great innovation, culture and prosperity, driving growth across East Anglia and beyond. As the need for affordable and sustainable housing continues to grow—I see that the Housing Minister is on the Front Bench—the establishment of a Greater Norwich unitary authority will also offer a more effective mechanism for addressing housing demand, which is such a pressure in our city.
Devolution and effective reorganisation will be a game changer for Norwich and Norfolk, but only if we get it right. I fear that some of the other options on the table will simply not work. The proposal backed by the Conservative-controlled Norfolk county council calls for the creation of a single county unitary in Norfolk. I believe that would be just too big; its footprint would cover thousands of square miles, stretching ties between local councillors and the people they are elected to serve. Similarly, a model involving two unitary authorities fails to recognise the unique growth opportunities in Norwich, which I have set out.
Although we may disagree on the model, it is important that there is healthy debate on this subject. I thank all the councillors at all levels, who do so much for our communities every single day and who have contributed to the discussions so far. As these proposals are developed, it is vital that we work collaboratively across parties, listening to our residents to get the very best for our communities. On that point, I ask the Minister to underline that this Bill will not affect town and parish councils, and indeed will recognise the vital role they play. We have many in Norwich North—Sprowston, Drayton, Old Catton, Hellesdon and Thorpe St Andrew—and they all play important parts in our neighbourhoods.
I have one minute left—so, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, I take this opportunity to thank the Co-op party and all its members for all the campaigning they have done to deliver so many measures in this Bill, including the community right to buy. I recognise that this process may not be easy, but if we get it right, the benefits will be huge for the constituents we serve and the places we represent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As colleagues can see from looking around the Chamber, there are far too many speakers to be accommodated by 7 pm, when this debate has to end. As such, after the next speaker, the speaking limit will be three minutes, and you can calculate the numbers—not everybody will get in, even on that time limit. I call Bradley Thomas.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
While the current devolution plans in this Bill put politics before people, the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill before the independent adult social care review is published in 2028. I believe that to reorganise local government without first confronting the fundamental crisis in care is to put the cart before the horse. Effective reform cannot be done in isolation. The Local Government Association has been clear in its view that devolution must be aligned with health, police, fire and integrated care board structures, with councils kept central to delivery, accountability and collaboration at every level.
Local consent should be a priority throughout the devolution process. Any change in governance must be made with the full consent of the people affected, yet this Bill allows the Secretary of State to impose new governance structures, including strategic authorities and regional mayors, without local agreement. That strips local people of their voice and runs counter to the very principle of devolution.
Local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced on communities, with local objections routinely brushed aside. Residents feel powerless in shaping the future of their towns and villages, and trust in government is draining away rapidly. This Bill will only deepen that resentment, because Ministers promise devolution, but communities will actually receive less say while being treated as little more than an extension of nearby major cities. Birmingham, a city with 140 hectares of brownfield land and established infrastructure, is seeing its housing targets cut by over 30%. Meanwhile, in my constituency, where 89% of the land is green belt, targets have soared by a staggering 85%. That is not sensible planning; it is an attempt to urbanise rural areas against the will of local residents.
In her opening remarks, the Deputy Prime Minister said that at the minute, too much power is in the hands of the few when it should be in the hands of the many. The Government should therefore let local people have more of a say in what the housing target should be. If our current councils in Worcestershire are to be sidelined, it should be for a singular Worcestershire council to come into existence that can deliver value for money to the taxpayer, provide the best possible services and keep decision making local. We cannot accept Worcestershire involuntarily becoming an extension of Birmingham in the name of devolution.
The Bill’s proposals are modelled on city experiences. Worcestershire is not the same as Birmingham, Manchester or any other big city. We have different needs, different challenges and different priorities. Forcing a city template on to rural areas sidelines communities, strips away their voice and sacrifices the fabric of rural life. Once again, rural and semi-rural residents are treated as an afterthought. Counties shaped by their rural character, such as Worcestershire, are rightly proud of their identities and traditions. If this Bill is to touch our communities, it must first recognise their distinct needs and be rethought to respect them.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The fight to rebuild trust in politics must begin in our communities. In Leigh and Atherton, people want to feel proud of the place that they call home. They want visible investment and the power to shape their future, and that is why I welcome the Second Reading of this Bill.
This ambitious Bill is an important step in our devolution revolution, representing one of the greatest transfers of power from Westminster in a generation. It is the first UK Bill in history to include the word “empowerment” in its title. For too long, devolution has meant power being shifted between Whitehall, mayors and councils without making meaningful contact with local people. This Bill offers a meaningful step forward, giving our communities the tools to take ownership of the spaces that matter most.
As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I welcome the introduction of the community right to buy. In practice, this means that when assets of community value come to the market, communities get first dibs. Where we have lost such local assets, it has meant not just a loss of service to the community, but a further erosion of trust in local democracy. I am therefore in no doubt that giving communities a stronger voice in local decision making helps to restore trust in politics from the bottom up.
In my constituency of Leigh and Atherton, Leigh Spinners Mill and Leigh Works stand as shining examples of what happens when local people take the reins. Once derelict but now community-owned, they have become an anchor for regeneration. The mill and Leigh Works support jobs, culture and wellbeing. Across the country, people have seen beloved community spaces forced to close their doors. Thousands of community centres, youth clubs, libraries, pubs and leisure centres have closed over the past decade. With this Bill, Labour is rebuilding the fabric of our communities. Giving local people the power to buy community spaces means more assets owned and shaped by the people who use and love them. We are helping communities to unleash the energy, passion and creativity that exist in every community.
Many Members have pointed to Greater Manchester as a blueprint, and it does show what is possible when devolution is done right. Since 2015, we have built 85,000 homes, launched the Bee Network and helped more than 100,000 residents into work. I have been a strong advocate for devolution for many years. My work as a local councillor at Wigan council and then at Spinners Mill reinforced my belief in giving power to local authorities and the communities that they represent. We must seize this opportunity to put power back where it belongs, and to build a future where Leigh and Atherton and communities across the country feel empowered and proud of the places that they call home.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
We have all been told repeatedly that the Government’s plan for local government will improve local services and save the taxpayer money, but it is increasingly clear that the Bill fails to deliver on those points. This is a forced, top-down change from Westminster that will abolish effective local councils and strip local people of their ability to have a say on local issues.
In my constituency I have two district councils, East Herts and Broxbourne, as well as Hertfordshire county council. Under this “devolution” plan, they will be abolished and replaced by new unitary councils. I strongly opposed Hertfordshire county council forming a single new unitary council covering 1.2 million people, and I am pleased to learn that that has been ruled out, but the new unitary councils will still be far larger than the district councils that we currently have. I am sure that many other Members on both sides of the House will share my experience that large local authorities are often less efficient and deliver worse services than smaller, more agile ones. The biggest council in the country is Birmingham, with a population of more than 1 million, and I doubt that anyone here would call it efficient. While no council is perfect, I believe that councils work best when they are close to the people they serve.
On top of that, I have serious doubts that these plans will actually save any money. There is no way in which efficiencies will cover the extra cost of spending by these bloated new unitary authorities. The process of reorganisation is expensive and disruptive, and I have yet to see it notably improve the finances of councils that have gone through it. Indeed, many areas will be worse off as a result of it. Responsible Conservative councils such as Broxbourne which have consistently kept within budget and kept council tax low will be forced to merge with debt-ridden neighbouring councils and raise their council tax levels. I know that where unitarisation has happened, councils have gone on to set up delivery of services based on the old district boundaries anyway. The efficiencies expected by the Government have not emerged.
I believe that the Government are going down this path of creating big new super-unitary councils, because of their failure to make progress on their target of building 1.5 million new homes. The Government are getting desperate. Rather than building houses where they are needed in London, and rather than building houses where there is appropriate infrastructure or making developers deal with infrastructure first, they are abolishing local councils in order to force through huge arbitrary housing targets in all the wrong places—on precious green belt throughout the United Kingdom.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Delivering a more representative system locally, as well as one that empowers local government, is necessary now, given the palpable long-term frustration with decision making that is perceived by communities to be exclusively dictated by those confined to Planet Westminster or—especially in Falkirk—Planet Holyrood. We know from experience that devolution works best when it is rooted in economic regeneration, with a real impact on ordinary people’s lives. I agreed with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who is no longer in the Chamber, when he said that Scotland is a cautionary tale. The cautionary tale for local government from 19 years of SNP government is about what happens when we do nothing, which is what the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will vote for tonight.
Local leaders can more effectively deploy policy levers in the collective national interest. For instance, the transport procurement policies of Manchester and Liverpool’s mayors have delivered hundreds of orders from Falkirk’s bus manufacturer. That was essential, especially while our own devolved Scottish Government had their eye off the ball and on shiny new Chinese buses. When local leaders with popular mandates have been able to take charge of industrial strategy and regeneration, we see confidence return to communities that for decades have felt left behind. Reflecting on the centralising tendencies of my absent SNP colleagues, I observe that they have persistently ignored, constrained and harmed local authorities in Scotland. I am still waiting for the council tax abolition that I heard about in primary 3.
If we are asking our constituents to invest trust in their local leaders, and to engage in local decision making with the hope that it can change something, we must also take a microscope to the health of our democratic structures nationally. Turnout has been going down, and we know why: we keep hearing from folk on the doorstep that they do not think their vote changes anything.
Dr Opher
With the removal of first past the post for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, is it not time that we gave local government the option of dropping first past the post, as Wales has done? Is it not also time for a national commission on electoral reform?
Euan Stainbank
That is the point I was just about to get to. In 2022, I was elected as a local authority councillor in third place under the multi-member system, and it did work. Many people would not have gone to a different political party, or would not necessarily have come to speak to the Labour representative, but it helped that they had diverse representation. I do think it is worth looking at that system, as I was about to touch on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections. That is why the provisions in the Bill concerning voting systems are welcome and why, to echo my hon. Friend, we should consider a national commission on electoral reform—a commitment to foster a national conversation about how we should be elected in modern Britain, and to build consensus and a way forward.
Different voting systems are already used across the country—for example, for the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for our councils and for mayoral elections here in England. Disillusionment did not start yesterday, and any change to a voting system will not solve the degree of disengagement that we have seen in communities, but it could allow people to see their views always reflected in the institutions that represent them, as we saw with Falkirk council under the multi-member ward system. Continuing to rely on a voting system nationally, when nearly two thirds of people want change, risks crystallising the disillusionment.
By formalising and extending devolution, the Government are today moving to strengthen trust at a local level. By engaging in a serious exercise about how we are sent to this place, we can go a long way towards renewing it at a national level too.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak on this important piece of legislation, and I declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association. This Bill’s intention is to support further devolution—something that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of. However, the Bill fails to properly do so, and instead only reinforces the overly centralised approach taken by the last Government.
Alongside contiguous neighbours, Somerset was ready to move forward with further devolution over six months ago, when it was part of the joint “heart of Wessex” bid. Disappointingly, the Government chose not to include it in the devolution priority programme, despite the proposal matching the growth and economic objectives set out in the Government’s White Paper and encompassing nearly 2 million people. The deal would have provided greater powers for communities struggling under national policies and given rural communities confidence that their voices are being heard.
This Bill fails to adequately deal with the ongoing and ever increasing financial crisis faced by councils across the country. Despite the challenges, Liberal Democrats in Somerset have been getting on with the job of fixing council finances following the wild mismanagement of the previous Conservative administration. Just yesterday the council published a new 20-year economic prosperity strategy, which aims to build a thriving, fair and green Somerset economy. It is leading the way on low-carbon energy, aerospace and defence.
The Bill makes no reference to the unique nature of rural communities. For example, Somerset’s population is both older and ageing faster than the national average, which will increase the amount of care needed in the county. As chair of the APPG on rural services, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the additional financial challenges that rural authorities such as Somerset face. Over half of Somerset’s budget goes towards adults’ and children’s care. There is a shortage of social care providers, which will be impacted by the rise in employer national insurance contributions, and as with so many local authorities, the pressure on the delivery of SEND provision is only increasing. The Bill does nothing to stabilise the financial footing of rural councils; in fact, it fails to even mention rural communities.
We must also acknowledge that rural communities are often at the forefront of environmental issues, such as flooding. Last month, riparian ratepayers in Somerset were informed that the Environment Agency will cease main river maintenance work within the next six months. I am deeply concerned that this will put Somerset at increasing and unacceptable risk of flooding and environmental harm. How do the Government intend to implement all of this through devolution, given that the existing authorities are responsible for reinforcement, enforcement and regulation?
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill and commend the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), for her leadership in bringing it forward.
For too long, decisions about our communities have been made far from the people they affect. This Bill signals a profound shift, putting trust back into local leaders, strengthening councils and ensuring that communities have a real say in shaping their future. It provides the foundation for a new settlement for England that values local knowledge and unlocks local energy. The return of the supplementary vote system for mayoral elections—a key feature of this important Bill—is welcome, and I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) on the wider issues of proportional representation.
The Bill places particular emphasis on neighbourhood working by recognising the importance of neighbourhoods and the grassroots organisations that sustain them. Equally important are the measures to strengthen community right to buy, which empowers residents to take ownership of the places that matter to them most, ensuring they can be preserved and improved for future generations. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for her clarity in purpose in driving these changes. She understands that local government is not an obstacle to progress, but the engine of it.
Although the Bill is about empowerment, we must ensure that it does not undermine the principle of local choice, however inadvertently. Since the announcement of the Bill, I have had tens of emails and more than 100 letters on this subject. In May 2021, the people of Sheffield went to the polls in a city-wide referendum. They voted decisively—by 65%—to move to a modern committee system of government, replacing the old leader and cabinet model. That was a clear democratic decision. It was also guaranteed in law for at least 10 years, with the principle that any further change could be made only by referendum.
The provisions currently in the Bill would overturn that choice, forcing Sheffield back into a governance model that its citizens have explicitly rejected. That cannot be right. It would break faith with local voters, undermine the spirit of empowerment that runs through the Bill and send the wrong message about how seriously we take democratic decisions. If this legislation is to achieve its full potential, councils that have already chosen to have a committee system via referendum should be allowed to retain that system, just as with mayoral models. I know that local leaders agree with me on this, and I appreciate that Ministers have been meeting local leaders.
This is a bold Bill; it is one that we should be proud of and that I am proud to support. It rightly enshrines the central role of councils in shaping and delivering devolution. I just hope that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the issue of allowing local councils to maintain their chosen model.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Government talk about devolution, but that is not what is going on with the Bill, or with local government reform. Power is not being handed down by central Government, but being sucked up from district councils to unitaries and from councils to mayoralties, governing enormous and very diverse territories from distant towns and cities.
In West Suffolk, we face a Suffolk and Norfolk mayoralty —probably run from Norwich—and a new unitary council structure, with either one council run from Ipswich or three different councils. Given our place on the map, Cambridge is more important to us than Norwich or Ipswich, yet there is little in these proposals to help us to exploit the economic opportunities presented by better transport connections and business opportunities coming out of one of the most dynamic cities in the country.
Of course, questions about the tax burden and distribution of revenues are fundamental. Given the state of the public finances, any savings made through local government reform might be snaffled by the Treasury. Services provided by district councils might be cut to subsidise services funded by the county council, such as adult social care.
Council debt across Suffolk stands at £1.1 billion, but there is huge variation between the councils; in Ipswich, debt per person is nearly £1,800, while in West Suffolk, it is less than £50. There is a similar story with tax. Ipswich charges the highest council tax of any shire district in the country. To equalise tax across a single Suffolk unitary council would mean massive tax rises for people living in West Suffolk, tax cuts for people in Ipswich, which would retain services unavailable to my constituents, or a worst-of-both-worlds combination.
Suffolk’s councils have their different proposals, but ultimately it will be Whitehall that decides. I am pressing Ministers and those advocating a particular model for us locally for the clear answers that we in West Suffolk need and deserve. First, will all the money saved stay in Suffolk? Secondly, will people in West Suffolk pay more in council tax as a result of this change? Will we end up funding services for Ipswich that we do not get? Thirdly, will town and parish councils be given a greater say in the planning process? Fourthly, will town and parish councils have greater powers over things such as road safety and speed limits? Fifthly, will we get an absolute guarantee that there will be no merger between Suffolk and Norfolk police forces?
This whole process is too rushed and completely unsatisfactory. It was wrong to postpone our local elections this year. The proposed reforms have not been thought through and the consequences are not clear. There may be some upsides to reform and there may even be some upsides in principle to unitary councils, but unless we get convincing answers, I will oppose not just this Bill, but the changes to local government in Suffolk.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
This devolution debate today is a continuation of the conversation that has been doing the rounds in Sussex since the announcement that we will be in the first wave of new regions to begin the devolution process. The Bill will allow us to unlock resources at a regional level and to use them to best serve the needs of our communities. It provides the framework for cohesive, strategic planning across Sussex for the housing and services that we need, generating good employment and the freedom to travel easily. Done right, it is an opportunity for greater democratic engagement and participation.
Let me turn to a couple of the issues that have been doing the rounds in this conversation in Sussex. The first is planning and transport. Businesses in Worthing West and across Sussex are currently gridlocked by failing east-to-west travel routes and by public transport that is too often unaffordable, unreliable or absent outside of our town centres. A regional transport authority with legal responsibility for buses, trains and active travel will be able to leverage investment and design services that actually meet the needs of our communities. We want travel planning that connects people and businesses, enables eco-tourism to flourish in our beautiful South Downs and lets residents move across Sussex without relying on a crumbling 20th-century system that is built around cars and that no longer serves us.
On housing and infrastructure, with this Bill we can align housing, planning and infrastructure finally to deliver the right homes in the right places across the region. In my constituency, almost one in four residents are now aged 65 or above, yet much of our housing stock is not fit for older age. The shortage of suitable homes limits our ability to attract working-age people to the area. Along with so many other areas, we face a dire lack of rented and affordable social housing. Only at a regional level can we plan housing that meets our needs now and into the future: homes that are accessible for our older population, affordable for young families, and supported by infrastructure to create thriving, mixed communities, networked and easily accessible across Sussex.
Finally, I will focus on the new duty on health inequalities. I welcome the Bill’s introduction of this duty, which is crucial for the rural and coastal communities in my constituency and across Sussex. The chief medical officer’s 2021 report was clear: coastal areas suffer a persistent “coastal excess” of ill health even after accounting for age and deprivation. Rural areas also face hidden deprivation that regional averages fail to capture: limited services, high fuel poverty, isolation and inadequate access to care. These are lives cut short and opportunities denied. The Bill will compel leaders in Sussex to consider health in every policy—transport, housing and skills—embedding public health in all decisions, and that is something that we can learn from at a national level too.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Bill brands itself as “devolution by default”, but in practice it could be seen as centralisation by stealth. Real devolution shifts power out of Westminster and Whitehall to the people in local communities, but the Bill risks doing the opposite. For instance, clause 4 lets Ministers draw and redraw local maps in order for areas to have a mayor. Clause 50 lets them bolt on new functions by regulation with minimal scrutiny, and clause 9 creates seven unelected commissioners answerable only to a mayor. It also fails to explain how it will all be paid for. Let us be clear, local government is in serious financial difficulty. East Sussex county council is on course to exhaust its reserves by 2029. Councils across East Sussex carry £500 million-worth of debt. Our inboxes are full of cases that should be handled by councils that no longer have the staff or the funding. Reshuffling deck chairs on a sinking ship will not save it. Without a sustainable settlement for social care and children’s services, structural changes will fail.
Some powers are welcome, if they are funded. Bus franchising can reconnect towns and villages but not on an empty budget. Requiring key route networks and local growth plans adds duties but at the moment without giving resources. A new local audit office could help clear the audit backlog, but it cannot be both regulator and auditor—no one should mark their own homework.
I was particularly alarmed to read clause 55; this issue has affected my community particularly heavily. The clause enables forced mergers into new unitary councils. In my area, Brighton and Hove city council has launched a surprise consultation to push its boundary east to absorb Newhaven, Kingston and nearby villages in my constituency. Newhaven is a distinct port town 10 miles from Brighton. Kingston, Iford, Rodmell and Southease are rural communities in the South Downs national park. I have already written to a Minister on this subject. They are not Brighton neighbourhoods, and residents do not want decisions made for them at Hove town hall.
The Government say that they want pace. The East Sussex proposal, supported by the county council and all five districts and boroughs, keeps the county boundary intact and lets East Sussex move forward together. Brighton’s farcical counter-proposal risks delay and confusion, not least by proposing to cut across the boundaries of two county divisions and a parliamentary constituency. Its consultation does not even consider a westward expansion where the urban area of Brighton and Hove naturally continues; it goes straight into cutting up East Sussex.
Here is the test for the Bill overall: does it move power and resources to people and places, or does it pull more strings into the Secretary of State’s hands? Does it strengthen scrutiny or sidestep it? Does it fix the finances or dodge them? At the moment, it falls short on all these counts. I hope the Minister can explain the answers to those challenges. Devolution should feel like power in people’s hands, not something being done to them.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Our politics is not working. Too many people feel that what we do here has little relevance to their lives. They feel that their vote is less a source of power and a decision about our common future, and more an expression—the only way they have to demonstrate how bad the status quo has become. Often my constituents ask me, “Who is in charge of this? Who do I hold responsible for fixing it?”, and so often it is shockingly hard to know or even find out.
Our state and our political system have become so confused and centralised, with so many competing boundaries of responsibility, that power slips through the cracks and evades the grasp of elected politicians. To fix that, we must go back to first principles. This Bill is motivated by a fundamental principle: that in our democracy sovereignty flows up from the people to Parliament, not down from Parliament to the people. The people are sovereign, so the way we govern ourselves—our constitution—is not the unique property of Members in this Chamber. It is something that all of us own as citizens; we are represented as well as representatives.
That matters, because it changes how we should think about the Bill. The control that the Bill aims to give people is not new, and it is not something that this place has the unique authority to give or withhold. The Bill aims to restore a kind of local control that has for too long been gradually eroded, and its motivating principle is that, through voting, people should be able to change our political system. The right-to-request powers enshrine this principle in law, enabling strategic authorities to be ambitious in requesting the powers that the people who live in those areas need to thrive.
I know that Andy Burnham, mayor of the towns I represent in Wigan, will be ambitious in using that power for technical education, tourist taxes and employment support. As the Bill develops, I hope that consideration will be given to the responsibility to treat the requests with the seriousness that they deserve. Greater Manchester is a shining example of how this works, and it is the fastest-growing local economy in the UK, at double the UK rate. In taxi licensing, we also have an example of how power can drain from elected officials, as local people cannot hold to account the authorities and police forces responsible for their safety.
The Bill is part of a broader agenda that I strongly support: restoring power to people chosen by the public, instead of independent agencies, experts or bodies of rights and treaties. To my mind, when our politics is not working, we politicians have a responsibility to think boldly about how to make it work better. What we need is nothing less than a moment of constitutional change and fresh and creative thinking about how to reform our system. That is what I hope the Bill begins to do.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Bringing decision making closer to local people and making it more accountable and more reflective of local needs is a laudable aim, but that is not what the Bill will do. Rather than bringing decision making closer to hard-working local people, it will cement the damaging present system of oversized unitary authorities and dubiously useful mayoralties. If we want our communities to have responsive local government with easily accessible political leaders who deliver on the desires of residents and are accountable at the ballot box, we should not be pushing for larger local government boundaries. If anything, we should be reducing their size.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
In Scotland, we have so-called devolution, but the reality on the ground is that the Scottish Government are centralising more and more power. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill creates the potential risk of that?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely share that concern, and I will give my hon. Friend an example of what we face across the Bradford district; the people across Keighley and Ilkley have long known the dangers to smaller communities when such amalgamations occur. In 1974, their well liked and well remembered councils were abolished and absorbed into a larger Bradford council unitary authority, which is one of the largest in the country with a population of 565,000; the average size of a unitary authority is about 250,000 people. Since then, Bradford council has consistently prioritised its namesake, extracting ever higher council tax and costs from outlying areas such as my constituency and neighbouring Shipley and funnelling them into city centre projects of no benefit to the people who have paid for them.
Andrew Rosindell
My friend is making some excellent points. The best example, which is from when this started, is the creation of Greater London in 1965. Ever since then, areas like Romford have been paying money into central London and losing our local control, local identity and local democracy, and it has been costing us an absolute fortune. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy and the wrong direction to go in?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. The Bill is not about local democracy; it is about taking the power for decision making away from local people on where their council tax should be spent. That is why I am advocating that the Government should stop the Bill from progressing.
Bradford council is made up of 90 councillors, with Bradford having a greater number of councillors on the council than Keighley and Ilkley combined. That may be reflective of their rural population, but it is completely airbrushing out the distinctly different needs, desires and priorities of areas such as mine. That is why I will advocate continuously for us in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley—and indeed the Shipley constituency—to have our own unitary authority outside that of Bradford.
Mayoralties have been arguably a greater challenge. When a constituent has an issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and other Members of the House know that they should not have any difficulty in contacting their parliamentarians as our constituency offices are on the high streets and our emails are always open. We have personal and deep connections to the local communities we represent and are familiar with the businesses and the people that make up those communities. But mayoralties operate over regions with hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of residents within them. If a constituent tries to contact their mayor, it is highly likely that the correspondence will never cross the mayor’s desk. Mayoral regions are simply too large for one person to seriously represent the community level.
Aggregating decision making at the strategic authority level makes exactly the same mistake. If a community wants to make an objection, it will have to do so no longer to its local council but to a strategic authority: a body not tied by history, sentiment or even geographical area to those communities, but instead under direction sent by the Government.
If we were serious about devolution, we would follow the lessons experienced by Keighley and Ilkley and make local government work at a community level. We would empower not administrative monstrosities but parish, town and smaller, more regional councils. That is why I will continue to advocate for my area to be taken out of the Bradford unitary authority and to create our own unitary authority. I advocate reversing the local government amalgamations made in the 1970s, not doubling down on them. The Bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and should not be supported.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have always been, and I remain, a vocal advocate for devolution and reorganisation. I got to witness the type of joy and hope I want every community to feel when I worked in Greater Manchester during the establishment of the first devolved mayoralty. I have had robust debates with councils and residents of all political persuasions on how local government reorganisation should best work in Lancashire, particularly when a sense of place and home is so important to most of us. The prospect of what we know to be our place changing somehow can be unsettling, but if we are brought along and engaged throughout, we can usually start to see the opportunities too.
I will focus my comments on the most local level of our democratic structure: the role of town and parish councils, which I believe should be used to even greater effect if we let it. My constituency of Ribble Valley is significantly parished in its rural areas, with parishes such as Broughton and Balderstone, while more suburban areas such as Lostock Hall are not but have active community groups such as the Lostock Hall Village Team. I therefore see the strength of both formal and informal community leadership.
In clause 58, the Bill rightly creates a clearer requirement for local authorities to create neighbourhood governance structures. In a statement to this House in June, it was suggested that those could be called neighbourhood area committees, led by ward councillors. However, I am concerned that the Bill does not fully appreciate the role that town and parish councils currently play and that the accountability of such neighbourhood area committees does not seem to be enshrined.
I will cover a couple of my concerns. First, if the committees are led by ward councillors, such councillors are political in their nature whereas parish councillors are usually apolitical. We therefore need to consider the ramifications of changing the focus of those local committees. Secondly, how do we ensure that every area is advocated for by a committed representative? How do we tangibly protect areas whose ward councillors are not active or who do not create a neighbourhood governance structure? Does that remove the ability for involved residents to form groups outside that? We all know of councillors—rare as they are, I hope—who stand for political reasons or otherwise and then do not drive things locally.
Even though parish and town councils only cover 36% of the population in England, they cover some 90% of its geographical area. Some may feel that such a distinction means that parish councils are not so influential and significant in our country’s governance, but that view does a disservice to the land that we live in and on and are sustained by. As politicians, and as residents in a democracy, we are responsible for the land around us and its resources. Indeed, some of the biggest roles for parish and town councils are around planning, the environment, flooding and ensuring that local areas—the buildings, the fields, the roads and not just the people—are managed well.
Although to some this section of the Bill may feel small and fairly niche, if we do not pay attention to the conversations happening in the pub or the community centre and to the people there who understand their local area better than anyone, we will struggle to understand what people want and need. Let me be clear: this Bill is monumental. But let us build on our fantastic existing structures, especially those town and parish councils that cover 90% of our great country, as has always been—
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
There are ideas in this Bill that devolve powers that we Greens can support. A layer of strategic government with funding and fundraising powers could empower areas of the country, such as Sussex, to improve daily life for our citizens and could strengthen democracy. However, it is worrying that the process for doing that so far and the ways in which decisions are moving forward on the reorganisation of local government have not listened to people who want to maintain their district and borough councils and have not properly engaged local people in devising new proposals rather than just commenting on them. If this is done without consent or respect for local areas, it will not be democratic or empowering.
Clause 57 is very unfair in grandfathering in existing mayoral arrangements for local councils but not preserving any committee systems—not even those chosen recently by referendum. On fair voting, the Bill is inadequate. For the new elected mayors, the Bill specifies a supplementary voting system that is better than first-past-the-post, but, as other Members have pointed out, that should be used next year in Sussex. Also, for the new authorities where new councillors are being elected, there is a genuine missed chance to have a fairer voting system for councils too.
The Bill is dangerously light on the democratic scrutiny of new mayors and combined authorities, and poor on standards in public life. There should be transparency duties on mayors to disclose their lobbying meetings, as Ministers do and all MPs should. Mayors will also be able to appoint commissioners for different areas of their powers, which will be powerful positions that are likely to be well remunerated. Yet the Bill appears to be silent on any higher standards of accountability, transparency or conduct for such people. Mayors and commissioners should all come under the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as other people in this place do. There are big missed chances in the Bill in terms of new duties for poverty and inequality, climate, nature, healthy air, land and water pollution and health, particularly in relation to the impacts of transport and housing policy. On health determinants, the Bill mentions prosperity but not poverty or inequality; nor does it mention the huge chance to improve health by cleaning up filthy air pollution. Why not?
Greens will be arguing for all these goals and duties and more to be put in place firmly and clearly in the Bill, and for them to be matched with powers, funding and the ability to raise and use investment for homes, transport, education, justice, social justice, public health and all these other things to close the gaps that have so shamefully grown under successive Governments and continued Labour austerity. This Bill could help to deliver great things, but it will take many big changes, much work and much listening to good ideas from this part of the House for the Government to achieve that.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new role. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill presents a great opportunity for Southend East and Rochford and for Greater Essex. The Bill is about giving local people the right to make decisions about the place they call home. At its heart, it is about empowering our communities. Community does not just happen. When I was growing up, we had youth clubs, football teams and thriving heritage buildings. We had a strong sense of community. Over the past 14 years, many of these institutions have been forced to close. Devolution has already brought so many opportunities to areas that have seen more devolved power. Families in Southend East and Rochford and in Essex deserve that same level of opportunity.
Mr Alaba
I will make a bit of progress.
Widening devolution is a chance to finally reverse this trend. It introduces a new community right to buy, giving community groups a formal right of first refusal to purchase assets of community value, and it extends the time period to 12 months for communities to raise funds and negotiate a purchase price for said assets. It protects grassroots sporting facilities as assets of community value, which they are. It ends upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. This will allow rent to increase and decrease at the rent review, based on the current market rate. This will prevent vacant shops and help to regenerate high streets. Finally, it provides measures for accountability to ensure that mayors from all parties deliver the houses, transport and infrastructure that communities need.
The Essex economy has been held back by powers stored in Westminster. If Greater Essex had the same levels of productivity as the south-east, our local economies would be 17% bigger. It is time to unlock this economic potential and for Greater Essex to carve out its own industrial strategy and finally become the economic powerhouse I know it can be.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Devolution should mean giving power back to people and communities. Decisions ought to be taken as close as possible to those they affect, but this Bill imposes a top-down model from Whitehall with sweeping new powers for the Secretary of State, mayors and their unelected commissioners, rather than the real empowerment of councils and residents. My own constituency of Stratford-on-Avon is a good example of why this matters. In rural south Warwickshire, our needs are very different from the urban north. We face unique challenges such as unreliable public transport, which leaves local residents with poor access to key services. Our fire and rescue services have been reduced. That is why I support the two-unitary council solution for Warwickshire, reflecting the reality of our place and respecting the local identities.
Further, we must not overlook the vital role that parish and town councils play in communities such as mine across Stratford-on-Avon. From creating neighbourhood development plans to supporting local groups and looking after our village greens and recreation grounds, they do outstanding work, and with the right backing, many stand ready to deliver more for their communities. Councils are already stretched to breaking point, with deficits running into the billions. For those authorities already in the deepest difficulty, devolution without proper funding is little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless Ministers face up to the scale of the challenge and provide sustainable resources, no new governance structure will succeed.
Although bringing back the supplementary vote is a move in the right direction, the Government have missed a real opportunity to restore trust in politics through fairer elections. If the Government recognise that first past the post is not fit for mayoral elections, why is it fit for parliamentary and council elections?
I welcome the strengthening of the community right to buy scheme, which will help safeguard valued local assets, particularly in rural areas, where protecting much-loved assets and community hubs, such as our pubs, is so important. The Government must go further on this, especially when assets are kept empty and derelict by landlords.
In conclusion, the Bill could have been the moment to show that national Government are willing to put power in the hands of communities. Instead, by centralising rather than devolving, the Government have let the moment pass.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am in my 18th year as a member of Thetford town council and I serve as a director on the Charles Burrell Centre committee, a community benefit society in my hometown. I have served on the town council, the district council and the county council—all three tiers of local government—so Members will understand why I have a keen interest in the Bill, but it was my background in community that led me to get involved in politics in the first place. The clauses in the Bill specifically around community empowerment are exciting and long overdue.
In my constituency of South West Norfolk, where I was born and raised, I have seen the impact of community power at first hand. When my former school, Charles Burrell high school, closed in 2013, we were devastated. It was partly the emotions that come from losing a school of more than 60 years, but it was also that the physical building had been home to so many community groups and other organisations. For many, it was so much more than just a school. As a community, we set about working to save the building. At some 85,000 square feet of former secondary school with 12 acres of land, it was no easy undertaking.
Few thought it would work, but on Saturday just gone, myself and hundreds of local residents celebrated the Charles Burrell Centre’s 10th birthday. Over those 10 years, we have witnessed local people take responsibility for the site, turning it into a thriving community hub of more than 60 organisations, charities, statutory bodies and small businesses. It now creates jobs, supports families and acts as a vital anchor for the community, with an annual turnover of half a million pounds. None of that would have been possible without trust in local people.
On strategic authorities, I wonder if the Minister could speak to my concerns about opportunities for rural communities. Strategic authorities draw on metropolitan, large urban areas, but I have three market towns and 72 villages in my constituency. Although individually their economic potential would be small by comparison, collectively our rural communities have so much potential and could significantly support the Government’s growth agenda, but they need support. How those rural communities link up and obtain that support as part of devolution, and how they work with the strategic authorities, is key. I hope the Minister can highlight how rural areas will fit in.
I want Narborough in my constituency to have as much focus as Norwich. I want Ickburgh to be on the page when we are talking about Ipswich. I particularly welcome community right to buy, giving local people the strong say they need on community issues. Sadly, for too many community projects, getting good ideas off the drawing board is still far too difficult, and I hope these priorities and others can support projects like the Charles Burrell Centre, which is now under the excellent management of Nicola Welham, supported by a fantastic staff and volunteer team in Thetford.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This Bill has missed the opportunity to introduce a fair voting system. The outdated first-past-the-post system distorts the will of the people while ignoring millions of voices across the country. It is no wonder that so many people feel disconnected from politics. This Bill could have been an opportunity to restore the disconnect, but it fails. Devolution must go hand in hand with reform that ensures that every vote counts and every community has a voice.
The Bill will not result in that ambitious shift of power from Westminster and Whitehall to communities and individuals. Sadly, it is a missed opportunity for reform. Will the Minister ask the Deputy Prime Minister to commit to considering PR more carefully? You never know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it might help the Labour party to hold on to a few more seats at the next general election.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I cannot understand how anyone could speak against the Bill. It presents a real opportunity to do something different in our local communities. Northampton has been under a unitary system for five years now, after the Conservatives bankrupted our county council, and no one there has ever said to me, “I wish we had more councils and councillors.” People want simplicity, and that is what the Bill delivers.
The Bill also delivers accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) talked about the personal accountability of councillors. In my area, the former Conservative leader had to stand down because of domestic abuse charges, and a former Conservative cabinet member is in court on abuse charges alongside men who are charged with abusing children, so I would say that more accountability for our local councillors and politicians is very important.
The Bill drives growth. I speak to investors who want to come to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. They have heard the Chancellor talking about the opportunities in our region and think, “There is no single voice that I can speak to, but I can go to West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire or anywhere else around the country with a big mayoral authority and find someone who is championing growth.”
Mike Reader
They may well come to London. Meanwhile, in the Ox-Cam corridor and the south midlands region, we are struggling for a single voice that is speaking out for our area. That is what devolution will deliver for us.
Devolution also saves costs. I am sure that all Members have read the detailed analysis in the Library briefings, but PwC also estimates that it will save between £500 million and £700 million a year for taxpayers. It would be absolutely bananas to vote against something that would reduce people’s tax bills.
There are some great local benefits for Northampton. I will not talk about devolution, because the Minister knows my strong views on the issues that I face. One that I will not let slip through here is e-scooter licensing. We have had a long-running e-scooter trial in Northampton. Every single month, people complain to me about scooter-litter. It is important that local authorities be able to better control those licensing agreements and hold the scooter companies to account for ensuring that scooters are in the right place.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
We in London also face a proliferation of e-scooters and e-bikes. The last Conservative Government absolutely failed to take any action on that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will make a huge difference to Londoners that Transport for London will now have the power to hold those companies to account and clear the pavements?
Mike Reader
I could not agree more. I cannot imagine how anyone can deal with the myriad companies working across London. Having just one in Northampton is challenge enough—although it is a good company.
Local ownership is central to the Bill, and community right to buy will be fantastic. People have talked about pubs, but a number of different community organisations that have come to see me in the past year—the Nigerian Community Association, the Albanian Cultural Association and our local Ukrainian school—are looking to take derelict local properties and turn them into great community hubs. The Bill would give them more powers to take on those community assets and create great places in Northampton.
The Bill protects small businesses. For retail businesses on Wellingborough Road, Kettering Road in the town centre or one of the shopping parades, the removal of upward-only rent reviews will mean that shop owners have more security and protection under this Government.
Overall, I am very excited about moving power out of Whitehall and into local communities. Honestly, having listened to the debate for a good three hours, I cannot understand how anyone could possibly vote against the measures.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It might surprise the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), but in my constituency people want good local councillors —particularly the Liberal Democrat ones, who are working hard.
We Liberal Democrats passionately believe that power belongs in local communities, not concentrated in Whitehall. Although we welcome the drive for further devolution, the Bill sidelines local councils by handing yet more authority to regional mayors. Bath council knows all too well the frustration of having a regional mayor who does not listen to all the local authorities they represent. For years, Bath council wanted to bring buses under local control, but we were stuck with a Labour mayor who refused to listen and spent millions on a birthday bus vanity project, rather than delivering the change my constituents were crying out for.
The Bill will enable mayors of strategic authorities to nominate up to seven unelected commissioners to deliver policy, accountable only to the mayor. These unelected officials add a layer of unaccountable bureaucracy that communities do not want and councils do not need. Real devolution means local communities at the heart of decision making, working collaboratively with the mayor. Clauses 21 and 22 do not even clarify on which “relevant local matters” mayors must convene with local partners—surely that cannot be right.
Also absent from the Bill are visitor levy powers for local authorities. Bath council has long been advocating for the ability to introduce a modest visitor levy. We in Bath are proud of the role we play in supporting the visitor economy, but the system needs to be fairer, recognising the costs as well as the benefits of such high levels of tourism. The Government should give local authorities these powers through the Bill, to safeguard our hugely important and valuable tourism industry.
Also missing from the Bill is the introduction of public accounts committees to oversee and hold mayoral strategic authorities accountable, much like the Public Accounts Committee does with Government expenditure. Robust local scrutiny would reduce the dependence on upward accountability to central Government and represent real progress in the existing local council and mayoral scrutiny arrangements. If the Government do support the principle of local public accounts committees, the Bill should provide a timescale for their implementation.
We Liberal Democrats support the aims of the Bill, but it clearly falls short of real devolution. What we have is a Bill that misunderstands the whole point of devolution—namely, decision making from the bottom up, not the top down.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I really welcome this pivotal Bill. When I was deputy leader of Southampton city council, I saw at first hand how local decisions made by local people were transformative for the community, but I also saw over 14 long years of Conservative government how we were held back by a broken system that turned councils into supplicants, in constant competition with our neighbours, forced to put our begging bowl out for crumbs from Whitehall’s table. That ends with this Bill, and I really welcome the change that it represents and the measures it contains. I also welcome the fact that Southampton, along with other councils in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, is part of the devolution priority programme, allowing us to take advantage of these powers from next May.
The political benefits are clear, and the promise in our manifesto is being delivered, but the process matters, so we have to get this right. What I am interested in is how these powers improve the life chances of my constituents. My message to all council leaders, including in Southampton, is that we must be clear about what we want to do with these powers. I note that the Conservative police and crime commissioner, who is now running to be Mayor of Hampshire, has said that her big priorities are closing hotels for asylum seekers and stopping houses being built to avoid upsetting Tory district councils. That is certainly a vision, but it is disappointingly narrower than what this moment requires.
For me, there are three basic tests that regional devolution must meet to make this worth it: first, it improves employment and skills prospects, particularly for those most marginalised from the labour market; secondly, it progresses investment in and integration of our transport network, specifically low-polluting public transport that is well connected and affordable; and thirdly, it galvanises house building, so that working people can afford to live and work locally—that is especially vital in the south, where housing demand is acute and nimby Tory and Lib Dem-led councils are failing to deliver for local people. As an aside, I also welcome the return to the more representative supplementary vote system.
I appreciate that local government reorganisation is a separate process, but in Hampshire our local leaders are being asked to endorse new council areas alongside a mayoral authority. I support the proposal backed by 12 out of the 15 councils in Hampshire—run by all parties—to establish five unitary authorities across the area and have signed a joint letter to support that. I urge Ministers to not simply take the easy option and stitch together pre-existing organisations.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As someone who also represents a constituency in Hampshire, I agree with my hon. Friend. In terms of the letter we have sent, would it not make more sense for boundary changes to be part of the process, as opposed to an add-on at the end?
Darren Paffey
I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for making that point. Absolutely, boundary changes must be looked at sympathetically by Ministers. I hope to get that reassurance in their comments, because what we stand to gain in the short term from a quick and easy decision, we will lose in the long term if councils find themselves saddled with nonsensical boundaries.
I have two other quick requests, the first of which is on mayoral councils. Giving mayoral councils a statutory footing would provide a powerful forum for central Government to meet devolved government and iron out policy issues. Secondly, will the Minister set out the Government’s ambitions and timescales for local public accounts committees? A lot of colleagues have talked about restoring trust in politics, and I think that openness, in particular on public moneys, can be delivered in that way.
In closing, there is a lot to be excited about in the Bill. I am pleased to see this Labour Government fulfilling another manifesto commitment and bringing real change for our communities.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I have cut my six-minute speech down to three. I am a supporter of devolution and devolved power, community empowerment and local decision making. In my seat, we have a combined authority and, as I mentioned earlier, the benefits brought by the West Yorkshire Mayor in transport, with a new bus station, and in crime and policing. However, my community, even after being part of the combined authority for so long, is still not clear on where exactly the responsibilities of the council stop and those of the mayor start, or how they work together. I therefore stand here with some deep concerns.
Instead of empowering communities, the Bill risks recentralising power and bypassing local ward councillors and local actors who truly represent our diverse communities. In Kirklees, we have a cabinet system: eight councillors, none of whom is from Dewsbury and Batley, make major decisions that have an impact on every single resident and constituent in my constituency. Moving to a mandated cabinet system across the country is short-sighted, undemocratic, biased and discriminatory.
The Bill’s design places sweeping strategic powers in the hands of elected mayors and their appointed commissioners, who are often unelected. That is not genuine devolution; it is deception dressed up as localism.
The second issue is a lack of funding and financial transparency. A core failing of the Bill lies in its fiscal ambiguity. There is little detail on sustainable funding. Strategic authorities may depend heavily on mayoral precepts, levies or council contributions, risking instability and underfunded local services. On transparency, while the creation of a local audit office is welcome, this reactive measure attempts to patch a broken audit system where hundreds of authorities still face unaudited accounts, without addressing underlying systemic weaknesses such as wasteful procurement practices, a lack of transparency and unequal distribution of spend across wards.
Community voices are too often marginalised. The Bill does not prevent councils from letting vital community buildings be deliberately left in disrepair, then deciding to close the buildings because they do not have the funds to repair or run them.
In conclusion, this Bill is not devolution; it is a shift of power from local councils to centrally influenced mayors, with an opaque financial model and tokenistic community tools. The Bill must be updated to restore genuine local leadership; to guarantee long-term, transparent funding; to ensure that procurement and audit practices remain accountable and community-informed; and to embed real neighbourhood-level governance with proper funding and citizen engagement, planning and influence.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
English devolution is a mess. It is a postcode patchwork of opaque systems, varying powers and unclear lines of accountability. That is not just an historical failure, but profoundly dangerous, because when the public cannot navigate their democracy or do not know who holds the pen on planning, transport, housing or skills, they understandably disengage. Accountability is lost, and in that vacuum politicians can get away with anything.
I will give the House one clear example: in Hartlepool, the Tees Valley Mayor has imposed a mayoral development corporation with very little consultation—certainly not with the public. Planning powers were stripped from the council for large areas of the town, supposedly to be exercised by an appointed board. We fought hard to secure some form of democratic representation on that board, yet of its 14 members, only four hold elected office and only one is there because they have elected office. In any event, the mayor quickly outsourced the majority of those powers to a private company in Manchester, so people who have never walked our streets are now making the majority of the decisions shaping them.
Andrew Cooper
Does my hon. Friend agree that mayoral development corporations need to be brought under the remit of the new local audit offices that are proposed in the Bill, placing the power to audit them beyond reasonable doubt?
Mr Brash
I agree that far greater powers are required to hold mayoral development corporations to account, and that may be one way of doing it.
The changes are not just about planning powers: publicly owned assets are being transferred from the council and other public bodies. When Labour councillors demanded that those assets, which include Hartlepool’s civic centre, would be returned to public ownership if they were not developed or if the corporation was wound up, that demand was refused. When we asked whether the council could resist this change, the advice was stark: we could not, there was no veto and it could not be stopped by the council. When the council voted against a mayoral development corporation just down the road in Middlesbrough, it was imposed on the town anyway.
Let me be clear that I am not opposed to the principle of development corporations. I was willing to support the one in Hartlepool in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, but the outcome has become confused, with zero accountability and residents left unclear about who to turn to, especially as more and more houses in multiple occupation pop up across our town centre, put there by an unelected, unaccountable company. This is not power in the hands of the people.
Devolution was supposed to mean decisions made closer to communities, but too often the reality is the opposite: power hoarded and pushed further away from the very neighbourhoods that are supposed to be empowered. That is why I support the We’re Right Here campaign, which asks that power does not stop at the mayor’s office but flows to the people themselves. It is championed by Hartlepool’s own community leader, Sacha Bedding. It is a way forward and I hope that Ministers are listening. We must ensure that there is accountability for mayors. They can be the vehicle for delivering for the public, but the power itself can lie only in one place: with the people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call David Simmonds.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It has been a wide-ranging debate. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for their contributions. The range of issues that they and other Members covered starkly highlighted the wholesale inadequacy of the Bill in relation to the scale of the challenges that our country and our communities face.
There are big issues facing local government, which deals with some of the most difficult tasks faced by any of our public services. We know that the cost of social care is rapidly growing and will consume a greater share of the available resources. Since this Government took office, there has been a collapse in the delivery of new housing. It is down 17% in the country as a whole and there has been a 66% drop by large social landlords under Mayor Khan here in London. As we have seen in the news today, the Government’s chums in the unions have voted to extend their strikes until March 2026. The people of our second city are left with their waste uncollected and populations of rats.
Wendy Morton
As an MP for a constituency neighbouring Birmingham, I see all too often the impact of the strikes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is absolutely shocking? The one thing that residents expect from their local council is a regular collection of their household waste, and often garden waste and recycling as well. Birmingham city council is failing the residents.
David Simmonds
I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting that issue; she has been a champion for the voices of those affected by it. While I understand that Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box time and again and said that they must wash their hands of it, the unions said in their statement today that there was “no point” negotiating with the council, because it lacked the authority to resolve the issue. The Government need to roll up their sleeves and get involved.
While our second city struggles with these challenges, here we have a piece of legislation about tinkering with structures. Not only that, but, as we learned just a week ago, it is an entirely uncosted plan. The Department has not undertaken any assessment of the cost-benefit of the measures contained in this legislation. That comes against the backdrop of the decisions of this Government which, as we know, are making the financial situation of our country more perilous by the day. In the first few months of this financial year alone, the Government borrowed £60 billion more than they raised in taxes. Borrowing costs have hit a 27-year high—a level seen only in the early days of the last Labour Government in 1998.
This Bill opens the door to a host of tax-raising powers. As we go through the pages and pages of new powers for Ministers and the Secretary of State to direct local authorities in one way or another and to instruct communities to accept this or that, we see the prospect of local authorities, which are already left a net £1.5 billion worse off by the Government’s rise in national insurance contributions, facing the maxing out of parking charges, huge increases in borrowing and big rises in business rates and council tax.
The £60 billion black hole that this Government have created just in this financial year will need to be bridged somehow. The Chancellor will be back to tell us how in a few weeks’ or months’ time, but I think we can see a clue already that local communities and local authorities will be the route by which those costs are raised. When we read what this Bill has to say about neighbourhood governance, the threat is very clear even at parish council level. Those parishes—the smallest unit of local government, but one with precepting powers—will be one of the local kitties that the Government expect to raid to finance the consequences of their economic mismanagement.
When we think of Sir Humphrey’s famous advice that it was always best to
“dispose of the difficult bit in the title”
of the Bill, because it did a lot less harm there than in the text, we can see that when this Bill talks about devolution, it devolves to the local level the responsibility for those tax rises and service cuts. Can the Minister tell the House how many libraries will close to pay for this Bill? How many road projects will be set aside? How many more communities, such as those referred to by the Labour leader of Shrewsbury, will lose their regular recycling and bin collections to pay for it? How high will council tax go?
What is the limit that Ministers will set on the tax rises that the Bill will drive? What is the maximum parking charge or fine that Ministers think it is reasonable for councils to have? What level of costs will local businesses have to face? When we debated the Bill on business rates that sits behind many of the financial elements of this Bill, Ministers said that they wanted to tax Amazon, but they ended up taxing our local high street stores and our pubs. On average, local pubs alone have to pay £6,500 extra a year, and that was before the £60 billion that this Government have borrowed in the last few months.
I am going to finish with a direct plea to the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He led his party in local government—he was its champion—and for many years, he was a local councillor too, earning a huge degree of respect in this House and in that wider family as a result of the work he did. At the Government’s favoured population level for new unitary authorities, this Bill abolishes 90% of all the councillors in England’s shires at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. That is 90% of the voices of those local communities—people such as Chris Whitbread, who stood up for his community against this Government over the Bell Hotel in Epping. These people have been the voices of their communities on migrant hotels, on protecting their green belt and on air quality. They are the people who stood up for their local communities on issues such as the grooming gangs, which we heard so much about earlier from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips).
This Bill could have been transformational—a chance to step up that voice of local communities. I am sorry that the Minister lost his battle to let those communities keep their voices, but he still has time to change course, to support our reasoned amendment, start again, and build a cross-party consensus on the future of local government. Let this not be the funeral oration for local democracy in England.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I thank hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to today’s important debate. The sheer number of Members who wanted to speak demonstrates how important these issues are, and the passion and enthusiasm shown by Members of this House makes absolutely clear their care for their communities, as well as their desire to see local economies thrive and for the benefits of growth to be felt by every community across the country.
This Bill represents a generational shift in power that will see community empowerment enshrined in law and local leaders and mayors with skin in the game, trusted to get on and do the job they have been elected to do in a new relationship of equals with central Government—one built on a shared commitment to people and place, mutual respect and co-operation. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does exactly what its title says. It effects a top-to-bottom redistribution of power in this country, putting decision making in the hands of our regions, towns, cities and communities and delivering real change for working people in the places they call home, bringing growth and opportunity and empowering local leaders and our mayors to make the right decisions alongside their local communities. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at the start of the debate, this is a landmark Bill that will help us build a modern state based on a fairer, stronger partnership between central and local government.
For too long, power and opportunity has been centralised in Westminster and Whitehall, holding back growth across the country and denying millions of people the opportunity to realise the potential they have within them. Our new approach to devolution and empowerment begins the work of fixing that—powering up our regions through devolution by default and the right to request, as well as new powers, resources and freedoms, and introducing measures to fix local government and its fragile audit regime through sustainable structures and governance. It also gives real power to communities through the community right to buy local assets, rooted in our high streets, neighbourhoods and sporting grounds, and it gives them a greater say in local issues, with frontline ward councillors given the respect, power and tools they need to make a difference in their communities through neighbourhood working arrangements in every council across the country. When we said this was a top-to-bottom transfer of power, we meant it.
Before I turn to the main issues raised in the debate, I will first address the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and also maybe touch on some of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Anybody would think that the Conservatives had not been in government for 14 years, absolutely smashing local government to the core. Anybody would believe that councils were not falling over like dominoes, going bust on their watch, and that the fragmented, deal-by-deal, backroom-negotiated devolution we have had so far did not take place on their watch over 14 years. Let us forget the past, though, and look to the future.
The reasoned amendment raises concerns about local government reorganisation, which—as we have heard from Members across the House—is a big and important issue. It also talks about housing delivery and claims that the Bill means higher bills for local residents. I can assure the House that those concerns are misplaced, and frankly, the Opposition know that. First, the Bill will not affect the process for the 21 areas already undergoing reorganisation. Those 21 areas have responded to their invitation to reorganise already.
Jim McMahon
They absolutely had a choice. It was an invitation that 21 counties have responded to, demonstrating without a doubt that the appetite and interest for reorganisation was there within communities, and they responded in that way.
This process will deliver strong, sustainable unitaries, capable of leading their communities, shaping neighbourhoods and convening local public services to deliver better outcomes for local residents. This process is separate from the Bill. In fact, the devolution priority programme areas of local government reorganisation will be submitting their final proposals to Government on 26 September. All other areas will submit their final proposals on 28 November. Before this Bill even gets out of Committee, local government reorganisation will have final proposals for the 21 counties in the two-tier area. The idea that the Bill is bringing an end to the two-tier system is for the birds. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the work will have been done and the consultations will be taking place and well under way. The Opposition know that, of course, because they used exactly the same process of reorganisation so many times when they were in government to reduce the number of councillors, reduce the number of councils and end the two-tier system in counties across the country.
To the Opposition’s credit, ending the two-tier system is a proven model, because once local government reorganisation has taken place in an area—by the way, I have not heard anybody calling realistically for a return to the old system—savings can be made. There is a world of difference between those and the savings that Government will take, as central Government is making no savings from local councils. That change gives the freedom to move money up and down that two-tier system to where the real pressures are being faced: adult social care and SEND in particular. If we do not take action after 14 years of inaction, the system will fall over, and we will not allow it to fall over on our watch, however bad the inheritance might have been. The Opposition know all that, because they laid the groundwork and were the architects of the current system.
This Bill also gives ambitious planning powers for mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure, working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, with powers to intervene in major strategic planning applications and to grant mayoral development orders.
Jim McMahon
I am afraid that with the time we have, I need to canter through.
The Bill also allows mayoral development corporations to be established and for a mayoral community infrastructure levy to be charged, so that we can unlock much-needed housing and infrastructure to get Britain building once again.
Thirdly, the Opposition claim that this Bill introduces a new precept and will raise bills for working people. I remind them that the mayoral precept has been in law since 2017. In fact, it was a Conservative Government who brought it into law, giving all mayors the power to introduce a precept, so we will not take lectures from them on those powers. I will say this, because I believe in devolution: pound for pound, local people—through their local councils, their local mayors and their combined authorities—see the benefit of that investment in a real way in their neighbourhoods, their communities and their towns. For large parts of Government spending, for different reasons, they do not get that in a tangible way. The accountability that then comes alongside it is important.
Finally, the reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservatives claims that this Bill fails to empower local people. As the House has heard, that is far from the case. This is a generational change, moving power away from Whitehall, with the tools needed at a local level to get things going through community right to buy, neighbourhood governance and all the things that were being asked for. We urge all colleagues to vote against the reasoned amendment in a few moments.
This Bill sees the system of devolution move away from an ad hoc, inconsistent and deal-by-deal model, replacing it with a model that is clear about what places can access, when they can access it, and under what conditions. Our new system confers functions on classes of strategic authority to allow us to deliver our commitment for devolution by default and to streamline those functions, so that all parts of England can be clear about what powers they can access.
Members have raised the supplementary vote a number of times. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for the UK Parliament or for local council elections in England. The Government believe that while the first-past-the-post system has its place, the SV system is the right thing to do for those executive positions where an individual holds that executive power, and the mandate from local people is important. That has been raised a number of times, and I hope that puts that to bed.
On local authorities, this Government have been clear that we will fix the foundations of local government and create a system that is fit, legal and decent. Changes to governance arrangements are one way that we are simplifying local government. Alongside our intention to strengthen the role of frontline ward councillors, this will provide the tools that will make it possible to act on the local issues that people believe are important.
By abolishing the committee system, we will simplify local authority governance arrangements and ensure that all councils operate an executive form of governance. I have heard the representations from Sheffield Members and others, and meetings will take place to discuss that further, but abolishing the committee system will provide clarity and accountability for local people, and importantly will strengthen that direct line of democratic accountability. We have accepted the continuation of the 13 legacy directly elected council mayors, while introducing measures to prevent the creation of any new ones.
The subject of neighbourhood governance has also been raised. The Bill sets out a clear ambition for all local authorities to hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working into their governance. I do, of course, hear the calls on behalf of town and parish councils, and I share Members’ commitment to that local level, but if all we have are town and parish councils operating at a local level and no neighbourhood governance in the principal councils, we will miss the opportunity to hardwire localism in everything that councils do. We believe that we must have that hardwiring so that local people feel genuinely empowered. That is the only difference, however: this is completely compatible with town and parish councils working in partnership. When that is effective, they work in unison for the benefit of the local community, which is what we want to see from now on.
A significant amount of attention has rightly been paid to the subject of assets of community value. As we have all seen, community spaces such as pubs, cultural venues and places of worship are the life of our communities. They bring people together, foster a sense of community pride and support local economies. However, 14 years of the previous Government saw a total dismantling of that social infrastructure. People will be far too familiar with the sight of high streets being boarded up one by one, and with community centres being sold off, libraries being lost and parks being forgotten. Places that once defined a locality have been stripped away by 14 lost years. Too many of those critical assets are being lost, which is leading to soulless high streets and less vibrant local communities.
That is not because of a lack of will in local communities. It is because they do not have the tools and the powers to protect those assets and take them on. With the Bill we are starting the work to build back strong communities, which is due in no small part to the significant campaigning of the co-operative movement and the MPs here in the House who have made the case clearly that, in the end, ownership matters. We will give communities the tools and the real power to take on the assets that they love, because that is the right thing to do.
On all these issues the previous Government could have done far more, but what did we hear over the course of today’s debate? We heard Opposition Members say, “You are going too far—it is a power grab”, and in the same breath, “You are not going far enough, and you could have done more.” The truth is that this is a generational shift in power which will see a break-up of the stranglehold that Westminster and Whitehall have retained for far too long against communities across the country. This will be done with local communities, not to them, and indeed that is what has happened so far. Whether we are talking about our approach to fair funding and repairing the foundations, our approach to local government reorganisation or even our approach to devolution, this has all been done in genuine partnership with local leaders who are working together.
What I find so astonishing—and there is a night-and-day difference here—is the almost soulless response from Opposition Front Benchers who decry all these measures, omitting to say that their own local councillors are leading the charge at a local level. The leadership that has been shown, even by Conservative council leaders, puts those Opposition Front Benchers to shame. I do not know how many visits they make around the country, but I cannot imagine that their local representatives value the interpretation that has been presented from the Conservative Front Bench, whether it is about elections, devolution or reorganisation. We are not asking Conservatives Members to be as good as the Government, but we are asking them to be at least as good as their own councillors, and to stand with them instead of standing against them. I urge all Members to support this landmark Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 16th September 2025
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2025 - (16 Sep 2025)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Tracy Brabin, chair of UK Mayors and Mayor of West Yorkshire; Lord Houchen, Metro Mayor of the Tees Valley; and Donna Jones, Hampshire police and crime commissioner and mayoral candidate. We have until 2.40 pm for this panel.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
Tracy Brabin: Thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence. It is a real pleasure to be here. I am very excited about the way that mayors can help you as you take the Bill through Parliament. When I was a Member of Parliament, I sat on Bill Committees going through Bills line by line, as you are. It is great that we can have our voices heard.
The opportunities for the Bill are exceptional. It gives us a statutory footing for mayoral strategic authorities and clarity around the framework for devolution. We have seen from the leadership of the Government that devolution by default is the theme. One challenge when we have not had clarity is that some Departments have bought into that memo and some have not. The Bill gives us the statutory framework so that mayors who are new and are coming on to devolution understand the three tiers.
The Bill gives us that great opportunity for clarity, but also elements such as the right to request. You will know that a number of established mayors and mayoral strategic authorities across the country are further along than newer mayoral strategic authorities, have certain powers and are already delivering faster growth than the rest of the country. The Bill gives them the opportunity to request further powers, freedoms and flexibilities. For example, as UK Mayors, we have a consensus on 16-to-19 skills, on careers, and on a visitor levy that would give us the opportunity to have an income stream—£20 million for London and potentially £1 million to £2 million for my own region—that we could reinvest in our regions.
The challenges are always about potentially not being brave enough and pulling back from devolution. We have a country that is so centralised. If we continue to do what we have always done we will get the same results. I think this is a revolution of devolution, and I am really pleased to see the enthusiasm and determination of so many Ministers and Members of Parliament to get it over the line.
We are also here to help you go further. This is only part of the process. As we say among the mayors, this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling; it will be iterative as we go forward over the years. We are here to support your thinking and help with understanding.
Donna Jones: Thank you very much for the question. I have only got positive things to say. This was started by the previous Government and has been continued with gusto by the Labour Government, and I am very grateful for it and welcome it. When the new mayoral combined authority in my area, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—two counties; 2.2 million people—is created in May next year, it will be one of the largest in the country straightaway.
We should have had a devolution deal 10 years ago. I remember negotiating, when I was the leader of a city council, with Greg Clark, the then Secretary of State. We had the deal on the table from the Treasury and it covered about 50% of the geographical area that I currently represent as police and crime commissioner. We lost out. The Secretary of State was shuffled into another Department and it fell by the wayside. That was a great pity, particularly for the health inequalities that we have across my sub-region of the country, and for the businesses that I believe have lost out on inward investment and opportunity—the opportunity cost really is the biggest thing. When you look at the most recent pot of money that the Government announced, in March this year, the roads infrastructure fund— £15.7 billion—I have calculated that my area probably would have got over £2 billion of that money for roads, and we desperately need that.
We need a seat around the table that Tracy is chairing and at the Council of Nations and Regions meeting as well. We need a mayor to be championing and spearheading my sub-region. The final positive thing for me is the opportunity in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, two of the largest parts of the south-east of England. Over the last decade, on average, our gross value added has been about £800 per head under that of the rest of the south-east. We have opportunity, but we do need some investment and we need someone to be spearheading.
I do not really want to be negative, but I am going to identify one challenge. I think it will dissipate over time, but to start with, for whoever becomes the mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, it is going to be a bit of a sales job, because the public are saying, “It’s another layer of government.” On the whole, there is a lot of misunderstanding around the opportunity that is coming. However, over time, when you are able to demonstrate the programmes you have delivered, the investment you can secure and the positive things that can come out of working closer with the Government, I think the public will very quickly come around to the fact that they really do desperately need a mayor for Hampshire and the Solent.
Ben Houchen: I will pick out a few points. First, to directly answer the question, I think the planning powers coming through the Bill are going to be hugely helpful. Giving mayors a strategic role in that, including in setting the spatial framework—I appreciate that we used to have spatial frameworks and we are coming full circle back to them—and having democratic oversight invested in a single individual, or what people see as a single individual, anyway, is really important. Obviously, we will have to get the permission of the majority of the councils within the combined authority area, but having that focal point is really important.
The drawback of the planning powers is that they are going to be very slow to arrive. The current indication from the Department is that by the time the legislation has passed and all of statutory instruments have gone through, we will not get the powers until maybe July, potentially September, next year. That is a long time to wait for powers that I think we can all agree are going to help with our growth and progress as a country.
The other thing that is still to be clarified is how we will be able to exercise those powers. There is still some grey around what types of planning permissions we will be able to instigate ourselves, through mayoral development orders, and what we will be able to do to call in. In effect, we are getting similar powers to the Mayor of London, but at what threshold? In my area, Teesside, being able to call in maybe 10, 20 or 30 houses would be significant to drive through development and growth, but we are not sure whether the threshold is going to be set at 20 or 30 houses or at 100, 200 or 300 houses. Some clarity on that is going to be really helpful. The reason we need the clarity is that we are all in the process of having to set up the teams within the organisations, and recruit the planners and the experts. That really needs to start now, and without that clarity it is quite difficult to take that step forward. But planning is substantially the best power within the Bill to date.
I personally think—as a mayor, I would say this; I am sure Tracy would agree with me—that more mayoral powers give us directly elected mayors more democratic oversight and accountability with the public. The other side of that coin is that there is a rebalancing of powers at the combined authority, slightly away from the collective of the councils that we have in our combined authority cabinet, and towards investing direct powers in mayors. I absolutely do come down on that side, not just because I am mayor, but because there is a way in which you can make quicker progress by investing more mayoral powers, whether in the establishment of development corporations, in some of the planning powers or in various other things in the Bill. We saw it a little bit at the end of the previous Government, but we are seeing with this Government an acceleration of those powers. Again, it really depends which side of the fence you sit on whether that is a positive or a negative.
Single pot has been parroted as a huge success. I think it is a good success and a good step forward, but I am mindful that we should not over-celebrate something that is not the success that it is sometimes portrayed to be. There are still a lot of restrictions on how you can move the money around. Sometimes it is communicated as, “We’ll have a pot of money and it will be for us to decide how to move those pots of money around.” Actually, within the rules, there is a percentage of money that can be moved from one pot to another. Even within that, sometimes, there are so-called retained projects; in particular, for example, with transport money, the Department for Transport keeps its claws in by saying, “Okay, it’s your money, but we’re going to keep oversight of this project,” and if it is not happy, in effect it has a veto on taking it to the next stage.
It is a good step, but it feels, throughout the Bill, that we have taken half a step from where we want to be. That is not a criticism—the Government have done really well in getting the Bill to where it is. This goes to the point about the right to request. Nobody wants to have taken the strategic decision about what devolution should be, so the Bill is a bit of a halfway house to move devolution on a bit. I think we need, as a collective, and as a UK Government, to decide on the future destination of devolution. The Government have only been allowed to get to where they are because that question has not been answered and, to be frank, it was not answered for three or four years under the previous Government either.
The Bill is a good step forward, but there are lots of things to be cautious about. I make those points because if we want to go as quickly as the Government have said—and I completely agree with their rhetoric around growth—it could have gone a little bit further, a little bit more quickly.
Tracy Brabin: Not every mayor has the potential for the integrated settlement at the speed at which they feel they are ready. That is a challenge. For Members’ understanding, the organisation is funded from top-slicing of projects, so there is a real desire from mayors to have dedicated funding to run the organisation—for example, your legal or HR departments. Everything is top-sliced from projects. That is not necessarily the most sustainable or strategic way to fund an organisation.
David Simmonds
Q
The Chair
Pithy answers, please.
Tracy Brabin: The mayoral precept is democratically held by the mayor for the public. It would be for transport projects; it would be allocated to something specific. For example, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, uses it for young people’s travel. The Bill widens the opportunity to use the precept, but none of the public would be happy if you were paying off debts. It is fundamentally for betterment of and investment in communities, in the way that the police and crime commissioner precept is held to deliver better outcomes, whether that is more police community support officers on the street or initiatives around violence against women and girls. It is democratically held by the mayor. We have not introduced it as yet in West Yorkshire, but others have.
Donna Jones: I will be very brief because I am conscious that there are lots of Members on the Committee. The referendum limit is the prohibitor. Essentially, a mayor, like a police and crime commissioner and a council, can precept to the level that they want, but you have to have a referendum if you are going over that limit. Although the Government are right to want some checks and balances, so that you do not get areas that are really out of kilter with others, a referendum is prohibitive: it becomes very political, and it is very costly to do. Therefore, I think there should be a simpler mechanism if a mayor wants to precept above the Secretary of State’s agreed level. Perhaps that could be with written consent from the Secretary of State, as opposed to a referendum.
Ben Houchen: I am not a fan of mayoral precepts generally. I have not raised one, and have promised ever since I was elected not to raise one. Some transparency could be brought to the legislation. You have mayoral precepts, you have transport levies, and there is lobbying from a number of mayors around tourism taxes and so on. From a constituent point of view, forgetting the rights and wrongs of it, all that could be consolidated into a single precept, rather than having a separate transport levy, which can be quite opaque, particularly where you have new combined authorities. Some of those taxations are merged into combined authorities, and who has actually raised the levy can be quite lost. It ultimately all comes into the combined authority once it is established, but the Committee could take away the question of how that could be consolidated to streamline the precept. From the public’s point of view, the mayor has the ability to raise a mayoral precept; there is no reason to have a transport levy as well. For transparency’s sake, that should be clarified as a single levy, if you are going to have one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Q
Tracy Brabin: I will be pithy—and congratulations on your role, by the way; I know that we have a champion by our side. What is important is the way that we can collectively come to a consensus on the Mayoral Council and say, “The mayors are agreed that this is the next step,” and then the Government have to explain why we cannot have it. There is also an opportunity for individual mayors to have something of value that relates to them and their region specifically. The key to that, Minister, is surely for it to be as straightforward and efficient as possible, rather than hoops and processes.
As mayors, one of the things that we are discussing at the moment is taxi licensing. Just to give you the numbers, 49% of private hires operating in Greater Manchester are licensed by authorities outside of the 10 local authorities. We know, from Baroness Casey’s work about violence against women and girls, how that is a weakness in the system when it comes to the safety of young women. As mayors, we are looking to the council to help us to understand how we can do that more efficiently, but that may be something that affects only some urban metro mayors and not others. It is about how we can collectively ask, which is a really fast-track process, but then there will be individual conversations.
Donna Jones: I really welcome the right to request. Following on from what Tracy just said about mayors and their unique geographical areas, in my patch, I—or whoever is successful next year—will have the largest island, aside from Ireland itself, of course, that we represent in part of England: the Isle of Wight. That piece of water creates a lot of problems for the Isle of Wight in terms of the supply chain and the skills market; things are a lot more expensive on the Isle of Wight.
One of the things that I am really pleased about is that the Government are looking, through the Bill to establish Great British Railways, which is coming forward, to give mayors greater powers around the planning, performance, improvement and project management of rail networks in their areas. I argue that that should be extended to ferries, particularly for my area. The Isle of Wight has three main transporters: Wightlink and Red Funnel are the two car and foot passenger ferries, and Hovertravel is a hovercraft that runs until 6.30 pm every day. For a lot of people who live on the island, it is cost prohibitive to travel off it and back. If it is not included in Committee or picked up by you, Minister, I will be requesting the right to have a regulator power over the ferry companies that operate across the Solent, because of course they need Crown permission to operate across that piece of water.
Following on from Tracy’s point about the uniqueness of certain geographical areas, I think that there are other good things, such as lane rental approval. I love the idea of that. Utility companies are given permission by the highway authority to dig up the road, and it goes on and on. That has an effect on transport, pollution and people’s travel to work time, and it has a knock-on effect on economic growth in the area, putting people off travelling to or from work or taking up jobs. We have to look at that. Giving mayors the ability to effectively tax or fine companies every day they go over the set period of two weeks, or however long it would be, is absolutely key. I could go on—there are some brilliant things in here—but I welcome what you are trying to achieve.
Ben Houchen: The right to request is an interesting one. There is a bit of an academic argument about the Government wanting to standardise mayoral powers so they are same across the board, but then the right to request, if done correctly, would allow for differentiation. There is an issue about whether we are looking for a standard model or whether we want more of a patchwork. That is for members of the Committee to think about, but it is important: at the nth degree, if you have differentiation through the right to request, you could have areas with hugely different powers. That is going to create political problems, with people feeling like one area has more control than another.
Administration from a central Government point of view is also difficult. Irrespective of devolution, there is always a clawback into central Government. That is probably right, rather than giving us carte blanche over everything, but it goes back to the strategic question about what you want to happen. The ultimate right to request—this is where you are going to have proper devolution that allows for earned autonomy over time—is the relationship between combined authorities, the Department and the Treasury. The key question that needs to be answered is how you get the combined authority to have an accountable officer within the organisation. Where I think combined authorities should get to is being treated as geographical Departments. We should be treated in the same way as a Department, bidding into Budgets and spending reviews, with our full, eclectic mix—from housing to transport and everything in between—and we should be accountabledirectly to the Treasury.
The only thing holding that up is the internal civil service mechanism of having an accountable officer outside Whitehall. That sounds flippant, but it is a difficult thing for the civil service to deal with; once you deal with that, it negates the need for a right to request or anything else, because over the years organisations will mature with that direct relationship with the Treasury.
It also gets into some key niggles that I know other mayors care about: “Why do you therefore need organisations like Homes England?”. If you get into the right to request, you do not need them. At the minute we are already doing half of what Homes England does. The Government have again gone into this halfway house of strategic partnerships, instead of taking the bold leap they should have taken: where you have mayors, you do not need Homes England, so make them the financially accountable body and ensure there are ties back in to central Government for oversight and value for money. Something more strategic could be done, but for me it goes back to the point that the Government did not want to address the strategic question of where devolution is going over the next five or 10 years.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Q
Tracy Brabin: Thank you for that question; I know your mayor has raised that with me. The strategic overview is really helpful, because some councils might have different processes. Uniformity across mayoral strategic authorities can only be helpful. I would say that the majority of mayors feel that that is a solution to some of the problem, where we have seen cowboys from way outside people’s patches, not necessarily with the same expectations on their vehicles or safety and so on, and we do not know who they are. It is important to have that clarity for the safety of the public.
Sam Carling
Q
Tracy Brabin: I suppose the same question could be asked of the police and crime commissioner. The deputy mayor for policing and crime, Alison Lowe, is not directly elected by the public; she is accountable to me. I am the one directly elected, and we hold the chief constable to account. That is democracy. The outcomes from that individual will reflect on the impact that the mayor is having, good or bad, so that is about public scrutiny as well.
It is also helpful, if you are a strategic or combined authority, to have a good mix of partners. In West Yorkshire, we have three opposition members, so we are open to scrutiny and to challenge; that is where you can get the clear water of what is going on.
Donna Jones: On licensing and the taxi point, when I was leader of Portsmouth city council 10 years ago, we were one of the areas where Uber exploded first. We were a growth area for it on the south coast, but I think its registered office and its licensing for drivers was up in Wolverhampton or somewhere, so it was miles away and had no bearing on what I was trying to deliver in Portsmouth, in terms of signage on taxis and the uniformity we were trying to achieve.
On safety, and the point Tracy made about what we have been calling for as police and crime commissioners, I was calling three years ago for CCTV to be mandatory in taxis. What you could do, through Parliament, is to mandate that through separate taxi licensing regulation and law. Strategic authorities could play a part, if the licensing authorities remain, like local planning authorities, at the lowest level with the unitary authorities—as it will be after local government reorganisation. The strategic authorities could then have the right to call in or set some strategic licensing powers that the licensing authorities beneath them have to implement. That could be a way to address it.
Ben Houchen: On the commissioner point, I echo what Tracy says: ultimately, the democratic power of that is vested in the mayor. It is for the mayor to appoint, or not. That goes further than just commissioners, with the changes in the Bill around the establishment of mayoral development corporations, the appointment to the boards of those and the fact they can, if they choose, take planning powers, compulsory purchase order powers and so on. You are in effect appointing a board that the mayor appoints—nobody else appoints it; it does not have to be democratically elected, with the exception that there has to be a councillor from the authority where that development corporation is established. We have had some experience of that over the last couple of years in Teesside, as I am sure you are aware.
Ultimately, if you are not happy with that, or with the strategic direction that the mayor is setting for the board to follow, while individuals are not necessarily directly elected, the mayor is accountable. Therefore, if people are not happy with the commissioner, that can be shown through the ballot box at a mayoral election. Whether it is the night tsar or someone else—I apologise; I forget the one you said was appointed in Peterborough—ultimately, it is for the public to decide whether they are happy with how the mayor conducts matters and uses the powers given to them via the Government and Parliament.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Q
Welcome back, Mayor Brabin; I wanted to ask about some of the evidence we heard earlier from the District Councils’ Network. There was a concern that the legislation could undermine some of the traditional links between the public and their parish and town councils. I will ask for a brief answer, because I am aware that there are other Members who want to ask questions. For the two existing mayors, can you give an example of how you have managed to encapsulate the views of town and parish councils to help to guide you through your mayoral term, and whether there are any lessons that could be learned? Donna, have you started to think about how you will encapsulate that and make sure that people are listened to on a ground level politically?
Tracy Brabin: We have not been subject to much of that larger reorganisation, but we are determined to listen to the voices of others, whether through mayor’s question time, going out to the public, where councillors and individuals can ask any question, or “Message the Mayor” on the BBC, where anybody can ring in and ask any question. That also includes working with our voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, whether that is on the mayor’s cost of living fund, or working with smaller organisations on the impact in their communities, towns and villages. I would hope there would be a consensus in West Yorkshire that people felt heard.
I know for a lot of people there will be a sense that there is potentially a power grab and powers are going in the wrong direction. I absolutely believe that this is localism in its pure sense, because these people are elected by the public—275,000 people voted for a Labour mayor in West Yorkshire. You have that mandate. We have skin in the game. We know our communities, businesses, further education colleges, universities, innovators and entrepreneurs. We can definitely deliver for villages, towns and cities in our patch.
Ben Houchen: The honest answer is that, with the development of combined authorities and regional mayors, and a lot of reorganisation going on at county council level, as well as lots of unitaries—Teesside was one of the first unitary areas, many years ago—there are a lot of people looking over their shoulders at what reorganisation might mean. I say this as a previous town councillor and a former unitary councillor: I am not hugely convinced of town and parish council involvement at a regional level. There is a more fundamental question that should be asked around the modern need for town and parish councils in their current form. That is obviously well above my pay grade, and I am sure you will be considering that at some point in the future. It is not something I personally foresee getting much traction or involvement at a combined authority level.
Paul Holmes
I thought you might say that—thank you.
Donna Jones: I have represented my two counties, with 2.2 million people, for four and a bit years now. It is tough, because I have two large geographical counties; it would take me three and a half hours to travel from north to south of my patch, and I know colleagues have the same issue. If you are doing your job well and you are delivering, the press—the media, radio and TV—is your best friend. The power of being able to work with the press to get out the good news of what you are doing is very impactful. For mayors who have police under them, if the police are delivering and helping, that is another way of getting messaging out there.
On parish and town councils, I think that in my area, the rub will come with local government reorganisation, which thankfully is a year or two behind devolution—or planned to be one year behind it. I am trying to very clearly separate the two: this is about spending and more power to our elbow in Hampshire and the Solent, and that is about how we save money through local government reorganisation.
If I was still a unitary authority leader, facing the prospect of moving from 15 councils in my area to perhaps four or five, I would be consulting on parish and town councils, if we did not have them in the area that I represented. When you have four very large unitary authorities across a county such as Hampshire, which has 1.8 million people, the nucleus of your council becomes much further away from the village or town that you live in. Therefore, from a democratic perspective, getting things at that lower level to give real buy-in will be key.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Q
How do you understand those different areas? In my area, Wessex, there will be four counties, with two different police authorities and two different fire authorities, and the authority itself. It will all have to line up eventually. I am really concerned about how you can improve services for your residents, because that is what this is all about. It feels very remote when services such as police and fire might be very different in the New Forest compared with the centre of Portsmouth, the North York Moors or one of the cities.
Tracy Brabin: If I could just make the case for mayors and police and crime commissioners, we have had so many amazing opportunities because of those two responsibilities—the teaming and ladling of responsibilities and moneys, and being able to have a strategic police and crime plan. Crime does not just come from bad people; it comes from poor housing, a lack of skills and opportunity, and a lack of transport to get to jobs and training. The ability to bring together those responsibilities in a Venn diagram gives us really great outcomes.
One example is using money from the apprenticeship levy share scheme that would have gone back to Whitehall. We have kept some of that money in the region, including £1 million from Morrisons, to train up 15 PCSOs to go on my bus network and in bus stations, so that we can target my safety of women and girls plan. That opportunity is a gift. I know that the Mayor of South Yorkshire called an early election in order to get those powers, because he saw the opportunity. I also know that Kim McGuinness, who has been a PCC and is now a mayor, is desperate for PCC responsibilities, because she knows the benefit.
To your point, the challenge is coterminosity. I know that the previous Home Secretary was very focused on trying to identify how to get not just savings, but efficiencies, in coterminosity. Bringing fire into that makes a fair bit of sense. In West Yorkshire, we already have a really decent relationship between fire and police, so I am not sure whether having additional powers would make a substantive difference, but I will say to the Committee that mayors need to be in local resilience forums. Following the horrendous attack in Southport, the public, the Government and the press went to the mayor, but the mayor is not privy to all the information in the first instance. The resilience piece is really important, and I know the Bill is going to address that.
The Chair
Donna Jones, we have five minutes left for this panel.
Donna Jones: I will be very brief. While I was effectively advocating for my own job to go, I support what Tracy is saying, because it is about representing the public as best we can and spending taxpayers’ money wisely.
I will give you an example of why there is support for police and crime powers, as well as fire, going into a mayor’s office. One of the biggest frustrations that I have had as a police and crime commissioner has been the lack of ability to convene. I can convene with good will, so I can ask people and bring them together, but I get all different levels from different councils. Sometimes I get the director of children’s services or the director of adult social care coming to my strategic violence reduction meetings; sometimes I get the community safety manager.
Community safety partnerships are hit and miss in a lot of councils—you will know that from your patch. Some district councils see the benefit in community safety, and they still have their community wardens; in others, the emergency planning manager is doubling up as the CSP manager. PCCs have historically paid money towards the CSP manager and the functions that they are delivering, knowing that really, they are just propping up the council’s emergency planning management team, and there is not really a CSP at all. It comes together when, sadly, a baby has died or there is a need to convene a domestic homicide review. That still sits at the district council level, which is an oddity to me.
A whole load of things are aggravating factors. On the serious violence duty, for example, my requirement is to make sure that everyone who has a duty under that is fulfilling it, but I do not have a direct duty myself. I have to make sure that all the councils are doing what they need to do. Each year, I am given a pot of money from the Home Office to do the strategic needs assessment, and then I co-ordinate that and pass it back to the Home Office, on behalf of prisons, probation, the police and all my councils. Some councils turn up and play a part in that; some do not.
Giving the mayor the public safety commissioner role, so that what the councils are currently doing can be pulled through the mayor, and so that the mayor has the right and ability to convene and make sure that people are working and fulfilling their duty to collaborate, will be a game changer. It will make communities safer. However, police moneys are ringfenced, while fire money is not—that is a matter for you.
In relation to local resilience forums, I completely agree. Baroness Jane Scott, who was Minister in the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, did a pilot about having sub-committees sitting under the main LRF executive, which is politically led, to brief MPs and council leaders on the highest risks that the council chief execs are working on with all the statutory agencies. We were not one of the selected areas, but we have decided to go ahead and set one up in my area and, as the police and crime commissioner, I am currently chairing it.
Ben Houchen: There has been a huge Government push, in recent months, to try to get the co-ordination and coterminous boundaries to match, because this Government have definitely doubled down on the idea that mayors should be both police and crime commissioners and in charge of the fire authority.
It probably does not surprise many people in this room that I am one of the exceptions among pretty much all the mayors that are currently elected. Again, for me, it comes back to the strategic point. It is not particularly about the police; it is about the role of the mayor and the role of the combined authority. I personally believe—and I would say this, would I not?—that one of the reasons many of the combined authorities have been so successful is because we have a very narrow remit, which is largely economic regeneration, investment and job creation. That obviously links in to things such as transport and skills, and there is therefore a logical argument to take that further to health, policing and fire and so on.
I would go a different way. If it were me—as I have said, it is not me and it will not be me—I would not give us such broad powers. I would not give me police or fire. What I would give me is more powers over the things I already have a remit for. I would go deeper, rather than broader.
I would therefore try to build into a Bill the need and requirement for better consultation and co-ordination with other democratically elected leaders. The LRF is a perfect example of better co-ordination. The mayor should be on the local resilience forum—that is just a miss, because we are brand new. It does not mean that we have to take over the local resilience forum and be in charge of it all; I think the concept goes beyond that. Obviously, I would say that, as a small-state Conservative, because the more powers you give us, the broader, the more bureaucratic and the less effective we become. Keeping us narrow, but giving us more powers in relation to what we have control over, rather than just broadening it out, will give you better outcomes from us. As I say, I know that I am the exception to the rule in that opinion.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Q
Tracy Brabin: I am the Mayor of West Yorkshire because there was not a one Yorkshire, so I would say that it is for local people to decide.
Donna Jones: The Government have made a commitment to have all of England in a devolved deal by 2029. If the Government want to deliver on that mandate, which they ran on in the general election, I think that they have no choice but to intervene.
Ben Houchen: I think we are now at a stage where Government need to force it.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all our witnesses for coming and answering the questions. We now move on to our next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Goodacre and Allen Simpson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Andrew Goodacre, chief executive officer of the British Independent Retailers Association, and Allen Simpson, deputy chief executive of UKHospitality. For this panel we have until 3.10 pm.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Q
Andrew Goodacre: Looking at it from a wider view, we are largely supportive of devolution and what is in the White Paper. If I put the retail lens on it, though, especially independent retail, which are the businesses that we represent, they will always ask, “What is in it for us?” There is a fear among those businesses that if you look at the national growth strategy, neither retail nor hospitality really feature in there as one of the eight key areas for investment and growth. I have not seen all the local growth plans. I have looked at the north-east and the west midlands one—that is where we are based—and largely those growth plans are aligned to the national growth areas. I understand that: the mayors, the areas and the regions want to create jobs that are skilled and well paid, and that grow the local economy by focusing on industries of growth.
You could argue that retail, and high street retail especially, has seen itself decline over the years as customer behaviour has changed, so I understand where the direction is, but there has to be a fear. If I was a shop owner now looking out, I would be saying, “Okay, I hear where you’re going to spend money. How does that work for me? How does that make a difference for me in my high street in Coleshill in the west midlands, near where I live?”—or in Solihull, or anywhere else in the UK that they might be?
If you look at the north-east plan, I do not see high streets mentioned once—I have only scan read it; someone may be able to point me in the right direction—and in the west midlands plan, I see priority high streets mentioned. Priority high streets are where they are planning to invest and create jobs, so they recognise the need to invest in high streets in the areas where they are creating jobs. I am not sure where that leaves the others. If you look at it purely from a retail point of view, there has to be a fear that the focus on high-tech, highly skilled jobs and on creating in the local economy will create pockets of success, but it will also create pockets of neglect as well, if we are not careful.
Allen Simpson: I agree with that. The element of a local growth plan that I think is really positive is the word “growth”. Quite often, when we ask local communities what they want, we are talking to them about whether they do or do not want housing, but encouraging local communities to think about what sort of growth they want is really valuable.
I think you are right about the tendency that exists. Often, if you ask local political leaders what sort of growth they want, they will start talking about wanting to be a fintech hub. In an old life, when I was at a devolved organisation that used London mayoral money to drive economic development, I quite often used to get asked by people around the country how they could create a fintech hub in Devon, Dorset or wherever. I used to say, “You’re probably not going to. You’re likely not going to succeed, but there are industries that you can develop.” That might have been agritech, agricultural tourism or food supply chains, depending on where they were in the country.
Your point about encouraging local communities to think about the role of hospitality and retail in driving quite visible growth is really powerful. There is something about the distribution of the value of growth that we would encourage local communities to consider. I happen to know your patch quite well—I am from Maidstone, so it is a world I know. If you look at the areas around the Kent coast, for example, which have done well over the last few years, the characteristic of the growth strategy has been to use hospitality, leisure and experience as a way of driving other forms of growth. Take Folkestone, for example, and the work around the Harbour Arm there, or Margate, or 20 years ago, Whitstable. With growth strategies that, first, ask how you make a place liveable and attractive, you find that you crowd in other forms of growth, which may be within the eight industrial sectors.
I am very in favour of local growth plans, because they help to encourage local communities to ask what sort of growth they want and to be pro it. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and if you ask people what sort of growth they want, you get an answer about what growth they want. If you ask people what other sorts of development they want, often you get an anti-development answer.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Q
Andrew Goodacre: I am really lucky in the role that I do. I get to visit places around the country. I have become involved with initiatives. Recently, there was an initiative from Visa, which sponsored the “Let’s Celebrate Towns” awards. I was judge for one section of the awards, which was about high streets that had been regenerated. Local areas had to put themselves forward, and we considered elements of the regeneration—partly digital, and partly how they have integrated transformation into their world and understood their target market. I have visited three of those places since in the last two months.
In fact, last month, I was in a place called Oakengates in Shropshire, near Telford. I visited Enniskillen in Northern Ireland, and I visited New Malden, a suburb in south London. Those are three different areas—three different socioeconomic places with different background foundations. What they all have in common is local pride, local involvement and local people making decisions. Not all of them are councillors or politicians, or sit on a local authority. New Malden was about a focus group looking at ways they could improve their status, being between Wimbledon and Richmond—often the forgotten part. They have created a fantastic cultural experience, because they have a large Korean population that is integrated very well into it.
If you go to Oakengates, it has a very simple local high street. It has a huge retail park near it, but it works well. The local council and local people work well with the local authority, and they receive funding. It has free car parking as a policy—no wonder there is a 94% occupancy rate on the high street against an average of 86%. Enniskillen has a business improvement district, which is funded by rate payers, although it is slightly different in Northern Ireland. Again, local people are proud of their high street. When I walked up and down, I saw only one empty unit.
It is about local people with pride in their area who really understand what they are trying to achieve. Each one has a different mission. New Malden wants to become a food centre and a tourist attraction in that respect. Enniskillen wants to build on the fact that it is the only island town in Northern Ireland and is worth visiting; it has so many fantastic local features. Oakengates wants to be a local place for local people, and not forgotten about despite the huge retail park next to it.
I see plenty examples of local people, if they are given a chance and the right involvement and engagement, being able to make the right decisions for their areas, because they really understand what they need. Sometimes they need help and guidance, and it is not always perfect. I am sure that if I really thought about it, I could think of some bad examples, but just recently I have had the privilege of seeing three where it works.
Allen Simpson: Great examples. I mentioned Folkestone as an example of somewhere that has regenerated incredibly strongly. That is, to some degree, non-replicable because one thing that has driven Folkestone’s success is a wealthy local man who has ploughed a lot of his personal wealth into regenerating his community—largely, from what I can see, for social purposes. Bootle is an interesting case study of a specific national Government grant being used locally to drive high street regeneration, with the intention of bringing in other sorts of business behind it. That has been quite successful. There is another example up in Aberdeen around the dock area, where a mixture of local businesses and—I think I am right in saying—council grants have reduced the cost of access.
A universal trend seems to be peppercorn renting, to the extent that an ex-industrial, brownfield site will be brought online. This was true in Peckham when the cocktail bar, Frank’s, opened above the Peckhamplex. I was young at the time, so it was 15 or 20 years ago. Low rents have two benefits. First, they allow businesses to take a risk on opening in an area where it is unclear whether there is live spend available to them. Secondly, those opportunities are open to local people. That is an important point, because the wealth generated tends to be returned to the community in quite a powerful way. I come back to the point that if you can get that right—and there are lots of examples of where it has been less successful—you get other sorts of economic activity crowding in. If it goes well, you have to manage questions of gentrification and how you keep the character of the local area, but that is a second-order concern for a lot of areas.
The Chair
Can I just ask you to keep your answers fairly short? We have two very important questioners coming up. I call the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
The Chair
Before you answer, can I ask you to direct your answers to the speaker or the Chair, rather than to each other?
Andrew Goodacre: Running a high street business, whether it be retail or whatever else, is expensive, and the costs are going up all the time. When you talk to those business owners, they will tell you that the three biggest chunks are labour, business rates and rent. If your rent is only ever going to go up because the lease stipulates it and there is no negotiation around that, irrespective of what the economic climate might be or what has happened in the local area to perhaps take footfall away to a different part of town, your business is left with ever-increasing costs and no power to change it. That just does not seem right.
If there is pain because of a change in the area, the landlord, the property owner, has to feel some of that as well. At the moment it is only ever faced by the commercial tenant who has a difficult decision to make: either they go with the higher rent in the hope that they can compensate for it or they leave the business. They should not be faced with that choice, in fairness. These are hardworking businesses. People have probably been running those businesses for many years. There needs to be a more sensible, mature conversation taking place between landlords and commercial tenants. I think it does happen; I think there are good examples of it. But if we leave it to best practice, if we leave it to the industry and good actors dominating, we will be waiting another 20 years and sat here moaning about upward-only rents, so we do need to remove it.
Allen Simpson: Two quick points on rent reviews. The first thing is that upward-only rent reviews also drive up business rates because of the link between rateable values and rents. So the Government’s intention to reduce business rates expenses for businesses relies on addressing upward-only rent reviews. They do bake in inflation in the way that you say. There is an A/B test here, which is that the pubs code, of course, banned them some years ago. That has increased the amount of time that the average pub tenant stays on site. It has not led, that I can see, to any other negative outcomes, so there is evidence that it does actually increase tenancy rates.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Andrew Goodacre: We touched on good examples, and we should look to learn from them. On local engagement, you need local leadership, but they need help sometimes. That help could be internally from the next level of authority up, or it could be from an external body. One body that I thought was beneficial to high street regeneration at a local authority level was the high streets taskforce that was set up as part of the Institute of Place Management for Manchester Metropolitan University. It has now ended as a body, although in name it carries on because stakeholders—we were one of those stakeholders—would meet on a quarterly basis to discuss opportunities, challenges, good news and bad news on high streets and high street regeneration. We would share those ideas and share them back with the high streets taskforce, and they would help that local decision making.
Quite often what you find is that people know what they want to do. They just do not quite always know how to do it. A think-tank independently managed and run could help them with that “how” and the implementation of their ideas. If you do not bring it back as it was, something similar would really help that local decision making, because sometimes the pride is there, the passion is there; they just do not always have the nous to make it work in the way they hoped for.
With regard to high streets, I see it from a retail point of view, but I recognise the fact that high streets are increasingly dominated by experiential elements—cultural, leisure, more hospitality driven—and I have no issue with that. It does mean that we need better change of use of some of the retail sites that become empty. I know planning is part of this whole issue, so speeding up the planning process is important.
Ideally, I would like to bring homes back into high streets where the possibility exists. There are some large, empty buildings. I live quite near Stratford-upon-Avon and I still go past a VHS store that closed in 2016. It is still empty. I find it remarkable that a landlord can let a big place like that stay empty for so long. We have not looked at the opportunity of what more we could do with that, or what we could do differently with that. If we can bring homes and people back into high streets as places where people want to live, preferably with affordable properties for younger people, I think you would start to create local economies that would drive some of those high streets as well.
Allen Simpson: The question is what level you devolve at. Clearly, we are all nimbys. Nimby is an irregular verb—you are a nimby; I am concerned about my local environment. There are circumstances in which we need to find ways of treating high streets like strategic infrastructure. There will be asymmetric benefits and costs if you live close to a high street or, as people used to, above shops—that is less common than it was—versus being in the surrounding community. Sometimes local politicians do need help. We have seen an approach to that in London that the Committee will have views on.
I am very much in favour of hospitality zones, which have specific licensing approaches, where there is some form of recognition that you get to a “yes” more quickly. There is a specific question around Andrew’s point about bringing people back into former high street or commercial areas, in the City of London or elsewhere, around agents of change. I am very in favour of placing a burden on developers to fit the development around hospitality, rather than buying a flat next door to a pub and then being annoyed that there is a beer garden, for which I have zero sympathy.
David Simmonds
Q
Andrew Goodacre: That is a good question. What works well at the moment is the business improvement district model. Where it falls down slightly again depends on the people involved. A good BID represents the voice of local businesses, which are paying through business rates, because the levy is on the business rate, as we know. What I saw in Enniskillen at that time was a BID that really listened to its stakeholders, shared ideas with them and took back the feedback. One of the things introduced there was an Enniskillen gift card that could be used in any shop in that area—ideal for the tourist market that it is trying to appeal to.
We should establish BIDs; the problem with them is that they can be very indifferent, in terms of their make-up and the quality of them. Again, the funding often becomes a point of contention because you are adding to business rates, which is already a massive point of contention for most business owners. In a way, I would like to see BIDs funded in different ways, through the devolution White Paper. Their performance would therefore be a bit more targeted. Part of their performance metrics should be the ability for them to show that they have engaged, understood and taken forward what local business people want, in my case, within their high street.
Allen Simpson: An observation: if you are looking to drive growth, by definition you are looking to bring in businesses that are not there or do not exist, so to some extent your problem is how you consult businesses that do not currently exist. To some degree, it is less about having consultation with specific businesses and more about having an approach that is pro the foundation of businesses in a given area. Clearly, there will be examples where licensing rules could be better consulted on so that existing businesses can expand, but I wonder whether it is less about consultation and more about taking a proactive approach to growth.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Q
Andrew Goodacre: I think it would be a shame if we lost some of those brands that people have worked hard to create. I think the visitor economy is so important. The most successful independent retailers are in those visitor economies, because people often visit looking for something different that you do not see in a chain store of a large retailer. Creating that identity is something that I hear all the time from successful places. They feel as if they are part of an identity—they have something around them that says, “Yes, we can buy into this.” The riviera example is a good one. It would be a shame if that local effort—that local sense—was lost. I think Falmouth is another good example. Falmouth has created its own essence of Cornwall within that place. You should not lose that. They are so important. It seems counterintuitive that a push for devolution to create more power at a local level means that you would lose local identities. That would be counterintuitive, so we need to make sure that does not happen. Actually, those should be reinforced with better funding.
Allen Simpson: I ran Visit London for five years, so I worked on this a lot. My observation is that the money is not there. Unless you are London, Edinburgh or, to a certain degree, Manchester, which has a very high-quality marketing agency of its own, the money just is not there to do it. Visit Kent has just gone bust. The ability to market a region—sometimes, we devolve the responsibility but not the money with it, and I think that is an example. Equally, not everywhere can be branded. I am not going to pick on anywhere in particular or have one of my regular digs at Essex, but where there is a solid local brand, at the moment, we do not have sensible ways of doing that—just mechanisms to do it. Visit Britain works quite hard internationally to disperse people’s awareness of the UK outside of Edinburgh, York, Lincoln and London, but towards a domestic market, which I think is largely what you are talking about, the exam question is, “What is the pot of money handed down to local communities to do it?” because it is incredibly expensive doing marketing.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, on behalf of the Committee, I thank both our witnesses for their evidence. We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Gareth Davies and Bill Butler gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Gareth Davies, Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office, and Bill Butler, chair of Public Sector Audit Appointments. For this panel, we have until 3.40 pm.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Gareth Davies: I will start, and then Bill can come in with some facts and figures on the current state of play with the firm’s contracts. First, it is important to say that, before I did this job at the National Audit Office, I was an auditor in local government, so in the past I have had a foot in both camps. Audit in the public sector is a fundamental part of our democracy; in local government, it is a fundamental part of local democracy.
Ensuring effective local accountability through independently audited council accounts, governance and value for money arrangements is a fundamental part of a healthy, functioning, tax-paying society. There is no doubt that we have run into some very serious problems with that in recent years, such as big backlogs of unaudited accounts. When those backlogs start to be cleared, at first we are seeing disclaimed audit opinions, which are essentially the auditors giving no assurance on those accounts. That is an unprecedented and unacceptable position to find ourselves in for a significant amount of public money. People have a right to expect audited accounts as a bare minimum when they pay their council tax and business rates, so this is a big system failure that needs fixing as quickly and robustly as possible. That is my starting point.
The obvious question is: why has this happened? Unusually, we have a natural experiment in the UK on this. No other devolved country has the same problem as England, with a failure of local government accountability and audited accounts. Everybody has had a pandemic and changes in auditing standards and so on, but only one country has dismantled its audit machinery and expected it to function nonetheless. Those changes were not implemented in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so we do not have to look far for the explanation. That is why I welcome the creation of the Local Audit Office in the Bill. It is the right measure to correct that problem. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. We will want to explore what else will be necessary.
The reason it is necessary is that it brings back together the essential functions that make for a robust audit regime. That includes letting the contracts with the firms to do the work, specifying that work; holding the firms to account for delivery on time and to the right quality standard; supporting the firms with technical advice and help with tricky issues, many of which we are seeing across local government; and robustly speaking with local government about where problems need to be fixed.
It also includes working as a partner with local government to improve the quality of accounts, and make them less burdensome to local authorities and more useful to taxpayers and businesses. There is a big agenda beyond just the creation of the Local Audit Office—it is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.
Bill Butler: I should also declare an interest, although mine is slightly more historic than Gareth’s. I spent 35 years in local government audit before I escaped. As you can see, Chair, I have been dragged back. I hope I am not going to sound too much like an echo, but I agree with everything that Gareth said. The effective audit of public bodies, which are funded by compulsory taxation and not by voluntary shareholders, is fundamental to proper democracy, governance and the financial credibility of English local government.
The world looks down on the large number of disclaimed audit opinions. We should not underestimate what bankers in New York and the large accountancy firms are thinking. When they look at that, they cannot comprehend how we have ended up in this position. We therefore strongly welcome the commitment to reform, the changes in the Bill and the creation of the Local Audit Office.
We particularly like the fact that it will reestablish a co-ordinated local audit system, and bring together responsibility for audit appointments, the code of practice, audit quality and the performance of auditors, because local government audit is in a very bad position. The only option available that anybody could think of to tackle the increasing backlog of delayed accounts was to disclaim opinions. It is really important that we do not replace a backlog with disclaimed opinions. Currently, there are 273 bodies that have received disclaimed opinions—51% of the bodies in England and Wales that we are responsible for appointing to. That is up to ’23-’24. Of those, 236 are for two or more years, and 53—that is 11%—are for four or more years. In total, that means there are 716 sets of accounts in English local government for which there is no assurance from the auditors. Gareth did not mention this, but it also affects his opinion on the whole of Government accounts, which he has had to disclaim owing to the disclaimers in local government, which affect and knock on to the credibility of Government across the country.
We also think that there is a risk to the broader proposed local government reform because of the bad apple in the barrel. If you are constituting a new authority and you are incorporating an authority with a number of years of disclaimed opinions, sorting that out will get in the way of the effectiveness of those bodies at exactly the time when you want them to be focusing on their new responsibilities and opportunities. I will say the same thing as Gareth, but in a slightly different way: we cannot envisage a solution without the Local Audit Office, but it is not the solution. Bold action is required to cut through the Gordian knot that exists at present. The sector seems unlikely to resolve the underlying issues without, as Gareth has made clear, support both to those bodies preparing accounts and to those auditing the accounts.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Gareth Davies: The first would be skills and capacity. This sector has suffered from a loss of skilled expertise. Public audit is not interchangeable with company audit; it is a specialist field—you are auditing political institutions and reporting in the public interest. It is a different skillset, with some common areas with the rest of the auditing profession, and it attracts people who are interested in how public bodies become successful and how they achieve value for money, and so on. The pool of experts in that area has reduced sharply, so the system faces the challenge of building up that body of expertise and skills.
It is not just the auditors. In the past, the auditors did a lot of the training, and people then went on to careers in local government, the rest of the public sector and other sectors. It was a breeding ground for the finance function of local authorities. Individual local authorities cannot typically sustain large training programmes of accountants on their own, so having a regime that supports the development of that skillset is vital.
The other essential is getting hold of local government financial reporting and radically simplifying it, streamlining it in a way that can still be incorporated into the whole of Government accounts. That is always the caveat, and the reason for some of the complexity, but I do not believe that it is an impossible task. At the moment, the accounts are too easily dismissed as only of interest to the auditor because they are long, complex and quite difficult to follow in many places. There is no reason why we should put up with that. I know the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the wider profession have started work on what professionals think would represent a high-quality, meaningful financial statement that would clearly explain to taxpayers how we have used their resources.
There is a danger that everyone focuses only on the council budget and ignores the accounts. That is dangerous, because the balance sheet matters as well as annual expenditure.
Bill Butler: I can save quite a lot of time by saying that I agree with all of that. This may happen on a number of occasions, and we have not shared briefs. If you start with those who prepare the accounts, that needs to be revitalised. It is moribund, and people are looking at the scale of this task and finding it difficult. Some of this can be the support that Members and Ministers can bring to bear in terms of its importance, because—again, echoing Gareth—it is not considered to be interesting and it is too easily put aside, but that is not going to get any better. There is a real risk that it will get worse unless preparers are properly supported, and unless it is clear what revisions are possible to make the accounts simpler and deliverable.
There are issues around how we encourage colleagues who work in the audit firms. That is a broader issue, because they are bound by the technical standards imposed across the firms by their relationship with the Financial Reporting Council. However, at the moment, that seems occasionally to act as a block to overcoming that risk. We need to be honest about the fact that that risk assessment is there and about what we can do around it.
As Gareth said, we have been looking, with CIPFA, at reforming local government accounts for some considerable time. The clock has now ticked down, I think. One of the things I hope for is that the commitment shown to reform so far carries on across these broader areas, not of all of which are susceptible to legislation, but all of which would be, I hope, susceptible to encouragement.
Gareth Davies: I would like to add one other thing, because an important bit of the full picture is governance arrangements in local authorities. I know that the Bill includes provisions on audit committees, but it is important that local authorities have robust audit committee-type arrangements. I am not prescriptive about exactly what form they should take, but meaningful engagement with internal and external audit and a connection to the governance of the authority as a whole through its political leadership are essential to good governance. That means having somewhere where difficult questions can be asked and answers gained.
In quite a few of the disasters we have seen in local government finance in recent years, it is the governance arrangements that are primarily at fault in not picking up on excessive risk-taking and lack of understanding of the nature of the risk being taken on, and so on. It is another example of where a more robust audit system will not, on its own, solve everything—although it will definitely help, because it will bring those questions to the audit committee table—but the audit committee itself needs to be a functioning, robust and effective part of the governance of the authority.
Bill Butler: If I may say so, these are not things that can wait for the Local Audit Office, which has a massive task to perform anyway. If we wait, these problems become intractable, and the organisation’s chances of succeeding, if it has any at all, are very low,. They are issues that need to be addressed now, while we have the opportunity and—I hope everybody agrees—a pressing need.
David Simmonds
Q
In a local authority, there is the collection fund, which essentially covers all the income that it is due to collect, then there are pension schemes, the dedicated schools grant, the housing revenue account and the parking revenue account, where there are slightly variable legal ringfences. All of those pose risks and many of them are impacted by elements of the devolution proposals affecting who will be responsible for decision making and what that revenue might underpin in terms of borrowing or day-to-day expenditure. Will you give us a sense, from your experience, of what the risks are, what the potential opportunities are and where changes are needed to, for example, the ringfences, and your views on the inclusion of the dedicated schools grant in the annual, legal council tax-fixing process, which might help or hinder the proper management of some of those financial risks.
Gareth Davies: Do you want to go first, Bill?
Bill Butler: Yes, then you can agree with me.
The Chair
We heard that!
Bill Butler: I think the nature of those statutory balances is actually one of the significant things in how we handle the disclaimers, because they are a part of the mechanism that is different from a balance sheet outside of local government. Of course, because they are statutory, that does mean that they are amenable to change.
On how they will affect the broader issues, it depends on where you are, because there are still quite a lot of places where there are no problems and where you can deal with it. The problem arises, as I alluded to earlier, when there is a bad apple in the barrel. We have seen in previous reorganisations that bringing on board a set of accounts and an organisation that is not on top of those things—where there is no assurance about where those boundaries have been set—poisons the water across the whole thing.
If you have one district coming into a newly constituted authority or organisation, the whole of the account will cause problems. That problem tends to be long standing in nature; the people who might have been able to help you resolve it have gone, and the attention is focused elsewhere. It is impossible to say, other than on a case-by-case basis, how that would impact things, but my view—our view, I think—would be that if those issues can be addressed and clarified now, that will lead to a better situation. If you have places with four years’ worth of disclaimers, finding a way through the statutory balances is will be fundamental to avoiding problems down the line.
Gareth Davies: All I would add is that, in a way, that is a good example of the accreted layers of complexity that now represent local government accounts. There was a strong argument for each ringfence when it was created, but when you stand back, the total picture is now very messy and complex. This is an opportunity to take stock and say, “Which bits of this actually serve our purpose now? Is there an opportunity here for simplification?”
As Bill says, some of these are statutory balances, which can be determined by Government, and that may be one way of accelerating the restoration of proper audit opinions, for example. Rather than the auditor agonising over questions like, “Where do I get the assurance over this statutory balance? It’s not been signed off for many years,” using the statutory process for determination of the balances might be part of the solution. Of course, there are all sorts of downsides with that kind of thing, but it is important that we are clear about how long it will take to get to a properly constituted set of accounts for a new organisation.
Bill Butler: Striving for something that is good, rather than pursuing excellence and achieving nothing, is fundamentally important.
David Simmonds
Q
Secondly, in respect of specific funds, in debates around devolution, it is often argued that, for example, there should be freedom to spend the proceeds of the parking revenue account beyond the current constraints—that the revenue, for example, should be used to prop up social care, or whatever it may be, in a way that it simply cannot within the current legal framework. Do you have any views about decisions or tweaks that the Bill should make to those arrangements, based on the risk and assurance issues you have outlined?
Bill Butler: Not from where I sit. It is a policy area that I would avoid, although I understand why you would ask the question.
Gareth Davies: Yes, I am required to avoid it. The reason I am here today is to discuss public audits, essentially, rather than policy decisions on those kinds of financial matters. Clearly, there is a point at which the two things meet, which is really where we are talking now, but it is not for me to give a view on what should or should not be in a ringfence.
David Simmonds
Q
Bill Butler: There is a standard basis for it standardisation and simplification so that you can move between sets of accounts. It seems hugely sensible. Interestingly, I can remember having similar discussions in the early 1980s, when I first qualified, with the then Department of the Environment’s technical advisers. We have made some progress. Yes, the inconsistency is odd. As Gareth said, it causes problems for auditors as well, because they move between places. It does not help the underlying problem that we have been discussing.
Vikki Slade
Q
Gareth Davies: I work with the current Public Accounts Committee in Parliament. In that set-up, it is an essential part of the effectiveness of the accountability system. I have seen how the Committee works, and it works extremely well on a non-partisan basis. It has a hugely dedicated membership pursuing accountability across government, so it is a very effective model in the House of Commons. Such a body is normally positive in local government in the context of combined authorities—that is where I have seen it mentioned most. As I said earlier, having an audit committee in every local authority is an essential part of good governance. Questions like, “Are we managing the risks to the organisation effectively? Are the controls that we think we have in place operating as intended?” are the meat and drink of an audit committee agenda.
Where a local public accounts committee might have an effect would be in looking across the public service landscape—say, at a combined authority or sub-regional scale, in Greater Manchester, in the west midlands or wherever. I think there is a gap there at the moment. One of my last roles before I stopped auditing local government was auditing the Greater Manchester combined authority; it was ramping up in scale at the time, and it was getting to be very significant, including some health spending and so on. As we know, it is the most developed of the devolved set-ups at the moment. I can see how, in that arena, a local public accounts committee would add real value by looking beyond the institution, which an individual audit committee cannot do, and by looking at value for money in the sub-region. If that is what we are talking about, it would be a body that we in the National Audit Office could engage with in order to follow the public pound from national policy making, through to sub-regional infrastructure and so on, and through to council delivery. All parts of that are important, including right at the individual local authority level.
Bill Butler: I have nothing to add.
The Chair
Do you agree with Gareth?
Bill Butler: I do. My only plea at the moment is that what we have got does not work, so that may be an aspiration.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Q
Gareth Davies: My view is that they are part of the local government landscape. They should be properly audited as part of the local government landscape, and the strengthening that this Bill brings to local government audit needs to apply to those parts of local government as well. I certainly would not try to lift them out of the local government set-up and make them subject to the National Audit Office. We are absolutely national; it should be the Local Audit Office that has a remit for mayoral corporations. I think this is less about the structural picture than about strengthening the local audit arrangements so that every part of the local set-up is audited effectively, including those.
Andrew Cooper
Q
Gareth Davies: As we have said, it is not going to be quick or easy, but this is the right approach. It is just going to need substantial application of shoulder to the wheel and strong leadership of the new Local Audit Office, when that is created. That will make a big difference because it will have a loud voice in this area of work, and all the levers necessary to acquire the capacity required to perform to a high standard and to restore proper accountability. Even though we know that will not be easy, and we have explained why it is not simple, I think that is the right approach.
Bill Butler: This is getting tedious, but I agree with Gareth. It is a local issue. It is fundamentally important that we recognise that these are local democratic bodies and that the Local Audit Office, and auditors, need to operate independently from them and without unnecessary interference from anywhere else. The job needs to be done properly, and framework in the Bill for reforming local audit is exactly the right direction to go.
As I think we said, we need to address a number of environmental issues now to see that benefit. The risks you described apply to all 716 sets of unassured accounts. In my experience in this area, although audit does not always find a problem, I find it difficult to believe that there are not significant problems lurking where audits have not been completed. I hope there are not many. I would be delighted, but very surprised, if there were none.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Q
Gareth Davies: It is about the person and their skills and approach more than any office they hold or party they come from. You need the right approach and the right skills to do a good job. I have seen elected politicians fulfil that role brilliantly. The reason I said what I said is that I am a bit suspicious of anything that says, for example, “We must have an independent chair who is not a member of the council.” The audit committee is there to be part of the council’s governance arrangements. If it is too independent of the council, it does not engage with the machinery of running the council or influence the decision makers sufficiently, in my experience. If it is entirely made up of members who, with the best will in the world, do not have the skills required to perform a role that sometimes has technical elements, that model also has weaknesses.
The best models I have seen consist of a cross-party committee of members who are very interested in getting value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring that controls are operating properly across the council, and in ensuring that the council is maintaining public trust; you need people with those kind of motivations, supplemented with some independent membership. The chair does not necessarily have to come from that independent membership, but it must be somebody who is prepared to read all the accounts and ask difficult questions about why a surprising number has appeared out of nowhere.
That is why I would not be prescriptive. You need a mix of skills around the table and the committee must be connected to the leadership of the council, so that difficult messages coming out of the audits are relayed to the decision makers, raised in full council if necessary, and certainly raised with the executive or the mayor. That linkage needs to be clear and fully operational for it to work properly.
Bill Butler: That is not different—
The Chair
We are going to finish.
Bill Butler: I will be brief. I have chaired quite a few audit committees, but not in local government. A good audit committee works. It ensures that the organisation operates effectively by being part of it, while everybody knows that if it has a problem, it will voice it and it will be trusted. That is what you are looking for in any audit committee.
The Chair
Thank you both very much for being the guardians of the public purse. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you again for your time and for all the work you do for us.
Examination of Witness
Mark Stocks gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Mark Stocks, head of public sector assurance at Grant Thornton UK. For this panel we have until 4 pm, unless we are interrupted by a vote—I am sorry about that, Mr Stocks.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Mark Stocks: I have done this for a rather long time. I was an auditor with District Audit back in the day, then with the Audit Commission, and I am now with Grant Thornton. I have seen quite a lot of changes. The division of the Audit Commission duties has probably been the most impactful change, because it has created quite a confused landscape in terms of what the priorities are. The National Audit Office maintains responsibility for the code, which sets out the basis of our work, but our primary regulator has been the Financial Reporting Council, whose focus tends to be on the accounts. Public Sector Audit Appointments sets out the fees, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales decides whether we can act as a key account partner. That is quite difficult to cope with.
Throughout my whole history as an local auditor, the accounts have been important, but it has been equally important that I spend my time on value for money. I have to look at the financial sustainability of authorities, as well as their governance and performance. That has changed, to be candid, over the last 10 years. The code changed, so we spent less time on value for money. Then it changed again, so we spent more time on value for money. However, our primary focus in the last five years has been on the accounts, which has led to a confused environment in terms of how local auditors have acted.
In terms of what the Bill does, bringing in the Local Audit Office is crucial. Somebody needs to speak to the Government about the issues that auditors are seeing and what is actually happening out there, because some of the pressures on local government are quite immense. To be candid, I need somewhere to go and someone to speak to when I am concerned about what I am finding—someone who can say, “Let’s do this, or we’ll speak to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.” The changes in the Bill are crucial for a functioning local audit in the future.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Mark Stocks: You only have the private sector. It provides all of local audit now. We are used to working with the PSAA, so I do not see any issue in working with the Local Audit Office. It will make it easier; we will have a single code and a single arbiter of what quality is for a local auditor. I think that will be easier for us, as the private sector auditors, than it is now. I would not want the Committee to go away thinking that there is no commitment to this from the private sector. It was a difficult procurement the last time round, but the PSAA did manage to appoint sufficient auditors and we remain committed—I certainly remain committed—to a successful local audit system.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Mark Stocks: It is still fragile. I thought Gareth and Bill were accurate in what they said. We need to have more capacity so that we are not reliant on just a few suppliers. For that, there has to be consistency in terms of message. We need to get to grips with local authority accounts. If I went and did a set of NHS accounts, they are perhaps 100 pages long. The average local government accounts are 200 to 250 pages long, so the work involved is immense. That is why it takes longer, so we have to get that right.
We need to start to deal with some of the risks in local government, to be candid. It is quite difficult to deal with the breadth of what local government does. If you add on top of that the financial issues that they face and the issues that are asked of them in terms of policy, that layers on quite a scope for auditors, which means that we have to bring in specialists to do some of the work. I do not think that will get any easier under the current landscape.
David Simmonds
Q
Mark Stocks: Local government accounts are complex. These are highly complex sorts of businesses, if I can use that phrase, that deal with any number of services. What we see now are local finance teams who are stretched, to be candid. There has been a lack of investment in them over the years. Gareth talked about trainees going from the Audit Commission into local government, but that does not happen now. There is a bunch of people who are around 50, who may be disappearing in the short term, so we have to sort out the strength of local government finance teams. As I said, we also need to sort out the complexity of the accounts.
In terms of the standards, all local government accounts are under international financial reporting standards, and that will not change. That is a Treasury requirement. How that is interpreted and what is important in those accounts is open to judgment. The emphasis from the LAO on whether it is more important for us to audit income or to audit property will make a difference to what local auditors do. I would always argue that it is more important to audit income.
It is very difficult to standardise anything that we do, because local government is not standardised. I can take you from a district authority that spends £60 million, most of which is housing benefit, to an authority that spends £4 billion and has significant regeneration schemes and companies. The skillsets that you need and the ability to standardise is very difficult. You have to have the right skills to do the work.
Manuela Perteghella
Q
Mark Stocks: The Local Audit Office cannot look like the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission took a particular tack in terms of what it did and the level of scrutiny that it put on local government. If the Local Audit Office follows suit, which this Bill does not allow it to, I am sure there will be problems. But the way the Local Audit Office is configured in the Bill is to make local audit stronger. As long as the Local Audit Office sticks to that, I do not think there will be too much of a problem.
The Chair
We will continue this session for 10 minutes. We have 10 minutes’ extra time—no penalties.
Mark Stocks: I have one final comment, if I may. The Member was asking whether the Local Audit Office was going to come into contention with local government. Some of the things we do are contentious, such as when we issue statutory recommendations and public interest reports. One of the things I have missed in the last decade or so is the support of a body when we do something as difficult as that, because, as you can imagine, it is me against the authority, even though we have the firm there. I would hope and expect the Local Audit Office to be part of the decision making around public interest reports and statutory recommendations, which I think will lead to some contention with local government, because that is the difficult end of what we do. However, we need to do that, because sometimes things go wrong.
Sam Carling
Q
Mark Stocks: That is a good question. There is a remit for a local public accounts committee, but only one, if we do that. The NAO provides all the information to the national Public Accounts Committee, so it is then about how you co-ordinate that across local auditors to deliver the information for a public accounts committee to hold local government to account. Personally, I think that should be a long-term aim and aspiration. I would worry at the moment about whether there is enough capacity in local audit to support a public accounts committee. At the moment we have just enough of us to do the job that we are doing.
Sam Carling
Q
Mark Stocks: I think it depends on how you view it and how much detail you want to get into. The contentious parts of local government are where things like regeneration schemes go awry, or where there are management decisions that lead to claims against the council in some form or another. Those tend to be national issues. I agree that to delve down into each one for an authority would be enormous, but looking at things in terms of thematics—how councils are coping with children’s social care, adult social care, regeneration or some of the Government policies—would I think be possible at a national level. Again, if you started to push it down into local committees, it is about who provides the information. That is always going to be the difficulty in having those committees.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you for coming to give evidence, Mr Stocks.
Examination of Witnesses
Zoë Billingham and Professor John Denham gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Zoë Billingham, director of IPPR North, and we welcome back Professor John Denham, professorial research fellow in the department of politics and international relations—that is a long title—at the University of Southampton and director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics. We will have until 4.40 pm for this panel.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Professor Denham: Thank you very much, Minister. It is absolutely crucial that the Bill underpins a really robust legal framework for devolution if it is to last—it cannot be for one Parliament. I will talk today about work that I have developed with Sir David Lidington—so that was a Labour Minister and a Conservative Minister coming together to say, “You need to have a consensus that lasts; otherwise, the Government changes.”
This is where I would say we are at the moment: there are many good things in the Bill, but there are some real areas of weakness that could lead to it being undermined quite quickly. It depends on financial commitments to integrated settlements and long-term funding, which are not even mentioned in the Bill. The Bill creates no forum in which finance can be discussed between strategic authorities and central Government. One of the ways in which that could be mitigated, at least to some extent, is to put the mayoral council on a statutory basis. Mayor Brabin said earlier today, “Well, the mayoral council is where we talk about new powers for mayors.” The mayoral council is not in the Bill. If Ministers decided tomorrow that it was not going to meet any more, it would not. It has no terms of reference and no secretariat. The mayors have no legal right to put items on its agenda.
I would give that as one example of where things could be embedded much more deeply. Parliament would have to come back and say, “We are going to abolish it”, in order to stop that meeting happening. If that sounds very radical in our system, every other European nation with a devolved system of government has a layer between the devolved level and central Government. I would suggest that it will be of benefit to Ministers, too. It is probably possible to manage relationships with a relatively small number of powerful mayors, but when there is one for every part of the country, there will be a cacophony of people demanding special treatment for their areas. The ability to corral that into a proper process would be an advantage.
This has to be embedded. Prior to this, regional arrangements lasted for about 10 years before Government lost interest in them. If you want this to be here in 30 years’ time, doing the Bill, but adding to it, is crucial.
Zoë Billingham: I absolutely agree that it is essential that devolution through this Bill should be put on a statutory footing. I would highlight a few things that I think achieve that entrenchment, in addition to the legal aspect of that. First, the broadening and deepening is absolutely essential, with the right to request in combination with that, so that strategic authorities can decide what further powers they wish to request from Government. I agree with John that the integrated settlement is a really important entrenchment to give places the flexibility they need to demonstrate how different places make different choices about how they spend public money. That will be essential to showing how devolution can deliver differently according to the needs of different places.
The moves towards votes at 16 and returning to a supplementary vote system for our mayors is absolutely essential to broaden the number of people who can take part in in local democracy. I would urge the Committee to consider going further in a few areas in the Bill, to build on that entrenchment from a statutory footing. Fiscal devolution has so far been completely omitted from the Bill. We at IPPR North have been looking at options, including a visitor levy to start with, to start the process of fiscal devolution that we think will really help to mature the model that we have today. Accountability is another key area. I know that you have talked in previous sessions today about LPACs, and we absolutely agree that we need to beef up the accountability of mayoral combined authorities—that is a two-way street, but I am sure we can get on to it later.
Finally, in terms of public support, the flip side, if you will, of further empowering and rolling out devolution to the country is demonstrating to the public what devolution can deliver for them. The evidence shows that in places that have more powers and freedoms, voting turnout and engagement with local democracy go up, so we think it is important not just for the economy, but for democratic reform.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Secondly, we need to ensure strong scrutiny and accountability for any institution. We heard in the last session about some of the challenges with local government accountability and scrutiny. I am interested in your views on what we need to do to strengthen that and the provisions in the Bill to build on that.
Zoë Billingham: First, to your point on the democratic engagement of mayors, I do think, and I stand by the evidence that suggests this, that the more powers that mayors get, the more they are able to demonstrate to the public how they can tailor and do things differently in their places, according to what the public want. That is essential for the responsiveness of democracy; therefore, I also think that votes at 16 and the return to a supplementary vote are helpful additional aspects to this Bill, in terms of demonstrating that the Government are serious about broadening engagement with mayoral combined authorities.
I would also pick up the proposal in the Bill for neighbour area committees. Something along those lines is essential. We know that, as currently drafted, the Bill is proposing full unitarisation of local authorities to a 500,000 population level, which is far larger than we see in local government in our European counterparts, for example. There is a question about how those unitaries engage with those communities, not on an ad hoc basis, but as an ongoing community conversation. I wonder whether, for instance, the neighbourhood area committees could be predominantly made up of community representatives and young people, so that they do not replicate the district level that the Bill proposes to abolish, but instead create an ongoing, democratic renewal at that local level.
Secondly, to pick up your point on scrutiny, this is essential. If you speak to local leaders, mayors included, they are absolutely game for it. It is not something that central Government are imposing; it is an essential part of both enabling the further devolution of power and resources, and ensuring that the current model is not undermined because there is not enough scrutiny in place for what is already there. I totally support the proposal for a local public accounts committee—we have built on that idea ourselves at IPPR North, looking at mayoral accounts committees, which bring together overview and scrutiny, and local public accounts committees.
We think that those committees need to represent place leadership; this is no longer narrow lines of inquiry about certain budgetary lines or solely about audit. It must be much broader. This is about place-based leadership, not only by the mayor and the mayoral cabinet, but by other public leaders locally who could be brought in front of such committees. We think that is a really important thing to go hand in hand with the future of devolution.
Professor Denham: May I pick up and develop a couple of those points? There is no doubt that the Bill has a danger of an upwards movement of power: things are being moved from local authorities to strategic authorities and mayors have more autonomy. I understand why that is being done, but the Bill needs to build in a healthy counterpoint to that. I, too, would go beyond the neighbourhood governance proposal, which sounds a bit narrow and a bit prescriptive, as though the same model will work everywhere.
Sir David and I proposed what we called community empowerment plans, and we proposed them even when we did not know there was going to be local government reorganisation. The strategic authorities should have a legal duty to set out how they will engage with local people across the whole range of activity—I should have declared an interest, in that I am the honorary president of the Hampshire Association of Local Councils—
Paul Holmes
Hear, hear!
Professor Denham: So I am familiar with town and parish councils, and there are some very good ones, including in Mr Holmes’s constituency. But they are not uniform everywhere within the area, so a single prescriptive approach is unlikely to work.
There has also been, in the last 10 or 15 years, a transformation in our understanding of deliberative, participative engagement with local communities by many local authorities. We need both the strategic authorities and the unitary authorities to set out, in a document that should be challengeable, how they propose to do that. I think that would be useful.
Secondly—I will embarrass her—Zoë has written the best policy paper on local public accounts committees, so I will not say any more about that, except that I agree with Gareth Davies in an earlier panel: the challenge here is not local council audit, but the whole of public spending across a mayoral area. I was delighted to see the new Secretary of State backing the concept of total place, which is something I was involved in as a Minister 15 years ago; but, if that is going to work, you cannot combine that with upwards accountability to departmental accounting officers.
Local authority scrutiny has very good people, but it is not up to the job. You have to create a new local institution, the local public accounts committee and, picking up on what Mayor Houchen said earlier, make the chief executive within the area the local accounting officer. So you have a complete audit model at local level that is not then channelled upwards through departmental accounting officers. I think that is what we need to work towards. Those two things would not only empower local people, but ensure that you have local scrutiny of what is being spent and what is being done with their money.
The Chair
Could that paper be sent to the secretariat and circulated around the Committee?
Zoë Billingham: Certainly.
David Simmonds
Q
And to come to the point that both of you have touched on, the Bill as drafted assumes power upwards to mayors, and it introduces a raft of powers—in chapter after chapter of the Bill—whereby the Secretary of State will direct the mayor and the authority, requiring them to produce various strategies. In a country that is already very centralised anyway, how do we develop and encourage local leaders to come forward in a context where there will be significantly fewer roles for them to fulfil, and where those roles will be significantly more constrained than they have been used to?
Professor Denham: Let me break that down into a number of sections. First, on local government reorganisation and size, I will be straightforward: Sir David and I did not propose local government reorganisation. We proposed creating what would now be called strategic authorities from what we generally call upper-tier authorities—the unitaries and the counties. I am not saying that there would not have been a need down the line to do something about what will be a messy system, but in terms of getting growth plans and those things up and running—I just put that on the record, because I am not going to get too far into the issue. However, if you are where you are at the moment, I would commend the idea of community empowerment plans and a proper legal framework for devolution below those levels.
What I would say, though, is that there is a level of devolved function that needs to operate at the level of strategic authorities. If you are going to have really good local growth strategies, and if they are going to tie into a national industrial strategy, it could not be done, say, at the level of a city such as Southampton, where I was an MP for a long time. You need a bigger body. However you do it at the micro level, that strategic level must operate effectively.
To tie my threads together, if you go to other European countries with a higher level of devolution, they have an intermediate forum between the strategic body and the national, where these issues are thrashed out, best practice is worked out and, in a sense, the Secretary of State does not exercise their direction powers without discussing it with the mayoral council first. You actually say, “How is that going to work then? How is that power going to be used?” So building in that layer means the right sort of compromise between the desire of Governments to get on with things and the need to engage people at local level. That would be one way of dealing with it.
You are inviting me to say we should keep all the district councils, but I am going to pass on that one, because that was not part of our proposals.
Zoë Billingham: Let me just build on that and the question of scale. As John says, the proposed 500,000 scale of the unitaries post-reorganisation is very large compared with European counterparts, and that poses some big questions, not least whether the projected efficiency savings will be realised. However, town and parish councils still exist within the system, and we have previously done work that looks at what we call the hyper-local tier of governance. While they are imperfect bodies, there are improvements that can be built upon at that hyper-local level, in addition to having some sort of formal forum, as John says, to engage with communities.
If the neighbourhood area committee proposal continues as planned, I would really urge that to be—the majority—taken up by community leaders and young people. There are other ways that we can help to counterbalance this through democratic innovations. There was talk, for instance, about remote meetings and remote voting, which are not currently available. Especially when you speak to young people about why they do not engage with local politics, they say that meetings are at the wrong time and too far away, and if you do not have a car, you cannot get to them, especially in rural communities. So I think this could be a real opportunity to see how normal council business is done and improve on it.
Finally, to build on the point about participatory methods, it is about making sure that unitaries are committed to properly engaging with their communities on the big questions they face, and not seeing it as distancing from communities.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Q
In order for Cornwall to access the highest level of devolution, as the Bill is drafted, it requires the Government to breach article 16 of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. The Cornish are the only people in the UK that have national minority status but do not have access to the highest level of devolution. How flexible should the Government be when determining what powers different types of strategic authorities can exercise? Is there a case for exceptions in places such as Cornwall? I ask that you try to avoid the temptation to talk about identity—we can identify with lots of parts of the country and with football teams and pop bands—and talk more about national minority status.
Professor Denham: I confess that I am not an expert on the framework convention, so I am not sure I will address that from a satisfactory legal point of view. In terms of the devolution policy, it was always my view that whether to have a mayor should have been a local choice and not a national prescription. That boat may have sailed, but that was my view. Clearly, there are cases where mayoral leadership is seen by everybody as an advantage, but I think there was a case for having some flexibility over that.
The other thing that I think is worth exploring is that one size fits all is not always going to be the right arrangement. I would imagine that, in the case of Cornwall, there are some functions on which it is in Cornwall’s interest to collaborate very closely with Devon, and maybe the new Wessex strategic authority around strategic transport, and other areas on which you would not want to. There should be a way in the Bill—we have talked about the pooling of regional powers—to enable strategic authorities to build larger bodies with neighbouring strategic authorities when it is in their interest to do so, without requiring the agreement of central Government.
I suppose my in-principle answer to your question, which is very unhelpful to the Minister, is that maybe the choice whether to have a mayor should have been given more local discretion. As we are where we are, certainly I would like to see a system where Cornwall can build the sort of strategic authority it wants but also have the benefits of collaboration across the south-west peninsula, or whatever, on areas of common interest and where everybody might benefit from having a regional rather than a county-based approach.
Zoë Billingham: I speak only from the experience of pan-northern collaboration, which has changed and been flexible, and has taken the form of transport co-ordination. Its latest guise is the Great North, which is a great innovation and a great step forward for northern leadership. I think that is an example of how flexibility should be offered to all parts of the country where they see benefits beyond devolution just in their patch, so to speak.
I think you speak to a larger point about inconsistency in devolution. As many have said, it is very much building the plane while it is flying, and I think we need to be comfortable with that. We are far behind many of our OECD counterparts in terms of decentralising power. We are yet to settle on a model, and we should not settle on a very rigid model at this stage; we should be open to it being flexible in the future. I am sure that the Bill will be a very important first step in this Parliament, but it should by no means be the last word; the question of how devolution is taken forward in this country will need to be revisited on an ongoing basis.
Professor Denham: It might be worth exploring in Committee whether the right to request powers is sufficiently broad. For somewhere like Cornwall, even if you are currently on the lowest tier, you could none the less have the right to request powers specific to Cornwall, for the reasons that you want. There may be scope in the Bill to create something that does not necessarily guarantee you what you want, but gives you a route towards it.
Kevin McKenna
Q
One of the concerns that has been raised locally is that, by replicating the electoral and political structure of Kent and having Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone, which are very different types of towns, predominate the political nature of the mayoralty, we will just replicate the same problem and our needs in terms of economic development, and therefore social support and social economics, will be overridden. Effectively, we can be categorised as a little bit of the red wall in the south-east of England. One of the dangers to me is that we—
Kevin McKenna
Sorry, Ms Vaz—there is. What do you think we can do when setting up mayoral authorities to prevent aberrant areas—I say that in a very positive way—within a broader, more homogenous mayoral district from being neglected?
Zoë Billingham: We have some similar dynamics in the north, where certain combined authorities comprise some areas of low and modest incomes and some areas of great wealth, so some parallels can be drawn. Setting and influencing early mayoral priorities is really key. While in the north-east there are some areas of great wealth, Kim McGuinness’s priority is child poverty, and she has made that very clear. Obviously, that speaks directly to the areas of the north-east that suffer most from high levels of deprivation and child poverty. The initial setting of the mayoral agenda is absolutely essential in that.
Professor Denham: I recognise a lot of what you say, because I live in Hampshire. We have Southampton, Portsmouth and the island, which was mentioned earlier and is completely different.
There are two things that are crucially important. First, the unitarisation approach must be sensitive to those local geographies. Simply forcing people into a 500,000 unit because, mathematically, that is what came out of a PwC report two years ago would be counterproductive if that meant you lost the focus on those areas. That is a part of it: we need sufficient flexibility in the unitarisation approach.
The second thing is to try to build in from the beginning the idea that not every combined authority needs to replicate the structures that evolved initially in Manchester and the west midlands around a centralised authority. There are different ways of structuring a combined authority, its functions and its leadership that recognise the different constituent elements in an area. If I have one concern at the moment, it is that because we are asking people to reorganise their district councils and create a combined authority at the same time, it is very hard to find the headroom for that creative thinking about, “How are the internal dynamics of this going to work in the future?”
That is two things. First, we need flexibility on unitarisation, so that you do not disappear into an area that does not understand your needs. That is replicated in cathedral cities and all sorts of places right across the country. Secondly, we need to look at structuring a combined authority that builds in an understanding of those different geographies from the outset, and does not necessarily create a superior tier of authority.
Zoë Billingham: May I add one more point? It is about interventions at the neighbourhood level. A welcome focus of the Bill is that, as you raised, there can be as much inequality within combined authorities as between combined authorities. Sometimes the intervention needs to be at the neighbourhood level, so that should also be introduced as a focus of the combined authority. The basis on which they intervene and where is also a useful way to address disparities within regions.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
On the democratic deficit, we are talking about getting rid of elected authorities. The response from you, Zoë, was, “Well, we can do some more consultation. We can have online meetings and votes at 16,” but how can any of that replicate a free and fair democratic election to a local council?
Professor Denham: I made my position clear: I think you might have needed to reorganise in future; I did not think it was the priority. But we are where we are. Personally, I am sceptical about savings materialising at the scale that has been said, because costs are always higher. If you followed what I suggested about having some flexibility in the size of the new unitaries, that undermines what was in the original proposal, but I think it is necessary for democratic reasons.
I would say, though, that we have never really taken a strategic approach to what happens below unitary and strategic authorities, even in areas that have only unitaries and strategic authorities. Everything I said about community empowerment plans, I would apply to met boroughs and to Greater Manchester and all the rest of it. It probably sounds particularly relevant because we have this process of local government reorganisation, but it should apply equally strongly to the duties that exist on current unitary authorities and strategic authorities. It is a national policy, rather than purely a local one.
Zoë Billingham: I would only add that, as John said, I am not sure there were many external voices calling for the abolition of district councils. It was seen as a quid pro quo, as I understand it, for the mayoral tier. As I stated previously, I am sceptical about the backroom savings that are considered to come with reducing headcount, office space and so on, but I will leave others to speak to that. As John said, unitarisation is not new, so there are examples of places that have tackled it well. We should look to those before thinking it is a foregone conclusion that it is not the right thing to do.
On democratic innovations, although the Bill challenges the current model, I think we should use this moment to consider what they are. Looking at voting levels at the last election, we just about got 50% of the country voting for MPs. At some of the local and regional elections, we mostly have less than the majority of the population coming out to vote. We can improve on the current system, and I hope this is a real opportunity to do that. That is why thinking about how people engage with democracy, why they come out to vote, and who comes out to vote is really important at this stage—especially with such a difficult political atmosphere in this country.
Maya Ellis
Q
Professor Denham: My view is that it would be reasonable for the legislation to enable Ministers to set out the broad parameters of the plans, but not to do that in a way that specifies exactly how it should be done in particular areas. It will vary: if you have strong town councils, you would sensibly build them in, but if you have communities that do not engage at all, you would use deliberative participation. People should be required to set out which tools they are going to use, why they are going to use them, how they would monitor the effect of that, how they will keep an eye on who is taking part in those processes, and so on. It is not just a slogan; it is a proper structured framework for doing it.
Zoë Billingham: I absolutely agree with that, and with allowing local tailoring. You are right; sometimes even community conversations can be captured by usual suspects. That is why using participatory methods on an ongoing basis is really important. We have seen some innovation in this space already through the mayors; they do mayoral question times, or invite young people to come in and ask them questions in a public forum. There are lots of ways it can be done.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you both very much for your erudite evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Richard Hebditch and Naomi Luhde-Thompson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Richard Hebditch, coalition co-ordinator at the Better Planning Coalition, and Naomi Luhde-Thompson, member of the Better Planning Coalition steering group and director of rights community action at the Better Planning Coalition. We have until 5 pm for this panel.
Siân Berry
Q
Richard Hebditch: I think the Bill could be a very powerful tool from a planning point of view. The ability to co-ordinate across housing, transport and planning is really important. As in the London model, which obviously you know very well, that can be very powerful. One thing that is interesting with the Bill is the comparison with London’s accountability. What has been really important in London is the fact that you have the directly elected Assembly, committee structures with powers, and active civil society and media. There is also the statutory passenger watchdog in London, London TravelWatch, of which I am a board member. There is a developed infrastructure to scrutinise what the strategic authority and the mayor do, and that is important. Particularly given the increased powers there will be for strategic authorities elsewhere to call in planning applications and have mayoral development bodies, it is important to have that level of accountability.
Siân Berry
Naomi, do you have anything to add?
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: I could mention a little bit about public participation, but I do not know if you have a question on that later.
Siân Berry
Q
Richard Hebditch: As I mentioned, these are potentially very powerful bodies, as the Bill collects powers and duties from other legislation, rather than being a stand-alone piece of legislation. The health duty is potentially important. We would like to see duties around climate and nature. Those are long-term issues; they are not the kinds of things where, as a mayor or an authority, you are under short-term pressure—or, necessarily, pressure from central Government—to deliver, but they are really important. In the collection of duties from elsewhere—on local transport plans, for example—there are duties to have regard to national policy, but not in terms of the exercise of your functions, so these strategic authorities will be powerful delivery bodies in their own right, not simply as plan-making and strategy bodies, which makes it important to have those climate and nature duties as well.
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: The Labour Government in Wales introduced a different format in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—a public authority duty. It has a series of goals, and each public authority has to carry out those duties in relation to their functions. I should declare that I am a member of the Eryri national park authority, so I have a very close view of how this is actually carried out. It comes to the point about where the public interest is in the proposals in front of us. There is growth and a bit about health, but where is the public interest? It does not seem to me to be properly explained or described in the Bill that this is all about delivering on the public interest—what is the Government’s role in doing that?
There is a bit of confusion between the two Bills. Look at the health duty in this Bill and then look at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is obviously in the Lords at the moment. There is no consultation for health groups in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but there is a health duty on the combined county authority. It is just not connected. On the spatial development strategies, it is not particularly mentioned as a group, but there is a duty on the CCA, so it is really important to examine the connection between the two a bit more closely.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
At the community level, we obviously want to build in a way that is sustainable, but we need to make sure that there is public consent. I am interested in how we ensure that strategic planning powers sit alongside community engagement and community consent to make sure that there is a whole place sense of the direction of travel and the development that needs to happen, in a way that builds public support.
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: On public participation, the UK is a signatory of the Aarhus convention. Article 393 of the trade and co-operation agreement is really clear that when you are doing something that has an impact on the environment you must have a proper process of public participation. It must happen at an early enough time to influence the outcomes; otherwise, what is the point of having people involved? You are literally just asking them, “What colour do you want the gates to be?” You are not asking them to be involved in the full decision.
The issue that you have here—I will talk about the products that are produced—is that, if you look at the spatial development strategies, it specifically says in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in proposed new section 12I of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004:
“No person is to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
That is completely the opposite of what you have on local plans: any person who makes representations must be given the opportunity to be heard in front of the examiner. That is not going to send out a strong signal that you actually want people to participate in the making of these spatial development strategies.
It is not a sell-out event to go to a plan examination, so I do not think that you need to be worried about that. I do, however, think that you need a right to be involved at that stage, and it cannot be at the discretion of someone else. I think that is one of the issues: if you have to wait for somebody else to give you consent or permission to enter that space, you do not have a right to enter it, because it is at somebody else’s discretion. That is why the formulation of such a right of access—a right to participate—is really important.
Your other point was about the duties, and how that is carried out. I would be really interested to see how the local growth plan is supposed to comply with, for example, the environmental principles policy statement. How does it combine with that? How does it combine with the spatial development strategy? What is the interaction there? It is quite complex, if you look at the organogram of the different plans that, if you are a member of the public, might affect and shape the place in which you live, and therefore what the purpose of all these plans are—whether they are there to achieve sustainable development in the public interest—and how you are supposed to get involved in influencing the outcome of the decisions that are made through these plans.
Richard Hebditch: It is probably also worth talking about the resourcing of all this. As people have discussed, we have the local government reorganisation at the same time. The new format for local plans, which are out of date, has new housing targets as well. Then we have the SDSs—spatial development strategies—on top of that. How do we make sure that we have the resourcing to develop all those things, which are happening at the same time? We then have wider planning reform, and we might have another planning Bill in the new year. There is a lot of potential chaos at the same time. I am sure the Government want to address that, and the resourcing for planners to develop the SDSs is very helpful, but there is a risk of not necessarily having a clear road map for how you get to that place. As I was saying, we are very supportive of the idea of spatial development strategies and the strategic layer, but the journey there is going to be quite chaotic. I think it would be good to look at issues around workforce skills and the timing of all the different things that are going on.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: I think we need to reflect on what became of the regional spatial strategies, and on whether that was an issue around social licence and public consent. Obviously, an examination was attached to them in their development, and there was accountability in different formats. If it is not clear to people that they are going to be involved, you will just get disempowerment and disenfranchisement, and then people are just going to say, “Well, it’s nothing to do with me. I haven’t been able to be involved, and I haven’t been able to have an influence.” Those routes to influence and to participate properly, which means having an impact on the outcome, need to be very clearly laid out so that people can participate. I agree with you that it is a whole discussion. Planning is the way we organise ourselves in space, in society and in places. That is what it is supposed to be, so we need to make it like that.
Your point about democratic accountability is really important. One of the things that the Better Planning Coalition has been looking at is the national scheme of delegation, which will have a huge impact on whether there is democratic accountability for planning decisions at local level. If people realise what is happening only when the bulldozer turns up at the end of the road, that is obviously a failure of the system. If they feel that a decision has not been made in a way that is accountable, if there is no one for them to go and talk to, and if they do not have public speaking rights at planning committees any more and cannot have their say on that decision, I think that will lead to a democratic deficit.
David Simmonds
Q
The Chair
Bullet points would be great.
Richard Hebditch: This is not a good way to start an answer, but it is a massive challenge, and I very much recognise that. One of the things is around democratic legitimacy. As Naomi was saying, it is not about entirely removing local planning authorities’ say in how they deal with applications. It is important to ensure there is a community voice in the development of local plans as well. There is a challenge, as previously mentioned, if local government reorganisation is going on at the same time.
It is also about having a level of democratic accountability within the strategic layer. I mentioned the lack of structures for these new strategic authorities beyond the indirectly elected constituent authorities. The previous panel was discussing ideas that might improve engagement. There are risks in relying on elections every four years as the entire democratic legitimacy, particularly in a time when you have five parties all quite close together in polling, and you are seeing that in local authority elections at the moment.
There are risks in relying on that to justify your decisions without necessarily having a structure for what happens in the gap between those four years to ensure democratic voice and community engagement. It is not necessarily for the Bill, but maybe there is something around ensuring that there are adequate reviews of how this will operate, drawing on the ideas that the previous panel was discussing. We also now have the national covenant between civil society and national Government, so it is about whether we can look at similar things at a strategic layer and at a local layer.
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Let me add just one example. I do not know whether anyone knows about the Salt Cross area action plan. It is West Oxfordshire district council: 2,000 homes on a greenfield site, and they want it to be zero carbon. It is going to have business on it and affordable housing. The community is really supportive, because that development is bringing things for them. The only problem is that those developing it want to strip out some of the things about zero carbon, for example, so there is a conflict there. I think that is all about—this is a whole different conversation—land values and land value capture, and how you get the public benefit out of development.
Manuela Perteghella
Q
Richard Hebditch: The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has the requirements on training for councillors when they make decisions. That is something we have welcomed, at that level. I think this goes back to the point on resourcing as well. The funding that has gone in to pay for planners to help develop at the SDS level is welcome. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill changes on being able to retain fee income from planning, and to vary fee income, are also welcome.
There is still an ongoing issue, and there are particular issues that the Royal Town Planning Institute has raised around apprenticeships and being able to have new entrants into planning. Changes in the rules around apprenticeships might threaten that input for planners.
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: We should be applying the subsidiarity principle. We should be making the decision at the closest level at which it is relevant to make that decision.
Mike Reader
Q
Richard Hebditch: Can we just say yes?
Naomi Luhde-Thompson: You need duties, because then it provides a framework. All those parts of the green economy have had no stability over the last few years because they have not known which way the policy has been going. If you provide stability in terms of a framework—“This is the direction of travel: we have to mitigate and we have to adapt”—and it is stable and long-term, then you know in which direction you are going.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to the end of our time for this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you both very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witness
Sacha Bedding gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Sacha Bedding MBE, chief executive of Wharton Trust and a member of Locality. For this panel, we have until 5.20 pm.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Sacha Bedding: We welcome the community right to buy. It is a good step, a big step, and it is important. Communities often do not feel that they have those rights, because they do not, and when they see a treasured building or space go up for sale, and they have no opportunity to purchase or reclaim it—lots of these things are already ours—they feel disillusioned and hopeless. To have an avenue and pathway to change that will be important and helpful. It will need to be properly resourced; I think we should look again at a community ownership fund or a successor to it. Places that do not have capacity but have a willingness and desire should be supported in creating that. But it is a great opportunity for the people of this country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Sacha Bedding: I watched some of the proceedings, and I understand why there is a desire for an expansion of parish councils. It is what we look like, and it is a reflection of this at a local level, but it is not right for everywhere. There are places up and down England where organisations like mine—Locality has hundreds of them as members—have the opportunity to create an active role in making sure that decisions reflect the will, the want and the need of the people who are going to be affected by those decisions.
That will happen only if we do not prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution to what neighbourhood governance looks like. Neighbourhood governance should mean that when the people in that community are asked, “Do you feel you have a stake in this place and the opportunity to shape where you live?” the answer is yes. At the moment, our opinion is no: roughly 80% of people say they do not feel they have that stake in their community. We see that in election turnout: the by-elections in Hartlepool, which I know well, had turnout of under 20% or 15%. That is an issue, and I am afraid that it is not going to be solved by creating another layer of councillor. I live in a parish area, by the way. Where parish councils do tremendous work, perfect—build on it—but where it is not right, let’s not mandate it. Let’s be creative and braver than we have been so far.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Q
Sacha Bedding: The first thing is that we have to make it accessible. I will always advocate for a community organising approach, because I think that releasing people’s agency, so that they feel that they can take action on the things they care about, is a route to that. However, whether it is asset-based community development, old traditional community development or community organising, that is where we start. We start where people are, not where we would like them to be.
If we can do that and resource that, there are thousands of people willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved where they live. I see it every day; you see it in your constituencies every day. This is not some great big secret—it is just, “Go out and ask them.” On the flipside of that, our sector, like every other sector, has been hammered for a long time, but releasing the skills and talents of local people to take action on the things they care about will answer that question.
Vikki Slade
Q
Sacha Bedding: I do not work in an area of environmental concern. If there are environmental opportunities in places, the broader the scope of what we consider an asset of community value to be, the better, in my opinion. I do not think we should prescribe that it must be bricks and mortar. For us in Hartlepool, things such as long-term plans for neighbourhoods should include the sea. That is our greatest asset, after the people who live there, and every community plan could involve the sea, for example. The environmental opportunities are there; whether we can distinguish whether they are social or environmental does not matter—let us expand the scope.
However, we should also look at the right to shape public services, because too often the people who are receiving services do not have a stake in the design of those services and the right to control investment. That is a big one. I do not mean, for example, Hartlepool getting 10 nuclear modular power stations, although that is great news; I mean at the neighbourhood level, where houses can be built, or not built, as we have just heard. People should have a stake in that decision. If you want more housing built, work alongside people who live in that community now. Do not just internally exile them, flatten the houses and say, “Hard luck, son.” That is not an answer.
The more expansive the assets of community value are, the better. The opportunity to expand the community rights is there, and it makes more sense for everybody. On homelessness strategies, where people are still on the streets and we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, or a literacy strategy, where one in three people is illiterate and that works with cohesion, if people can bring those together, they will coalesce around a place, and they can do that far better if those rights are enhanced.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Mr Bedding, for coming down and for your evidence. I will suspend the Committee for 10 minutes, because our Minister has been sitting here and she has to give evidence next. We will resume at 5.20 pm.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Thank you very much for agreeing to do it today when you were just sitting here listening to all the evidence; it is a tough day for you, Minister. For this panel, we have until 5.40 pm.
Paul Holmes
Q
I would like to angle in on two issues. I think it is fair to say that most witnesses today have said that there has been confusion and doubt about the benefits, and there have been some concerns about the disjointed nature of planning reforms. I do not think I have seen before a Government bring forward two major pieces of legislation that, maybe unintentionally, deliver completely different things.
My first question is: has your Department done any analysis or assessments on how much will be saved in local government from the unitarisation and devolution measures that you are introducing?
Miatta Fahnbulleh: First, no, I do not think I have inherited a disjointed mess from my predecessor. Candidly, we are having to fix 15 years of another Government making a complete mess of the local government landscape. To the extent that these are big reforms and that we are having to drive through some big changes simultaneously, that is a function of where the Conservative party—and the hon. Member and his colleagues—left us.
On the specific question about local government reorganisation, yes, savings are part of this, but it is much bigger than that. Ultimately—I think this came out really clearly in all the evidence sessions—this is about delivering better services and better outcomes for communities. It is about dealing with the fact that the landscape of local government is currently fragmented. It is about dealing with the fact that we do not have sufficient alignment around different types of services that we need to bring together in order to deliver the outcomes for communities. It is about ensuring that we are aggregating our resources and driving through efficiencies. It is about all of that.
Candidly, when you speak to communities, they do not know who in their local area is responsible for what, so we have to strengthen that sense of accountability. The reforms go back to what works in service of communities. That is driving us. We are very clear that where we are is not where we need to be. If you speak to communities, they are clear that the landscape does not serve them in the way that they need it to, and that is what these reforms are trying to drive though. Yes, it is about efficiency savings, but it is a much bigger agenda than that.
Paul Holmes
Q
Can I just drill down again, as you have not answered the question: has your Department done any analysis on estimated savings from the unitarisation of local authorities across England, and the devolution measures that you have put forward to the House today?
Miatta Fahnbulleh: There is a big evidence base that sits behind the proposals, and an impact assessment that sits alongside this piece of legislation. Ultimately, we have taken an approach of asking places to come forward with proposals. That is the right approach because, in the end, it is about places and communities. A locality must make the decision about what works for their communities. It is quite hard to have a full and comprehensive assessment until you have that set of proposals. It is a function of the approach that we have taken, but I do not think a single Committee member would say that we should have just imposed boundaries across the country rather than go to communities and say, “What is the boundary that makes sense for you that will deliver the outcomes that we need for your communities?”
Paul Holmes
Q
Paul Holmes
I have one more question, if I may. We will move on, because it is clear that there was no assessment of the spending.
On 16 December 2024, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) sent a letter to local authority leaders setting out a target of 500,000 people per local authority. On 3 June, he said that that was a set principle and that any local authority that wanted to go above or below it would need to set out a clear rationale. On 20 July, he said that he continued to be asked about the 500,000 target, indicating the concern and confusion among local government leaders. Do you think that the Government have behaved in the right way to ensure an efficient and streamlined consultation process for local government leaders in the country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh: Councillor Craig summed it up perfectly: the 500,000 was an indication of the type of scale that we thought makes sense for the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. I go back to the need to deal with fragmentation, the alignment of services and, fundamentally, the impact for communities on the ground. Ultimately, though, there has to be some give within that. It has to be aligned with the existing institutions and with what local communities believe is the right geography to deliver the outcomes they want.
I think that we have been consistent, and I understand that my predecessor was pretty consistent. People ask whether it is 10,000 or 1 million; the 500,000 gives an indication. But part of the devolution process is about empowering places to use their judgment to come up with the right outcomes, and that is what we are trying to do. We have given an indication but, ultimately, we want proposals to come forward from places that say, “We can achieve the scale in the geography that makes sense to deliver the outcomes for our communities.” In the end, that is what this is all about.
The Chair
If we keep our questions and answers short, everyone will get in. I call Perran Moon.
Perran Moon
Q
“Article 16 prohibits restricting the enjoyment of the rights of the Framework Convention in connection with the redrawing of borders.”
The Bill currently excludes Cornwall from accessing the highest level of devolution unless we compromise our national minority status. Is there an appetite in the Government, before we pass a Bill that breaches the framework convention, for making special provision in the Bill for Cornwall so that it can access the highest level of devolution without compromising our national minority status?
Miatta Fahnbulleh: First, let me thank you for being such a consistent, persistent and passionate advocate for Cornwall. The Government absolutely recognise Cornwall’s national minority status. We recognise the uniqueness of Cornwall and are trying to operate within that framework. Ultimately, strategic authorities, at their best, try to drive economic performance and growth, so geography matters.
The conversation that we want to have with Cornwall is: “If you want to drive growth and employment opportunities, and if you want to create jobs in your area, what is the best geography to do that in?” That is not to deny Cornwall’s uniqueness and specialness, which I think every single Committee member recognises and appreciates, but it is to say that if our objective is to make sure we are delivering for your community in Cornwall, what is the best spatial strategy to do that? That might require collaboration beyond the boundaries of Cornwall.
David Simmonds
Q
Clearly, a number of those authority areas are in the process of finalising their bids, and in some areas there is dispute at different levels of local authority as to what the footprint should be. Many of us will have been pleased to hear you say earlier, Minister, that that was flexible, in your view—that it was not intended to be a strong guideline, but was something where you were looking at a much greater level of latitude. So that we can have assurances in relation to the relevant groupings later in the Committee process, will you commit to all those local leaders—in particular any who have submitted a bid on the understanding that it had to be around that 500,000—that there will be the opportunity to revisit that if it was not dictated by their local circumstances and preferences but, in their minds, something required by the Government?
David Simmonds
That is the question.
Miatta Fahnbulleh: I come back to, “What is the purpose of this?” We are not doing reorganisation for the fun of it—it is not fun. We are doing it because we think it will help us to drive certain outcomes. Our assessment is that around 500,000 is the sort of scale that allows us to do certain functions. That has to be consistent and compliant with what makes sense locally. The whole purpose of localism is that you have that interaction between the two. We have therefore given a benchmark for what we think makes sense, but when we look at proposals we will, of course, take into account the specific circumstances. If an authority comes forward with 100,000 or 200,000, we are likely to say that that probably does not cut the mustard, but we want to have that conversation, because fundamentally this has to be aligned and make sense on the ground. Otherwise, none of this will play out in the way that we want it to.
David Simmonds
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: I come back to the fact that it is not just about savings and efficiency, but about removing fragmentation and about what makes sense in terms of the types of services that we are asking local authorities to deliver—it is a whole set of things. That is our benchmark, but ultimately the basis of localism is to say to places, “Given these parameters, what do you think makes sense?” We will use that to make decisions.
Vikki Slade
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: The push of powers to communities is absolutely critical to us, and the duty on local authorities to think about neighbourhood governance is trying to get to the heart of that. Parish councils may be the structures and institutions that the local authority decides to build on, but it is not consistent across the country, so we have to ensure that we are finding the right governance structures for different places so that communities have a genuine voice. We have to ensure that we have diversity of representation, which we need for this to be enduring and for it to ensure that there is power and voice for communities. The commitment is there, and that is why we have it. We were very clear that this was not just about strategic authorities or local authorities, but was absolutely about the neighbourhood level. How we get that right has to be a conversation—an iterative relationship with places. That is the bit that we are absolutely committed to.
Mrs Blundell
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are clear that councillors have an absolutely fundamental role to play in the democratic system that we are trying to create. They are not only elected, but champions and conduits for their community.
As we drive through these reforms, there is a question about how we build on the power of councillors and the role that they play, whether within our neighbourhood governance structures or, indeed, in how they interact with the mayor, and the accountability and scrutiny of the mayor.
You can have our assurance that councillors have a fundamental role in the landscape and are part of the infrastructure that we need to build on. There are huge opportunities for that as we take the process forward.
Siân Berry
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: We recognise that, if you like, the scrutiny landscape is not as it should be, which is why some of the measures that we are driving through the Bill try to address that. We are moving at pace and creating institutions at pace—we recognise that and do not resile from it. We are doing so because we looked at the inheritance and were not pleased with it, so we thought that we had better make some progress in the time that we have.
However, it is absolutely the case that strong, accountable leaders are only as strong and accountable as the scrutiny institutions that you build around them. I think they have emerged organically in some instances, but we hope to use the Bill to create more structure around that so that alongside—hopefully—powerful mayors and powerful local authorities, we have that scrutiny function in place. Again, we will learn from what is working well and we will look at how we build on what is working well.
Siân Berry
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: Resourcing is a challenge across the piece. As we think about the structures that we are creating, we are also thinking about how we build capacity, because if we do not do that, we will create structures that will not be effective, which is not the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: There are two things that I would say. Even in our urban areas, or what are defined as urban areas—for example, North of Tyne—there are big rural constituencies within them. Actually, many of our metro mayors straddle urban areas—in some instances, there are core cities—and rural areas.
The benefits are the same for both. If your starting position is, “How do we drive economic growth?”—that is one of the big issues—the evidence of the last decade and a half, as well as that from other countries, is that such a strategic level creates a massive opportunity to unlock growth. That is as true for our urban areas as it is for our rural areas.
However, I would also say that, yes, there is a model that we are trying to drive forward, but it has to be specific to particular places. There will be different constellations, if you like, of strategic authorities. That is okay, because what matters is that we create governance structures that can fundamentally drive outcomes that are tailored and specific to those areas.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: Ultimately, the approach that we are taking is to say to places, “What makes sense?”, and there is a journey for places to go on. Some places will choose to be foundational authorities, because that makes sense for them. Actually, we are being overwhelmed. It is not just urban areas that are coming forward to us with an appetite to move to—
Lewis Cocking
Q
Miatta Fahnbulleh: Well, no. We said, “This is the suite—
Lewis Cocking
You have.
Miatta Fahnbulleh: We said, “This is the suite of powers that you can get.” Places have seen the opportunity and are looking to other areas that have gone through this journey. Look at Greater Manchester, with some of the highest productivity growth that we have had. I was there at the start, when we began this journey. People are seeing that there is something here that is working and there is an appetite for that.
The Government have done their bit by saying, “Look, we understand you need the powers; this is the suite of powers. We’re not going to ask you to do lots of deals and jump through hoops,” and places are lining up. I think that every place needs to figure out what makes sense for it. However, the evidence so far is that places see that there is a strategic opportunity, because they care about growth and outcomes for their communities.
Mike Reader
Q
The Chair
That was a request and not a question.
We come to the end of today’s session. Minister, thank you very much; I know that it has been a hard day for you.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 14th October 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 October 2025 - (14 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
As we begin consideration in Committee of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, I have a few housekeeping points to make.
Phones should be switched off. I have just switched mine off, as I do not want to set a bad example. I do not really like gentlemen to remove their jackets; I never remove mine, unless I am in my home or garden, or on holiday. I notice someone getting their tie on quickly.
We will power through this, but we will also give the Bill full consideration. I have made it clear to the Government Whip, as I now make it clear to others, that we are not going to delay unduly; equally, we will not hurry through without proper scrutiny. Getting that balance right will be my job.
Everyone is entitled to speak, and they should let me know that they wish to do so in the normal way. Anyone who wants to press an amendment to a vote needs to notify me, or make it clear in their speech that they will press for a vote—unless, of course, the Minister satisfies them, possibly by conceding the amendment, in which case a vote will not be needed. We will see about that as we go. Let us have a good Committee, with everyone enjoying it and participating, so that we have good scrutiny of legislation.
We are sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. I emphasise, no tea and coffee—it states that in my script, by the way, but I guess you knew it anyway—but you may refresh yourselves with water.
We now begin line-by-line consideration. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. There has been a bit of a change, because a Member withdrew their amendments late on, so we will be getting an up-to-date version of that.
The Member who has put their name to a lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak by bobbing. If we have had a full debate on a clause through discussion of the amendments, I will probably not allow a separate stand part debate. If we have not had full consideration, we will have a stand part debate on that clause. I will gauge that as we go, mindful that we need to make progress, but have proper scrutiny, as I said.
At the end of a group of amendments and new clauses, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment, which includes grouped new clauses, that is at the Chair’s discretion. The Member must inform the Chair in advance if they wish to press an amendment. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates. I hope that is helpful.
Clause 1
Strategic authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 35—Standardisation of definitions—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations standardise the definition in legislation of—
(a) ‘national’,
(b) ‘strategic’,
(c) ‘local’ and
(d) ‘community’
for the purposes of ensuring each refers consistently to the appropriate level of local government across all legislation.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(3) In exercising this power, the Secretary of State must have due regard to the need to ensure consistent use of the words listed in subsection (1), to facilitate public understanding of devolution.
(4) Within six months of a statutory instrument under subsection (2) being made, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out how the power under this section has been used this power, including any reasons for failure to exercise it where there is inconsistent usage of the words listed in subsection (1).”
This new clause would ensure that words like “strategic” and “local”, where they relate to a level of government, have consistent meaning across statute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. Before I speak to the first group of amendments, I put on the record my thanks to the witnesses who gave up their time in September to give evidence to the Committee. Their comments were insightful and will inform our scrutiny over the remainder of Committee stage.
The English devolution White Paper committed to introduce in law the concept of strategic authorities, which sits at the heart of our new devolution architecture for England. The clause makes good on that commitment and establishes a more consistent and simple model of devolution. The clause sets out the three levels of strategic authority: the single foundational strategic authority, the combined foundational strategic authority and the mayoral strategic authority. Each category will have access to a consistent set of devolved powers and functions.
Mayoral strategic authorities that meet specified eligibility criteria may be designated by secondary legislation as established mayoral strategic authorities, unlocking further devolution. We believe that that will deliver a permanent shift in power from Whitehall to all parts of the country, with consistent powers at the right level across all of England, so that empowered mayors can drive growth, unlock house building and infrastructure, and deliver the change that our communities want.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s welcome, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.
We will refer to a good deal of evidence on all parts of the Bill, but it is important to set out briefly—in terms equivalent to those used by the Minister—the concerns that the Opposition continue to have about the significant democratic deficit that arises from the measures in the Bill; the risk of losing the efficiency and local insight that come from many of our local government structures; and, in the context of a country that already has fewer elected representatives per voter than any other developed democracy in the world, the impact of stripping out, by some estimates, up to 90% of elected representation. I therefore echo your comments, Sir John, on the importance of scrutiny of the Bill. Local authorities are the means by which our voters, our residents, exercise control over what happens in their neighbourhoods and communities. It is critical that the legislation gets that right.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We absolutely recognise the hon. Member’s point about democracy. Directly elected mayors can play a powerful strategic role. They are a key new part of the devolution architecture that we have seen work well across the country. I point to Greater Manchester, which has delivered the fastest growth of any local economy. They sit alongside strong democratic structures that we will have in local government. The Bill is complementary to that and does not cut across or undermine those structures.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I have had the whole summer to forget how these things work, so I look forward to being firmly guided by you if I stray from good practice.
I will speak to new clause 35. In that context, I emphasise how friendly, constructive and helpful the new clause is intended to be as a way of getting the Committee started on a good note. I ask Ministers to take the need for it on board, although I will not press it to a vote. I tabled the new clause to ensure that, more broadly, words such as “strategic” and “local”, where they relate to a level of government or a level of area of policy, have a consistent meaning for strategic authorities, constituent authorities and community-level groups.
I will give some examples of possible confusion growing in the areas cited in new clause 35. We have a strategic road network, which is in fact a national network managed by National Highways. We have new strategic authorities, which will have to manage a key route network, analogous to the Transport for London route network. We also have local roads managed by local authorities. In the Bill, however, we have strategic authorities being asked to make a local transport plan. That could be more helpfully named a strategic transport plan.
Another area of policy I am very familiar with is the community infrastructure levy. In later clauses, we will discuss new applications of the mayoral community infrastructure levies. I have experience of how, more locally, spending on what most local councils call strategic community infrastructure levies is done by local authorities. Decisions on local CIL spending, which is what councils normally call is, are made closer to the community, often by ward councillors or neighbourhood forums.
We are slightly better off in planning, where there is a national basis for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure, and where strategic planning applications may be called in by regional strategic level mayors under current or new structures. However I do think that we lack rigour, sometimes logic, and often clarity in all these terms now. More thought about making things more standardised and easier to understand would be very welcome. I am not proposing a vote on this new clause, but what I would like to hear from the Minister today is that she will take this away, ask for at least a report on the current range of terminology we have ended up with in different areas of policy, and consider potential further amendments and the fuller review the new clause calls for.
The Chair
As a point of advice, if people want to contribute after I have called the Minister to sum up then just let me know in advance and I will call the Minister at the end, so she can respond to a variety of points that have been made. I do not want the Minister to have to keep getting up and responding to every speech. I know people are new to Committee, but it helps the Minister be able to sum up her consideration of all the points that have been made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the new clause, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion makes a good point regarding the tapestry of terms that we have in a very complicated local government structure; however, the Bill already includes defined terms relevant to interpreting local government structures. For example, clause 1 defines exactly what strategic authorities are. My concern is that taking a one-size-fits-all approach might have unintended consequences by altering existing definitions that have been deliberately tailored to work in specific legislative contexts. My view is that as we go through this process of standardising the new structure, with strategic authorities now established in legislation working alongside local government and community structures, the roles and the definitions of different structures of government will become much clearer. I hope the hon. Member will not press the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Functions of Strategic Authorities and Mayors
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 261, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “economic development”, insert “, poverty and socio-economic inequality,”
This amendment would make poverty and socio-economic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas.
Siân Berry
The amendment relates to the fact that the new strategic authorities simply must be tasked with reducing inequality as well as creating growth. We know that growth for growth’s sake does not trickle down or help everyone equally. The strategic authorities must be tasked with understanding, measuring and reducing socioeconomic inequality. The socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010 is not yet commenced for England, but if it were the amendment would have to be made.
The amendment would make poverty and socioeconomic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, this is an issue close to my heart. In July, the officers and I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Women and Equalities to ask about the urgency of commencing the socioeconomic duty. We said,
“The urgent need for the duty could not be clearer. Rising child destitution, increasing reliance on foodbanks and untimely excess deaths attributable to austerity policies all highlight the imperative for a legal tool to reduce socio-economic inequalities”.
We also said,
“Activation of the Socio-Economic Duty marks an important shift from piecemeal responses to rising poverty and widening inequalities, to a proactive systemic approach, embedded across all policy areas”.
The Bill is an opportunity to embed those principles.
I do not believe that these two actions—the commencement of the duty and the writing of this Bill—are mutually exclusive in achieving these goals. I cannot see why, given the Government’s promise to enact the duty, the new bodies should not be set up with it in place and in mind. I know that organisations including many local authorities are already preparing to comply with it in England. Towards the end of last year, one of my Green party colleagues on the London Assembly questioned the Mayor of London with some urgency about the work that he is doing with local authorities and agencies across London to prepare for this. We are now approaching the end of this year and it is still not in place. I believe that the Bill is the right place to start putting this into legislation.
I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote, but I would like to hear more from the Minister about when the Labour Government plan to bring the duty into force, and what plans Ministers have to use a statutory instrument to apply it to strategic authorities and mayors. Even if they will not accept the amendment, I would appreciate anything on the record asking those bodies to get ready for the duty, so that when they are set up, they can hit the ground running on addressing poverty and inequality in their areas.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have some sympathy with the amendment, but we spent time reflecting on its implications and appropriateness for the Bill. I suspect that, to a degree, the Minister and I agree on this point. If we reflect on the legislative framework around our local authorities from their earliest origins, the relief of poverty and addressing inequalities—the duties that the amendment refers to—have been enshrined. It goes back as far as the Poor Laws, but in more recent years the National Assistance Act 1948 compelled all local authorities to support those destitute in their areas, and the Localism Act 2011 gives scope for local authorities to use their economic powers through activities such as procurement in ways that specifically benefit the local area.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was much debated and broadly had cross-party support, is reflected in a lot of this Bill. It was specifically about local authorities using their powers to support the economy of their local area. Just a short time ago, some of the members of the Committee were in this room debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, in which the Government set out a vision—contested to some extent—about how those measures affecting local authorities will address persistent issues of inequality. We recognise that sometimes that is about legislation, but sometimes it is about Government action.
Mention has been made of food banks, which were rolled out under the last Labour Government as a means of addressing persistent issues of poverty. I remember them being opened during my time as a local authority councillor, and Gordon Brown visiting and saying, “This is an example of how we expect local authorities to address some of these persistent issues.” Local authorities already have these duties at both the strategic and the micro level. I question whether it is necessary to add an amendment that, in essence, reflects existing duties throughout all the different tiers of local government in England.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I shall start by setting out the purpose of clause 2, then turn to amendment 261. The clause provides some broad thematic policy areas under which functions and powers of strategic authorities are arranged in the Bill. Defining those areas on the face of the Bill will bring clarity and purpose to the role of strategic authorities, which all parties agree we need to do. We want to empower mayors, who know who their areas best, to respond to local needs, so they can be the ones driving change and improvements in economic prospects and living standards and poverty. These thematic policy areas are deliberately broad, to allow for a wide range of activities.
I have a lot of sympathy with the intention behind amendment 261. Alleviation of poverty and tackling socioeconomic inequality should be a core part of what we do and a core metric of economic success. However, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner set out, those duties are already baked into the very function and purpose of local authorities and, critically, they cut across all the thematic areas that we have set out.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Single foundation strategic authorities
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) A unitary district council or a county council may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as a single foundation strategic authority.
(2) A proposal under subsection (1) must be prepared in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a unitary district council as a single foundation strategic authority if—
(a) a proposal has been submitted in accordance with subsection (1), and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power to designate a single foundation Strategic Authority. Instead, a local authority would initiate the request by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 87, leave out lines 1 to 29.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor for the area of an existing combined authority.
Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 95, leave out paragraph 33 and 34.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA without a public consultation.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 4, 28 and 29 seek to ensure that this is a genuinely community-led devolution—I am sure that we will repeat that many times throughout the morning. Fundamentally, the Bill seeks to move decision making closer to home, which we welcome. However, closer to home needs to start at home, and we want it to be councils that take the initiative to establish a single foundation authority, not the Secretary of State. We also believe that the public should play a role, and therefore this process should involve consultation, which we believe these amendments will provide.
This is a really important issue for us; we think it is fundamental to the whole concept of devolution. As a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will speak to these amendments in more detail, and we will push amendment 4 to a vote.
David Simmonds
We know there will be quite a degree of debate on this in due course. We sympathise with the objectives of the amendment, and we all share the concern that local people should be the ones who initiate change in the structures that govern their local areas, not the Secretary of State or the man in Whitehall who knows best. Therefore we have sympathy with the objective, and we shall return to that debate later on with some of the amendments around the structures.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Amendments 4, 28 and 29 would make English devolution genuinely local by ensuring that local consent and public consultation come first. Amendment 4 would change clause 3 so that local authorities must apply to the Secretary of State themselves to become a single foundation strategic authority, rather than Whitehall imposing devolution on local councils. Amendments 28 and 29 would remove the parts of schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor in an existing combined authority area, and for the establishment of a combined county authority, without public consultation.
One of the greatest criticisms of the Bill is that it proposes a top-down, Whitehall-led devolution, which is not really devolution at all. In my county of Warwickshire, the choice of which strategic authority we create, form or join must come from local elected representatives who are closer to their communities and understand better the needs of our constituents. Such an important shaping of future governance must have grassroots support and should not end up being imposed by central Government, especially if we want to decentralise powers to tackle socioeconomic inequalities, address regional disparities and promote real autonomy.
Without the amendment, local people will lose the right to decide their own governance arrangements. Whitehall will be able to impose devolved powers, force mayoral models on to areas that have not asked for them, and redraw local governance boundaries behind closed doors. Community involvement and local consent are essential to ensure transparency and accountability in devolution decision making.
Amendment 4 reaches the heart of the issue at hand. It would ensure that devolution is locally led, not imposed. It would ensure that a council that wishes to become a single foundation strategic authority must initiate the process itself, rather than wait for the Secretary of State to decree it. If devolution is to have legitimacy, it must be built on local consent, local ambition and local accountability. Without that, we risk the Bill becoming an exercise in central control and a top-down approach dressed up as devolution. We would like to push amendment 4 to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Both the policy intent and the practice with places going through the devolution process are locally led. The impetus is coming from local leaders and local authorities that are working with their communities to drive the process.
On amendment 4, the Government have been clear that we will consider non-mayoral devolution arrangements for single local authorities on an exceptional basis where certain criteria are met. Designation is not intended as the end point; it is a stepping stone towards deeper devolution, which is what we hope will be the journey for all parts of the country. It is therefore most appropriate for the process to be initiated by the Secretary of State rather than the local authority. However, to be clear, the Secretary of State will not be able to designate a council as a foundation strategic authority unless the council itself consents to that designation. That is a robust safeguard that will protect the interests of the single local authority concerned. I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government. I am pleased that those criteria are already embedded in the Bill when conferring functions on a single foundation strategic authority.
Amendment 28 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s proposed power to direct for there to be a mayor for an existing combined authority without local consent. The Government have been clear about the benefits of mayoral devolution; we are seeing it across the country. For example, South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority brought the Supertram network back into public control after 27 years, and there are already drops in fare evasion, increases in usage, ticketing apps and improved clearing. Greater Manchester authority has taken control of its bus service, resulting in increased punctuality and ridership and cheaper fares. The North East combined authority has secured a £450 million development for one of the largest film studios in Europe, with the potential to create over 8,000 jobs.
We know the impact of this devolution model. We are seeing it across the country and we want to see it in more areas. We are clear that mayors with skin in the game are best placed to drive forward growth, reform public services and deliver the change that their communities want. Every resident in England should be able to benefit from deeper mayoral devolution in their area.
David Simmonds
There is, perhaps, a risk of the Committee being inadvertently misled, in that all these points are being described as locally led. The Committee needs to be clear: local authorities were told that they needed to submit the proposals or the Government would take powers to direct them to do it. It was a gun to their heads. It was not the case that local authorities came forward proactively. During the 14-year era under the previous Government, it was clear that proposals that did come forward for reorganisation would be entertained by Government, and a number of those were taken forward, but compulsion was not the case. It is only since the Government told local authorities that they either had to come forward or would be directed to do so that we have seen the proposals, so it is not the case that they are locally led. The Committee needs to be clear on that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely disagree. I have been having conversations, for example, with our strategic combined authorities that are going through the process. The difference between this Government and the last is that we have created a clear sense of the powers and the economic opportunities that areas can take forward. Take, for example, our current devolution priority area. I am the new Minister, and I am having the first set of conversations with them. Every single one is excited and enthusiastic about the prospect. At the moment, the demand for devolution deals is outstripping our ability to respond, because we have attached to them clear powers, access to funding and the ability to drive the change that we want to see in those areas. So I completely reject the premise that places are being driven to do this.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
There is a risk here that we are conflating what is actually happening on the ground. The Minister is absolutely right, and no one can argue that this Government have not been clear about the structures that they want to put forward. However, to say that there is a demand from local authorities requesting devolution is stretching it a bit, because it is quite clear out there—particularly in my area, in Hampshire and the Solent—that this Government have said to them, “You have to do this; otherwise we are going to force it on you.” That is not locally led, is it?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I spoke to the leaders of Hampshire and the Solent just last week, and they were unanimously enthusiastic about what was being proposed, because they could see the opportunity. I am pleased that it is being voted on, and ultimately it is for places to come forward. What we have said to them is, “If you go through this journey, there are powers that you can draw down that will allow you to drive change in your areas.” The strategic authorities, combined authorities and constituent authorities can see the economic prospect. They see what is happening in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and the west midlands, and they want that for their residents. That is absolutely right, and what we are doing is enabling and supporting that.
Let me talk about the backstop power provided here. We do not expect to use it, which is why it does not come into force at Royal Assent; it is there if we need to draw on it. The only reason it is there—because we think the demand and the momentum created by devolution will do the job for us—is in the instance where there are blockages. That means when constituent authorities that want to move forward are being resisted by a particular authority, we give ourselves the ability to intervene. The reason we are doing that is because we do not want any residents to be left out. We do not want areas to be devolution deserts, not being able to benefit from the economic opportunities and prospects provided.
Vikki Slade
The reality is that the only reason they are queuing at the Minister’s door to access devolution is that they are being denied access to funding if they do not. Let me give the example of Wessex: Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire have all been unitarised over the past 10 years. They should have been in the ideal position, but they were overlooked for the first wave of devolution. They were apparently not ready, and I accept that fact, but they have missed out this financial year on more than £300 million—£159.29 for every single household in that area—compared with other areas. They have no real choice but to devolve to a single authority, because why would their residents think it is acceptable for them to miss out on £300 million? So it is not fair, or it is disingenuous, to suggest that this is not compulsion. The other point I want to make—
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is absolutely right that we say that, in order to drive economic success in particular areas, there are powers that relate to economic drivers and levers that we want, and there is an investment fund that can be deployed at that functional level. I will not resile from that; it is absolutely the right thing to do. We are clear with places that we think a strategic authority operating at a functional geography is the way to unlock their economic potential, and we are building powers alongside that. Places that want to take it up absolutely can. At the moment they are queuing up to do so, and I am incredibly happy about that.
I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for Hamble Valley for not getting on in support of his area, which is enthusiastic for this and moving forward. Ultimately, there is momentum around devolution because the benefits of it are being seen already. It is not theoretical; it is not on paper. We are seeing it in our areas, and I want it for every part of the country, not just the ones that have gone through the journey.
Paul Holmes
The Minister should be very careful about attributing motives to myself that are not there. I am very supportive of the fact that Hampshire and the Solent and will have a mayor. Hopefully, it will be a Conservative mayor, as that will drive the economy going forward. I want to press the point that we can see how divisive this is in the fact that three different versions of local government reform are being proposed. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were told, in this Government policy, that if they did not go ahead and embrace devolution, it would be forced on them in a way they may not like. That is not locally led; it is compulsion, is it not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will not press this point. All I can say is that I sat down with the leaders last week as a new Minister—the newbie—and I asked them how it was going. They told me, “we are enthusiastic and there is momentum around this because we can see the value that it will provide for our communities, so we are driving forward. What we need is for Government to get out of the way and for the Government to support and enable us.” I take that as a ringing endorsement of what we are trying to do. I can only go by the conversations I have had with local leaders. At the moment, I am seeing momentum and support for this, and rightly so because we are seeing the impacts of this on the ground and the Bill will extend that across the country.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) Before making a designation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the area of the proposed single foundation strategic authority.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to the unitary district council or county council within which they are situated being designated as a single foundation strategic authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 266, in schedule 1, page 79, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 267 to 273, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.
Amendment 267, in schedule 1, page 79, line 33, leave out subparagraph (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 268, in schedule 1, page 80, line 18, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsection (3)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 269, in schedule 1, page 80, line 20, leave out paragraph 6.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 270, in schedule 1, page 80, line 21, leave out paragraph 7.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 271, in schedule 1, page 82, line 11, leave out paragraph 14.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 83, line 3, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the proposed new combined authority area.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to proposing a new combined authority in the area in which they are situated.
Amendment 272, in schedule 1, page 85, line 31, leave out paragraph 17
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 85, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has obtained consent for the proposal from any affected local government area.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from all affected areas in preparing a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined county authority.
Amendment 32, in schedule 1, page 86, line 20, after “to” insert “and thereafter consult with”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with any of the relevant councils and persons given notice that an area is being proposed to be added to an existing combined authority.
Amendment 33, in schedule 1, page 86, line 27, at end insert—
“(da) any town and parish councils whose area would be added to the area of the combined authority, and.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority.
Amendment 273, in schedule 1, page 87, line 30, leave out paragraph 18.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 274, in schedule 1, page 92, line 12, leave out subparagraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 275 to 280, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Amendment 275, in schedule 1, page 92, line 35, leave out subparagraph (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 276, in schedule 1, page 93, line 40, leave out paragraph 29.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 277, in schedule 1, page 94, line 1, leave out paragraph 30.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 278, in schedule 1, page 95, line 23, leave out paragraph 34.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 279, in schedule 1, page 99, line 5, leave out paragraph 37.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Amendment 280, in schedule 1, page 101, line 1, leave out paragraph 38.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
New clause 23—Consent for local government restructuring—
(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all the constituent councils.
(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.”
Vikki Slade
We rehearsed the conversation about the level of consultation, but this is really about the role of town and parish councils. We have seen, since the devolution announcements were made, areas around the country rush to form town and parish councils where they do not already exist, and to protect services through town and parish councils where they already do.
However, we have heard that town and parish councillors have been completely ignored throughout the entire process. There has been no formal consultation with them and they have barely been mentioned. In fact, in the whole of the Bill, the title “parish councillor” is mentioned just four times, and in relation only to community assets. They are the true local councils; they are the people who know what is going on in their communities. The suggestion that there is no formal role for them to play in something as important as the creation of a huge council that will move things further away from them is hugely problematic.
We had local reorganisation in the Dorset area back in 2019. I have visited a number of the parish councils, and they have said to me that, since they lost their district council, the unitary council that they now have to work with is distant; things do not get done. In some of the areas being proposed, the new unitary authorities might be 50 or 60 miles away—they are going to be dealing with half a million people. Their main role is going to be in those really statutory, strategic functions. Yet our town and parish councils will be the ones that have to pick up the pieces, so their voices have to be heard. Of course, they will not be the ones making the decision—we know that—but they are simply invisible. We feel strongly that they should be part of that conversation; they should be consultees in this. Things should not be able to happen without their voices being heard.
Paul Holmes
I have great sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady is making. Would she agree that town and parish councils are already being asked to take on more services? We are seeing potential districts being abolished, handing down—or essentially getting rid of—assets to town and parish councils. Meanwhile, the town and parish councils are not being consulted on the wider reorganisation going forward. I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Lady’s view that parish and town councils need to be consulted. Could she elaborate on why she thinks the Government are so reluctant to do so?
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am not in the mind of the Government; I cannot understand why they would not want to embrace the incredible hard work of these volunteers in our communities who are already doing so much. But we are seeing, in every community, services handed down or at risk of closure, which are then only saved by the incredible work of the parish councils. It just strikes me as odd that we would not embrace the role of those parish councils.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I would just point out—I will say this multiple times in this Bill Committee—that, as someone in an area that has become unitary, no one is ever saying, “We want more district, borough and county councils, rather than fewer.” We have to be careful not to suggest that there will be less engagement with the council because we are going to unitaries.
Could the hon. Lady set out what legal change to parish councils she is concerned about? What powers are they losing? I cannot see any change in a parish councils’ powers under the Bill.
Vikki Slade
No power is being lost, because parish councils have few powers in the first place. What we are suggesting—what we feel should be at the heart of devolution—is about consent: actually consulting those local organisations that have a role. They are tax-raising and grant-giving organisations. They are, in reality, taking on a lot of those services yet their voice is silent. We are not asking for their powers to be changed; we are asking for their voices to be heard. That is all that the amendment requires.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I was a town councillor for a good decade and a half before I became an MP. We went through unitarisation in Cheshire in 2008, so I recognise a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying about town and parish councils being asked to take on more services—I saw it under the last Conservative Government as funding was taken away from Cheshire West and Chester council.
The reason why I am mystified is that my experience of town and parish councils is that they are not shy about expressing themselves. I am not sure what the hon. Lady is looking to achieve with the amendment, because town and parish councils are perfectly free to express their view in the consultations that already happen when these authorities are set up. Is she suggesting that town and parish councils should have a veto? From the way her amendment is worded, that seems like an entirely different proposition. Could she clarify that?
Vikki Slade
Nobody is suggesting a veto; we are suggesting a voice. There is a big difference. We have already heard that district councils felt that they were pushed around by the county councils, and the experiences of town and parish councils are simply an acceleration of that; when these proposals were being put forward by the Minister earlier this year, there was absolutely no role for those councils. We are simply saying that there are layers of local accountability that we believe should be on the list of people who are consulted.
This is a simple amendment that says, “You are already consulting other organisations in the chain of command. You should also include the town parish councils in that chain.” That is why we believe that amendment 33 is critical, as it
“would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority”,
and why we will push it to a vote.
David Simmonds
I shall speak to the amendments standing in my name. There is a degree of overlap between the points made so far and the subject matter of my amendments: all of them revolve around the issue of localism and consent. As has been clearly expressed, I have a degree of sympathy for the points that have just been made, particularly those about the role of parish and district councils in agreeing to and steering this devolution process.
When we had our witness session just a few weeks ago, we heard from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen of the District Councils’ Network and from Justin Griggs, the head of policy and communications at the National Association of Local Councils, which represents the parish councils and parish meetings of England. Both of them emphasised in their evidence the need for and the importance of that local voice. I reflect on legislation passed recently—particularly the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which strengthened the powers that our communities sought for local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments. One of the things we missed was the opportunity to enable parish councils and parish meetings to use those powers. That is a really concrete example of where our constituents would have benefited.
We know there are both sins of omission and sins of commission. I suspect it is a sin of omission that the Government have failed to use the opportunity of this legislation to complete the devolution work that they talk about, and to ask, “What role will those elected bodies at the town and parish level be able to play in the context of this new devolved world?” It speaks to something that I know the Opposition have real concern about: a form of institutionalised disrespect for local leaders that is built into this process. There is wholesale abolition of the local voice at scale, and proposals that the Secretary of State will direct, rather than consent.
Sir John, you will perhaps call to mind Lord Porter, formerly Gary Porter of South Holland, as one of those many local leaders whose approach and insight really shaped the nature of that local community. Reflecting on my time in local government, I had the opportunity to serve with people with very senior public and private sector leadership experience who steered the strategy of the local authority to deliver for local residents. To be told that the Government’s view is that they are to be mere community convenors, and they are not to have a role in that strategic leadership, is frankly insulting to the work that so many of our local leaders do.
The value of that was spelled out very clearly in our evidence session. I was particularly struck by Councillor Bev Craig, the Labour group lead and LGA vice-chair at the Local Government Association, who talked about how the Greater Manchester model worked because of that local leadership and the power of those individuals to come to the table and drive forward devolution, efficiency and service quality.
The amendments broadly fall into two categories that I have made today. The bulk of them are entirely about removing the ability of the Secretary of State to dictate to local areas—as was threatened by the Government when this devolution process started—what that devolution arrangement would look like, without the consent of those local areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has spelled out, of the many proposals that have come forward, we have not seen a single one embracing what the Government have set out, but a number of rival proposals for that reorganisation.
It is very clear that there is not any significant degree of local consent. There is a threat, and there is some money on the table to bail local authorities out, but they can have it only if they do what the Government want. If local authorities do not do it now, the Government will take powers to make them do it to their own agenda later on. That is the very opposite of localism. When we put the Localism Act 2011 through Parliament, it was broadly supported by all local leaders and Members of Parliament, and that was because we recognised the value it added at all levels. This process, however—the centralising element of the Bill—says that it will be a man or woman in Whitehall who decides: they will tell us what is in the interest of our community.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The hon. Member is talking about localism and the importance of things being done with communities, not to them. I was a Cherwell district councillor when we were involved in joint working with South Northamptonshire. I remember clearly that the leaders of South Northants district council were distinctly unimpressed by the level of consent that they were given when the Conservative Government told them that Northamptonshire county council, which the Conservatives bankrupted, was being disbanded and that joint unitary authorities were to be created in Northamptonshire. Was he so exercised about local consent at that point?
David Simmonds
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. I have spent a good deal of my time in local government. One of the key issues that we learned from the process, and one of the reasons why former Secretary of State Eric Pickles said that he had a pearl-handled revolver in his desk—for anyone who came to him to suggest forcing local government reorganisation on England—was the need to get things right with local consent.
There are times, which I think we can all see in the local government landscape at the moment, when, because of geography or failure of leadership, we know it is necessary for Government to intervene, and Governments of all parties have done so. Northamptonshire was an example of such a place. Individual local authorities within it had not failed, but there had been a collective failure of the public service in that area. The Government therefore felt compelled to intervene to remedy that, as opposed to imposing an alternative vision for how they thought the local area should be governed.
New clause 23 stands in my name. It seeks to enshrine in the legislation the principle of consent. We have the very opposite of what we have been told as a Committee, that this is all locally led. Clearly, the Government are already using the levers in their power to compel local authorities down a certain route. Under the force of such compulsion, local authorities feel that that is what they have to do, because it is the only way to address some of their reasonable and justifiable concerns. The timetable, the process and all those things come at the same time as a wholesale reorganisation of planning and infrastructure, which is stripping away the local powers and voices that are so critical to ensuring that the infrastructure and new housing that we all want are delivered.
The view of the Opposition, therefore, is that we need to enshrine in this legislation not powers for Whitehall but powers for people—powers for people to shape through their local leaders the community structures of service that deliver for them and the taxes that they pay. People are represented to exercise such powers. Enshrining the consent of local authorities is a small step in that direction.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to amendments 30, 31 and 33 first, and then amendments to 266 to 280. I appreciate the intention of the Liberal Democrat amendments, and I reiterate that I think we are completely aligned in this Committee in our desire not just to push power down, but do so in a locally driven way. On the specifics of the lead amendment, the principal body affected by the designation that we are seeking will be the unitary council or the county council. The Bill already provides that no designation can be made without the consent of the relevant councils.
On amendment 31, the Secretary of State must already notify the proposed constituent councils, and any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, about a proposal to direct the establishment of a combined authority. The Secretary of State must consider the representations of that body. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire said, there is no shortage of representation and voice from individual town and parish councils. We think that the process of engagement is already there and that to impose additional requirements to consult every town and parish council in the proposed areas would be disproportionate and also risks conflating the distinct roles of town and parish councils, which, as I said at the evidence stage, we absolutely see having a role to play in the new architecture of strategic authorities.
Strategic authorities have been created to tackle regional issues and to capitalise on the opportunities that exist over a significant economic geography, such as pursuing, for example, integrated transport. Town and parish councils, meanwhile, will continue to represent their local communities, managing neighbourhood services and supporting initiatives that improve the day-to-day lives of their residents. Each tier of local government will be accountable to their local communities and should continue to represent their interests and to work in alignment.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
When areas go through this process—and they are being made to go through it—will the Minister consider making it easier for areas that are unparished to create town and parish councils? Otherwise she will create large unitary authorities and some areas will have town and parish councils and others will not. Will she make it easier to set up town and parish councils where there are not any?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will discuss neighbourhood governance and neighbourhood boards later in the Bill. When it comes to areas that do not have town and parish councils, we recognise there is an opportunity for us to create structures so that there is stronger community representation and a stronger community voice. There is an opportunity for us to design something that works in areas where town and parish councils do not exist or may not be appropriate. We want to create flexibility so that local areas can find the right structures for them, so that neighbourhoods and communities have the voice and representation that we want to see across the country.
I turn to amendments 266 to 280. As I have said before, we have been accused of compulsion, and all I can do as a new Minister is point to the feedback that I get from the local areas that we speak to. Our engagement to date suggests there is genuine enthusiasm and momentum, because areas can see the economic opportunity and what a strong Mayor can do for their area. The Government have been clear in our aims: we want to get universal coverage of strategic authorities across England, because we can see the benefits that places like Greater Manchester and Liverpool are experiencing. We want that for every single resident across the area.
David Simmonds
During the evidence sessions, we heard senior local government leaders describe “inconsistent and…unhelpful messaging” on the building blocks of the new authorities—I quote what I wrote down. When we heard from those who are intended to be part of the investment agenda, they described no “meaningful consultation” from the Government on the proposals. How does the Minister square that with the idea that this is strategic and locally led?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is not the feedback that I heard in that evidence session. At the moment the places in our devolution priority areas are going through a process of consultation. They are talking to their constituent councils, voting it through the council chamber and taking it to their residents to make the case.
What we are seeing is positivity and momentum. Our job as a Government is to build on that and support and enable that. I come back to the point that there is a backstop power that we do not expect to use. But in the instances where we have got a blockage, we want to be able to help create a strategic authority so that we do not have devolution deserts and parts of the country left behind. We are very clear that the powers will commence only at the point that they are needed, rather than on Royal Assent.
Finally, new clause 23 would impose disproportionate consent requirements for these processes, requiring strategic authorities to seek the consent of all district, parish and town councils in their area. As I have said, there are already provisions in place to ensure a level of consultation. A primary aim for us in this Bill is to make the process simpler, more streamlined, more effective and less expensive. That is the feedback that we have had from places that have gone through the process and the feedback that we are getting from places going through the process.
My worry is that the proposed amendments would undermine the principle of having a process of devolution that is far more streamlined and far easier for places. Again, the feedback we are getting from conversations is that there is enthusiasm, appetite and commitment to do this. We want to make it as easy as possible for places, which is why I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receives adequate funding to facilitate their transition.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive funding to facilitate their transition.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 39, in schedule 1, page 84, line 13, at end insert—
“(9A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure the combined authority receives adequate funding to facilitate its establishment.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment.
Amendment 361, in clause 19, page 22, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) funding which has been allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.”
This amendment would require the annual report on devolution to include an account of funding provided to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.
Vikki Slade
Our councils are struggling to make ends meet. With so many on the edge of a precipice, I can see why they would be queuing up to create a strategic authority, which come with millions of pounds. There is, however, huge concern in councils that the cost to set up and run these organisations is oblique, and that there is a risk that the cost of running them will be passed to local people through additional precepting. I can tell the Committee from experience that the tens of millions of pounds that it is said will be saved by creating strategic authorities generally are not saved, and that if they are saved, they are replaced with other costs and take 10 years to materialise. Many councils do not have 10 years before they will go bust.
I am acutely aware that some funding was put aside for those organisations in the devolution priority phase, but when I asked the previous Minister what was happening with funding for future phases, I was met by stony silence. He explained to me that in order to progress there would need to be money in the settlement, but at the same time he talked about having already made a three-year settlement. That suggested to me that those organisations that are not already funded perhaps will not be funded within a three-year period, because there is no money. Given that those organisations are already telling us that they are £300 million short this year because they are not in the programme, but the Minister has no money set aside for next year to continue the programme, where is the money coming from?
Our amendments 38, 39 and 361 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that authorities receive adequate funding at least to facilitate their establishment, if not their continuation. It is crucial that local leaders—and local people, when they vote to make this progress—do not tie themselves down to additional costs that they cannot afford. That is why we feel it is important to press amendment 39 to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will elaborate further.
David Simmonds
I had the privilege of spending 24 years in local government, divided equally across the previous Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. I do not think that local government felt at any point in those 24 years that it was well funded and there was plenty of money to go around. In every single one of those years, irrespective of who was in government, our starting point when setting council tax was, “How are we going to meet a very substantial savings target?”
Manuela Perteghella
It is pointless to establish a strategic authority without appropriate financial support. Without support to build structurally, hire staff, co-ordinate partners and begin delivering on their devolved powers, new combined and strategic authorities risk becoming bodies with responsibilities but no real capacity to act. As the Minister will know, local authorities have been starved of funding by consecutive Governments. We need to ensure that these new unitaries—these new beginnings—have the best start in life, and that begins with fair funding so that devolution can be effective.
Amendment 39 is complemented by amendment 361, which would require the Government’s annual devolution report to include details of funding given to support new strategic authorities. Each year, when the Government report to Parliament on devolution, they would be required to explain how and why money has been spent to help to establish new devolved authorities.
As it stands, the Bill risks becoming a Trojan horse for centralisation, concentrating power in Whitehall rather than genuinely devolving it to local communities as promised. Amendment 361 would support true, locally led devolution by ensuring financial transparency and holding Ministers accountable for supporting local government reform. That is why we intend to divide the Committee on amendment 39, which is essential to ensure that new combined authorities and new strategic unitaries can operate effectively from the outset and deliver the powers and services they are intended to provide. Without adequate funding, the whole exercise of devolving powers and establishing new authorities will be meaningless.
For too long, my constituents, like so many across the country, have faced the consequences of under-resourced local authorities, with promises to their families and communities left unfulfilled. Our amendments would provide the vital financial support that this new era of local government requires, enabling us to deliver on the ambitions of devolution and achieve real, tangible results.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for highlighting the deep cuts that were imposed on local authorities during a decade and a half of Conservative government, which fundamentally weakened our civic infrastructure. We should never forget that. We absolutely appreciate that, as a result, local government is operating in a difficult context. I welcome the intent behind the amendments: it will be important for strategic authorities to ensure that they have the capacity funding so that they are established.
Amendment 38 concerns single foundation authorities. We do not anticipate that there will be transition costs for such authorities. When a unitary or county council is designated as a single foundation strategic authority, it will retain its existing voting and governance arrangements. The designation will sit alongside its status as a local authority. In other words, there will be no transition involved, so transitional funding is unnecessary.
We recognise that the mayoral strategic authorities that we are creating will need funding to support the transition and build capacity. All Members across the House want to see strong, capable authorities in their area, with the tools and capacity to deliver for their local communities. That is why in the English devolution White Paper we committed to provide new strategic authorities with capacity funding to kick-start their organisation. I am pleased to confirm that all areas on our devolution priority programme will receive £1 million in mayoral capacity funding this year to help establish new institutions, once the legislation has been laid before Parliament. They will also receive capacity funding in future years, so that they are ready and prepared to deliver the benefits that we believe devolution will unlock. As the Government are committed to providing funding for establishment expenses through the mechanism of mayoral capacity funding, we do not believe that amendment 39 is necessary, but we recognise the intent behind it, which is why are we are taking action.
Amendment 361 would require the Government to report on funding allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities. I am pleased to say that that is already established practice. Clause 19 amends the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 to ensure that all funding devolved to strategic authorities is reported. That will include any funds to support their establishment. Again, therefore, we agree with the intent behind the amendment but we do not believe that it is required.
Vikki Slade
Will funding be made available for areas that are not yet in a programme on the same footing as the areas that are already in one? It would be completely inappropriate if that funding was not committed to. I want to get that on record.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have established a principle that there should be mayoral capacity funding. We have established a principle that for places that are going through the transition, to ensure that any mayor that is created is able to hit the ground running, capacity building needs to be a core part of that. That applies to the places that are going through the devolution priority programme at the moment, but the same principle invariably will apply across the piece.
Vikki Slade
We were seeking to divide only on amendment 39, but given that we have had that assurance, I am happy not to do so. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Combined authorities and CCAs: establishment, expansion and functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 4 introduces schedule 1, which will streamline and simplify existing processes for establishing new combined authorities and combined county authorities, and for changing the arrangements of existing authorities. The Government have been clear that their goal is to achieve universal coverage of strategic authorities. We are therefore confident that clear and tangible benefits of devolution will be experienced across the country. We have also been clear that we want to create mechanisms that will ensure that the process is streamlined—that it is fast, and effective and efficient locally—and allows representation, but fundamentally allow us to move through the process that we see appetite and demand for across the country.
The powers introduced by the clause will be used as a backstop. They will be deployed only where we have devolution deserts and we want to work with areas to remove blockages, to the benefit of residents.
David Simmonds
We return to the theme that areas can have devolution provided it is in the form that Whitehall dictates. It remains a significant concern to the Opposition that we are proceeding in this manner, but that point is made and I suggest that we move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs
Amendment proposed: 266, in schedule 1, page 79, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).—(David Simmonds.)
This amendment, and Amendments 267 to 273, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 62, in schedule 1, page 80, line 19, at end insert—
“5A After section 105B insert—
‘105C Non-mayoral combined authority: consent to budget
(1) A non-mayoral combined authority may only exercise the following functions with the consent of each constituent council—
(a) adopt or amend the authority’s budget;
(b) where it is not part of the budget, approve the total sum of the transport levy.
(2) In this section a reference to the “transport levy” is a reference to any levy issued by the combined authority relating to the exercise of its functions relating to transport in accordance with any regulations made from time to time under section 74(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.”’
This requires that a non-mayoral combined authority must have consent from its constituent councils to the approval and amendment of the budget and to the approval of the transport levy (if separate).
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will begin by talking to Government amendments 63 and 65. The Government recognise that the creation of a combined authority or combined county authority can cause some concern in prospective constituent councils. One of the main worries is that the new institution could create new financial burdens on existing councils.
Many existing combined authorities and combined county authorities already include provisions in their constitutions that enable constituent councils to veto decisions that could create a financial liability on them. We recognise that those provisions have helped to soothe concerns about establishing new combined authorities and combined county authorities. That is why the amendments will create a standardised requirement for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to obtain the consent of affected constituent councils before exercising their functions in a way that could create a financial liability on these councils. That will ensure that any future non-mayoral combined authorities or non-mayoral combined county authorities will need to comply with this requirement without the constituent councils needing to secure agreement to its inclusion in the individual authority’s constitution.
I turn to Government amendments 62 and 64. In the English devolution White Paper, the Government set out that in combined authorities and combined county authorities without a mayor, most decisions would require a simple majority vote. That is provided for in clause 6. However, in the White Paper, we also said that key strategic decisions would require unanimity in non-mayoral authorities. The budget for the authority is one of those decisions.
Similarly to amendments 63 and 65, amendments 62 and 64 introduce a standardised requirement for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to obtain the consent of all their constituent councils when adopting or amending their budget. That includes the direct contribution of those councils to transport expenditure.
Government amendments 66 and 67 are minor, technical amendments. They amend the terminology used in schedule 1 so that references to secondary legislation within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 use the term “regulations” rather than “orders”.
David Simmonds
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It feels as though these amendments are intended to bring some welcome consistency and clarity.
The Committee will know that local government finance is largely regulated by the Local Government Finance Act 1992, but that older legislation on council tax fixing and budget setting all essentially states that a local authority’s budget must balance in-year. A local authority is not the same as central Government—it cannot borrow to fund its day-to-day expenditure.
However, one implication of the Secretary of State’s allocation of all these new powers to mayors or combined authorities is that they may choose to incur expenditure that imposes a liability on an individual local authority without seeking that authority’s consent. For example, there would be a legislative conflict if the mayoral combined authority decided to increase spending, or to increase rights to services for social care, which a local authority has to pay for, without giving the local authority the opportunity to include that in its budget.
Will the Minister give us clarity, first, on accounting standards? The legislation mentions that local authorities should refer to guidance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. CIPFA is not the only accepted accounting standard in the public sector, although it is generally a reliable one. Given our previous discussions and the evidence we have heard about access to local audit and financial advice, can the Minister confirm that accounting standards other than CIPFA will be accepted, if a local authority relies on them? Or will they have to be reframed within CIPFA? That will let the Committee and member authorities know exactly where they stand.
Secondly, while this is a fairly catch-all provision, there will be areas—we have seen this in Greater Manchester most recently—where central Government fund the investment and set-up of a new transport network but the ongoing running costs must be met by trading that service to local residents, and a large deficit emerges; essentially, the service runs at a significant loss. Especially if the underlying authority is a transport authority that issues freedom passes, that can have a significant financial impact. Essentially, council tax payers of one authority subsidise the costs of service delivery by a mayor.
We see significant elements of that in London under Mayor Khan. I think that was one reason why the Labour leader of Manchester city council spoke about how Manchester works and London does not. It would be helpful to have clarity—if necessary, in writing to the Committee—about how those trade-offs will be managed effectively, so that the capital costs of mayoral projects are not subsidised by the revenue or capital budgets of individual local authorities. Particularly with larger projects, mayoral authorities do not always have to meet the same tight financial requirements, especially in respect of things like education. It would be useful to know how that will be managed so that local authorities do not suddenly go bust because something emerges from the financial accounting arrangements between the new structures.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his detailed, complicated questions. We will write in response, particularly on the public accounting standards.
We have set what we think is a good baseline. There will obviously be some flexibility for constituent authorities. The hon. Member will remember from the evidence session that the accountability and financial framework across local government is a current challenge, so we are looking to drive improved standards across the piece. That will apply to strategic authorities as much as to local authorities, but we will write fully in response.
On the wider question about the balance and the trade-off, our judgment is that for non-mayoral combined authorities, where constituent authorities operate together, we should put in those safeguards. In essence, constituent authorities act in concert, collectively, to make decisions. Whether it is a question of financial liabilities or transport budgets, it is right that all the constituent authorities provide consent. In the case of the mayor, however, our view is that because the mayor has his or her own democratic mandate and the ability to direct, that is separate from what we see in non-mayoral combined authorities.
Inevitably, there will be safeguards. In the evidence session, we heard really powerful evidence that the mayoral model works well when the mayor works in lockstep with constituent authorities and the two are aligned, with a strategy that they work around. We have seen examples of where the model does not work well, and we have had to go in and support and remediate the process when the mayor works without their individual local authorities. The model drives that. However, we think that there is something specific in the mayor’s democratic mandate; we have a model where there is a majority vote, with the mayor on the side of the majority, in order to drive through big strategic decisions.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to provide that clarity in writing. She said that there are differences between a mayoral authority and a combined authority without a mayor. We have seen a good case study in the Mayor of London’s decision that he wished to be seen to fund free school meals in primary schools, but the budget that is provided is less than the cost. School budgets, which are determined by the Department for Education, are subsidising the shortfall in the money provided by the mayor. We see posters on the tube saying that the mayor is funding this, but in fact the amount he provides is less than the cost. Probably all London MPs have had representations from schools that have said, “We are having to make staff redundant because of this shortfall. It’s a significant burden. It is causing a real cost.”
That is an example of where accounting and legal decision making sit across several different authorities. Although it is not the only ringfenced local authority grant, it would be helpful to have clarity about how the dedicated schools grant will be managed in a mayoral combined authority, so that we do not see a repeat of what happened in London with school budgets being raided to cover up a shortfall in a mayoral policy proposal.
The Chair
The Minister has courteously and helpfully said that she will write regarding those specific questions. May I ask that that is done within the period in which we are considering the Bill, and made available to all Committee members?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes.
Amendment 62 agreed to.
Amendment made: 63, in schedule 1, page 80, line 19, at end insert—
“5A After section 105B insert—
‘105C Non-mayoral combined authority: functions imposing financial liability
(1) This section applies where a non-mayoral combined authority considers that the exercise of a function by the authority may result in a financial liability being incurred by one or more constituent council (each such council being a “relevant constituent council”).
(2) The function may only be exercised with the consent of each relevant constituent council.
(3) When deciding whether subsection (1) applies, the authority must have regard to the “Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom” published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, as amended or reissued from time to time.’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This restricts a non-mayoral combined authority from exercising a function that might impose a financial liability on any of its constituent councils unless those councils have given their consent.
Amendment proposed: 269, in schedule 1, page 80, line 20, leave out paragraph 6.—(David Simmonds.)
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 83, line 3, at end insert—
“(6A) After preparing a proposal the Secretary of State must publish a statement demonstrating how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public services in the area would be affected by the proposal.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement about how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public service structures in the area would be affected by the proposal for a new combined authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 305, in schedule 1, page 83, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section that has the effect of placing Cornwall in a combined authority with any other authority.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order establishing a combined authority which would include Cornwall and any other area east of the Tamar in the same combined authority.
Amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 84, line 13, at end insert—
“(9A) If the order establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”
Amendment 306, in schedule 1, page 86, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Neither the added local government area nor the existing area of a combined authority in the order includes Cornwall.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from adding a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if either area includes Cornwall.
Amendment 44, in schedule 1, page 86, line 32, at end insert—
“(7A) If the proposal establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”
Manuela Perteghella
This Government’s plans for devolution involve folding existing local government structures into larger combined authorities. From a central Government perspective, the benefits are clear. Each region has a single point of contact, accountability and new structures through which to work. However, devolution should deliver benefits in both directions and be truly community-led.
If proposals are prepared by the Secretary of State and the Department rather than being locally-led, we believe that a basic requirement should be that each new authority is appropriately sized, and that physical geography and cultural identities within the authority—especially community identities—are looked at. We need to look at the boundaries of other public service structures in the area that could be affected by the new combined authority, such as fire and rescue services, police forces and integrated care boards. In my area, we have local government reorganisation and the ICBs are being reorganised as part of NHS England reform or abolition, so both are changing at the same time. In geographical local areas, we have not just NHS commissioners but other NHS services, such as local NHS trusts.
Looking beyond size—I hope that the Government are flexible about size, because of all the other important considerations with any new authority—authorities should be shaped carefully to reflect economic zones, as well as physical geography. Crucially, there must be careful thought about how the proposals will align with public services. I have already talked about the organisation of ICBs, but there are also, for example, existing transport hubs and established boundaries for fire and rescue services.
A less tangible but no less important requirement is respect for distinct community identities. For example, my area is in the county of Warwickshire. South Warwickshire is very rural, with hundreds of parish and town councils, while north Warwickshire has different economic areas and is more populous and urban. Proximal areas may not be well-suited partners in new combined authorities, so what kind of flexibility will there be to think about services and the shared history of local communities so that such areas do not have a false cohesion?
We would like regional and sub-regional cultures to be taken into consideration, because those are what brings communities together. This goes back to the role of parish and town councils as the first tier of government: they know their communities best, which is why they should have a say in any consultation. They know their boundaries; they know which bus services should be improved so that residents can go to hospital and so on.
Practically, we are asking the Government to consider all these areas, boundaries and services, because if combined authorities backfire, governance structures could fail and might not deliver at all for areas that are already struggling. Requiring the Secretary of State to make a statement accompanying each proposal for a new combined authority, covering its impact on the shared areas that I have mentioned, would improve the quality of combined authority proposals.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have listened attentively to the points made by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley may speak later to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, but they both relate to the need to recognise in local government structures the heritage of the parts of England that are affected.
From all the evidence that we have heard, and from many Members’ contributions, we know just how important it is that people feel that the name of their local authority area—that most basic of things—has a connection to them. On top of that are layers of geographical and economic considerations, as well as the trouble of learning it, all of which have an impact. That is why we and others are so keen to support measures to ensure that historical names are not lost in any of the Government’s proposed devolution measures, and that that heritage is fully recognised in any structures that follow.
Paul Holmes
I will briefly elaborate on what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has said about amendments 43 and 44. I do so on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, who has been a tireless and fierce campaigner for his constituents, and not only at Prime Minister’s questions.
I represent a Hampshire constituency whose southern parishes look out on the Isle of Wight. If I take a walk down Hill Head beach or somewhere in Hamble, I always see it. In Hampshire, the Isle of Wight is a constant. It is a constant presence on the coast of southern England, but it is also a vital part of our county. It has a proud set of people who have a booming economy that contributes so much to the county of Hampshire, and which is a major part of the county’s identity.
The Minister has talked about wanting local views and localism to be at the heart of the devolution agenda. I believe her. We had a brief interaction earlier, and although we can disagree about whether that devolution has been forced or voluntary, I absolutely believe that the Minister intends to make sure that if devolution happens, the regions involved have an identity and the right to an economic injection that delivers for people locally.
It would be very easy for the Government to accept amendments 43 and 44, because they would do nothing to change the mechanics or principles of the Bill. They would merely ensure that a region of very proud people is included within the description of the mayoralty that is proposed for Hampshire.
Vikki Slade
I used to live on the Isle of Wight. I got married there and my parents met there, so I have a fond connection to it. Does the hon. Member agree that if “Isle of Wight” is not included within the authority name of “Hampshire and the Isle of Wight”, it might disappear from all the other organisations in which it features, such as fire authorities or health authorities? Suddenly, the Isle of Wight’s unique identity would be completely subsumed into an amorphous Hampshire.
Paul Holmes
As the hon. Lady knows from when we were on the BBC’s “Politics South” programme some weeks ago, I rarely agree with Liberal Democrats, but I suspect that she and I agree on this point. I know that she stands for her area and, as a former council leader, for the wider area, and that she knows a lot about the Isle of Wight. I did not know that she got married there, but I am sure it was a lovely wedding, because the Isle of Wight is a beautiful place steeped in history. She is absolutely right that while Hampshire and the Isle of Wight have been together geographically, they have also been together in the way organisations have worked, over hundreds of years. I see the Solent as the water motorway connecting the mainland to the Isle of Wight. We could not interact without having it there. “Hampshire and the Solent” is the wrong name for the proposed mayoralty, because it leaves out the distinct identity of a proud people on the Isle of Wight.
Siân Berry
I want to express my sympathy with the amendments related to the Isle of Wight. It is not miles away from the area that I represent, Brighton Pavilion. I know many people there who are similarly proud of their distinct identity. I note that the name for the new combined authority that will envelop Brighton is “Sussex and Brighton”. If it is good enough for us, it is good enough for the Isle of Wight.
Paul Holmes
I agree. I have had many a night out in Brighton, and I know that it is a very vibrant city. If it is good enough for Brighton to be named within that county, I do not see why the population of an island in this United Kingdom should not be named as part of its mayoral authority.
I say to the Minister, in the same spirit of co-operation in which I know she will respond, that if there is no movement in the decision on the name, that risks wider implications for the Bill. Many other areas will then start to think about why we went through the parliamentary boundary commissions’ changes to the names of our seats. That was a very difficult thing; people were not recognised.
The Isle of Wight has a precedent for being treated differently. It has always received special dispensation in the boundary discussions that we have had before. It would therefore be perfectly sensible for the proud and great people of the Isle of Wight to be recognised and have their name in a proud county name, if this devolution goes forward.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras—thank you, Sir John. The Bill places me in an invidious situation. For thousands of years, the people of Cornwall have been considered different from the rest of the country. Indeed, the word Cornwall means “land of foreigners”. We call it Kernow—the people of the promontory.
David Simmonds
I know that the hon. Gentleman is not the only person with an interest, and that there are other amendments on the same topic. He mentions that he is satisfied with the Government’s assurances. We have not directly sought those assurances; would he be willing to set out for the Committee the nature of them, so that we can all understand what has been committed to and can be well informed when we come to make voting decisions later on?
Perran Moon
I have had no commitments; I have had discussions with Ministers. We have had discussions about the difficulties with the proposals made here, with the potential for the Bill to become a hybrid Bill and the complications that that would bring. I am happy to keep talking to the Government in a spirit of openness, reflecting the views of every political party in Cornwall bar one. On that basis, I am content to keep talking. I cannot support the amendments because of the negative change that I think they would make to the nature of the Bill, so I will be voting against them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I put on record my thanks to hon. Members who are championing specific areas that have a unique identity, which the Government completely recognise. On amendments 43 and 44, I pay tribute to the hon. Members who have been championing the Isle of Wight and its proud history. The Government understand and support the intent behind the amendments, but we will not be taking them forward. Let me explain why.
Earlier this year, Isle of Wight council, Hampshire county council, Portsmouth city council and Southampton city council submitted a joint expression of interest in the Government’s devolution priority programme. They went through a consultation process, based on the proposed name of Hampshire and the Solent. This was not imposed by the Government; it came as a proposal from the local area, and on that basis a public consultation was conducted.
It is worth saying that of the 6,000 responses we received, only a small minority commented specifically on the name of the proposed combined authority area. The Government’s response to that consultation is online, if hon. Members want to look at it. It is important to say that once it is established, it is completely open to any combined authority or combined county authority to change its name by resolution, with the consent of its members and using existing powers. That is already in the Bill. The Liverpool city region combined authority and the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority have both changed their names in the same way. There was no constraint from Government; the powers are there. It is within the gift of local areas to go ahead and do that.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister mentions that 6,000 people replied to the consultation on Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but that only a small number of respondents actually mentioned the name. How many people from the Isle of Wight responded to that consultation, and how many of them mentioned the name?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I do not have those figures, but we can write to the hon. Member with them. However, the principle remains that the power is there. It is within the gift of constituent authorities; it is not being imposed by Government. If there is a name change that the combined authority wants to take forward, it can take it forward. We have seen that in Liverpool and South Yorkshire. There is no constraint from us. It is a determination for, and with the consent of, the constituent authorities. It is within the gift of Hampshire and the Solent to make that change.
Paul Holmes
The Minister says that it is not the Government who are making sure that it happens. I accept that. However, having been in her position for only a short time—that is not her fault, as the fickle finger of fate has rested it on her shoulders—she may not know that the negotiation process that has taken place among the local authorities in Hampshire has not been smooth. There has been an overarching view that the county council, which has rushed towards accepting this devolution notwithstanding the impacts of the Government’s decision to push it forward, has not worked collaboratively. There is a wish for devolution, but in the minutiae it has been a very county council-dominated process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne says, the reason that there has not been a huge uptake in response to the consultation is the flawed nature of the decision-making process. I ask the Minister not to rest on the consultation responses, because as my hon. Friend says, a number of people on the Isle of Wight simply did not bother to respond. It is not about the make-up of a geographical devolution settlement; it is about a name. I ask her to listen to the elected representatives on the Isle of Wight who serve in this House, who have asked for it, and to consider it again.
Mike Reader
I declare that I am Hampshire born and bred, being from Romsey. I just ask: why are we so disrespectful of a place like Brownsea island? If it is called “Hampshire and the Isle of Wight”, what about the great Brownsea island, the home of our native red squirrels? Surely “Solent” is more inclusive for all the other islanders who live in the area beyond the Isle of Wight.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I say gently to hon. Members that we absolutely recognise the desire. I have had multiple conversations with the leader of Isle of Wight council, who was enthusiastic about this devolution deal. It is within the gift of constituent authorities to change their name; it is not for Government to impose. I hope that there is now a constructive conversation and relationship among the leaders of all the different parties. The leader is an independent politician, and I hope that in that spirit they will move forward.
I recognise the uniqueness of the name, but what really matters is what devolution will deliver for residents and constituent authorities. I hope that as much energy and time will be put into the nuts and bolts, the bread and butter, and the impact of what we are trying to do through devolution as will be put into the name. However, I recognise the particular sensitivities in relation to the Isle of Wight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth spoke about the issue of Cornwall. He has been a long-standing champion of Cornwall and its distinct identity. He has prosecuted the case incredibly effectively, not just in the context of this debate but across the piece. He is a proud Cornishman and I know that he wants the best for his constituents. I have put it on record in Committee, and I do so again, that we recognise the uniqueness of Cornwall. We are keen to continue engaging not just with my hon. Friend, but with other Cornish MPs, to ensure that we recognise that uniqueness and status and, critically, that we are doing a set of things that can enable local leaders to respond to the challenges—
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 14th October 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 October 2025 - (14 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before I ask the Minister to continue her wind-up for the debate on amendment 25 to schedule 1—I say that for those who have had a long lunch and lost their place; I had to be reminded—I want to let the Committee know that I asked for heaters to be brought in. I have one here, and there is one over there. I thought it was intolerable this morning. In many places of work, industrial action would have followed, were we in a private business. I speak as a strong trade unionist, by the way. I hope the heaters will warm the room up during the course of our proceedings.
Schedule 1
Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs
Amendment proposed (this day): 25, in schedule 1, page 83, line 3, at end insert—
“(6A) After preparing a proposal the Secretary of State must publish a statement demonstrating how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public services in the area would be affected by the proposal.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement about how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public service structures in the area would be affected by the proposal for a new combined authority.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 305, in schedule 1, page 83, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section that has the effect of placing Cornwall in a combined authority with any other authority.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order establishing a combined authority which would include Cornwall and any other area east of the Tamar in the same combined authority.
Amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 84, line 13, at end insert—
“(9A) If the order establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”
Amendment 306, in schedule 1, page 86, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Neither the added local government area nor the existing area of a combined authority in the order includes Cornwall.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from adding a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if either area includes Cornwall.
Amendment 44, in schedule 1, page 86, line 32, at end insert—
“(7A) If the proposal establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement when directing the establishment of a new combined authority, setting out how the proposed combined authority would affect the physical geography, community identity and boundaries of other public services in the local area. I have no doubt that the intention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is absolutely right and that such matters are important; as I have said, the examples of the Isle of Wight and Cornwall highlight that. In practice, however, such matters will already have been considered through the process set out in the Bill.
In deciding whether to establish a new combined authority, the Secretary of State will already be required to have regard to the likely effect on the exercise of functions in neighbouring local government areas. In addition, the Secretary of State is already subject to the statutory tests requiring them to have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to areas of competence. The proposal itself can be expected to cover those issues. There is therefore no need for a separate statement, and so I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
In our consideration of the issue, the Minister is asking the Committee to give a great deal of weight to the meetings she has described having had with various local leaders and Members with particular concerns about the impact on their local areas in terms of national identity, heritage and geography. Will she share with the Committee a little more detail on the substance of those discussions, so that before we vote we can understand what exact assurances may have been given to local leaders and what their understanding of them is, so that we are all completely clear?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
On Hampshire and Solent, for example, our conversation was very candid. The leaders were clear about some of the debates that they had had within the council; as the Minister, I said what opportunities would be open to them, and I expressed the fact that in the context of the Isle of Wight, the name was completely down to the constituent authorities. We support constituent authorities working together collaboratively to ensure that all the constituent parts are happy with the deal and the proposal.
On Cornwall, I believe that the Secretary of State, my boss, had those conversations, but I have also had some with MPs. We absolutely recognise the uniqueness of Cornwall and its identity. There are clear things that we know Cornish MPs and the council want, such as protection for the Cornish language, which we are in discussion about. There are clearly opportunities to build on the existing devolution deal. The previous Government provided a devolution deal for Cornwall in recognition of that exception. Another issue might be housing, which is big in Cornwall, for example, and the area is especially exercised about that, in particular in the context of the impact of tourism. We are happy to have a conversation about continuing to support the local authority to make inroads on some of those issues.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir John. Can we ask the Clerk to speak a little louder? We are struggling to hear at the back.
The Chair
That is a perfectly reasonable point of order. Speak louder! When you think you are bellowing, you are getting it right. Thanks very much; I am very grateful. But I need my Clerk. Don’t upset him; I cannot operate without my Clerk.
Amendment proposed: 277, in schedule 1, page 94, line 1, leave out paragraph 30. —(David Simmonds.)
See explanatory statement for Amendment 274.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Once the Bill comes into force, there will be various ways in which functions can be conferred on a combined authority or combined county authority that will be operating as strategic authorities. The clause makes the necessary amendment to existing legislation to clarify these wider options. It is a small but important clause that will ensure our new devolution framework can operate effectively.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I thank the Minister for that introduction. It is the implementation of this that is the subject of political contention, but a great deal has been said, and a vote has been taken. There is nothing further we can do on those issues at this stage, but I expect they will be the subject of great debate in the remaining stages of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Combined authorities and CCAs: decision-making and validity of proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2 stand part.
New clause 48—Greater London Authority: decision-making—
“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b), leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”.
(3) In schedule 4A (Confirmation hearings etc)—
(a) in paragraph 10(5) leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”;
(b) in paragraph 11(5) leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”.
(4) In schedule 6 (Procedure for determining the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement)—
(a) in paragraph 8(4) leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”;
(b) In paragraph 8C(4) leave out “at least two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”.
(5) In schedule 7 (Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the authority), in paragraph 7(4), leave out “at least two thirds and insert “a simple majority”.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Moving from devolution by deal to devolution by default is at the heart of the Bill. Clause 6 and schedule 2 are essential to achieving that. The Bill ensures that strategic authorities have a consistent set of functions, and these provisions standardise how they exercise those functions. Many existing strategic authorities have complex and varied arrangements for agreeing fundamentals such as budgets and transport plans. That makes it hard for the public to understand how decisions are made and, therefore, to hold the strategic authority to account.
The provisions in clause 6 and schedule 2 would create a transparent and consistent default voting arrangement—a simple majority. It would unblock decision making to ensure that the right decision, even if it is difficult, can be made. In mayoral strategic authorities, the mayor must be in the majority for a vote to pass. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. The Government expect mayors and other strategic authority members to continue to work together to build consensus. We heard time and time again in the evidence sessions that the model works well when the mayor works in partnership with its constituent authorities, but it is important that one member cannot get in the way of the right decisions being made for the entire area. It is therefore imperative that clause 6 and schedule 2 remain within the Bill to ensure that mayoral strategic authorities can operate effectively, and to provide the public with clarity on how decisions are made, so they can hold these institutions to account.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I rise to speak to new clause 48, tabled in my name. I also want to raise another issue for consideration by the Minister at a future stage.
In clause 6, the new rules for mayoral combined authorities give simple majority voting for relevant decisions by bodies to adopt budgets or policies, such as spatial development strategies, local transport plans and other strategies set out elsewhere in the Bill. For example, schedule 2 outlines that
“a resolution to adopt the strategy is to be made by a simple majority of the constituent members present and voting”.
There are other rules to do with a tied vote.
I think that the Bill should also amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to give simple majority voting for decisions by the London Assembly on the budget and mayoral strategies of the Mayor of London. That is for consistency of decision making across the different authorities and bodies, and for fairness to London’s democracy. Along with many Opposition Members, this is something that I have wanted for some time now, as I was a member of the London Assembly in my previous job. In these Committee debates I will frequently bring up examples from my long experience of being part of an effective scrutiny body in a devolved authority at the strategic level—I feel that I have a good handle on how it works.
Using “a simple majority” is the right way to go about this. The Minister has talked about building consensus and working in partnership. I really value it when cross-party working can result in genuine dialogue, with mayors that will listen and make changes, and bodies scrutinising or working with them to put forward their own ideas and have them taken up. Those are all really healthy things for our democracy. New clause 48 would simply amend the parts of the 1999 Act that outline how the Assembly votes. Currently, the Act requires at least a two-thirds majority for any changes to be made, and the new clause would instead insert the words “a simple majority”. It is a very simple change, which the Minister should consider.
The second issue I want to raise relates to forward plans, which are incredibly useful for the general public, or anyone who wants to influence mayoral decisions and the decisions of combined authorities or local authorities. At the moment, only local authorities have this particular requirement written into law, under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, which clearly set out how key decisions are to be included in forward plans. I am not talking about planning decisions but key decisions, as set out in the schemes of delegation. Those forward plans are required to be published in advance, so that people who want to influence or scrutinise those decisions can bid to change them, or for things to be taken into account at the appropriate time.
Again, this certainly comes out of my experience in the London Assembly. It unanimously passed a motion in 2022 that was put forward by one of the Liberal Democrat members and me, which said that the Mayor of London should publish a forward plan. However, he did not agree to do that, as he said that he was complying with everything in legislation; so the answer seems to be for legislation to require both the Mayor of London and these new combined authority mayors to publish a forward plan along the same lines. Looking at the 2012 regulations, it would be very simple to change the current wording, “local authorities”, to “strategic and local authorities”, if the Minister wanted.
I also point the Committee to the excellent report published last month by the GLA oversight committee, a cross-party committee currently chaired by a Labour member of the London Assembly. It makes exactly the same request: for a forward plan of key mayoral decisions to be put into the 1999 Act. Because of the complexities of the different regulations, I have not tabled an amendment for such a change, but I hope the Minister would consider the question of effective scrutiny of these new bodies and the ability to influence them. I hope she could potentially come forward with a new clause at a later stage for us.
David Simmonds
The Opposition support the amendment; the principle of having a simple majority is sound. In oral evidence, we heard about why Manchester works and London does not, and there is a logic to implementing those measures consistently across the country. We support introducing that consistency.
There is a broader question, however. I understand what the Minister and the Government are trying to achieve; it would clearly be frustrating if one authority was effectively acting as a blocker. However, I asked the Minister earlier to give us some assurances about the treatment applied when financial impacts occur that affect one or more of the constituent authorities in a combined authority area. There will be cases—we have seen them in planning, for example—where an authority argues that to deliver its housing target, a site in another local authority’s area must be developed, because it does not have sufficient developable land to hit the target that it has been given; legally, it is not that authority’s decision. There will be other examples.
I am mindful of some of the Government’s amendments that introduce a lot more scope into this Bill for mayors and combined authorities to undertake their housing responsibilities. One of the main routes for funding is through borrowing against the housing revenue account, which is ringfenced. Each individual local authority has a legal duty to balance that account and the power to borrow against it; it also holds all of the legal housing duties and responsibilities. The purpose of the measures is to make mayors the vehicle for the delivery of asylum accommodation, as opposed to asylum hotels, as is the case now to some degree. Yesterday, on the Floor of the House, another Minister in the Department alluded to this in his response to a question about asylum accommodation.
Those decisions will have a significant impact on the legal obligations of the authorities that sit beneath the mayoral authority. There is a risk that being outvoted in a decision made at combined authority level would put an individual constituent authority in breach of its legal obligations to balance its dedicated schools grant, its housing revenue account or some other element of its council tax account. Will the Minister, either now or in writing, set out what arrangements will apply in the likely situation of a conflict between the legal obligations on a constituent authority to balance the budget and the strategic decisions put forward by the combined authority? How will the conflict be resolved without undue detriment to the constituent authority in particular, which is the one that will find itself in court?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to the amendment to clause 48, and then I will pick up the specific questions from the hon. Member. The GLA has a different and long-established governance model. In London, the mayor is elected by the people of London to make decisions; the Assembly’s role is to scrutinise those decisions. As a London MP, I think that model has worked well for London for well over 25 years. It is tested and it strikes the right balance between the executive authority of the mayor and the scrutiny of the Assembly.
Siân Berry
It is notable that recently the London Assembly has, on a number of occasions, made constructive changes to the mayor’s budget at stage one of budget setting, which have simply been overturned at the second stage. This tendency, I think, is part of the growing need for a change in the threshold.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We think that the model works well. We have heard representations from constituents, local authorities, Assembly members, and the mayor himself. Any model needs to evolve; as we think about how we expand the powers of the mayor, which we want to, we will also be thinking about reforming the GLA to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century. We will take into consideration some of the points that have been made in this Committee.
On the specific question about decisions at the strategic authority level putting an individual local authority in breach of its legal obligations or jeopardising its financial viability, all our experience of combined authorities is that they always operate within the legal duties of constituent authorities. I struggle to think of an example where constituent authorities have been put in such a position by their mayor and the decisions of the collective. There are sufficient safeguards in place to mitigate that risk.
I hope that majority working will benefit the collective area. This Government will make sure that clear legal obligations on constituent authorities are not breached. I am happy to write to the hon. Member to provide further reassurance on that point. I think we agree that we want clear and effective decision making with a democratic mandate, that will not jeopardise individual authorities by forcing them to breach their legal requirements and/or putting them in financial distress.
David Simmonds
Let me give a concrete example: the long-standing proposal for Heathrow expansion airport. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out her absolute determination to ensure that happens, because it is part of her Government’s growth agenda. It is likely to be directed under these powers and in the purview of the Mayor of London, who will ultimately have some planning role in the decision making. However, as well as being the planning authority, the London borough of Hillingdon, within which Heathrow sits entirely, has legal duties in respect of air quality. It is already breaching those duties, which it has no means of fulfilling, simply because of that external factor.
If the Treasury and the Mayor of London were say to the combined authority, “In pursuit of the growth agenda with which we have been tasked, we are determined to see this expansion take place,” immediately that local authority would be put in significant legal jeopardy. To give an indication of the scale, when the Localism Act 2011 was debated and there was also interaction with European Union standards, it equated to an annual fine of £150 million to be paid by the legally responsible local authority. That is a significant jeopardy, and it is by no means the only one—in the case of special educational needs and disabilities obligations, for example, there are significant duties to pay compensation in the event of failure.
We can all envisage situations where a mayor decides that, for the good of everybody, they want an individual place to take a hit, but through the judicial review process that places that individual local authority at significant moral and financial risk. If the Minister sets out how those very significant and real risks will be addressed, I will be grateful.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for that very detailed and specific example. The concerns he raised have been heard and noted. Both in practice and principle, ensuring that no constituent authority is put in either financial or legal jeopardy underwrites all of this. I will take the hon. Member’s points away and write to provide the relevant reassurances.
The Chair
As I said this morning, Minister, if you are going to write to the Member, I would be grateful if you did so in a timely fashion and made that correspondence available to all members of the Committee for consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 7
Combined authorities and CCAs: powers not limited by other provision or
powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 7 is a small but important clause that supports the wiring of our new devolution framework. As hon. Members will know, the Bill introduces a systemic approach, ending one-off deals and creating a standardised devolution framework in which strategic authorities and mayors are given a clear and coherent set of functions. However, the Government recognise that it may, on very rare occasions, be necessary to tailor the exercise of specific functions to reflect local circumstances and to preserve the smooth running of public services. Clause 7 provides that existing powers that allow Ministers to modify how a function is exercised by an individual combined authority or county combined authority can continue. Exceptions will be rare, but this flexibility, where appropriate and necessary and where it reflects local circumstances, will be essential to ensure the smooth running of public services.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Combined authorities and CCAs: designation as established mayoral strategic authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The devolution White Paper set out our commitment to introduce a new category of established mayoral strategic authority, representing the highest level of devolution in England. The clause delivers on that commitment. It enables a mayoral strategic authority that meets the eligibility criteria set out in the English devolution White Paper to submit a written proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as an established mayoral strategic authority. Designation will provide a strategic authority with access to the highest level of powers and functions in the devolution framework, as well as the right to request additional devolved functions and eligibility to receive an integrated funding settlement.
In the event that a Secretary of State decided not to designate an authority as an established mayoral strategic authority, they would be required to notify the authority in writing of the reasons for their decision. It would remain open to the authority to submit a fresh request at some future point. Importantly, once an authority has been designated as an established mayoral strategic authority, it will not be possible for Ministers to remove its status through secondary legislation. In that way, we will hardwire the powers and functions of established mayoral strategic authorities into our system of government, future-proofing arrangements against unnecessary change and ensuring permanent and enduring devolution.
David Simmonds
I draw the Committee’s attention to a topic to which we will return throughout our proceedings: the extent to which the devolution legislation is about the powers of the Secretary of State to designate this or direct that. Ironically, we are embarked on a course of action that started with us hearing about how it was going to be locally led, despite all evidence to the contrary, yet as we proceed, we have clause after clause and paragraph after paragraph referring to new powers for the Government to make local authorities do this or to direct them to do that. It is clearly not in the spirit of devolution.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause does two things. The proposal to become an established mayoral strategic authority will come up from the locality. The power is about the ability of the Secretary of State to designate it as such at its request; it is not about the Secretary of State imposing the status on any area. Critically, it will lock in the established mayoral authority for good, and will, in fact, contain and curtail the power of future Secretaries of State to decide that they will change the status of an established mayoral authority, therefore locking in devolution for the long term.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Appointment of commissioners by mayors
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 9, page 11, line 19, leave out from “function” to “, or” in line 20.
This would omit this wording is because of its replacement by the new section 30A(2) of LURA 2023 (see Amendment 220).
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Government amendments 68 and 69 are consequential to Government amendment 220, which we will discuss later. Government amendment 220 will ensure that responsibility for fire and rescue functions sits directly with the elected mayor, who can delegate them only to a public safety commissioner and not to deputies or officers, thereby strengthening accountability. Government amendments 68 and 69 simply remove wording that will be superseded should Government amendment 220 be accepted.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Amendment made: 69, in clause 9, page 12, line 7, leave out from “function” to “, or” in line 8.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would omit this wording is because of its replacement by the new section 107DZA(2) of LDEDCA 2009 (see Amendment 220).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Policy delivery in areas of competence—
“(1) Any function of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority which—
(a) relates to an area of competence, and
(b) is not a mayoral function exercisable solely by the mayor
must be exercised by or under the direct authority of the constituent members of that authority.
(2) No person may be appointed to exercise any function that relates to making or delivering policy relating to an area of competence unless that person is an elected member of—
(a) the relevant strategic authority, or
(b) a constituent council within the relevant strategic authority.
(3) Nothing in this section is to be taking as preventing the appointment of staff by the strategic authority or its elected members for the purposes of administrative, advisory or technical support for the exercise of its functions.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘constituent members’ means any elected representative who is—
(a) appointed by a constituent council to be a member of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority;
(b) any person acting in the place of a person appointed under paragraph (a).”
This new clause provides that any policy delivery or development relating to an area of competence in a strategic authority is carried out by an elected representative.
New clause 21—Power to provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor—
“(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107C) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), leave out ‘one of the members of the authority to be the mayor’s deputy’ and substitute ‘a deputy mayor’.
(3) In subsection (3)(c), leave out ‘the person ceases to be a member of the combined authority’ and insert ‘the person ceases to be a councillor of a constituent council of the authority’
(4) In subsection (4), leave out ‘another member of the combined authority’ and substitute ‘another councillor of a constituent council’.”
This new clause would amend section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority members of the Combined Authority.
New clause 22—Mayoral special advisers—
“(1) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (section 15) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 15 (Definition of ‘special adviser’ insert—
‘15A Mayoral special advisers
(1) A mayor may appoint one mayoral special adviser.
(2) A mayoral special adviser is a person who holds a position within a mayoral strategic authority and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements in subsection (3).
(3) The requirements are—
(a) the mayoral special adviser is appointed to assist the Mayor after being selected by the Mayor personally;
(b) the appointment will end not later than—
(i) the day on which the Mayor ceases to hold office, or
(ii) if earlier, the end of the day after the day of the poll at the election following the appointment.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish a code of conduct for mayoral special advisers (“the code”).
(5) Before publishing the code (or any revision of it) the Secretary of State must consult the Council of Nations and Regions.
(6) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may not—
(a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; or
(b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the mayoral or strategic authority.
(7) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may—
(a) engage in political activity; and
(b) provide party-political advice to the Mayor.
(8) The code must form part of the terms and conditions of service of any mayoral special adviser.
(9) A person appointed under this section is not to be regarded, for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political restriction of officers and staff), as holding a politically restricted post under a local authority.’”
This new clause would insert a new section into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to establish a statutory framework for the appointment of “mayoral special advisers”. It makes provision about appointment, function, code of conduct, and exemption from political restrictions.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The public rightly expect that mayoral strategic authorities will have access to the expertise they need, that they will work with businesses and other stakeholders, and that mayors will work full time to deliver for their communities. Mayoral strategic authorities will undertake critical new functions, including a stronger set of planning, transport and skills powers and, increasingly, police, fire and public health duties. The authorities will also represent their region in engagement with national bodies, and undertake joint working with partners. It is simply not realistic to expect a single mayor to do all that on their own.
The appointment of commissioners will be a local decision and no additional funding will be provided. I will gladly take Members’ questions now, but when we discuss schedule 3 in four groups’ time, I will expand on some of the checks and balances we are introducing to ensure that commissioners add real value to local decision making. I commend clause 9 to the Committee.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The name of the Bill promises devolution and community empowerment, yet a number of its clauses cause the Liberal Democrats some concern, and this is one. A key principle of democracy, local or national, is to have elected people—Ministers, Members of Parliament or councillors—delivering for the people who elect them. It makes little sense that a mayor of a combined county authority or combined authority, with dozens or scores of skilled constituent councillors and council leaders beneath them, might instead choose to appoint a commissioner to such an important role.
We heard in oral evidence from Councillor Bev Craig about the model used in Manchester, where the leaders of the constituent councils perform one of the portfolios. That strikes me as much more appropriate in a large strategic authority, where each of those individuals has skin in the game. There is no reason why a mayoral authority should not operate in the same way as large unitary authorities do. Mine represents more than 400,000 people and does not require a commissioner to look at planning, although it does have a head of planning—a paid member of staff. Policy decisions have in the English system traditionally been made by politicians, so I struggle to see why creating a new layer of authorities, further away from people, should take away the principle that such decisions should be made by elected people.
Some have suggested that there are not enough constituent council leaders in some areas—perhaps areas that have only three or four council leaders. There are some incredible deputy leaders and portfolio holders. There may be a case for drawing from a broader pool, but suggesting that those people are not sufficiently qualified in understanding their area or area of expertise could damage the respect that council leaders have in their area, as well as the connection between a constituent council and the strategic authority that sits above it. If we want constituent councils to drive better strategic decisions and better strategic outcomes for all residents, it would be much more sensible to give those individuals a real role in the authority. Given the way that additional responsibility allowances are scheduled, that can be a lot cheaper, because the Bill does not provide for people to have the double allowances that we already have in other parts of the system.
If we bring in external individuals as commissioners, there will be few checks and balances; they are not democratically accountable. The mayor may well be able to remove them, as is detailed in the Bill, but the public cannot remove them. Fundamentally, the people who are making policy decisions should be able to be removed by the public. They should also be held to the standards regime, as well as the other elements of conflicts of interest and financial declarations that councillors must follow.
I think that is all I want to say, but I feel really strongly that a model is there, such as the one in Manchester. We have heard about London evolving over time, but we have some great models running in the country. To me, it seems a sensible way forward to look at what they are doing in Greater Manchester, which is already incredibly successful.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
As the hon. Lady refers to Greater Manchester, I am minded of the role that Chris Boardman has played in Greater Manchester in rolling out active travel. He is unelected, and I think it would be a shame if we could not take advantage of such a person’s expertise. Does she accept that is a risk with what she proposes?
Vikki Slade
There is a role for experts, but the role of the commissioners, as they are seen through this lens or this organisation, is far better suited to people who are elected. Councils around the country, including Manchester, can appoint individuals to do specific roles for a specific period of time, but the role of commissioner lies in those strategic decision-making pieces that are integral to their shape, and they ensure that an individual cannot independently run a fiefdom. I think it is really important that there are local people who are accountable. There is nothing to stop an organisation from appointing an individual expert, as they do all over the country, but they do not need to be called “commissioners”.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
With your permission, Sir John, I will make some references to schedule 3 as well as clause 9, just to do it all in the same place. I will start by responding to some of the hon. Lady’s points. She raises some valid concerns. I will just give the perspective of someone who lives in quite a fractious combined authority area. I think my combined authority board currently has two Conservatives, two Lib Dems and two Labour—that is not enough people, so it must be 3:3:2, but I cannot remember which way around.
We also have the Manchester system at the moment, whereby different people hold different portfolios, which has led to a lot of politicisation. We have a Conservative mayor now, and we previously had a Labour mayor, but under both there was a lot of game-playing going on and a lot of difficulty, so I think it would be helpful for the mayor to be able to appoint commissioners just to get on with delivering their strategy. They are directly elected, and although I disagree with my mayor on a lot of things, I accept his mandate. It may well be helpful for mayors across the country to be able to deliver the strategy that they have stood on.
My concern relates to the relative sizes of combined authorities in a uniform approach to commissioners, and whether we can look at how to deal with that. To give an example, Greater Manchester has 3 million residents; Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has around 1 million. Similarly, the Greater Manchester combined authority has 3,500 staff—or 4,600 if you include Transport for Greater Manchester—while Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority has 139 employees, according to a freedom of information request from March 2024. The difference in scale is significant, and obviously the amount of work for commissioners to oversee is therefore significant.
I do not want to put the Minister on the spot now, but could she write to me at some point to give context on whether the Government have considered modifying the number of commissioners that a combined authority mayor can appoint with respect to that variance in size, or perhaps the allowance payable to those commissioners, so they would be more part time in smaller authorities? I note that amendment 293, which we will discuss later, relates to allowances, and I can imagine that the Government want to allow flexibility so that local areas can do what is best for them, which makes perfect sense.
Within my area, if commissioners were paid at director level, that could cost well over £1 million. Senior officers can earn in excess of £100,000, which is a significant sum, and it is more than mayors themselves or many Government Ministers earn. That may well be appropriate in London, where it works and seems to be doing a great job, but London is a lot bigger than some other authorities. I thank the Committee for listening to those thoughts, and if the Minister could give some clarity on how we can deal with some of those issues, I would be really grateful.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have some sympathy with the points that have been made in the debate. It is an area in which there is scope to move towards a degree of consensus. I think that we all recognise that part of the underlying thinking behind the mayoral combined authority is that it brings a new element of leadership, and from those models where they are established, such as in London, we can identify some of the issues. As we heard at the start of the Committee, there is clear evidence about accountability.
One of the issues that persists in London is that there are a number of advisers—whether they are commissioners or not is a moot point—who undertake sometimes quite highly paid roles on behalf of the mayor, but they are not visibly accountable to the GLA, the boroughs or anybody else. That begins to undermine public confidence, and it clearly creates a sense of distance between those who are elected and those who they are there to serve.
While I agree that there is no reason why somebody who is elected should not occupy those roles, one of the issues with the proposed amendment is that there is clearly a risk of constraining them—in particular, in relation to the wording of the proposed amendment. When we consider some of the statutory roles that might be occupied—directors of children’s services, statutory directors of social care, monitoring officers, section 151 officers and others who have legal duties—there is a risk that by defining it as narrowly as the amendment does, we create some concerns about the interaction between those who are part of the professional officer corps that serves local government and those who are political appointees. I do not think that that is intentional; it is simply a risk that arises from the way in which it is drafted.
We will not be supporting the amendment, but I am mindful of the comments that have been made by those on the Government Benches about the need to ensure that those who occupy the roles are fit to do so, and that they are publicly accountable, because they will be public servants and they need to be answerable to effective scrutiny measures for the work that they do.
Siân Berry
I want to participate in this debate, despite having not tabled any amendments. I am grateful to the Members who have done so. The issue of commissioners is interesting. It is also interesting that the Government have chosen this model to codify in the Bill. From my experience, I believe that the London model of how this is done is far ahead of other combined or strategic authorities that already exist, and of the Government’s imagination in terms of the Bill. London Assembly members are used to having the equivalent of commissioners—deputy mayors—to scrutinise. The Assembly members do that effectively, not only by asking the deputy mayors questions and making them accountable, but also by providing them with evidence and new ideas, and by highlighting problems across the strategic area. Many effective changes have been brought through in that way.
However, to have those kinds of commissioners without that level of scrutiny is a mistake. In that respect, I am not in favour, and I am not convinced by the argument from my Liberal Democrat colleagues that people who are separately responsible for running services—many of them statutory services—and who have a lot of other responsibilities and duties in the constituent part of the strategic area are the right people to be given those kinds of roles. It is a really interesting question.
I have also found that, aside from a very short period when a Green deputy mayor was appointed to serve under an independent mayor in London, most mayors seem to be allergic to appointing anyone from an opposition party to any of those roles. There are examples of independently minded, effective, delivery-focused people. Chris Boardman, in Manchester, was mentioned. However, there does seem to be a party political element to the appointment of the roles, if the Minister and the Chair were to look at the record.
In conclusion on this clause—and it will come up in relation to other parts of the Bill—we collectively need a wider discussion about scrutiny and governance of the new roles. Some of the comments earlier from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner suggested that if we all got together in a room, we might be able to come up with a better idea than what is being proposed. I very much agree with that. There are things that we should be discussing.
It was pointed out to us in evidence that we will lose something like 90% of our elected representation in certain areas. In certain parts of the country, people will end up with somewhat of a deficit of overall elected representatives—people to come to with casework. More should be looked at on whether or not a model more like the London Assembly could be adopted, where people are separately elected with strategic responsibilities. In London, there are constituency Assembly members, and Assembly members who are London-wide and take a more strategic view. Those are good models that have worked, and the Government and others should look at that. It is not up for debate today, but my new clause 15 proposes a review of scrutiny, which I will argue for later. When the Government come to look at this in review, which inevitably they will have to do, I hope they will look again at potentially having more directly elected—
David Simmonds
I am listening attentively to what the hon. Lady described. We heard in evidence from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen of the District Councils’ Network that under these proposals, shire England stands to lose 90% of its elected representation, which the hon. Lady referred to. There is not anything really concrete in the Bill that sets out what scrutiny should look like—what those minimum standards should be. There are elements about conduct and things like that, but that is very basic. Does the hon. Lady have a view about what a good model should look like, so that local residents can exercise their control over what happens in their neighbourhood effectively?
Siân Berry
I am attempting in my speech not to be too biased towards what I am used to, because that is a failing as well. We should discuss this in a very open way. Other new clauses I have tabled contain proposals for things such as a citizens assembly. We should look at international examples as well. When there are proposals to spend a significant amount of money on the commissioners, there is value in spending an appropriate amount on decent scrutiny and elected representatives. Again, I am biased—I am an elected representative. I think we are good value, but that is a case to be made.
Finally, I cannot find any mention in schedule 3 about guidance that the Secretary of State may issue to commissioners about conduct, standards and transparency. I would like some reassurance from the Minister about guidance on those aspects of the job. Even if they are not elected, they are accountable to the public and must be given a process and regime of standards, and potentially be brought into existing standards systems. Without scrutiny, standards and regulations to govern their behaviour, I worry about this in the same way as several other Members today have.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Commissioners can and will support mayors in getting the job done for their communities. They are not compulsory. There is no obligation on a mayor to appoint commissioners, but it gives the mayor the option of increasing capacity and expertise to do that. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about the example of Greater Manchester, where they have council leaders who are portfolio leads. It is worth pointing out that Manchester also uses commissioners—for example, on active travel—so it can be complementary or can supplement. It is just giving them an additional set of levers in order to respond.
It is also worth pointing out that there will be some roles that the mayor has accountability for that they simply cannot delegate to councillors—for example, strategic planning powers, where direct delegation to a commissioner might expand the mayor’s capacity to dispense with that responsibility. However, to the point about checks and balances, which has been made time and again, it is important to be clear that we completely agree on the need for accountability for commissioners. They will be accountable to the mayor for their performance, who has the power to terminate their appointment, and the combined authority or combined county authority must also agree before any non-mayoral functions are delegated to the commissioner. Critically, the combined authority or combined county authority overview and scrutiny committee will also have the power to recommend the termination of commissioners if they think the commissioner is not performing or delivering. A two-thirds majority of members of the authority is required to accept that recommendation.
Siân Berry
Does the Minister believe that the people who are able to recommend that the commissioner be terminated have sufficient ways to discover whether or not they should be?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member made the point about the scrutiny of commissioners, which is a fair and valid point, and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire made the point about flexibility in different contexts, particularly for smaller strategic authorities. We have come at this in such a way as to allow local areas as much flexibility as possible, but these are valid points about making sure that the model is flexible enough to respond to specific contexts. We will provide further detail in statutory guidance on the selection and appointment of commissioners, as well as other operational matters that the combined authority or combined county authority will need to consider, and we will take some of the points that have been raised as we do that in due course.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister talks about our scrutiny committees being able to recommend the termination of commissioners. Has she given any thought to their involvement in the appointment of commissioners? For example, currently, those appointed as deputy police and crime commissioners have to appear before the police and crime panel, which makes a recommendation to the police and crime commissioner about their suitability for the role. Has the Minister given any thought to how scrutiny committees can get involved before someone takes on the commissioner role, rather than waiting to see if they are good or not and then making a recommendation to the mayor?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have done this through the constituent members of the combined authority, so that before an appointment can be made, the full combined authority will need to agree to that appointment. We think that provides sufficient safeguards and the ability to scrutinise; however, the point about how we ensure ongoing scrutiny of the work being done and the performance by more than the mayor and the combined authority is a fair point, and we will take it away.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The commissioners are not accountable to the public; they are accountable to the mayor, who will of course be elected. The Minister talks about scrutiny, but what about holding them to account on public standards? What kind of framework is there to ensure trust in these commissioners?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
All holders of public office have to adhere to public standards; that is as true for national Government as it is for regional and local government. We expect those standards to apply, and the safeguards we are putting in place by enabling the mayor to terminate based on performance or poor conduct will ensure that they are upheld.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Commissioners
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 70, in schedule 3, page 111, line 33, at end insert—
“(d) excepted fire and rescue functions.”
This would prevent a commissioner appointed by the mayor of a CCA from exercising “excepted fire and rescue functions” (defined in Amendment 71).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 71, 73 and 74.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The amendments will prevent a commissioner from exercising certain fire and rescue functions that should be reserved as functions of the mayor, as head of the fire and rescue authority in the area. The effective delegation of fire and rescue functions to a commissioner can ease capacity constraints on the mayor, by ensuring that there is a dedicated individual with the time and expertise to focus on executing those functions. Fire and rescue functions are already delegated successfully to deputy mayors for policing and crime in Greater Manchester and in York and North Yorkshire. The ability to delegate to a commissioner, without the need for secondary legislation, simplifies that process. If they wish, mayors will be able to make an existing deputy mayor for policing and crime the public safety commissioner, meaning that individual could lead on both policing and fire.
However, certain functions should be the sole responsibility of an elected mayor, as head of the fire and rescue authority. The retained functions are those with the most significant bearing on the strategic direction of the fire service, such as its budget, its risk plan, and the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer. It is important that these decisions are taken right at the top, and that the person taking them is accountable at the ballot box.
These amendments provide for the effective delegation of fire and rescue functions. They ensure that decisions are taken at the right level and support the Government’s commitment to ensure that our communities are safe.
Amendment 70 agreed to.
Amendment made: 71, in schedule 3, page 112, line 3, at end insert—
“(6) In this paragraph “excepted fire and rescue functions” means—
(a) functions under the following provisions of the FRSA 2004—
(i) section 13 (reinforcement schemes);
(ii) section 15 (arrangements with other employers of fire-fighters);
(iii) section 16 (arrangements for discharge of functions by others);
(b) the functions of—
(i) appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;
(ii) approving the terms of appointment of the chief fire officer;
(iii) holding the chief fire officer to account for managing the fire and rescue service;
(c) approving—
(i) the community risk management plan;
(ii) the fire and rescue declaration;
(d) approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—
(i) as far as reasonably practicable, the CCA is able to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs, and
(ii) the CCA is able to perform its functions so far as is necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;
(e) approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other Category 1 responders and Category 2 responders in respect of—
(i) the performance of the CCA’s duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (duty to assess, plan and advise);
(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act.
(7) In sub-paragraph (6) and this sub-paragraph—
“Category 1 responder” and “Category 2 responder” have the meanings given in section 3 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (section 2: supplemental);
“chief fire officer” means the person with responsibility for managing the fire and rescue service;
“community risk management plan” means a plan which—
(a) is prepared and published by the combined authority in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and
(b) sets out for the period covered by the document in accordance with the requirements of the Framework—
(i) the combined authority’s priorities and objectives, and
(ii) an assessment of all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks that could affect its community, in accordance with the discharge of the combined authority’s fire and rescue functions;
“emergency” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (meaning of “emergency”);
“fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the FRSA 2004;
“fire and rescue declaration” means a document which—
(a) is prepared and published by the combined authority in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and
(b) contains a statement of the way in which the combined authority has had regard, in the period covered by the document, to the Framework and to any community risk management plan prepared by the combined authority for that period;
“fire and rescue functions” means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the combined authority has by virtue of an order under section 105A, or
(b) functions which the combined authority has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the FRSA 2004;
“Fire and Rescue National Framework” means the document prepared by the Secretary of State under section 21 of the FRSA 2004;
“fire and rescue service” means the personnel, services and equipment secured for the purposes of carrying out the functions of a fire and rescue authority under—
(a) section 6 of the FRSA 2004 (fire safety);
(b) section 7 of the FRSA 2004 (fire-fighting);
(c) section 8 of the FRSA 2004 (road traffic accidents);
(d) any applicable order under section 9 of the FRSA 2004 Act (emergencies);
(e) section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (duty to assess, plan and advise) and any applicable subordinate legislation made under that Act;
(f) any other provision of, or made under, an enactment which confers functions on a fire and rescue authority;
“FRSA 2004” means the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would define the “excepted fire and rescue functions” which a commissioner appointed by the mayor of a CCA would be prevented from exercising by Amendment 70.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 293, in schedule 3, page 112, line 16, at end insert—
“(2A) The relevant remuneration panel may not recommend allowances which exceed the amount paid in salary to a person employed at director level within the relevant authority.”.
This amendment ensures that Commissioners cannot be paid more than Directors working for the authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 292, in schedule 3, page 112, line 22, at end insert—
“(5) The relevant remuneration panel must consider, and make recommendations about, whether commissioners appointed by the mayor, and councillors in the constituent areas, should be eligible for the local government pension scheme.
(6) Recommendations of the relevant remuneration panel relating to the local government pension scheme must have the aim of achieving value for money.”.
This amendment requires remuneration panels to consider whether mayoral commissioners should be eligible for the LGPS and justify those findings.
David Simmonds
These amendments concern the remuneration of commissioners and have two purposes.
There is a long-established principle within the arrangements for the remuneration of elected officials in local government that an independent panel, which is able to take evidence from the public and other good sources in the local area, will make a recommendation to the local authority about what the scheme of allowances payable should be. That brings a degree of transparency. Councils are currently required to consider the recommendations and to update their scheme from time to time, including voting to renew it each year. That has certain elements. One is whether commissioners—in this case, those who are appointed and are part of a mayoral combined authority—should be eligible for the local government pension scheme.
We heard an announcement from the Secretary of State on this issue, and it is the view of the shadow team that it is a sensible step. Changing the local government pension scheme from a final salary scheme to an average salary scheme was led by councillors, and it was instrumental in convincing a very large body of appointed officials to move over to that scheme, saving the taxpayer millions of pounds. However, it is also important that those appointed as commissioners are considered for eligibility and that each mayor is transparent about the recommendations and advice they have undertaken around that.
The second point to consider is around remuneration. We often hear it cited that there are people in the civil service, the NHS and local government who are paid more than the Prime Minister, which is used as a benchmark for excessive pay. Whether or not we agree with that—personally, I do not, as I recognise that there is a professional salary structure for these roles, in which those people will participate for the whole of their careers, that is very different from the context for politicians—it is none the less important to recognise that those who are appointed into mayoral roles should be subject to some degree of constraint.
As is the case with local government, it seems reasonable that we do not see elected officials appointed on a very significantly higher salary than senior professionals who are advising in the same field. The amendments aim to bring a degree of transparency and rigour to that, and to ensure that, in the potential circumstance where a mayor chooses to stretch the limits of their powers of appointment, shall we say, there is some degree of constraint so that the public can see that the taxpayer pound is being carefully husbanded.
Sam Carling
We have just heard the Minister speak about having statutory guidance on this issue. Does the hon. Member agree that one way of making this change, rather than through these amendments, would be for the guidance to include some clear indications to the remuneration panels about what roles they should consider comparable for mayoral commissioners. That might be council leaders or cabinet members rather than senior officers; or it may be senior officers, where appropriate.
David Simmonds
I understand the issue that the hon. Member is highlighting. One thing that emerged from the debate about councillor pensions was that they were essentially taken away by a decision of Parliament, without the process of legislation. One of the risks here is that statutory guidance, robust as it can be and coming with a duty to “have regard”, can be changed quite quickly. Therefore, if this is not clearly set out on the face of the Bill, the ability of this Parliament and of local communities, as we are observing, to exercise the degree of accountability and scrutiny that they might wish is undermined. That is why we have proposed these amendments.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his thoughtful contribution on this critical question of how to ensure value for money in the remuneration of commissioners. It is important that allowances paid to commissioners accurately reflect the work they do but also represent value for money. We completely agree with that principle. That is why the Bill, as drafted, has a clear process for setting the allowances of commissioners. The relevant authority must consider a report by a relevant remuneration panel, and payments cannot exceed the amount specified in that report.
Ultimately, what commissioners are paid is a local decision, and we have crafted the measures for that, but it is a decision that needs to be made in alignment with recommendations, as is the practice across local government. Adding a further requirement that commissioners cannot be paid more than directors would reduce local autonomy in decision making and would pre-emptively undermine the relevant remuneration panel. The Bill is about empowering places, but what we can and will consider is how we set up statutory guidance to provide clarity about what is possible and to deal with some of the potential pitfalls that the hon. Member has raised.
Amendment 292 seeks to place a duty on remuneration panels to consider and make recommendations about the local government pension scheme. Again, I understand the intent behind the amendment and the importance of ensuring that public officials in local government are properly remunerated and incentivised. However, I do not believe the amendment necessarily advances that.
We value the work that remuneration panels do to make considered recommendations about allowances that should be paid locally. However, overall access and eligibility to the local government pension scheme is dealt with at national level. It is therefore not clear what value the amendment would add, which is why I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
David Simmonds
I have listened intently to what the Minister has said. I think the risk is that, if things are delegated to statutory guidance, what emerges later on will not meet the expectations set out in the debate. I will therefore push for a vote on these amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 72, in schedule 3, page 112, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert—
“Ending of appointment
8A The appointment of a person as a commissioner ends if—
(a) the appointment ceases to have effect in accordance with paragraph 2(2), 4(3) or 5,
(b) the appointment ends—
(i) in accordance with the terms and conditions included by virtue of paragraph 6(1), or
(ii) in accordance with paragraph 6(2),
(c) the appointment is terminated in accordance with its terms and conditions—
(i) by the mayor for the area of the CCA (whether that is the person who made the appointment or a successor), or
(ii) by the commissioner,
(d) the appointment ceases to have effect in accordance with paragraph 10(4), or
(e) the commissioner dies.”
This would state the ways in which the appointment of a commissioner can end.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Simply, these amendments set out the ways in which a commissioner’s appointment can end. Specifically, it can end if the appointment is invalid, if the person becomes ineligible, if the term of the appointment ends, if the appointment is terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions, if a recommendation to terminate the commissioner’s appointment is accepted, or if the commissioner passes away.
We have talked about the accountability mechanisms that we are putting in place to ensure that commissioners play the role they should play, but they are accountable to the mayor. We have also talked about the role of the scrutiny committee in providing oversight and recommendations about termination.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendments made: 73, in schedule 3, page 116, line 40, at end insert—
“(d) excepted fire and rescue functions.”
This would prevent a commissioner appointed by the mayor of a combined authority from exercising “excepted fire and rescue functions” (defined in Amendment 74).
Amendment 74, in schedule 3, page 117, line 10, at end insert—
“(6) In this paragraph ‘excepted fire and rescue functions’ means—
(a) functions under the following provisions of the FRSA 2004—
(i) section 13 (reinforcement schemes);
(ii) section 15 (arrangements with other employers of fire-fighters);
(iii) section 16 (arrangements for discharge of functions by others);
(b) the functions of—
(i) appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;
(ii) approving the terms of appointment of the chief fire officer;
(iii) holding the chief fire officer to account for managing the fire and rescue service;
(c) approving—
(i) the community risk management plan;
(ii) the fire and rescue declaration;
(d) approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—
(i) as far as reasonably practicable, the CCA is able to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs, and
(ii) the CCA is able to perform its functions so far as is necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;
(e) approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other Category 1 responders and Category 2 responders in respect of—
(i) the performance of the CCA’s duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (duty to assess, plan and advise);
(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act.
(7) In sub-paragraph (6) and this sub-paragraph—
‘Category 1 responder’ and ‘Category 2 responder’ have the meanings given in section 3 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (section 2: supplemental);
‘chief fire officer’ means the person with responsibility for managing the fire and rescue service;
‘community risk management plan’ means a plan which—
(a) is prepared and published by the combined authority in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and
(b) sets out for the period covered by the document in accordance with the requirements of the Framework—
(i) the CCA’s priorities and objectives, and
(ii) an assessment of all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks that could affect its community, in accordance with the discharge of the CCA’s fire and rescue functions;
‘emergency’ has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (meaning of ‘emergency’);
‘fire and rescue authority’ means a fire and rescue authority under the FRSA 2004;
‘fire and rescue declaration’ means a document which—
(a) is prepared and published by the CCA in accordance with the Fire and Rescue National Framework, and
(b) contains a statement of the way in which the CCA has had regard, in the period covered by the document, to the Framework and to any community risk management plan prepared by the CCA for that period;
‘fire and rescue functions’ means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the CCA has by virtue of regulations under section 19, or
(b) functions which the CCA has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the FRSA 2004;
‘Fire and Rescue National Framework’ means the document prepared by the Secretary of State under section 21 of the FRSA 2004;
‘fire and rescue service’ means the personnel, services and equipment secured for the purposes of carrying out the functions of a fire and rescue authority under—
(a) section 6 of the FRSA 2004 (fire safety);
(b) section 7 of the FRSA 2004 (fire-fighting);
(c) section 8 of the FRSA 2004 (road traffic accidents);
(d) any applicable order under section 9 of the FRSA 2004 Act (emergencies);
(e) section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (duty to assess, plan and advise) and any applicable subordinate legislation made under that Act;
(f) any other provision of, or made under, an enactment which confers functions on a fire and rescue authority;
‘FRSA 2004’ means the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.”
This would define the “excepted fire and rescue functions” which a commissioner appointed by the mayor of a combined authority would be prevented from exercising by Amendment 73.
Amendment 75, in schedule 3, page 117, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
“Ending of appointment
8A The appointment of a person as a commissioner ends if—
(a) the appointment ceases to have effect in accordance with paragraph 2(2), 4(3) or 5,
(b) the appointment ends—
(i) in accordance with the terms and conditions included by virtue of paragraph 6(1), or
(ii) in accordance with paragraph 6(2),
(c) the appointment is terminated in accordance with its terms and conditions—
(i) by the mayor for the area of the combined authority (whether that is the person who made the appointment or a successor), or
(ii) by the commissioner,
(d) the appointment ceases to have effect in accordance with paragraph 10(4), or
(e) the commissioner dies.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would state the ways in which the appointment of a commissioner can end.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10
Combined authorities and CCAs: allowances for members with special responsibilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause will ensure that all combined authorities and combined county authorities can pay their members an allowance where they take on special responsibility for the combined authority or the combined county authority. Constituent council members regularly take on important additional responsibilities, particularly leading on policy portfolios such as housing or transport. We heard from the leader of Manchester city council about the important role she plays for that combined authority. They are crucial in driving forward local policy, ensuring that it meets the needs and aspirations of our communities. Indeed, their role will grow in importance as we increase the powers and functions available to combined authorities and combined county authorities.
However, currently, constituent council members can be paid for such special responsibilities only by their council, not the combined authority or combined county authority. This simply is not right; members should not be expected to do important work for free, and constituent councils should not foot the bill for work done in service of another body. Ensuring that the combined authority or combined county authority can pay its members creates a fairer system, allowing areas to recognise and reward hard work that delivers for communities. To ensure transparency and accountability, pay will be determined following a report by an independent remuneration panel.
David Simmonds
I draw the Minister’s attention to the existing arrangements for independent remuneration panels. She has referenced the proposals for how this kind of situation will be handled. However, we can envisage circumstances such as those that we heard about in Greater Manchester, where the mayoral commissioners are effectively drawn from the leadership of those local authorities.
There is a degree of ambiguity in proposed new sections 52A(6) and 113E(6), which refer to allowances paid
“in respect of the same special responsibilities”.
For example, I think of a situation where someone is a cabinet member with responsibility for transport in a constituent authority and also undertakes a strategic transport role as part of the combined authority. We as politicians would recognise that those are two different things, in the same way that a Minister undertaking duties in the Government is paid separately from their role as a Member of Parliament because those two things are distinct.
Transparency and clarity are important to retaining public confidence. Clearly, we do not want to create a situation where there is a degree of dispute, such as where a mayoral combined authority expects the constituent council to pay, or vice versa, and where an individual who wishes to take up those duties is inhibited from doing so. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out how the statutory guidance will address that issue so the Committee can be confident that we will not see this act as a barrier to participation in the governance of these new authorities.
Sam Carling
I have some more thrilling financial commentary, so I hope the Committee will forgive me. First, I welcome what the Minister has just said. Exactly this situation happened in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, where our mayor went on medical leave for some time. His deputy, Councillor Anna Smith, who is a good friend of mine, ended up taking on the deputy mayoral role, so she had to drop hours at work and faced a significant loss of income. Our council took the decision to pay her as essentially a cabinet member, but it was not ideal. Clause 10 will resolve so many issues.
I want to highlight a discrepancy in that, at present, there is usually no allowance for members who sit on the combined authority board. A lot of the time, it is the leader of the council who does so, and it is often considered to be part of their portfolio, but it is not always leaders who sit on the board. That can lead to people taking on a very significant commitment without any financial support, despite potentially having to reduce hours at work and the like, if the councillor in question has a job, as many do. That is not conducive to having a diverse range of elected representatives to do these jobs.
Following local government reorganisation, if we have fewer leaders on boards and more holders of other portfolios and councillors, we may see this problem increase. I encourage the Minister to consider either altering the clause or making other provisions as the Bill progresses to allow combined authorities, if they wish, to pay an allowance to their board members for that role.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and the context in which that could arise. Our judgment is that if the independent remuneration committee does its job, we can mitigate around that. There is always a balance. We are trying to live the spirit of the Bill and to create as much autonomy, space and power for the mayor and constituent authorities to make such decisions, rather than us specifying nationally. As we get representations from strategic authorities going through the process, we will reflect that in statutory guidance, but we think we have the right balance. The important role that the remuneration committee will play will help to mitigate some of the risks the hon. Member mentioned.
On the specific example raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, we are not prohibiting elected members from sitting on the combined authority. It is within the gift of the combined authority. Again, we are giving as much flexibility as possible for an authority to come up with measures that work for a particular local area.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: precepts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 11, page 14, leave out from line 35 to line 13 on page 15 and insert—
“(a) omit subsection (11)(a);
(b) in subsection (11)(b), for ‘that section’ substitute ‘section 107G of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009’;
(c) omit subsection (12)(a);
(d) in subection 12(b), for ‘that section’ substitute ‘section 41 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023’.”
This removes the restriction on mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs only being able to issue a precept in connection with mayoral functions.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The amendment updates the clause to ensure that mayors have the power to precept across all their functions. It replaces the provisions added to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 by the Bill, which needed clarification. The amendment will mean that, by virtue of being major precepting authorities, combined authorities and combined county authorities will have the power to precept across all their functions. It repeals provisions that previously restricted that precepting power to specific functions. The amendment more effectively meets the policy intention to allow mayors to precept for everything that they are required to do. That will give mayors more flexibility in how to fund mayoral priorities to create growth and improve local services.
Government amendments 76 and 79 provide that the issuing of precepts under the Local Government Finance Act is a function exercisable only by the mayor, and that that is the case for mayoral and non-mayoral functions. By removing restrictions from the existing legislation, the amendments will establish that precepting is a function of the mayor for expenditure relating to mayoral and non-mayoral functions, meeting the original policy intention. It has always been the intention of the Government that issuing a mayoral council tax precept should be a function of the mayor alone. The amendments will ensure that that will be the case and will ensure that mayors can precept across all their functions.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have significant concerns about the import of amendments 82, 76 and 79. We have made a number of references to some interactions with different elements of local government finance, but clearly the measures will open the door to very substantial tax rises through the vehicle of the mayoral precept. Worse than that, they open it up to being used for any purpose, in effect.
In the sometimes tense relationship between central and local government, there are disputes about who should pick up the tab—for example, the ongoing debate about asylum costs. That is very much having an effect in my local authority, which has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any in the country. Such individuals are only a cost to the local authority, as a result of central Government policy. The Bill opens up the scope for mayors to directly tax people for the purposes of environmental legislation, or social care, which consumes around 70% of the budgets of local authorities, or any other function that authorities may choose to undertake—making Manchester a nuclear-free zone, or whatever it may be—despite the fact that those are not functions that mayors undertake by statute. I am sure we all agree that there should be an opportunity for politicians to speak up, but there needs to be some limit on it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I would just point out to the hon. Gentleman that the mayoral precept was introduced in 2017 by a Conservative Government, and that mayors are directly elected. Like Members of Parliament, mayors are not immune to political pressures around tax rises, and examples across the country show that mayors are as thoughtful about the right balance between investing in their services and managing tax increases as national politicians—in fact, when we think about the record of the last Government, perhaps more so.
David Simmonds
That was a fairly shameless political pitch, but we should just reflect on the debates that took place across the Dispatch Boxes yesterday during Housing, Communities and Local Government questions, when it was highlighted that we have a Mayor of London who is quite happy to issue precepts to indulge his personal political priorities but is an abject failure in discharging his mayoral functions around housing. Thousands of people are unable to find homes in the capital because the mayor is failing to build out more than 300,000 planning permissions that have already been granted by the local authorities. That is an injustice that is being inflicted on the citizens of our capital, and this provision, as envisaged by this Labour Government, potentially inflicts the same, or an even greater, injustice on other areas of the country. For those reasons, we remain deeply concerned about it.
Particularly in an environment where, as we heard earlier, local authorities were left £1.5 billion worse off—net—by the Government’s decision to introduce additional taxes on their employees, the temptation will be for the mayoral precept to be seen as the catch-all or safety valve through which additional taxes can be extracted to meet whatever demand central Government choose to impose, without central Government being accountable for it. That is why we oppose the measures.
Siân Berry
I had not previously heard the Conservatives’ argument on this issue, and I have to say that I disagree. The Minister said that the original intention of the policy was to allow for a wide range of precepting, and if there is one thing that directly elected mayors are really accountable for, it is the level of precept that they set.
I am in favour of creativity in conversations with the electorate about what initiatives, appropriate to the local area, might be funded by precept on a short-term basis or just in the local area. The way that the provision is set up allows mayors to be properly accountable for that. I worry less about it resulting in huge tax rises without consent, because consent is built in at election time.
I appreciate the concerns about austerity continuing in councils that are underneath and part of the combined authority if mayors are taking up available taxpaying powers. In every debate in this Committee, I would love to bring up the fact that all this reorganisation is happening in the absence of an end to austerity. The Government need to provide more funding to local councils so that this is not all being taken in council tax, which is a very unfair tax.
Vikki Slade
I have no principled objection to the mayor setting a precept. I found it confusing when I heard Mayor Houchen explain how he had a zero precept. How does anything get done? Where does the money come from? [Interruption.] I am sure he has a salary, and I am sure he has an extensive office that is paid for by someone. I accept that the principle of a precept is, in some respects, self-limiting, but what bothers me is that the combined authority mayors have no referendum cap, unlike upper-tier, lower-tier, police and crime or fire authorities.
It is fire authorities I particularly want to speak to, because although some Government amendments have been tabled on the role of the mayor in terms of fire and rescue, there is almost silence in the Bill about the role of the fire and rescue service, while embracing it completely and almost making the whole service disappear. I am really concerned that fire authorities are already desperately under-resourced. Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service gets £1.76 a week per household. It has desperately been trying to get a 20p per week increase, but has been told, “No, you can’t have that.” There is nothing in the Bill that protects and ringfences any money for fire services, whereas there is more talk about police services. I am looking for some reassurance and commitment about how fire services funding will be properly resourced and ringfenced to make sure that no area suffers as when we had those horrendous wildfires, where fire services had to beg, borrow and steal equipment.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are all hugely sympathetic to the funding of fire and rescue—as we see climate change, the imperative of fire and rescue services is key—but it is outside the scope of the Bill. We believe that we have the balance right between allowing precepting powers for mayors and allowing democratic accountability by which the electorate can hold any mayor and politician to account.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 11, page 15, line 15, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (4)(a), for the words from “consists” to the end of that paragraph substitute “includes a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.”
This provides for flexibility where the mayor of a mayoral combined authority has PCC functions as to how the components of the authority’s council tax calculation which relate to the authority’s other functions (both mayoral and non-mayoral) are to be set out.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 78, 80 and 81.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The amendment relates to where a mayor has police and crime commissioner functions: secondary legislation about the arrangements for setting the precept must provide that the police and crime commissioner component is ringfenced. Where a mayor has police and crime functions for more than one police and crime commissioner area, secondary legislation must provide that there is a separate police and crime component for each area. The legislation currently provides that there must be separate components for police and crime administrative functions and for mayoral general functions.
The amendments mean that Ministers have the flexibility to provide for either one component for non-police and crime functions, or multiple separate components for different types of non-police and crime functions. I hope Members are following. This gives Ministers the option to direct how precept spending on non-police and crime functions is accounted for, by setting this out clearly in secondary legislation. In doing so, they will be able to ensure that the precept is accounted for in ways that best reflect how the precept should be spent—whether that means allowing for full flexibility across the non-police and crime component, or ringfencing money to be used for certain functions.
Amendments 78 and 81 will give the Secretary of State the ability to make an order about the preparation of budgets for all an authority’s functions. The provision in the Bill currently only provides that power in relation to the mayor’s general functions. This needs to be updated to align with the expanded mayoral precepting powers introduced by the Bill. This allows Ministers to set out the procedures that should be followed in the preparation and calculation of a budget.
By enabling Ministers to set clear direction on the preparation of budgets and the calculation of precepts, these amendments allow for consistent processes to be set across the sector, to give full effect to the expanded precepting powers.
David Simmonds
I have two questions for the Minister. First, given that these budgets, and the precepts that the amendments relate to, will sit within that bit of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, will the requirement for budgets to be balanced in-year apply to all the accounts that the Secretary of State will be giving direction to?
The second question—the Minister may wish to write to the Committee on this—is, will the consistency that she referred to be introduced by giving the Secretary of State individual, and in effect case-by-case, power to issue these directions for different authorities? Clearly, our concern is that if the door has been opened to, in effect, unlimited precept rises, and these were to be used by the Secretary of State to bail out a significant amount of debt in one of these reorganised local authorities—which I know is a significant concern of many of the local authorities that are proposing reorganisation—that would not apply everywhere.
There are certain parts of the country where there are very high levels of debt, and others where those levels of debt do not exist at all. It would be, in effect, a condition of those constituent authorities’ doing the devolution at all that they were not asked to bear that cost. Yet this Bill introduces a back-door power for the Secretary of State to direct that they would go down that route. How do the Government propose to ensure that that is forestalled, so that they can have the assurances that they would need as a necessary minimum?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are two processes that I, as the Minister for devolution, as opposed to the Minister for local government reorganisation, am constantly keen to emphasise. There is a devolution process and there is a local government reorganisation process, which my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), is taking forward. We know that some authorities are in a difficult financial position as part of that, and we are having a conversation with those authorities in the context of the proposals they are putting forward. That is still very distinct from what we are trying to do through the devolution process, and it is important that colleagues do not conflate the two.
What I would say on the wider questions that the hon. Gentleman raised is that there is nothing that we are proposing to do through the Bill that denudes or undermines the standards for financial prudence and financial accountability that sit across the local government landscape.
David Simmonds
Turning to the question of how a mayoral precept will be used under this group of amendments that the Government have tabled, if we think of the reorganisation in Thurrock or Surrey, both those local authority areas contain a single authority that has a very high level of capital borrowing, or a high level of debt. Those authorities have been assured that there will be three years’ worth of revenue support; in effect, there will be a Government grant to cover the revenue cost of the borrowing for three years. However, the borrowing cost is extended over 40 or 50 years, so there will be a very long period of time where, as things currently stand, that local authority will be expected to meet that cost, when it comes into being.
Clearly, one way of doing that is for the Secretary to State to say, “You will raise your precept, and that is how we will deal with the debt,” but that runs contrary to the proposals for devolution where those authorities have said, “We will do this, but it is simply not fair or ethical for us to accept those debts on to our books.” I am just seeking an assurance from the Minister that either the existing provisions that require the in-year balancing will apply, in which case the Government will deal with this prior to the devolution arrangement coming into existence, or the provisions will not apply, in which case those authorities need to be mindful that the likely consequence of devolution will be a massive increase in the precept levy purely for the purpose of paying off someone else’s debt.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To answer the specific question, yes, in-year balancing will apply. The purpose of the precepting function is to allow the mayor to invest in key things that will drive the economic prosperity of the area and the core functions that we have set out in the Bill. It would be a very brave mayor who chose to raise the precept not to deliver on that. In the end, they are democratically elected, and it will be for their residents and constituents to show them the consequences of that at the ballot box.
Amendment 77 agreed to.
Amendments made: 78, in clause 11, page 15, line 15, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (5)(b), after ‘functions,’ insert ‘or the other functions of the authority (other than any PCC functions that are exercisable by the mayor), or both’.”
This enables the Secretary of State to require the mayor of a combined authority to prepare an annual budget in relation to the authority’s functions, excluding any mayoral PCC functions, either separately to or in combination with the budget relating to the mayor’s general functions.
Amendment 79, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (2), omit ‘in respect of mayoral functions’.”
This provides that the issuing of precepts under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in respect of expenditure relating to the functions of a mayoral CCA is a function exercisable by the mayor acting on behalf of the CCA.
Amendment 80, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (4)(a), for the words from ‘consists’ to the end of that paragraph substitute ‘includes a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,’.”
This provides for flexibility where the mayor of a mayoral CCA has PCC functions as to how the components of the CCA’s council tax calculation which relate to the CCA’s other functions (both mayoral and non-mayoral) are to be set out.
Amendment 81, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) in subsection (5)(b), after ‘functions,’ insert ‘or the other functions of the CCA (other than any PCC functions that are exercisable by the mayor), or both’.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This enables the Secretary of State to require the mayor of a CCA to prepare an annual budget in relation to the CCA functions, excluding any mayoral PCC functions, either separately to or in combination with the budget relating to the mayor’s general functions.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power to borrow
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 12, page 16, line 24, at end insert—
“(9AA) A combined authority or CCA must provide a report to the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing the reasons for which they are seeking consent to exercise the power conferred by section 1.”
This amendment would require the combined authority or CCA to lay a report before Parliament detailing the reasons for which they are seeking the Secretary of State’s consent for exercise of the powers conferred by section 1 on mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 83
Clause stand part.
Manuela Perteghella
The amendment would require any combined authority seeking new devolved powers to lay a formal report before Parliament, explaining why it is seeking those powers and how it intends to use them. It is of absolute importance that any devolution of powers is set within a framework of transparency and visibility on the reasoning, evidence base or expected outcomes for local people. The amendment would bring the process out of the shadows and make it open, transparent and accountable to the people whom local authorities are meant to serve.
The powers devolved under the Bill are significant. They constitute major transfers of authority over transport, housing, strategic planning, education and skills, health and more. Such decisions must be backed by clear reasoning and, above all, a public mandate. The devolution of powers should be clearly justified and democratically accountable, and must not be imposed on communities or done for political convenience. Local residents must understand why an authority is seeking certain powers and what benefits they can expect them to deliver. MPs and peers—our Parliament—must be given the opportunity to assess whether devolution requests are handled consistently and fairly across regions. I therefore urge the Minister to consider our amendment.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way at what I think was the end of her speech. I just wondered whether she or her party had done any analysis of the extra cost that her amendment would put on mayoral authorities. I feel that the Liberal Democrats in Committee are having their cake and eating it—they have said that they want absolute devolution to local people, but now they want accountability to this Parliament on how the devolved mayor spends their money. We have no extra or special democratic right to do that, rather than the mayors who are being proposed. Has she looked at the cost that her proposal might put on the mayors?
Manuela Perteghella
We have not looked at the costs, but we need to understand that the Bill devolves significant powers, possibly to one person. My local authority is a three-tier one at the moment, and we are very happy with that, but now the district councils will be abolished and possibly the county council, and we will have to be part of a unitary authority and then a strategic authority. It is important that we as MPs are here to stand up for our communities and residents. We need to ensure that anyone who gains more powers comes to them through Parliament.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The hon. Lady and her party seem to be proposing that every single potential devolution should come before this House for scrutiny. That would take up a considerable amount of the time of the House, as well as incur the costs picked up on by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. Is her amendment just about kicking devolution into the long grass, rather than being serious?
Manuela Perteghella
No, the amendment is not kicking anything into the long grass. We have to get the Bill—this devolution—right. It is all about accountability, as I said when we were discussing the commissioners. This is a big change. Some of the Committee will already have unitary authorities and I will talk later about devolved Administrations, but for my constituency, that will be new. We need to get it right. Going back to the cost, that will be smaller compared with the cost of what could go wrong.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to clause stand part and amendment 83 before responding directly to amendment 20. On the clause, all existing mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities have powers to borrow for all their functions. That allows them to invest in economically productive infrastructure. Unlike for local authorities, the existing process for confirming the power to borrow money on mayoral combined and mayoral combined county authorities is by making a bespoke statutory instrument after an institution has been established. To confirm such powers by bespoke statutory instrument is highly inefficient and slow. The clause streamlines the process by giving the power to borrow to mayoral combined authorities and county authorities for purposes relevant to all their functions. It preserves existing safeguards by requiring them to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before they exercise the power for the first time in respect of functions other than transport, policing, and fire and rescue. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendment 83 is minor and technical. It simply clarifies that the reference to section 12 coming into force relates to clause 12 of the Bill. Amendment 20 would require a combined authority or combined county authority to produce a report, to be laid before the House by the Secretary of State, detailing the reasons for which they are seeking consent to exercise borrowing powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and Opposition Members have pointed out, this would be an onerous, costly and time-consuming process. The amendment is well-intentioned, but we do not think it necessary.
Like the rest of local government, combined authorities and combined county authorities must operate within the prudential framework, which comprises statutory duties and codes that are intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. The framework already provides robust mechanisms of oversight and accountability. In addition, the exercise of borrowing powers by mayoral combined authorities and county authorities to date has not raised issues. Amendment 20 also contradicts the Bill’s aim of furthering devolution and increasing financial autonomy for these authorities. For this reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will withdraw it.
David Simmonds
I want to make sure that I can reconcile the Minister’s observations and the import of the amendments with her reply to me earlier, when she said that the requirement to balance in-year will apply. Clearly, the provisions essentially state that the Secretary of State can give consent for a substantial degree of borrowing, but it is not at all clear in the clause or the amendments what the purpose of the borrowing would be.
Manchester’s improvements to its transport system are fantastic, but they were funded by central Government as part of the devolution deal, and they are now creating a significant ongoing deficit in the mayoral budget, which has to be covered, essentially, through precepting—by levying those in the local area to cover the cost. There is clearly a concern with that. If the borrowing is for capital purposes there is a clear strategy for its repayment, and it must be for the purposes of capital investment. However, if borrowing is undertaken to cover shortfalls between revenue and the mayor’s expenditure on day-to-day costs, this House would have significant concerns about it in relation to our national accounts. Can the Minister tell the Committee how that decision making will sufficiently constrain a mayor or combined authority from undertaking borrowing that is for the purposes of day-to-day revenue expenditure, so that we do not find a large debt bubble growing underneath these new bodies?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes, I will answer that question. There is a contradiction in the hon. Member’s position. He has spent much of today talking about the need for us to take a more local approach and to give local leaders and communities control, yet he is talking about restricting that very power. Everything that the strategic authority and mayoral combined authority will do will have to operate within the prudential framework. There are robust mechanisms to ensure that all their financial mechanisms adhere to the standards that we expect across local government and national Government.
The shadow Minister gave the example of Greater Manchester. That was a combination of a grant—a lot of devolved areas have an investment fund—borrowing and precepting. That is what we would expect for big capital projects. My experience suggests that mayors across the country have the aptitude and ability to make the right economic decisions on how they balance investment in things that will unlock the economic potential of their areas. We should trust them to do so, as the hon. Member has been saying all day.
Manuela Perteghella
As I said, the amendment would give Parliament the opportunity to assess whether devolution requests are handled with consistency and fairness across the regions, because at the moment they are not. I therefore wish to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We have a number of clauses on which I feel we can make some progress. My proposal is that we get to either the end of clause 19 or 5 pm, whichever comes first. I will not sit here in the cold for much longer than that.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As the local transport authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities deliver a range of local transport functions across their area. Each combined authority or combined county authority agrees its own transport budget for the year and, in many cases, constituent councils contribute to this through a transport levy. This is because constituent councils receive funding for some transport functions directly from Government.
The clause standardises the power for combined authorities and combined county authorities to levy such funding from their constituent councils to cover the cost of their transport functions, where they are not otherwise met. This power has proved effective in supporting transport delivery in local areas. For example, each of the seven councils of the West Midlands combined authority pays a levy based on its population figures, which goes on to fund a range of functions from subsidised bus services to the English national concessionary travel scheme, which provides free bus travel for eligible older and disabled people.
This power complements clause 39, which provides combined authorities and combined county authorities with the power to pay grants to constituent councils. Together, these powers support partnership working between combined authorities and combined county authorities and their constituent members.
David Simmonds
Again, I seek a point of clarification from the Minister. I understand the purpose of the clause, but clearly there is a distinction between a levy, where it is the constituent authority that is required to pay, and a precept, where it is the taxpayer who is paying for it through their council tax bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, if necessary in writing, how it will work where there is a dispute about the payment.
If we take London as an example, we have a London-wide concessionary travel scheme, but it is has very different application in different boroughs. It is easy to foresee a situation where, particularly if the purpose of the overall transport levy does not benefit the whole of the mayoral combined authority area, there will be a dispute about whether that is an appropriate way forward. Particularly if the levy is large, it would have a significant impact on the budget of the constituent local authority. Can the Minister set out how that type of process will be addressed in practice?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have agreed that I will write on the specifics; I think this question comes back to the same theme of how we mitigate collective decision making and agreement across constituent authorities that put at risk their financial viability, or cut across the legal obligation of a particular constituent authority, and I will capture that in writing. However, I would say that we cannot legislate for every eventuality. Indeed, I do not think that is the purpose of legislation. What we can draw on is the practice that we see across the country. Broadly, it is not in the interests of a mayor, who has been democratically elected by the residents and constituents of any of their constituent authorities, to make decisions that will be fundamentally detrimental to those constituents.
The Chair
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will include that in her correspondence, which we look forward to with enthusiasm.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Combined authorities and CCAs: minor amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Committee members will recall that clause 1 introduced the established mayoral strategic authority as a specific type of strategic authority. It drew a distinction between combined authorities and combined county authorities led by a mayor, and those operating without one. Clause 14 inserts the formal definitions of an established mayoral strategic authority, a non-mayoral combined authority and a non-mayoral combined county authority into the relevant existing legislation. These are minor but necessary provisions intended to give clear meaning to the existing legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Additional functions of the GLA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is vital that the devolution framework works for the unique circumstances of London’s governance, which we have talked about in this Committee. That is why the Bill will enable Government to confer functions on the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies. Previously, the Government could change the powers of the Greater London Authority only via primary legislation. This clause brings London into line with other strategic authorities by enabling the Government to change its powers via secondary legislation. This will ensure that the Greater London Authority benefits from the devolution framework and can deepen its powers over time.
David Simmonds
Again, I have a question of clarification; can the Minister tell the Committee whether these powers apply to a transfer of functions, as opposed to the conferral of functions? We know there have been situations, and we can certainly envisage some within the overall package of the Bill, where the statutory duties of the constituent authorities could be transferred over to the mayor, either en bloc or in part. Indeed, there might be times when it might be a sensible approach; if there is an example of a significant failure in one authority, that could be looked after by the mayoral office while the situation is turned around—that goes to the point raised about South Northamptonshire. However, can the Minister clarify whether this refers solely to new powers that are conferred, or opens up the door to the transfer of functions that are currently statutory duties of constituent authorities?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This clause relates to functions and powers that sit underneath the devolution framework that we have talked about and are putting on the face of the Bill, and the seven areas of competencies that this measure applies to.
We currently have a situation where, for example, certain powers will go to Greater Manchester that currently would not necessarily go to the Mayor of London and the GLA, and that does not feel right. Clause 15 allows a mechanism and a process to make sure that there is consistency across the piece, and that we can achieve that without having to go through primary legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 16 will prevent individuals from being a Member of Parliament, or of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and a mayor of a strategic authority at the same time.
The Government are clear that mayors are central to delivering the growth, economic prosperity and change that local communities want. Already, the impact of our mayors, from West Yorkshire to the North East, from Greater London to the West Midlands, is being felt clearly. However, their responsibilities will only increase once this Bill is in law.
It is right that the role of mayor receives the officeholder’s full time and attention. Both MPs and mayors have a duty to represent the constituents that elected them. Fulfilling two different democratic roles could lead to conflicts of interest, given the differences in public expectations for each role and the differing responsibilities of a mayor and an MP. Clause 16 prevents that conflict and will ensure that regions benefit from their mayor’s full time and attention.
Siân Berry
I agree with the principle of not having too many people able to do double-hatting, but it is a fact that there have been overlapping periods when mayors of different combined authorities and London have also been MPs, either at the beginning or end of their term. That has been dealt with in a pragmatic way, with nobody overextending those kinds of double-hatted jobs.
As I understand it, and I would like the Minister to clarify this, writing this rule into statute would mean that, while nobody would be prevented from campaigning to be a mayor or an MP while in either of these jobs, at the moment they are elected, the situation then becomes illegal. An instant resignation takes place on that day. There would be immense disruption across a wide area—perhaps not so much for one constituency, as we have got used to having by-elections for various reasons, but in holding a mayoral by-election.
I wanted to check whether the Government’s intentions here, in making that resignation statutory and instant, are not a bit too much, when these issues have been previously worked out. Does there need to be more detail in the clause to allow for a transition period?
David Simmonds
The Opposition have a high degree of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. It is very striking when we compare our local and regional democracy with those of other countries: in our nearest neighbour, France, with the cumul des mandats, there is almost an expectation enshrined in their politics that, for someone to become Member of the national Parliament, they will have represented their area as a mayor. Indeed, when President Chirac cast around to find someone who was eminently qualified to become Prime Minister of that country, he took the view that there was nobody within the National Assembly who could possibly meet that standard; it needed to be somebody from local or regional government. He lighted on Alain Juppé, the well-reputed mayor of Bordeaux, who served with great distinction as Prime Minister. If we begin to introduce restrictions of this nature, it will significantly constrain the ability of our politics to rise to the challenges that our communities and our areas face.
Paul Holmes
I am not sure that I can beat the excellent oratory of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, but I want to add some context in my own style on why this clause is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion has adequately and expertly addressed why there may be need for overlap in different local situations. She is absolutely correct to say that there have been instances where that overlap has been dealt with in an orderly manner and has been sorted within the usual confines of the democratic mechanisms we currently have.
All the way through the Bill, which I think has admirable aims, the Minister and the Government have said, “Let local people decide.” Now, local people presumably have elected those mayors or those MPs who now might want to be a mayor; I declare an interest here, as this clause will stop me running for the Hampshire and the Solent mayoralty. I will not cry in front of the Minister, but it will mean that my hon. Friends here would have to listen to some of my more mundane speeches for the next three or four years.
Local people have elected their MPs and they should have the right to determine whether those MPs are the people they want to be the mayors. The hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), served as a mayor from 2018 to 2022. At no point did anybody on the Labour side of the House say that he was not good enough to do both jobs at the same time. Ken Livingstone was a mayor and a Member of Parliament from 2000 to 2001. I do not think anybody who was on the Labour side of the House at the time—I grant that many of the Members on that side of the Committee Room were not in the House at the time—was saying that he could not do two jobs at the same time.
This clause just seems very restrictive. If an election is going ahead and a city or region says, “Actually, we do not want you to be our mayor—we want you to remain an MP”, that person will not win the election. The Minister has said many times today that, on elections and democracy, local people should have their say. I find it strange that we seem to be taking quite a restrictive measure on who can and cannot stand in a democratic event, decided democratically by local people, for candidates who, presumably, are local too. I have some concern that this is overreach.
I also think that MPs are generally sensible—I do not want to create breaking news here, but they are generally sensible and, as the Minister said in the context of mayors setting council tax precepts, they are also not immune to the moods and feelings of the local people that they serve. If a local MP wants to stand for election as mayor, they have the right to say that to their constituents. If they get a massive kickback from their constituents, they either will not win the mayoralty or they will not stand.
Local MPs should have the right to make that decision. Local people in that constituency or that region should have the right to say that they do not want that person; or that they might want that person, and allow that person to stand down from Parliament at a time of their choosing, if they are allowed to stand for the mayoralty, and resist the cost of a sudden burst of by-elections to this House. Let local people decide. Let local politicians be local. If they are not wanted, they will not be voted in.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their comments, and I have some sympathy with the arguments made. However, in a world where we are giving greater powers to mayors, which is the process we are going through with this devolution Bill, the idea that someone can exercise those functions to the best of their ability alongside the very important role we all do as MPs is a stretch. It is right for residents and constituents that we say, “If you are elected as a mayor, you ought to be doing that job full time.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Miatta Fahnbulleh
If I may finish, I will give way to hon. Members. The point about transition is a fair one. To clarify, we are setting out in legislation that, at the point someone is elected as a mayor, they resign as an MP, and vice versa. It is at the point of gaining office that this comes into effect. In response to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion’s example of the transition period when campaigning, there are flexibilities within that.
Siân Berry
I appreciate that, but these are two things in different directions. A sitting mayor who becomes an MP would need to resign as mayor that day, given what the Minister has just outlined for us. A mayoral by-election across a large area is a much bigger thing than a parliamentary by-election, and I am not sure that making it instantly statutorily illegal has been properly thought through.
David Simmonds
I ask the Minister to reflect that it used to be the practice of this House that any MP appointed as a Minister had to resign and fight a by-election, because they were undertaking a function different from that for which their constituents had originally elected them. That practice was abandoned because of the extent of the disruption it caused to the work of government and of the House, as well as the cost of those by-elections, so I ask the Government to reflect. We have learned from experience, cross-party, that having these types of requirements is not conducive to good democracy. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to reflect on that.
Paul Holmes
Yes. I thank the Minister for involuntarily giving way to me—Sir John, your rule as Chair is a very happy time for me. The Minister may now think I am being facetious, but I assure her that I am not; I have genuine agreements with her vision for devolution. On her response, however, to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about someone not being able to fulfil two jobs to the best of their ability, can the same argument not be made for Members of this House who are elected while councillors? I am speaking particularly of the Liberal Democrats, but also of some within the Conservative party, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who is sitting behind me. Does the Minister stand by her view that someone cannot do those two roles at the same time? Why is it acceptable for that role, or even for her role as a Minister while she is an MP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned, but the roles of the mayoralty and the MP seem to be different?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are trying to create empowered mayors with huge responsibility over transport, housing, infrastructure and skills. That is a full-time job—bigger even, candidly, than that of an individual Minister. It is absolutely right that they should, if elected to do that job, be doing that job. Hon. Members have made important points about how we get the transition right in order not to have disruption. I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the history of local and national government and the precedent that Ministers used to resign their seats. We will reflect on that and think about how we get the transition right.
Paul Holmes
My intervention will be very brief. I am slightly burnt by my experience on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, where the Minister constantly said that they would reflect, and we never heard back from them until after the Committee had finished. May I seek assurance from the Minister—she does not need to give an answer today—that, on the point of the immediacy of the vacation of the office, she will come back to us in writing to give us the steer of her reflections and what actions she will take in regard to these concerns, if any? Will she commit to doing that before the Committee rises?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am happy to make that commitment.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clauses 17 and 18 make technical but necessary changes to existing legislation. As hon. Members will know, some functions conferred on combined authorities or combined county authorities are exercisable only by a mayor acting on behalf of the authority.
Clause 17 clarifies that, where a function is conferred on a mayor, it should be taken to be a function of the underlying authority that is exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined authority or combined county authority. This is because mayors of strategic authorities are not corporate entities in themselves; therefore, all functions must be conferred on the underlying authority.
Clause 18 clarifies the meaning and extent of the “general functions” of mayors in combined authorities and combined county authorities. The term “general functions” here refers to non-police and crime functions. It is appropriate for the mayor alone to be able to exercise their judgment in certain cases, and to be held fully accountable for those decisions and ultimately to the public. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Report under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016
The Chair
We now come to amendment 361 in the name of Manuela Perteghella. Do you wish to press this to a vote?
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Sir John. Forgive me, I may be ignorant on this, but on the selection list I do not see amendment 361 in the running order. If you could give me some clarification, I would be very grateful.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 363, in clause 19, page 22, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) progress with the implementation of the strategy provided for in section [Duty to publish and implement a Forward Devolution Strategy].”.
This amendment is consequential on NC46.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 46—Duty to publish and implement a Forward Devolution Strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a forward devolution strategy (“the strategy”).
(2) The purpose of the strategy is to set out the proposed timeline for the establishment of new strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities, in areas of England that are not currently within the area of an established mayoral strategic authority.
(3) The timeline set out in the strategy must include a period within which the Secretary of State intends to issue invitations or directions for proposals for the establishment or expansion of such new strategic authorities for those identified areas.
(4) Any annual report required under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) must include a statement on the progress made in implementing the strategy, including information on any revision of or replacement for the strategy.
(5) Before preparing, publishing, or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the mayors for the areas of established mayoral strategic authorities; and
(b) the constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities.”
This new clause would introduce a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution.
Manuela Perteghella
The amendment and new clause 46 are about giving devolution in England a clear direction and fair footing, and replacing uncertainty with a proper plan and accountability. It will create a clear road map for devolution.
The Bill already includes a requirement for an annual devolution report to be published, but there are currently no plans to include any forward-looking strategy. Why is a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution important and necessary? The local authorities that were left out of the devolution priority programme are facing a cliff edge in terms of funding streams that are now being redirected to mayoral strategic authorities.
Right now, devolution is happening, but unevenly. Cumbria, Cheshire, Warrington, Greater Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Sussex and Brighton are all in the devolution priority programme, putting them on a fast track towards improved transport opportunities, housing and economic growth. Regions such as Kent and Wessex, which were left out of the devolution priority programme, are left not only without the benefits of funding and the regional voice of an elected mayor, should they want one, but without the knowledge of when they can expect those things. The amendment would require the Government to report annually to Parliament on progress made. This transparency will prevent future Ministers from delaying or cherry-picking which regions get devolution next.
The amendments, which require a forward devolution strategy to be published, are therefore important to give councils like those in my area, which are at the beginning of their devolution journey, reassurance that plans are being progressed for devolution in their areas if they are not in tier 1. It is important that councils know not only their current financial situation, but how and when finance and governance are likely to change. The amendment would give local authorities certainty as councils could plan ahead, invest and prepare for new responsibilities. As I said earlier in the debate, devolution must be equitable and consistent, not a patchwork of deals and negotiations.
David Simmonds
The Opposition have sympathy with the points the hon. Member made. We can rarely have too much transparency, but we are conscious that these new bodies and devolution arrangements will be subject to a degree of political oversight. There will be manifestos, on which the public will have a vote. There will be the element of scrutiny, which we have not heard enough about yet but which we would like to think will be built into the new arrangements for these authorities. There will also be a regular process of elections, which will determine who provides the necessary level of leadership. Layered over that, there will be both the political priorities of the devolved authority and those things that are more part of the administrative function. Local authorities have historically had council plans and forward plans that set out decision making, all of which are part of this arrangement. Although the points have been well made, the Opposition are therefore not convinced that what the amendment would add is sufficient to justify its inclusion in the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to amendment 363 and new clause 46 before discussing clause 19.
In the English devolution White Paper, the Government set out clearly our ambition to have universal coverage of strategic authorities in England. That direction of travel is clear. It is also important that the process is led locally, and that areas can submit proposals for devolution that reflect their unique circumstances at a time that makes sense for them. A centrally mandated strategy would cut across that principle, requiring areas to work to a timeline set by Government. That would not only be challenging, but go against the grain of what we are trying to do. The new clause is therefore not necessary. We have set the ambition, and we will work with areas to enable them to come forward with proposals at the appropriate time.
Clause 19 amends existing requirements for the annual report on devolution to ensure that it reflects the introduction of strategic authorities as a category in law. To indicate how the report will look should the Bill receive Royal Assent in its current form, this year’s report was laid before this House and the other place earlier today, so Members can spend their evening reading the report with a glass of wine if they wish. It covers strategic authorities that were established and details of the new devolution framework as set out in the English devolution White Paper.
I commend the clause to the Committee, and ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the amendment and not to press the new clause.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deidre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 16th October 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 October 2025 - (16 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices or turn them to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, as well as on the parliamentary website. I remind Members who wish to speak that they should bob to catch my eye. If a Member wishes to press to a Division an amendment that is not the lead amendment or new clause in a group, they must inform me in advance, or I will skip straight past it. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following a debate on relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation is helpful to the Committee.
Clause 20
Extension of general power of competence to strategic authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Since its introduction via the Localism Act 2011, the general power of competence has given local authorities the legal capacity to do anything that an individual can do that is not specifically prohibited in law. It has allowed local authorities to undertake a wider range of activities and reduced the need for the Government to issue legal clarifications or new legislative instruments.
Extending the power to all mayoral and established mayoral strategic authorities will bring consistency to the current landscape and ensure parity with local authorities, providing them with the same broad enabling power to do creative and innovative things in delivering for their communities. Foundation strategic authorities will also be permitted to exercise this general power of competence for the purpose of economic development and regeneration. This will ensure that areas can benefit from devolution.
The Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London will not receive the general power of competence. Instead, they will continue to rely on the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which provides a similarly broad general power that has served successive mayors well. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and to resume consideration of the Bill.
The Opposition are proud that the general power of competence was introduced when we were in government during the coalition years. It was something that I, as a serving local authority councillor at the time, lobbied hard for. The then Secretary of State, now Lord Pickles, was very receptive to the view that local authorities should have a greater remit, rather than being constrained to do those things that they were specifically permitted to do by law.
I have a question of clarification for the Minister. She said that the general power of competence could be exercised for economic purposes. Will the authorities have the full general power of competence, or will the power be constrained to a specific set of mayoral functions? Constraining it would not be entirely consistent with what was said in previous proceedings about the use of precepts.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
For mayoral strategic authorities, it will be the full general power of competence, but for foundation strategic authorities, at the single tier level, it will be exercised in the context of economic development and regeneration; the constituent local authority that makes that foundation strategic authority already has the wider general power of competence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 21
Power of mayors to convene meetings with local partners
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 21, page 23, line 28, leave out subsection (b) and insert—
“(b) one or more of the following—
(i) health and social care;
(ii) planning;
(iii) environmental concerns;
(iv) funding;
(v) sustainability measures;
(vi) education;
(vii) transport provision and
(viii) green and community spaces.”.
This amendment ensures that mayors must consider specific community matters when consulting with local partners.
In previous contributions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have made clear the importance of decision making at the lowest possible level. I welcome the explicit provision on convening meetings with partners.
On clause 20, the Minister talked about the breadth of issues that come under the general power of competence and the scope and interest of combined authorities and mayors. We are concerned that the wording in clause 21 on the topics about which meetings can be convened is too narrow, as it is restricted to the items in clause 2.
There should be an ability to convene meetings at a strategic level about matters that are not covered there, such as education. Where skills are within the remit of the strategic authority, and education remains the remit of the constituent parts, the impact and the opportunities available would be across the strategic area.
There is also a concern that while the Bill provides the opportunity to convene meetings and consult, share and partner, it does not provide any sense of obligation for a mayor to do so where others are involved. We would like to see more of an obligation on mayors, rather than a sense of, “Let’s hope they do; if they don’t, never mind.”
The amendment seeks to broaden the scope of clause 21 beyond the items listed in clause 2. I am looking for some assurance that the Minister will be interested in broadening the clause so that we get a meaningful sense of two-way discussion, where the mayor is part of that area conversation.
David Simmonds
The Opposition are not entirely persuaded of the argument for this amendment, although the point is well made. We will be listening attentively to what the Minister has to say.
We are always very conscious that there is a risk with this legislation of creating conflicts. I know you have done a lot of work in the past in the field of education, Mr Stuart; we have seen that the well-intentioned education policy of school autonomy can come into conflict with the statutory duties placed on a local authority. We need to ensure that is resolved. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, education is a good example of where conflict can crop up—for example, a university technical college is part of the skills economy, but is also, for the purposes of the Bill, a school. There is a need to ensure that all those statutory duties are squared off.
Although we are not persuaded of the need for the amendment, we would like to hear what the Minister has to say so that we can be confident that those points have been fully taken into account.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for her amendment. I am not sure that, as drafted, it achieves the intended effect. The Bill already defines the meaning of a relevant local matter as one that occurs within the geographical boundary of a strategic authority and relates to one or more of the areas of competence set out in clause 2. The areas of competence are deliberately broad to allow for a wide range of activities to fall within scope. However, the amendment would remove the existing references to skills and employment support, economic development and regeneration, climate change, public service reform and public safety. That risks inadvertently constraining the matters on which a mayor may convene meetings with local partners.
On the specific point about the dialogue needing to be two-way, I refer the hon. Member to the evidence we heard in the context of the Greater Manchester combined authority. Ultimately, for the mayor to have impact and traction, and to deliver, they must work with key partners, because ultimately those partners are the delivery arm of any strategic intent of the mayor. That requires two-way engagement and a two-way conversation. While we have not locked that in explicitly in the way that the hon. Member suggests in her amendment, that is fundamentally the principle that sits behind the way a mayor ought to work.
Vikki Slade
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 21, page 23, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (5)(a), after “subsection” insert “(8)(aa) or;
(b) in subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) under section 17B(5);”.”.
This provides that regulations made under new section 17B of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (mayoral power to convene meetings with local partners), as inserted by clause 21 of the Bill, are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This Government have committed to empowering mayors to make the right decisions for their local communities—a thing that runs through every aspect of the Bill. The new power to convene meetings with local partners and the corresponding duty on those partners to respond to any meeting requests will strengthen the ability of the mayor to drive local action. The use of the negative procedure provides an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for the regulations. The amendments will enable us to efficiently deliver the legislative framework needed to support our mayors to effectively use their powers to engage local partners and deliver for their local communities.
David Simmonds
We have concerns about these measures; I will briefly explain why. As we have seen in the passage of the Bill so far, much of what is proposed for mayors will cut across different Government Departments. It could have financial and legal implications for constituent authorities, and there is plenty of scope for disputes to arise, not least where there might be different political control across different authorities. Our concern is that if we go down the route of using the negative procedure, there is a risk that the awareness of the issues in government will not be triggered and that what we will, in fact, be doing is setting up the authorities to fail by not having the appropriate procedures for getting the issues resolved at the first point where they arise, rather than waiting until they are the subject of disputes in the courts. So we are not content that this is the best way to address the issue.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand the hon. Member’s concern. The process is an iterative one. Strategic authorities do not operate in a vacuum. They are in constant conversation with the Government. We have set up the mayoral council as a way for us to have that conversation and dialogue. The fundamental role of national Government is to ensure that our mayors succeed. If issues arise in the way that we are seeing with existing mayoral authorities, there is a space for conversations and mechanisms for those issues to be resolved. I do not think we need an onerous legislative and regulatory procedure to resolve that. The amendment looks at the duty to convene the relevant partners. That matters where the mayor has a mandate to do something, but it requires them to bring lots of different partners around the table to deliver that. We are seeing mayors using their soft power. We have created an additional power to enable them to perform that vital function.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: 85, in clause 21, page 24, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 117 of LDEDCA 2009 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3)(a), after “order” insert “or regulations”.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This provides that any regulations made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 that are not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. This will include regulations under new section 103B (mayoral power to convene meetings with local partners), as inserted by Clause 21 of the Bill, and section 107N (public authorities: duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities), as inserted by Schedule 19 to the Bill
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 295, in clause 21, page 24, line 27, leave out subsection 3.
This amendment would remove the requirement on local partners to respond to a meeting request from the Mayor.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 294, in clause 21, page 24, line 35, leave out from “specified” to end of line and insert “by the Mayor;”
This amendment would give Mayors, instead of the Secretary of State, the power to define the meaning of a local partner.
David Simmonds
The purpose of the amendments is to continue a theme that we have woven throughout our amendments to the Bill: to ensure that this is genuine devolution and that it is the mayor and local authority that make the decisions rather than the Secretary of State. There seems to be an inherent contradiction. We are talking about a devolution Bill that increases the decision-making powers of the Secretary of State to determine what goes on in each local area. The amendments seek to ensure that it is the mayor—the elected local person, of whom we have heard a great deal—who makes the decisions, and that where disputes arise, where one of the local partners feels it is not appropriate to respond to a meeting, there is provision in the legislation for that to happen. I think particularly about how the previous debate is relevant to this one.
If we look at the situation in London, the mayor has decided to spend a proportion of the mayoral precept on funding free school meals, but has not funded them sufficiently, so local authorities are faced with bills for making schoolteachers redundant because of budget shortfalls caused by that mayoral decision. There needs to be a process for resolving such issues. Simply assuming that everyone will have a meeting and that that will resolve it will not resolve those kinds of hard-edged issues. We need to make sure that local discretion works in practice and that it is not simply a matter of the Secretary of State dictating it from Whitehall.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
On the subject of local partners, could the Minister confirm that the intention here is to include private sector organisations as local partners? I am keen to see mayors make the most of this power, being able to use it to ensure that conversations can take place with, for example, large local employers or anchor companies to create economic alignment, or developers and utility companies to deal with issues during development.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to my hon. Friend’s question, and then I will address the amendments. It absolutely does apply to anchor organisations—the key people we would expect to have around the table for particular issues. We expect it to be private sector, although I think the power of direction might be a bit weaker for the mayor in that context. In order to advance an issue, it will be for the mayor to be clear about the partners that they need around the table, both private and public, and to bring them around the table. The experience of mayors has been that most of this is done voluntarily, because most partners in a place want to work together to deliver the outcome for their people. This provides an additional tool that the mayor can draw on in instances where, for whatever reason, partners are not automatically willing to come around the table.
Turning to the amendments, first, I want to flag that as drafted, they are focused on the Mayor of London. We believe they introduce an inconsistency between the powers of the Mayor of London and his counterparts elsewhere in England. They also run contrary to a central aim of the Bill, which is to standardise and simplify the legislative framework for devolution across England, including London. Clause 21 includes a power for the mayor to convene meetings with local partners on relevant local matters, and amendment 295 seeks to remove the corresponding requirement on local partners to respond. The power is designed to enable a mayor to bring the right people around the table; it is not an enforceable call-in power. That is not what we are proposing here; rather, it is aimed at empowering a mayor to work with local partners to drive delivery and better outcomes for their communities. Members will see that the requirement on local partners is proportionate and not overly burdensome. It does not obligate partners to engage or collaborate, but it requires them to respond to requests from a mayor. We hope that that triggers a process where most parties will be willing to engage or move forward.
Amendment 294 would allow the Mayor of London to specify local partners where other mayors should not, which would lead to a piecemeal and unclear definition of local partners, risking confusion at all level. Defining local partners in regulation allows for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and will provide a single, coherent definition across England that can be understood by both mayors and local partners.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I understand what she is saying, but we have seen a contradiction from the Government on Second Reading as well as in Committee. Is the meaning that they want to go a full devolution power and have mayors in power to make decisions for their local people? I think it is accepted that, across different geographical areas, there will be different local partners, so why are the Government being so prescriptive and removing the role of the mayor to govern their own corresponding responsibilities?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The regulation, when drafted, will be permissive, because we recognise that it will be different in different places. Through the regulation, we are trying to ensure that it is proportionate. We are also trying to make sure that the scope is drawn as broadly as possible in a way that makes sense for the mayor. I come back to the point that this is not a compulsion to be around the table; it is to trigger a process that means that if a public utility is required around the table, they have to engage. Even if the engagement is to say no which we would hope it would not be, it forces a process of engagement. We think that gives the mayor an additional tool to get the right people around the table to drive the change they want to see.
David Simmonds
My major concern is that it sounds like a mess. We can easily imagine situations, given the diverse job of the mayors and some of the ambitions envisaged for them as part of the legislation, where there will be a high degree of confusion about what is expected of whom and who has what obligations.
To simply say that it will be the subject of a permissive regulation when drafted seriously risks setting this up to fail, particularly when it comes to the envisaged economic partnerships. The Committee has not seen that regulation, and has no idea how it will work in practice at a local level.
We will push these amendments to a vote, which is all we can do at this stage. I am sure we will return to this issue during the later passage of the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
New clause 19—Duty on mayors to establish a citizens’ assembly—
“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘17C Duty to establish a citizens’ assembly
(1) The mayor for an area of a CCA must establish a deliberative citizen’s assembly (“the assembly”) within six months beginning on the day of their election.
(2) The purpose of the assembly is to inform strategic decision making on relevant local matters.
(3) The assembly must comprise at least 40 persons from the area of the CCA, who are—
(a) selected by sortition or lottery, and
(b) representative of the population of the local authority area.
(4) “Relevant local matters” are such matters as the mayor may specify with the agreement of the assembly.
(5) The mayor must make arrangements for—
(a) the assembly to convene within one year beginning on the day on which the mayor is first elected, and at least once per year thereafter; and
(b) the establishment of a regular consultation process with the assembly in addition to its convening under paragraph (2)(a);
(6) The mayor must—
(a) take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and
(b) publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.’
(2) After section 103A of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Duty to establish a citizens’ assembly
(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must establish a deliberative citizen’s assembly (“the assembly”) within six months beginning on the day of their election.
(2) The purpose of the assembly is to inform strategic decision making on relevant local matters.
(3) The assembly must comprise at least 40 persons from the area of the combined authority, who are—
(a) selected by sortition of lottery, and
(b) representative of the population of the local authority area.
(4) “Relevant local matters” are such matters as the mayor may specify with the agreement of the assembly.
(5) The mayor must make arrangements for—
(a) the assembly to convene within one year beginning on the day on which the mayor is first elected, and at least once per year thereafter; and
(b) the establishment of a regular consultation process with the assembly in addition to its convening under paragraph (2)(a).
(6) The mayor must—
(a) take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and
(b) publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.’
(3) After section 40A of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 15 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Duty to establish a citizens’ assembly
(1) The mayor must establish a deliberative citizen’s assembly (“the assembly”).
(2) The purpose of the assembly is to inform strategic decision making on relevant local matters.
(3) The assembly must comprise at least 64 persons, who are—
(a) selected by sortition or lottery, and
(b) one of whom must live in each London borough.
(4) “Relevant local matters” are such matters as the mayor may specify with the agreement of the assembly.
(5) The mayor must make arrangements for—
(a) the assembly to convene within one year beginning on the day on which the mayor is first elected, and at least once per year thereafter; and
(b) the establishment of a regular consultation process with the assembly in addition to its convening under paragraph (2)(a).
(6) The mayor must—
(a) take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and
(b) publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.’
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—
(a) the period by which the Mayor of London must appoint a deliberative citizen’s assembly, and
(b) any necessary further provision relating to deliberative citizens’ assemblies.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.” —(Siân Berry.)
This new clause creates a duty on mayors to convene a citizens' assembly consisting of local people within the first year of their election and at least once annually after this, with an additional, non-legally binding duty to take account of the recommendations from the citizens' assembly, as well as defining the term “citizens' assembly”.
New clause 42—Power of mayors to convene meetings with local public service providers and government—
“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘17C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a CCA must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(2) After section 103B of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(3) After section 40B of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘40C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The Mayor must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require mayors of combined authorities, mayors of CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 21 will ensure that mayors have the means to drive effective engagement across the communities to generate economic prosperity. We have already talked about local partners playing a vital role in this process, and in helping mayors to address shared challenges and seize opportunities, but to be very clear—I stress this again—the clause does not oblige local partners to support matters they oppose. Rather, it creates a duty to respond to a mayor’s request to meet or engage on an issue, facilitating constructive dialogue even where there may be disagreement.
Mayors have a powerful local voice—we know that; we see it across the country where there are mayors—but that soft power does not always allow them to drive forward change. The clause strengthens a mayor’s existing soft power and encourages collaboration with local partners, so they can drive growth in and deliver improvement to their communities.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. New clause 42 would make it a legal duty for mayors to hold regular meetings with local councils in their area; with service providers such as the NHS, police or transport bodies; and with town and parish councils. The power to convene would become a mandatory duty to convene. In particular, parish and town councils are included on the list of bodies that local mayors are required to convene meetings with.
I used to be a parish councillor, so I know the important role that these rural councils play and the many services that they deliver. They also stepped up socially during the covid pandemic, including setting up food-share schemes and referring people to food banks if they lost their job. Town councils are also important. For example, a town council in my constituency has been fostering important community projects. One of the initiatives is working with local businesses to make Alcester a neurodivergent-friendly town—a town for all.
These councils are invaluable partners for combined authorities and mayors in the shires. Engaging with such bodies means that the combined authority and the mayor have direct insight into local issues. Put simply, the new clause would ensure that mayors regularly bring together local authorities and public services to co-ordinate on shared priorities and improve co-operation across the region.
In rural areas such as my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, parish and town councils, as we have already discussed, are the first tier of local government. Mayors should include these important councils as partners and consult them on a range of issues. We must create a regular, structured forum for dialogue between all the key players in local government and public services.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
To clarify, the suggestion in the new clause is that town and parish councils will meet the mayor once every 12 months. My constituency, which has 80 parish councils, would be part of a Thames valley mayoralty—let us call it that—that would have even more constituencies. How many days of not meeting parish councils will there be for the mayor?
Manuela Perteghella
These councils need to have a voice at the table of decision makers. The hon. Member has also been a parish councillor, if I remember properly from our last debate, so he knows how important they are as stakeholders in their local communities. There is a way of making this convening duty less cumbersome on the mayor. To be fair, though, if someone stands to be the mayor of 1.2 million people, they have a responsibility towards all of their communities.
Paul Holmes
I do not want the hon. Lady to look so disheartened, because I am about to agree with her. She looked horrified that I was intervening on her.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we share a concern about town and parish councils being consulted. However, does she not think that the new clause is slightly over-egging the pudding? If a mayor was worth their weight in gold, or accountable to their constituents, it would be in their own interest—in the interest of them staying in their job—to meet those people anyway. I wonder whether she thinks that the new clause may be too prescriptive.
Regarding the plan to have meetings once every 12 months, that would be perfectly achievable by meeting all the town and parish councils on the same day. To answer the hon. Member for Banbury, there would be 364 days when mayors would be able to meet other people.
Manuela Perteghella
I do not think we are seeing that at the moment. We are not seeing it with metro mayors or combined authorities, so that is why we would like to see a mandatory duty to convene.
Mayors wield significant powers over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, and it is imperative that local councils and community representatives are included in conversations about how such powers are used. New clause 42 would also promote joined-up public service delivery, because regular meetings with all stakeholders, including the first tier of councils and local services, will eventually result in better co-ordination on cross-cutting issues, which could be regional.
The measure would also—I will say this again and again—strengthen accountability and transparency in this new, exciting, revolutionary programme. Residents should be able to see that their local leaders are meeting openly and regularly, working together on the priorities that matter most to their communities. The new clause would ensure that. Fundamentally, the point of devolution is to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected by those decisions.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart—my huge apologies for arriving late to proceedings.
I want principally to talk about new clause 19, in my name, which sets out a duty on mayors to establish a citizens assembly. It would place on the mayor of a strategic authority a duty to convene, within the first year of their election and at least once annually after that, a citizens assembly consisting of local people. There would be an additional non-legally binding duty to take account of the recommendations of the citizens assembly. The new clause defines the term “citizens assembly”, and its account of the method of selection and the need to be representative of the local community are taken from descriptions of citizens assemblies that have already been commissioned by Parliament, including on climate change.
A lot needs to be done to the Bill to help it live up to its title. There is a real need for this kind of empowerment.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
In a certain way, the citizens assembly is the electorate, and there is an election for mayors. Why does the hon. Lady feel the need for more engagement and more citizens assemblies, when there is a ballot and a free and fair election?
Siân Berry
I take the hon. Member’s intervention in good spirit. I will talk about the ability of a standing citizens assembly not simply to react—even voting, at the end of a mayor’s term, is a reactive act—but to consider and make proposals. Mechanisms for getting ground-up proposals from the local community are lacking in the Bill.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
For clarification, when the mayor is not meeting one of the 80 parish and town councils, they would be meeting a citizens assembly. Can the hon. Lady give an example of any precedent, anywhere, of a mayor meeting with and reporting to a citizens assembly, or is this a new proposal?
Siân Berry
The hon. Member asks about the mayor meeting the citizens assembly, which misunderstands what a citizens assembly does. It does not ever have to see the mayor if it does not want to. It is there, in its own right, to consider things. I will explain more about how they work in a moment—
Siân Berry
No, because I need to get to end of my sentence. I intend to explain how citizens assemblies are different.
Citizens assemblies are not town hall meetings, and they are not a method for the public to hold the mayor to account. They are a completely different part of democracy, and have been very successful. I mentioned that Parliament has convened one on climate change. We have also seen them used successfully to consider knotty issues in other countries, such as changing to marriage laws to be more inclusive. Where, at the political level, an issue is contentious and divisive, a citizens assembly sitting and considering it can come to quite sensible recommendations—taking politics out of it. It is a good way to build communities of democratic citizens. We know that people who take part in citizens assemblies and have their voices listened to go on to greater engagement and participation in political life.
The method of selection is essentially sortition or lottery. These are people who are akin to a jury—often they are called citizens juries—who are selected as uninterested people, so far, in the issue to be considered. They convene and set their own agenda. They will hear and request evidence. They will hear from people directly affected and potentially from experts. The agenda is driven by them. They then make recommendations. There is no requirement for the mayor to be involved in the process at all, in terms of their time, but the new clause suggests that the mayor should take account of the recommendations when they have been put together in such a careful way.
The new clause also suggests that the agenda of what would be a standing citizens assembly would be discussed and agreed between the mayor and the citizens assembly as it goes forward.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I am a Labour party member, so I love a meeting that is a talking shop—anyone who has ever been to a constituency Labour party meeting will know exactly what my experience has been. The idea behind a citizens assembly is really positive—empowering people—but I see a couple of challenges. First, on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee we looked at how we get community empowerment, and we could not find a single piece of evidence that said that standing citizens assemblies actually make a difference. They become a talking shop. Could the hon. Member give us an example of where a citizens assembly has successfully happened? That would give some precedence and make it more than just a great idea.
Siân Berry
That is a good question. Certainly, the evidence from the citizens assembly that was commissioned by Parliament to look at climate change has been extensively used by the Climate Change Committee when thinking about what interventions in climate policy would work and be more successful. I would enjoy it if more councils put together citizens assemblies on things like traffic reduction policies, because often it is the loudest voices, who are already empowered to talk in public, who are listened to most on such issues.
The closest comparison is to a jury. People respond incredibly well, individually, to being part of a citizens assembly—to the idea that they can consider the issue in the way that they choose as a group and to the way that their recommendations are then listened to. It is empowering. The fact that the title of the Bill has empowerment in it has prompted me to want to talk about citizens assemblies.
Vikki Slade
I am really sympathetic to the idea of citizens assemblies. In fact, when I was at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, we looked at how we could create something that was representative of different types of community—a quasi-citizens assembly—including carers, young people and employers, to get more genuine breadth. Having looked at citizens assemblies, the cost per assembly can be hundreds of thousands of pounds. Within the hon. Member’s vision for the new clause, does she have any idea of what the costs might be? Those might need to be balanced.
Siân Berry
When I was a local councillor, we spent tens of thousands of pounds on a citizens assembly—again, that was to look at climate measures and issues around reducing traffic and air pollution. I believe it is good value.
Sean Woodcock
As a Cherwell district councillor I was very keen on promoting citizens assemblies for the purpose of discussing climate change, but that is not the only thing that people might want to gather to talk about. Is the assumption that the subject would be prescribed by the mayor, or would it be okay for a citizens assembly to get together to discuss the death penalty, immigration or whatever? Could the hon. Lady clarify that?
Siân Berry
The new clause specifies that an assembly would consider “relevant local matters” and that those are matters that would be agreed between the mayor and the assembly. Any sensible body would want to be considering issues that are soon to be the subject of decisions by the mayor—that would make perfect sense.
I will cite some polling to show that the public do not have much of a problem understanding this concept. When asked by YouGov in 2023, 55% of people said they would trust a citizens assembly to make policy recommendations in their “best interest”. That compares with 14% of people trusting MPs. In May 2024, YouGov asked the public if they would trust a citizens assembly “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to tell them the truth. Fifty-nine per cent said they would, compared with 17% of people who would trust MPs. Hon. Members can see that this is something that the public respond positively to.
Certainly a mayor who is governing a very large area and seeking to win consent for a policy would do well to have put in place a process of consideration by a citizens assembly. I hope that good mayors out there would use the process to engage citizens as part of wider consultation measures, to get comments on their proposals from people directly affected and a representative sample of the local public.
The proposal is supported by Compass, which I worked with in drafting it. In its “From Whitehall to Townhall: What the English Devolution Bill Needs” report published in August, Dr Jess Garland wrote:
“Across the country, councils have used citizens assemblies to understand local priorities on issues from climate to neighbourhood policing. These practices engage a randomly selected and representative group of residents in the decision-making process, learning about the challenges and trade-offs, and coming to decisions collectively. Such measures aim not to replace representative political structures but to support and add credibility to them, helping tackle difficult issues and improve understanding of local priorities, but they have a wider benefit, helping to build the trust and connection that underpins a thriving democracy.”
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to new clause 19 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I wholly respect the reasons why she tabled it. However, I intend to speak against it, because of the burdens that it would place on the mayor, as well as some of the additional costs that it would introduce, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole intimated.
I should declare at the very beginning that I am a firm believer in democracy. Just as my party does when it puts itself forward to run this country and I stand for election, everyone who wishes to be a mayor will put before their electorate a manifesto, and if those manifestos are worth the paper they are written on, they will state very clearly what that mayoral candidate intends to do during their term. Occasionally, the Labour party adds things that were not in its manifesto, or possibly drops things that were in it, but a prospective mayor’s manifesto should be very clear about what they want to do for their residents.
Therefore, residents who engage with the electoral process—granted, turnout needs to be higher—will know very clearly what the winner was promising, whether they disagree with them or not. I am accountable to my constituents. A mayor will be accountable to their constituents. What is the point of establishing another body that chooses to meet when it wants and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, might not even need to meet the mayor?
Siân Berry
I agree that a citizens assembly is not about accountability, but would the hon. Member care to comment on the issues that I raised about trust and consent for policies that are being put forward for implementation?
Paul Holmes
I will—that is called an election. That is my point. I understand that the hon. Lady comes at this from a genuine position—I hope she accepts that I do, too—but the accountability and trust element is a general election, or an election for the role of mayor, at which they will be held accountable for whether they have committed to and, more importantly, delivered what they said they would do. That is the key process, and key accountability structure, of the Bill.
Although new clause 19 is very well drafted, it would place a huge cost burden on the new authority, or the mayor, to establish a citizens assembly, not to mention the administrative burden of selecting 40 people from the area “by sortition or lottery”. Although I do not believe in prescriptive legislation, I think that the new clause would be open to interpretation in many different ways and would add huge costs to the operation of the authority or the mayor, at a time when it is generally accepted that the public finances are not in the way they should be. The mayor must not be overburdened in delivering their key priorities and strategic aims by the additional expenditure that would be required.
Vikki Slade
I think there is absolutely a role for citizens assemblies. What does the hon. Member think about asking the Minister to look at a role for citizens assemblies but without the prescription about 40 people? In an area of 1.2 million people, 40 would not be representative; we might want to make it much bigger or have it convene on an ad hoc basis. We might want to create something in the legislation, but possibly not what is proposed.
Paul Holmes
The suggestion fills me with horror—I am open in saying that it fills me with utter dread. The electoral process is the point. The hackles on my neck stand up when the words “citizens assembly” are mentioned because we have the electoral processes. Already, every day, people out there in our communities form groups and challenge the mayor. Every day in this job, we are lobbied by groups with well-intentioned policy aims.
Siân Berry
Has the hon. Member considered the occasional lack of involvement in those groups by a genuine cross-section of the community, and how a citizens assembly could directly address that problem?
Paul Holmes
I think that most campaigning groups are filled with people who are utterly enthralled and want to achieve the outcomes of that group. It is a bit of a generalisation to say that there is not a proper cross-section of the community in those groups, because those people are motivated by an interest and an issue that affects them and their lives every day.
The cost and the administrative burden really concern me. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion outlined that new clause 19 would not necessarily force the mayor to engage with the citizens assembly—I believe she said that it “suggests” they should do so—but the new clause clearly states:
“The mayor must…take into account any recommendation made by the assembly either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation; and…publish a response to any such recommendation within two months beginning on the day on which the mayor first receives the recommendation.”
That is a very different proposition.
Siân Berry
As I understand it, the drafting means that recommendations could be made by the assembly
“either at a convened meeting, or in regular consultation”.
Paul Holmes
Subsection (6) of the new clause’s proposed new sections clearly states the words I quoted, which include:
“The mayor must…take into account”.
Therefore, what the hon. Lady has said about what the new clause would establish is not necessarily correct. I believe that it would overburden the mayor in his day-to-day role.
I hope that those who read the Hansard report tomorrow will see clearly that I am very much not in favour of citizens assemblies. If a citizens assembly wants to get in touch with me, I will make that very clear. I am not against scrutiny or accountability and I am certainly not against constituents getting in touch with me to suggest how they can make their area better—that is why I am in politics. We all do that every day.
Every mayor, including the Mayor of London and hopefully the Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, when that role is established, is a politician who is accountable to their electorate. The new clause would overburden the role of the mayor at a time when finances are already tight. I oppose it, and I hope that my party spokesman will too.
David Simmonds
I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend—he has not been nearly vocal enough in expressing the level of his concern.
The faults in new clause 19 are multiple. It would compel mayors, in a Bill that is supposed to be about devolution. Having spent a part of my life engaged with deliberative democracy and citizens assemblies, I agree with my hon. Friend. While I am sure they were an uplifting experience for all concerned, they achieved absolutely nothing. They wasted a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. If we reflect on the previous Labour Government’s Local Agenda 21, all the money was spent on meetings to discuss what to do about climate change, and there was nothing available to implement any of it. On Building Schools for the Future, years were spent on consultations and project planning, with not one brick laid and not one school roof repaired as a consequence. We have seen lots of examples where these kinds of processes have led citizens up the garden path.
The point about trust and consent is an important one. I reflect on my own party’s experience in government during the pandemic of low-traffic neighbourhoods. A vocal minority argued for them, but did not remotely gain the trust and consent of the affected residents. That sparked a backlash, which has led to their removal, at great expense to the taxpayer, in order to enable people to go about their daily lives. Our experience with these processes is quite negative. If a mayor wishes to implement such a process, in particular on a specific policy area, they should be free to do so, but they should not be compelled. I suspect we and the Government will find common cause on that.
The hon. Member for Banbury made reference to talking shops. We do not like talking shops in the Conservative party. I am sure he will find one quite easily if he wishes to continue his proposed debate about capital punishment and the death penalty—I am sure there are many people who would like to discuss that. It is really important that mayors are focused on the things that they can do on behalf of their constituents. We should not set up authorities that are there to talk; they should be there to do things on behalf of their constituents.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 19. I have a lot of sympathy and support for the concept of citizens assemblies, so I have sympathy for the intention behind the new clause, but it is really important that mayors, as locally elected leaders in their region, should have the ability to decide how best to engage with their local communities.
Mayors can already convene citizens assemblies using functional and general powers of competence as a way of hearing from local people and ensuring that local voices play a role in decision making. I give the hon. Lady the example of the Mayor of the West Midlands, and the Mayor of South Yorkshire, who held a citizens assembly on climate—they are already happening across the country.
Once the Bill becomes law, all mayors will have the general power of competence that we have talked about, which will enable them to convene citizens assemblies should they wish to do so. However, as other hon. Members have said, placing a duty on all mayors to convene a citizens assembly, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or how costly it is, would take away the local choice of mayors to decide how best to engage with their residents. I therefore ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.
On new clause 42, I again completely recognise the spirit in which it has been tabled. It will be important for all mayors to engage with the wider public and with local authorities when delivering their functions. On that we are completely agreed. However, the Government cannot accept the new clause, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, it would impose a disproportionate and unworkable administrative burden on mayors of strategic authorities. By way of illustration, North Yorkshire alone comprises 729 individual parishes, which are organised into 412 town and parish councils. Expecting a mayor personally to discharge the proposed duty in respect of each body would, I fear, be impracticable and inevitably crowd out the time needed for the office’s other core strategic responsibilities: driving change and economic outcomes across the area.
Furthermore, many public service providers will be commissioned and contract-managed by local authorities. Superimposing a parallel mayoral duty would blur lines of accountability, cut across established commissioning arrangements, and risk duplication, confusion and delay. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will not press the new clause, however well-intentioned it may be.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Duty of mayors to collaborate
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 296, in clause 22, page 25, line 29, at end insert—
“(7A) The guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 7 may not include a role for trade unions.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from creating a role of trade unions in the execution of mayors’ duty to collaborate.
I shall speak briefly about the motivation for tabling the amendment. A concern that has run through the Opposition’s responses to a number of the Government’s measures, especially in the space of economic development, is that the Government have chosen not to enshrine the roles of businesses, entrepreneurs or local employers, but always to give a statutory privilege to trade unions to be part of discussions. Although it is wise for any local leader to include the broadest possible range of stakeholders, singling out one, which serves the interests of only one group—sometimes at the expense of others—is simply not a process that any democracy should envisage. We tabled the amendment to ensure that that is not the case in the Bill, and we will press it to a vote. We are clear that, following a change of Government, this is one provision that we would seek to repeal very rapidly.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are two issues with the amendment. First, we believe that it could create an inconsistency between the powers of mayoral combined authorities and their equivalents elsewhere in England, because it would change only the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
More fundamentally, we have already talked about the duty to bring local partners around the table. Underneath that is a presumption and expectation that all relevant parties, including parties in the private sector, that are fundamental to the mayor driving outcomes on behalf of his voters and residents come together to deliver things. There is a vital role for trade unions both in being a clear voice for workers in an area and in being a fundamental part of that economic partnership to drive outcomes.
David Simmonds
May I ask the Minister to clarify something? Some 70% of workers in this country are in an enterprise with fewer than five employees in total. Where is their voice at the table? Why is it only the unions representing large-scale organised labour that are compelled in legislation to be at the table when the mayor makes decisions?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Business organisations, whether small businesses, the Confederation of British Industry or chambers of commerce, will inevitably be around the table when a mayor worth their salt is making economic decisions and driving forward strategic partnerships.
The Government believe that as part of that partnership between workers, businesses and civic leaders, it is right that trade unions are firmly around the table. They give voice and expression not only to their individual members but to key concerns for workers across the piece. We do not resile from that; we think it is critical.
Paul Holmes
Correct me if I am wrong—it may be very rare, but sometimes I am—but earlier, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire asked the Minister for assurance regarding the ability of a mayor to engage with businesses to further economic regeneration across the country. Why has the Minister decided to legislate for mayors to consult with trade unions, but not—to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—with private business, which represents vastly more economic output and employers than the trade unions do? Why is she doing that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear that the duty to collaborate will include a wide range of partners. We are going through a process of engaging with and consulting mayors to make sure that in secondary legislation we fully reflect the sorts of partner they want around the table. We believe that trade unions should have a place at the table. We are taking a set of actions to empower trade unions, because we think it is the right thing to do for our economy, so it is important that we include them within the duty to collaborate.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has said previously, “We want to empower local communities,” “We want mayors to have freedom,” and, “We want mayors to have choice,” but in this case she is prescribing which organisations should be around the table. How do those two opinions meet? In some cases, she is saying she wants mayors to have the freedom and the choice to drive local communities, but in this case, she is prescribing organisations that should be at the table.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will specify in secondary legislation the range of local partners, based on feedback from mayors. Again, this is not compulsion; we think it is really important that civic organisations, local leaders and the mayoral strategic authority engage with organised labour. That is part of the economic model that we think is right, because it means we have the voice of organised labour around the table, driving outcomes on behalf of workers. I know the Conservative party struggles with that, because the idea of empowering workers is a bit of a strain for them, but Labour is very clear. We are building a model that ensures we have the voice and representation of labour alongside businesses and our civic leaders, driving change in the economy for working people.
David Simmonds
I spent many years chairing employers’ organisations, negotiating with trade unions about all kinds of matters. I have a very high degree of respect for them in the space in which they have expertise, but I do not really understand the Government’s rationale for arguing for a model in which one specific group—perhaps coincidentally, a very large-scale Labour funding group—is given a privileged place at the table when decisions are made about political matters for which the mayor is elected. That place at the table is not protected in statute for anybody else affected by it. That seems to me to border on abuse of the political process. It is very serious to be putting trade unions in a position to make decisions on matters that are not remotely within their area of competence and for which they have no mandate whatever. It is simply unacceptable.
Paul Holmes
I want to make some brief remarks agreeing with my hon. Friend. I have negotiated with trade unions and I have a huge amount of respect for them. When I was cabinet member for children’s services and learning at Southampton city council, a hugely unionised organisation, I was responsible for negotiating some of the pay contracts for our really important staff. I had a very productive relationship with my trade union representatives and held them in great respect, as my hon. Friend did his when he was deputy leader at a local authority.
We are not anti-trade union, but we do not believe that there should be political favouritism for organised labour, where private business is essentially left out. Why does the Minister believe that organised labour, who, I must say, have intrinsic links with the Labour party movement, should have that prestigious and privileged seat at the table with the elected mayor? The Minister has resisted legislating for a mayor to have a duty to ensure that private business is included around that table; she is leaving that to the direction and the whim of the mayor elected at the time. Why can she not take that same attitude towards organised labour and the union movement?
Finally, I would say that this is very closely bordering on abuse of the political system. We on this side of the House firmly believe that. [Interruption.] Government Members can chunter as much as they want, but I ask them again: when they go around their constituencies and speak to private businesses that have been drastically affected by the decisions of this Government, will they say to those businesses, “It is absolutely fine that, when you get a mayor, you will not be legislatively consulted, but the unionised, organised labour workforce will be guaranteed a prestigious seat at that table”? That is a clear blurring of the lines on what a mayor should be doing. That is why we in the Opposition are opposed to that legislative proposition. As I have said clearly, Conservatives—including any Conservative Government and my hon. Friends and I here today—are not anti-trade union, but the measure gives legislative access on a dangerous scale, and that is why we will be opposing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is welcome to intervene if she wants to.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I do not want to drag out this debate any further, but I think the hon. Gentleman is over-egging this. This is a duty to collaborate; it is not about decision making. Any mayor worth their salt will collaborate with key businesses in their local area if they want to drive economic outcomes. We have also been clear that we will put in place regulations outlining the set of partners, including local partners.
I hope the Opposition understand that it is not always second nature for mayors to decide that they want to collaborate with trade unions. [Interruption.] Well, our view is that they should, because we think it is important that workers are part of that collaboration and work as part of that partnership.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is absolutely correct when she says that a mayor should, if they are worth their salt, discuss and collaborate with business. I entirely agree with her on that, but she has not ensured that that is enshrined in legislation. What she has enshrined in legislation is that organised labour and the trade unions should be around that table. If she really believed in equal access for everybody who contributes to economic output in our regions, she would include private business on the face of the Bill.
As I say, this is a dangerous precedent to set; it is favouritism. It is privileged access to the mayor for organised labour, and I think that is a bad thing. If the Minister wanted to give organised labour parity with private business, which delivers economic growth across this country, she would have our support, but she certainly does not have our support for the privileged position that she is putting our trade union movement in.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear that if a mayor is serious about driving economic outcomes in a way that works for their community, they must collaborate with a set of partners. That 100% includes private business, and will include anchor organisations, but it should also include trade unions. The duty to collaborate will be broadly set. We will lay out the set of partners in regulation, but that will be dictated by the feedback that we get from mayors. I therefore ask that amendment 296 be withdrawn.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 297, in clause 22, page 26, line 22, at end insert—
“(3A) If a collaboration request is denied by mayor B, the request may not be appealed or reissued for the same purposes.”
This amendment would prevent a collaboration request which has been denied by mayor B from being appealed or reissued.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 298, in clause 22, page 29, line 27, at end insert—
“(3A) If a collaboration request is denied by mayor B, the request may not be appealed or reissued for the same purposes.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 297.
Clause stand part.
David Simmonds
The purpose of amendments 297 and 298 is to forestall the possibility—with reference to the Minister’s earlier comments—that, when in response to a request to collaborate or engage with an issue an organisation legitimately says it is not prepared to do so, that is followed by multiple repeated requests, which would create a situation in which there was a foreseeable conflict that should be avoided. That is the purpose of the amendments, which sit together. We will see what the Minister has to say about how that particular risk will be managed.
Siân Berry
I am speaking to clause stand part. Broadly, I very much support the duty. I do not agree with the amendment moved by the Conservatives. I cannot see how that would be logical or work when a mayor or council might well change. Similarly, in the sense that I would like it clarified today, I raise the issue of why the clause only seems to allow for collaboration between pairs of mayors. The various proposed new sections for the different Acts in this clause—often in the proposed new subsection (4)—seem to mandate that the two areas must be adjoining. A mayor may therefore only make a request to a neighbour, and I do not think that they may request to collaborate with a number of neighbours. However, a key transport connection in the strategic rail or road networks could lie in the next mayoral area beyond. A mayor might want to approach the other mayor about the possibility of collaborating on approaching Great British Railways about some financing ideas, for example. Likewise, a key hospital or employer might be in a nearby mayoral area that is not adjoining—a collaborative project at a strategic mayoral level might still be appropriate.
For a mayor in the middle, potentially a chain of collaborations could be set up, but were it a transport link, if the mayor in the middle was not that bothered or was focused on other things, such as digital tech rather than transport links, they might be able to stand in the way. I want to check whether the clause needs some amendment to allow for more flexibility in how mayors collaborate, and with which other mayors.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I note that amendments 297 and 298 relate only to the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities, not to the Mayor of London. That inconsistency runs contrary to the Bill’s goal of standardising and simplifying arrangements across England. More broadly, the clause already gives mayors discretion to decline a request to collaborate. The provision is intentionally flexible—it would not be appropriate or practical to prescribe those interactions in statute in advance. Any issues around repeated or unreasonable requests can be addressed through statutory guidance, to which mayors must have regard. That guidance will set clear expectations for constructive engagement without imposing unnecessary legal rigidity. Mayors should retain the freedom to initiate or decline collaboration requests as they see fit, provided they act reasonably and in accordance with any guidance.
David Simmonds
Following discussion with colleagues, we remain concerned about this, but we made the point in earlier debates and there has already been a vote on a similar issue. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Regulation of provision of micromobility vehicles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause gives the Secretary of State the ability to empower local authorities to license on-street micromobility services, such as dockless cycle schemes, operating in their areas. The market for those services is currently unregulated. Operators do not have to get permission for services, and local leaders are limited in their ability to address antisocial behaviour and poor parking. We have all seen the issues created by rental e-bikes obstructing pavements. It is apparent in my constituency, and I know that other hon. Members will have it in theirs. The Government remain committed to keeping streets safe, and the clause will tackle this directly.
Local leaders have been vocal about their need for more powers to ensure that schemes work for their communities. We want more shared cycle schemes across the country, and ensuring that local leaders have the powers to manage them properly will be key to delivering sustainable, long-term growth of these services. The industry is also keen to see regulation, but the patchwork system is creating burdens on business and holding back growth and investment in the sector.
Lewis Cocking
This is one of the good clauses in the Bill, but I would like the Minister to clarify this. A number of authorities want this power now to combat the issues she just spoke about, so where strategic authorities do not exist, is there any way for even county authorities to get those powers, if the Bill receives Royal Assent?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause gives the ability to empower local authorities.
Lewis Cocking
In that sense, if an authority wants one now but is not on the devolution priority programme and does not have a strategic authority coming, will it be able to get those powers upon Royal Assent?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes. Where a local transport authority exists, the power will essentially be conferred on it.
We will discuss the detail of the regulatory framework when we come to schedule 5. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Providers of micromobility vehicles
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 372, in schedule 5, page 124, leave out lines 1 to 14.
This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations which create exemptions from the prohibition on the provision of micromobility vehicles without a licence.
We welcome the clarification that micromobility vehicles will be licensed, but I am slightly concerned—I hope the Minister will provide some clarity—that the broad nature of the provision may inadvertently catch hundreds of leisure-hire businesses in tourist areas such as the Camel trail in Cornwall, the New Forest and parts of the Purbeck, where visitors can hire bikes from a public place. Those businesses do not need to be licensed, and licensing them would create a huge burden on the council and on those small businesses. They may be covered under the exceptions in proposed new section 22G, but if that is the case, it does not feel defined precisely enough—it talks about a person having made
“arrangements between the licensing authority and that person”.
I would like some clarity that the new section will not inadvertently capture businesses that are not share schemes whereby people pay by the minute or by the hour, which I think is the intention of the legislation.
We have Beryl bikes in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and in parts of Dorset. Such schemes are excellent and licensing them is a great idea. We want more measures to be put in place to protect pedestrians and road users, particularly from scooters. We have seen so many cases of unregulated and unlicensed scooters travelling at as much as 30 or 40 mph on pavements. Any additional measures to prevent that will be useful.
We also see a lot of e-scooters and e-bikes being used in crime. In Dorset, innovative work is happening, with smart water being used to spray offenders as they go, thereby allowing them to come back later and not risk either the offender or the police in a dangerous chase. Whatever we can do to make the legislation tighter for organisations would be a good thing.
I am sure I am not alone in regretting the fact that we still do not have clarification of the law on the private use of e-scooters and other micromobility vehicles. I am concerned that if local and strategic authorities are going to get more powers to license vehicles that are used through hire organisations, it will be a real missed opportunity if the Department for Transport were not encouraged to bring forward a decision on private use at the same time. So many local authorities get calls from the public about problems only part of which local authorities can deal with. Councillors’ and MPs’ inboxes are filled with people asking, “Why can’t you act on x?” We reply, “Well, we cannot act on that bit, but we can on that bit.” Alignment in respect of the use of micromobility for public or private use would be really helpful.
My particular concern, and the reason for the amendment, is that schedule 5 caveats important powers granted to strategic and local authorities by allowing the Secretary of State to override them with new regulations at any point of their choosing. That would appear to have a direct effect on the number and types of locations, as well as the purpose for their use. A situation last year demonstrates the point. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council wanted to extend its successful partnership. We had no e-bikes in Christchurch, where the population was oldest and most in need of e-bikes, and we wanted to increase the physical number of scooters from 500 to 1,000, because the scheme was so successful. But the council was forced to come to the Secretary of State to get permission for changes that everybody locally wanted and that the provider could deliver, and we missed a window in the season when we would have got really strong use.
The amendment would delete lines 1 to 14 on page 124 of the Bill, so that the power truly remains at the local authority level, rather the powers just granted being undevolved by allowing the Secretary of State to override them. I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment. I have a lot of sympathy for the principle behind it. The framework that we have set out is necessarily broad in scope to capture all types of micromobility schemes, including those that may emerge in the future. We have made it clear, however, that the exception power ensures proportionality in licensing to avoid unnecessary burdens on, and the criminalisation of, businesses such as those to which she referred that operate small, low-impact schemes. We have specified the type of exemptions that we expect we might make in order to keep the scope of the power contained—for example, community schemes with a handful of cycles, or cycle hire on privately owned but publicly accessible land. While I accept the sentiment behind her proposals, I do not believe that the amendment is needed. I therefore ask that it be withdrawn.
Vikki Slade
That deals with my first concern, but the second one was about subsections (2) and (3) in proposed new section 22G on the first 14 lines of page 124. However, I apologise and withdraw my comments—the clause applies specifically to the exemptions and not to the ruling. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 300, in schedule 5, page 128, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the license holder to maintain sufficient docking space for the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license.
(4) The regulations must include requirements for license holders which would require them to ensure that the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license do not obstruct any highway, cycling path, footpath, bridlepath, or subway.
(5) The regulations must stipulate that failure of license holders to comply with subsections (3) and (4) will warrant a loss of license.”
This amendment would require that regulations ensure that license holders for micromobility vehicles are responsible for maintaining sufficient docking space for their vehicle and ensuring their vehicle does not obstruct any highways or public paths, or else lose their license.
From the interactions so far on the subject, I feel as if there is a high degree of consensus on this point. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any regulations under the Bill will answer some of the questions that many of our constituents have been asking about such micromobility schemes. A number of Members present have a particular interest in this topic and a series of pilot schemes across the country on the hire and use of micromobility were broadly modelled on some of the previous schemes that were introduced to improve access to bicycles. They have met with mixed reviews.
The key thing that comes up repeatedly is the number of micromobility vehicles that are left to cause obstruction to people who have disabilities, parents who have pushchairs, people who have vision difficulties or are partially sighted, and those who are undertaking duties such as repairs, maintenance and cleaning. They all can find such vehicles a significant problem if not properly managed. The purpose of the amendment—I particularly draw attention to proposed new subsection (5)—is to be clear that if the provider of the scheme fails to manage its vehicles properly, the licence may be removed. I am open to what the Minister has to say about how such a provision could be enshrined.
Paul Holmes
Does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that part of our problem in many of our city centre locations, as he rightly outlined, is the impact of the vehicles being discarded across the pavements? The operators do not necessarily have the wherewithal or enforcement ability to take responsibility. Does he agree that the amendment absolutely places that responsibility on them, so that there is no doubt about their duties with regard to the public?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to spotlight what is at the heart of the matter. The learning from the pilot schemes is that they are widely engaged with and used, and I know Members of this House who use micromobility hire as part of their commuting near the Palace of Westminster. Such schemes potentially form a responsible and useful part of our transport system, but we need to ensure that the issues that persist in undermining them are addressed. I will listen closely to what the Minister has to say about how the Government propose to deal with the issues.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 16th October 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 October 2025 - (16 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is great that there is broad support across the House for this schedule. We have introduced this framework to tackle obstructive parking, so although I appreciate the sentiment behind the shadow Minister’s amendment, I do not believe it is needed.
In common with other traffic management measures, traffic authorities know their roads best and are best placed to consider what level of provision is appropriate and in what locations. The schedule already gives the Secretary of State the power to set what conditions must be in every licence issued and what additional conditions licensing authorities can set, as well as powers to fine operators or suspend or revoke licences where the licence holder does not comply with those conditions. We will publish guidance on best practice for deciding on parking provision and enforcement, but since we think that there are enough safeguards in our proposals, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I wanted to make a speculative point about schedule 5, although I have not tabled an amendment.
The Chair
If your point is specifically on schedule 5, you can make it when we debate the schedule. We are currently debating amendment 300 proposed to schedule 5.
Siân Berry
It is specifically on schedule 5, so I will bob during that debate, Chair.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise in support of amendment 300, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. It is important that we bring in more powers to tackle this issue. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, about six years ago, we were asked whether we wanted to be a trial area for e-scooters—we said no, thank goodness. My constituency is right next door to London, and we have had a number of issues with people parking on the outskirts of London and taking the vehicles out of where they are licensed. Walking around London—not just the Palace of Westminster, but the wider community—we see large problems with hundreds of scooters all in the same place, which I suspect are very popular locations for pick-up and drop-off.
We need more powers for local authorities to tackle the issue. I mentioned earlier that many of councils will want this power now, rather than having to wait for mayoral combined authorities to be set up. Amendment 300 would be important in holding these companies to account. They are getting away with far too much at the moment and it is putting people off walking, especially if someone is pushing a buggy or is disabled. There are lots of issues. I am sure there will be cross-party support, as we have all seen this problem when out and about. We really need to regulate this. I am not always in favour of more regulation, but the companies could have done much more without legislation and have failed to, so it is time for stricter regulation. The amendment would be important in solving some of these issues.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 5 sets out the details on giving the Secretary of State the ability to empower local authorities to license on-street micromobility services, such as dockless cycle schemes, operating in their areas. We have had a good, broad debate on this, and I think there is support across the Committee for the view that this area must be tackled.
All licensing regimes will contain mandatory conditions and additional local conditions, which will bring the consistency that all parties seek, while ensuring flexibility to meet the needs and priorities of different areas. The framework allows for new micromobility modes, such as pavement robots and e-scooters, to be incorporated in future, to ensure that our local leaders will always be able to manage their streets effectively.
The schedule sets out clear, consistent processes and powers for local authorities to feel confident that these services are operating safely and effectively in their areas, and are well integrated into the transport networks of the future. I commend schedule 5 to the Committee.
Siân Berry
As I indicated, I would like to make a rather speculative suggestion in relation to schedule 5, which is to ask whether Ministers have considered, or might consider, extending these kinds of provisions on the licensing of micromobility to also cover managed delivery services, many of which currently use micromobility-type vehicles, or vans. Those tend to cause similar problems, which could be solved in similar ways, and that would add up to helping to achieve the same goals as this schedule.
Essentially, Ministers could add delivery vehicles and managed delivery services to be licensed in the same way as micromobility vehicles. As with this schedule, the details of how that was done would come in guidance afterwards, so Ministers could choose between something relatively light-touch or something a bit more useful.
Reasons to consider this suggestion include traffic generation and the ability to speak regularly to, or regulate, the companies involved to allow for more consolidation, so that journeys are carried out more efficiently. Powers to regulate and license food delivery by bike might be very useful in relation to issues of safety and workers’ rights. We know that freelance delivery riders report huge time pressures and poor working conditions, and people who have problems with how some of the micromobility hire services are used by users also often report the same kinds of issues with delivery riders. Although I do not want to create a huge amount of bureaucracy, I think the issues are similar, and Ministers might look either now or in the future at widening the scope of these kinds of powers for the authorities that we are considering today.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as usual, Ms Vaz. I want to make a quick remark, notwithstanding the fact that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, may want to speak to this. Briefly, I welcome that the Minister’s and the Government’s recommendations, contained in schedule 5. The Minister does not know those of us on the Opposition Benches too well at the moment—she will do by the end of this Bill Committee—but, if she can get my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to agree to extra regulation, that is absolutely good enough for me. He is well known as somebody with strongly held views about the role of the state in local government from when he ran his excellent local authority and administration. The Minister has managed to achieve something that I, as his Whip, have never managed to achieve.
I welcome this sensible piece of regulation. One of the things I welcome in the Bill is the assurance the Minister has given, and which is set out within the House of Commons Library paper, that it would grant strategic authorities and county or unitary authorities where a strategic authority does not exist. That is a sign that the Government are listening to the wants of local authorities—as the previous Government did when they licensed pedicabs, for example, with my former colleague Nickie Aiken getting that Bill through. I wanted to place on the record that I believe this is a welcome piece of regulation—but the Minister should not get too carried away and start making regulations everywhere willy-nilly.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I have nothing to add, apart from the fact that this is a good addition; but the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned pedicabs, and I cannot let that go by without asking the Minister to look again at that issue, because they are absolutely blighting the part of London where we work, making tourists’ lives utterly miserable, and contravening virtually every traffic law I have seen, with little enforcement. If there is any opportunity to go further on pedicabs, bring it on.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. It seems to the Opposition that this schedule is weaker than it would have been had the amendments been accepted. I know that when we have debated other areas of local government legislation, the issue that comes up time and again is the frustration that our constituents feel when they are unable to get what sounds like a perfectly robust regulation enforced in practice—whether that is fly-tipping, antisocial parking or the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion around delivery drivers, scooters and so on, which I know exercises many of my constituents.
We remain concerned that this is a missed opportunity to give local authorities the most robust tools that would put beyond doubt what the test that had to be met was, and create the appropriate legal path for effective and rigorous enforcement locally. None the less, the schedule broadly represents a step forward. Therefore we will not oppose it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and the support for the schedule. In response to the questions raised about additional types of vehicles on the road that are of a similar nature, obviously the scope of the schedule is on micromobility, but the points have been made well—they are also being made by local authorities and our communities. We are considering how we can respond so that mobility vehicles—of sorts—on our streets are not blighting our communities, and we will take that away.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 24
Arrangements to carry out works on highways
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to provide oversight of the construction and maintenance of the highways in their area. That is particularly likely to be the case when required works cross local authority boundaries. As such, the clause provides that all existing and future strategic authorities can, when asked to do so by the Secretary of State, carry out work on trunk roads on behalf of National Highways. The second measure in the clause allows strategic authorities to enter agreements with local authorities and National Highways regarding highway planning and maintenance.
The strategic authority is uniquely placed in that it has a transport planning role encompassing the whole authority area. This provision capitalises on that and would, for example, enable strategic authorities to enter agreements on the maintenance of cross-boundary roads. Both those powers would only be allowed with the consent of the relevant constituent authority. Together, those two measures will enable strategic authorities to oversee a co-ordinated approach to improvements to local roads, leading to less disruption and better outcomes for motorists.
David Simmonds
We understand the logic of this. Could the Minister set out for the Committee where the liability will sit for issues arising from the maintenance, standards or provision of those roads under the clause?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
In the end, this will only come into place where the constituent authorities support it. When it is the Secretary of State making the request, it would be with the Secretary of State; when it is constituent authorities coming together to do maintenance or works that they would do anyway, it would be shared among them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 25
Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 246, in schedule 7, page 138, line 22, insert—
“3 (1) After Paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, insert—
‘Exercise of functions relating to civil enforcement
11 Any functions related to civil enforcement described by this schedule must be exercised directly by—
(a) the elected mayor for the area of an authority, or
(b) a member of an authority who is an elected member of a constituent council.’”
This amendment ensures civil enforcement powers, when exercised by CAs and CCAs, must be under the direction of elected officials.
Amendment 348, in schedule 7, page 138, line 22, at end insert—
“3 (1) Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (4) insert—
4A ‘(1) There is a parking contravention in England if a person causes an obstruction which, without lawful authority or excuse, causes or permits a motor vehicle to stand on a pavement in such a manner as to wilfully obstruct free passage along the pavement.
(2) A parking contravention under subparagraph (1) is a civil offence which may be enforced by the local authority in which the contravention has occurred.
(3) The relevant local authority under subparagraph (2) may issue penalty charges for a civil offence under subsection (2).
(4) The amount for a penalty charge under subparagraph (3) shall be determined by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subparagraph (4) may specify different penalty charge amounts based on—
(a) the obstructing vehicle class,
(b) the area of the local authority in which the obstruction has occurred, or
(c) any other relevant circumstantial consideration.
(6) In this paragraph—
(a) “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and
(b) “pavement” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.
4B (1) Penalty charge amounts for parking contraventions under this Part may be set by the relevant local authority.
(2) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must align with provisions under section 77 of this Act.
(3) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must have regard to any regulations made under section 87 of this Act.
(4) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must be published by the local authority and may be revised from time to time.’”
This amendment would allow local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking within their areas as a civil offence and devolves the power to set parking penalty charge amounts for all parking penalty charge offences to local authorities.
Amendment 291, in schedule 7, page 138, line 23, at end insert—
“3 (1) Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) After subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) A qualifying CCA or combined authority may not make an order under subsection (1).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section “qualifying CCA or combined authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement areas and enforcement authorities outside Greater London: bus lane contraventions).’
4 (1) Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) After subsection (9) insert—
‘(9A) A qualifying CCA or combined authority shall not undertake any activity provided for under this section.’
(3) In subsection (10), after ‘Greater London Authority Act 1999’ insert—
‘“qualifying CCA or combined authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement areas and enforcement authorities outside Greater London: bus lane contraventions)’”.
This amendment would prevent mayors of CCA from increasing charges for vehicle parking, and from using proceeds of those charges.
Schedule 7 stand part.
Amendment 368, in schedule 9, page 152, line 17, at end insert—
“16 In section 178 (Preliminary)—
(a) In subsection (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) In subsection (4) leave out ‘workplace’;
(c) In subsection (5)(c), at end insert ‘by a combined authority or combined county authority’.
17 In section 182 (Workplace parking places)—
(a) In the heading, leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) In subsection (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(c) In subsection (5) leave out ‘workplace’.
18 In section 190 (Rights of entry—
(a) in sub-section (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) in paragraph (1)(a) leave out ‘workplace’.
19 In section 198(1) (Interpretation of Part III) after ‘“local transport policies” has the meaning given in section 108(5),’ insert “and include the policies of an applicable local transport plan as defined in section 113.”
This amendment would extend the power to create parking levies to all strategic authorities. Where a strategic authority had become local transport authority and responsible for the local transport plan, it would deem that plan as forming the policies of any constituent authorities.
New clause 47—Road traffic contraventions: requests by Mayors—
“(1) The Mayor of a strategic authority may submit a request to the Secretary of State to make regulations providing that a specified traffic contravention relating to high occupancy vehicle lanes is subject to civil enforcement under Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004.
(2) On receipt of such a request, the Secretary of State may by regulations amend the tables in paragraph 8A(5) of Schedule 7 to that Act to give effect to the request.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause allows combined authorities and combined county authorities to take on the responsibility for civil enforcement of contraventions of bus lanes and other moving traffic restrictions including banned turns, no entry and box junctions. Currently, English local authorities may apply to the Department for Transport for an order designating powers to take civil enforcement action against such traffic contraventions. The clause does not change the current arrangements, whereby constituent local authorities wanting civil enforcement powers must apply for a designation order. Instead, it enables joined-up enforcement across a combined authority or combined county authority area, conditional on each constituent authority giving its prior written consent. That means that motorists crossing over boundaries, including within large cities, who are otherwise likely to encounter different types of enforcement, will benefit from a joined-up and consistent approach across the region.
David Simmonds
We have tabled amendment 291 to schedule 7. I know that this is an issue of great contention; the major concern is, as we have seen to a degree in London, mayors choosing to use their powers to levy fines, largely as a way of generating income. That sits somewhat ill with the regulations for parking, which are treated separately and are a local authority matter, where the proceeds from fines and enforcement activity is part of a ringfenced parking revenue account that may only be used for purposes connected to parking and the maintenance of the highways and the roads. There is therefore already a measure, regarding local authorities, that ensures that those who are paying the fines, fees and charges can see that the contribution that they are making through those is used to improve the safety and quality of the environment in which they drive, walk or cycle.
We remain concerned about the implications of this measure; some of those mayors and combined authorities may see this as a very handy revenue raiser, and start to ramp up enforcement in a way that is unhelpful. As we have seen in the case of Greater London, policies that might work well in highly congested central London are simply totally inappropriate on the fringes, and a replication of that scenario could be seen across other parts of the country—a one-size-fits-all approach that we would wish to see avoided.
That is the motivation behind amendment 291, but I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how the Government will ensure that this is not simply a measure to use motorists as a cash cow.
Vikki Slade
Before I speak to amendments 246 and 348, I just want to reflect on the Minister’s comment about the ability of local authorities to enforce things such as yellow boxes, and the requirement to still obtain that consent from the Secretary of State. At Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, we were granted the rights to do that, but the council was incredibly limited in the specific locations in which it was able to apply for that right. There were a number of places that felt their yellow box junctions were ignored.
In my own ward of Broadstone, one such yellow box at the entrance to a parking area regularly caused extensive delays. For local people, if we could change one thing for them, it would be, “Get that damn yellow box enforced!” However, it was not seen as strategic enough for the local authority to apply for the permissions. Enforcement is therefore reliant on police officers, who are not going to stand there and patrol those sorts of things. I would therefore be interested to hear whether the Minister would be willing to devolve that power more truly, rather than retaining it at the centre.
Amendment 246 is a simple one that seeks to retain the decision making of those new civil enforcement powers to the elected persons, whether that be the elected mayor or an elected member of the authority. Elsewhere in the Bill, there are elements that are not allowed to be devolved to a commissioner. The amendment is about ensuring that these decisions are not devolved to a commissioner but are made by the elected person, as they will have that direct impact.
Amendment 348, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have also put our names to, seeks not to change the law on pavement parking— as we have discussed in the Chamber on a number of occasions—but to harmonise the rules so that the existing law on obstruction of the pavement, which requires the police to enforce, can also be enforced by civil authorities.
We regularly have situations in which civil enforcement officers—traffic wardens to you and I, Ms Vaz—have to walk past a car or van, often a delivery van, parked on a pavement, blocking guide dogs and people with mobility scooters from getting past. There is nothing they can do. I know that colleagues in this room will constantly be emailed by people asking, “What are you going to do about it?” All we can do is say, “Call the police.” We may be getting more police officers, but I personally do not want to see my police officers having to spend their time ticketing.
Manuela Perteghella
My constituents are also quite confused about which public service to call. We have to explain, “If it is about parking restrictions, you have to call the county council; if it is about dangerous parking, you have to call the police.” But how do you define “dangerous parking”? Sometimes the police will then point people back to the council. We would really appreciate clarification—or harmonisation, actually—of civil enforcement on highways matters.
Vikki Slade
This is very much about clarification. We know that a decision will be made, apparently very soon. I believe “very soon” was used in a Westminster Hall debate only a couple of weeks ago—I am new at this, but I think that that might mean sometime in this Session, perhaps—and we will get the outcome of the consultation on general pavement parking. Our amendment 348 is about obstruction, which is an existing offence.
Paul Holmes
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, the Lib Dem spokeswoman, for her excellent speech. Will she acknowledge that—as much as she gets emails, every colleague across the country gets such emails—this is about making it easier for the end user, our constituents, to report stuff? Does she agree that Guide Dogs, which has been running an excellent campaign on behalf of the blind for many years, would be pleased to see the Minister accept amendment 348?
Vikki Slade
I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Guide Dogs. I have Guide Dogs written down on my notes, as well as the RNIB, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, of which I am a champion. They have been campaigning for the full change, but amendment 348 would certainly be a step along the way. I also understand that it would implement the Transport Committee’s 2019 report recommendations. A lot of work has already been done on the issue.
The second element of amendment 348 contradicts something that the shadow Minister talked about in connection with Conservative amendment 291, which relates to parking fines. As a councillor and former leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, I was delighted that over the summer a Minister gave permission for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole to have a trial of extended fines. That is not about councils trying to make money, but about councils trying to balance the books and local taxpayers not carrying the burden.
Let me give the Committee an example. A parking fine for someone who parks in the middle of a roundabout, on a grass verge or somewhere else dangerous—I am talking not about not paying in a car park, but about a dangerous piece of parking—is £70, reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days. For someone who has travelled down to Bournemouth for a day at the beach, parking will cost between £25 and £30. It will cost a similar amount to park in Brighton, Bath or Oxford—in most of our thriving places.
Someone might as well pay £35 between four adults in a large vehicle that can bump its way up the kerb and park right next to the beach, where it is really convenient. The vehicle will need to be ticketed and, at some later stage, probably towed away if it is causing a danger to ambulances or bus routes. Even if it is towed away, the fine that can be levied is £150, and yet for the council to have that vehicle towed away can cost up to £800. The difference is paid by the local council taxpayer. In a typical summer in somewhere such as Bournemouth, something like 1,500 tickets are given out. Members can imagine how much of a shortfall there is.
Amendment 348 seeks to give the ability that already exists in London to other places, so that they can apply a different parking fine where deemed appropriate, potentially in limited circumstances. The system is not working at the moment. So many people think that it is perfectly okay to turn up to places and do that, although I do not think it happens quite so much in Cornwall. When I visited there, people behaved incredibly well, but people who visit places like Bournemouth behave incredibly badly, and to have that freedom would be useful.
David Simmonds
I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady has said. In my constituency, people come from as far afield as Sheffield for a day out at the Ruislip lido, the only beach in Greater London. It is a huge cause of trouble for local residents, and I am glad that we have a local authority that is using its existing powers and is implementing measures such as towaway zones and higher parking fines to begin to address that. She probably feels, as I do, that we do not see mayors who do not know the local area, but the specific purpose of our amendment 291 is to ensure that this is not an opportunity to raise funds for them at the expense of the ability of the local authority to use its powers in a specific area to deal with the traffic management issues for which it is responsible.
Vikki Slade
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for clarifying the purpose of his amendment 291, and I will be happy to withdraw my comment that it contradicts amendment 348, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. The hon. Member is exactly right; the purpose of these parking fines is to ensure safe parking, and it is unreasonable that there should be shortfalls for the local council tax payer. Even if there was a surplus, that money should be rolled back into the experience and hopefully into encouraging people to use different forms of travel, such as park and ride, cycling, buses, and so on, all of which would seem to make the roads safer.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on what has been done, what could be done and how we might use these amendments to further those aims.
Siân Berry
I want to speak in support of my amendment 368, to schedule 9. It belongs in this debate because it would broaden the issues in schedule 9 beyond simply workplaces. I have been working on the amendment and on these proposals with Transport Action Network—I should declare that I used to work for a predecessor to that excellent campaign. There is a technical part to the amendment and a more forward-looking part, so I will talk about it in three parts.
First, we need to ensure clarity in the Bill about what counts as a local transport plan, in terms of the power to levy what are currently called workplace parking levies, but actually parking levies more generally. Section 179 of the Transport Act 2000 says that a local licensing scheme, which is what a workplace parking levy scheme is,
“may only be made if it appears desirable for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of local transport policies of the licensing authority.”
I believe that the Bill, however, moves the responsibility for setting such policies through a local transport plan from the local traffic authority to the combined strategic authority, and that other provisions requiring due regard to a strategic authority’s local transport plan do not fix this, as the condition in section 179 of the Transport Act 2000 relates to the authority’s own policies, not other policies it needs to pay regard to. Without an amendment, the Bill could inadvertently scupper proposals that are under development for new workplace parking levies or at least create new legal risks for them.
Many people will know that Nottingham has had a workplace parking levy since 2012, which has helped it to invest £1 billion in transport—not all of it came from the levy, but a lot did—which has made public transport relatively more attractive than driving to work. There has been a virtuous circle of improvements and investment as a result of that initiative. We know that Oxfordshire is considering introducing a workplace parking levy, and Leeds is considering introducing one too, again to invest in new tram infrastructure. Nottingham. Edinburgh and Leicester are also considering that in some detail, and there are definitely discussions in London between boroughs and the Mayor. Several mayors of the new combined authorities could make good use of these powers. It is up to local authorities to do this, and they should definitely be able to do it, which is what I am concerned about.
Secondly, the omission in the Bill of an extension of the power to create parking levy schemes to strategic authorities is odd. Indeed, it is an exception to the other powers that the Bill extends to them. It makes sense to combine this power with the body that in some cases also sets the local transport plan. That does not mean that a workplace parking levy would need to cover the whole of a combined authority area. Parking spaces, by definition, cannot move, so an intricate map of things that were being levied and not levied could definitely be put together. Strategic authorities have the scale to adopt the visionary approach of some of the larger areas making plans that I have already mentioned.
Thirdly, the amendment would do a big thing in extending the current law beyond workplace parking. There are many reasons why I want to argue for that. Since the pandemic, there has been a notable shift from the dominance of travelling to work to other purposes, particularly leisure. We see that on the roads, but we also see it on the railways. It is a general travel trend. It therefore makes sense to consider broadening the scope of levies such as this beyond simply commuting to workplaces, and include other trip generators, particularly when leisure travel makes up the majority of mileage. I want to say clearly that parking spaces on the public highway would be out of scope, no matter what. This would be for parking on private land, and I think the existing rules for workplace parking levies are very clear on that.
I will give a few examples of ways in which this could form part of a truly integrated set of transport policies, be beneficial in generating investment, change travel behaviours and make good applications to things such as safety and congestion. One fairly obvious example is out-of-town retail parking. This would help councils with struggling high streets to level the playing field between those high streets and sprawling out-of-town retail. We see councils around the country subsidising town centre parking, forgoing revenue to revitalise high streets. With this measure, they could instead charge a small fee for parking at out-of-town developments, and make that an incentive as an alternative to forgoing revenue that can be spent on sustainable travel. With new investment, those kinds of parking levies could unlock more reliable, cheaper bus services, improving access to town centres and, potentially, essential things in the periphery of the city for people who do not own a car. Car dependency is a genuine equalities issue.
There is also the question of big car parks. This is a land use question, really. Big car parks use up land. They are very profitable for the private landowners, but this measure could genuinely create a new incentive to convert unproductive land into much-needed homes. Big car parks are often near to city centres, and the higher-density social housing that could replace those car parks would be very desirable to many towns and cities. On a slightly smaller scale, it could nudge owners of under-used garages to redevelop those sites for housing as well, doing infill and increasing the density. I could go on for a long time about the potential benefits to land use planning of enabling local authorities and strategic authorities to make plans for parking that is an unproductive use of land into something better.
Then we have leisure. Leisure uses concentrate in cities and town centres, but in some rural areas, transport and traffic problems are caused by big attractors and tourist destinations. Having a way of raising revenue to improve sustainable travel to those places and disincentivise the promotion of car travel would be excellent. It would increase access to exciting, educational tourist destinations to people who live in urban areas and do not own a car. If attractions outside London or other cities cannot be reached by public transport, people are stuck if they do not own a car. It would potentially be a way of increasing visitors and helping to get investment for more access for visitors to some of these places if we can stop looking at them as places only to drive to.
That is essentially my case. The existing rules around workplace parking levies are extremely rigorous. There is a process for gaining consent, and there have to be public enquiries. There is a good process there that, if extended to other ideas—and the limits on that extension could be set out in regulations—could have a really beneficial impact on transport planning, traffic reduction, car dependency and could potentially increase the viability of towns, cities and rural areas right across the country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are a few amendments to work through, so let me take them in turn. On amendment 246, although I share the desire of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to ensure that the general public can hold their authorities to account, particularly on something as important as parking, the amendment would limit the ability of combined authorities and combined county authorities to effectively discharge their functions. It would prevent the mayor and elected members from delegating functions to officers or commissioners—that is the intent of the amendment—but delegating those functions to individuals with the specialist knowledge and capacity to carry out those functions effectively is an important and long-standing feature of how those authorities operate.
I can absolutely reassure the hon. Member that officers are already accountable to the authority, and to its overview and scrutiny committee. The Committee yesterday debated commissioners, and their accountability to the mayor and the oversight committee. Likewise, where a combined authority or combined county authority exercises civil enforcement powers they may do so only with the written consent of relevant constituent authorities. We believe that sufficient safeguards have been put in place to address the important point that the hon. Member raises.
I share the concerns that amendment 348 seeks to address. I agree that vehicles parked on pavements can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility issues or sight impairment, as well as for prams and pushchairs. All mums in the House, and indeed dads, could attest to that. The Government are already considering measures to address pavement parking. We know and have heard that it is an issue. As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole stated, the Department for Transport put out a consultation in 2020. We will publish a formal response to that consultation in due course. In the meantime it is worth saying that highways authorities may continue to introduce specific local pavement parking restrictions using their existing powers. We know that pavement parking is an issue. It is an issue that the Government and the Department will come to more fully.
On the specific matter of varying parking charges across different areas, local authorities already have the ability to vary charges within the levels set in national guidance. Obviously, they have to take the decision to vary carefully, and do it alongside public consultation.
Amendment 291 essentially seeks to prevent mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities from increasing charges for vehicle parking, and from using the proceeds of those charges. The Bill does not provide mayors with powers in respect of parking provision. Parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations—we acknowledge that. Consistent enforcement across a combined authority and combined county authority area is therefore not appropriate. That is why the Government have determined that powers relating to parking provision should continue to be exercised by local authorities. Combined authorities and combined county authorities will not have powers to provide paid-for parking places. The Bill does provide combined authorities and combined county authorities with the ability to take on powers on civil enforcement of contraventions of bus lanes and moving traffic restrictions. Critically, any proceeds in any case are ring-fenced, in the way that they are with local authorities, for environmental measures and public transport schemes. The scenario would not arise in which parking charges could be used to fund something other than those narrowly defined areas.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause will make it easier for Transport for London to free up land for new housing and development in the capital. The Bill gives the Mayor of London the power to agree to Transport for London selling or leasing unneeded operational land. In most cases, this will remove the need for Government consent, which currently adds complexity and delay to the process.
To guard against the risk of Transport for London inadvertently disposing of operational land that is relied upon by the wider rail network in London, the Bill requires Transport for London to consult Network Rail before selling or leasing land involved in wider rail services. To reflect the Mayor of London’s geographical remit, and to mitigate against a democratic deficit, the Mayor’s powers to consent will apply only to Transport for London land within the Greater London Authority area. These changes will better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital.
David Simmonds
The current Mayor of London clearly has a mountain to climb, given the distance by which he has fallen behind his housing targets. We remain concerned that some issues are sometimes seen as easy pickings, such as the disposal of TfL surface car parks, where we have seen a series of unwelcome planning applications that have risked creating congestion in town centres across Greater London. However, we recognise that the purpose of the clause is more about the technicality of the consultation process, and therefore we will not oppose this provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Key route network roads
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces schedule 8, which relates to key route networks in England. As we will discuss later, in the debate on schedule 8, combined authorities and combined county authorities take important roles in co-ordinating local transport networks. As I have just noted, schedule 8 sets out some of the roles for combined authorities and combined county authorities on local road networks. This will include agreeing a local key route network and power of direction, and the power to transfer a duty to make reports on traffic levels.
David Simmonds
Briefly, the Bill states, “including road traffic reduction”, and the Opposition’s concern is that when we consider our UK transport infrastructure, the one area in which we conspicuously lag a long way behind our peers is our provision of roads, particularly our motorways. We have about 20% less road capacity than peer countries, but we are in line with them on things like high-speed rail, trams and bus networks, where we have seen enormous progress in recent years. However, I recognise that these are plans that will be implemented subject only to that local democratic process, so we will not oppose this provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Key Route Network Roads
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 87, in schedule 8, page 142, line 20, leave out from beginning to “that” in line 25 and insert
“under section 33 or 33A of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or under a permit scheme prepared under section 33 of”.
This amends the definition of “permit authority power” in relation to combined county authorities so that it conforms with the definition used in relation to combined authorities in section 89A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (as inserted by this Bill).
Under schedule 8, the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities will have a power to direct local highways authorities in the use of their powers on these roads, including over traffic, highway, street and permit authorities. The power of direction will help mayors to deliver their local transport plans and assist places in developing more integrated transport networks.
The role of a permit authority is to provide permits for roads and street works. The amendment will make a minor adjustment to ensure that the definition of a permit authority is coherent throughout schedule 8. This is an important amendment to ensure that schedule 8 delivers on our aims of a consistent framework of powers across all combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Amendment 87 agreed to.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 328, in schedule 8, page 147, line 7, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 329 to 333 would apply the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within the area of a Local Transport Authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 329, in schedule 8, page 147, line 11, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 330, in schedule 8, page 147, line 16, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 331, in schedule 8, page 147, line 21, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 332, in schedule 8, page 147, line 25, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 333, in schedule 8, page 147, line 28, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 334, in schedule 8, page 148, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) publication of reports, including the standardisation of data across reports”.
This amendment would enable guidance to cover the publication of reports and data, in addition to covering the preparation of reports.
Amendment 335, in schedule 8, page 148, line 4, after “preparing” insert “and publishing”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 334.
Siân Berry
These amendments all do the same thing. Amendments 328 and all the amendments up to 335 would simply remove the words, “key route network” from the part of the Bill that specifies traffic reporting duties. Essentially, they would apply the traffic reporting duties to all local roads within the area of a local transport authority, not simply the key route network.
When it comes to strategic transport planning and its informed scrutiny, I believe that requiring data collection and reporting only for the key route network makes no sense. We, the public, those doing the transport planning and those scrutinising it at all levels of government need to have better data about traffic on local roads, too. The strategic level is the right level at which to require that data to be organised and published, so as not to place new burdens on local authorities, but giving those authorities new tools to work with as well. Obviously, resources must be put in place to enable that, but the benefits—achieving good-value investments, effective policy that serves the public good, and benefits to public engagement and scrutiny—will be huge.
Strategic authorities do the strategic planning, setting the direction for where major developments go. Major developments affect not only key route networks, but local roads as well. Those authorities are also the ones more likely to be moving forward with things like demand management policies and congestion charges—I have already talked about workplace parking levies being able to be run at that level. All of those policies are needed to tackle traffic and congestion, but to be able to plan them, it is really important that good information about local roads is out there and collected. Local authorities have far fewer powers to tackle traffic, but they would also benefit from this kind of information when implementing policies such as safer speed limits and bus lanes. Bringing this duty all under the strategic authority would be a gift to local authorities, and would make transparency much easier as well.
I have tabled further amendments that ask for similar data collection and publication at the strategic authority level, which I will speak to later. In concept, this mirrors the new planning data-related transparency requirements that have come from the same Department that has introduced this Bill. More generally, the system of outcomes frameworks proposed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government currently has big gaps in it—this is just one of them. That system needs to be looked at again. In its consultation on outcomes frameworks, MHCLG recently admitted that transport was a unique area and that the Department had work to do with DFT on reporting. This particular example seems like one where the Department would benefit from thinking things through again and potentially doing exactly what this amendment suggests—if not now, then at a later stage of the Bill’s passage.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to amendment 328 in particular. As the hon. Member has set out, the amendment would expand the duty of combined and combined county authorities to make reports on traffic levels to all roads within their area, rather than just key route network roads.
I believe that any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to give effect to such reports directly. That is why, elsewhere in the schedule, mayors of combined and combined county authorities are given a power to direct the highways authority in the use of its powers on such roads. These amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on such roads, but without any direct control of the traffic itself.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 8 will provide mayors with a power of direction on key route network roads and transfer duties to make reports on these roads to them. Combined authorities and combined county authorities have an important role in co-ordinating local transport networks, including local roads.
Although local highways authorities will rightly continue to manage local highways, mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities will be required to propose a key route network. This will allow places to work together at the appropriate level to manage traffic and ensure that there is effective traffic planning. To this end, mayors will gain a power to direct highway authorities on these roads, helping them to deliver their local transport plan. The powers balance the important role of local highway authorities in maintaining the road network while helping mayors to co-ordinate and lead transport planning at a strategic level. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I will speak to amendment 287. We understand the point that the Minister is making about a need to ensure that there is strategic oversight of what is going on. Our concern is that, as we have seen in London, where a version of this already exists, there is sometimes a conflict between what a mayor seeks to do and the views of a local authority—in particular, the elected mandate of that local authority.
We have heard a lot of evidence and had a lot of lobbying as constituency Members of Parliament about issues such as the impact of floating bus stops on people who are partially sighted, and the conflict that the use of bus lanes can sometimes introduce with cyclists. Rather than a duty to implement whatever the mayor decides, there clearly needs to be a duty to “have regard to” it, so that those two things can operate constructively together. That is the thinking behind the amendment, which we intend to push to a vote in due course.
Sam Carling
The schedule contains comprehensive provisions around the designation of key route network roads, but I am conscious that we have not defined key route networks in statute. I am a little worried, therefore, about the potential for mayors to designate inappropriate roads as key route networks for political purposes.
I was struck by the evidence the Committee received from Mill Road 4 People, a Cambridge-based campaign group I was familiar with when I was a councillor there, although I was not involved with them in any way. The group is concerned that mayors could use key route networks to undermine or remove bus gates or low-traffic neighbourhoods that councils have introduced, in an attempt to gain votes by whipping up tensions around the so-called war on motorists. That could seriously undermine councils’ ability to bring in such schemes, very much against the Government’s commitments to active travel.
The group’s concerns are based on a local situation, as that is exactly what is likely to happen in Cambridge if the incumbent mayor gets his way over Mill Road, which is semi-pedestrianised through the use of a bus gate. Will the Minister consider introducing safeguards to prevent such issues by more clearly defining what criteria a road should meet to be eligible for designation as a key route network road? Should it perhaps have to be an A or B road, or else be subject to more detailed justification?
On a related note, has the Minister considered requiring the designation of key roads to be for a specific purpose? On page 139, schedule 8 requires that for the mayor to designate a key route network road, the combined authority has to pass a resolution approving it. However, when the mayor comes to give directions, proposed new subsection 23A of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not require the passing of a resolution, and the power is vested in the mayor alone.
That could create a loophole whereby a mayor could get the combined authority to pass a resolution to designate a road for some reason, and a future mayor with different plans could use the designation for a completely different purpose without the combined authority board having to vote again. One option for solving that could be that when they create a designation, the mayor has to set out its purpose and broadly what powers they envisage exercising. I wonder if the Minister could consider whether that is an issue.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I think, in my enthusiasm for the proceedings, I made reference to the amendments that we will be dealing with in the next grouping. I shall not repeat my observations, but I am sure the Minister will hold my comments in mind and be desperate to respond to them when she makes her introduction to the next group.
Siân Berry
This seems the right point to bring this up. The Minister has talked about how the schedule creates powers to make directions in relation to roads that are not on the key route network. The Minister will have many decisions to make about regulations, and the complexity is coming out in our debates. Are discussions taking place in Cabinet about replacing the Office of Rail and Road with something broader to capture more of this area? The Office for Rail and Road only covers National Highways roads—the strategic road network. I wonder whether the key route network would benefit from being included in the work of the office, which could be named the Office for Integrated Transport and could also cover local roads, buses and active travel. Has the Minister had discussions with the Department for Transport about that?
Vikki Slade
In general I am supportive of the schedule, but I want to raise a slight concern. Proposed new section 2A of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 makes quite a few references to “local road traffic” and “key route networks”. That seems to be a clash of two different terms. It refers to local road traffic using local roads but also to the key network.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new section refers to producing a report to specify targets to reduce the levels of
“local road traffic using key route network roads”.
The impact of that will probably be that that local road traffic will use non-key networks, but there is nothing in the Bill that says where that traffic will go. As much as we would all like it to disappear, it generally does not, and that takes us back to the comments from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about a report on all roads. That feels potentially cumbersome, and I worry about the costs. There seems to be a mismatch here; there is a requirement to produce something, but nothing is said about its possible implications and impact. I do not expect the Minister to have the answer now, but I am sure she can come back with it to help me understand what the impact of the reports might be. I would hate to see local authorities having to deal with the impact of something done in good faith at a strategic level.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to the questions that were asked. The key question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire concerned the designation of key route networks and its potential inappropriate use by mayors. The mayor will not be able to do that unilaterally; they will be able to do so only alongside their constituent authorities and with their support. We think that that will fundamentally mitigate that risk, but he is right to raise it, and we will keep it under review to ensure that the Bill does not operate differently from the intent behind it.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that we should move beyond having an Office of Rail and Road to having an office of integrated transport. I endeavour to write to her to inform her of the Department for Transport’s considerations.
On the wider question of key route networks versus local road networks, we are trying to strike a balance between conferring strategic power on the mayor, and the ability not just to request reports from the highways authority, but to direct it to respond to them. The principal authority has the ability to put those requests, but also the ability to respond to them. We think we have the balance between those things right, because, in the end, they interact in a place. Although we do not want to confer too much power on the strategic authority, neither do we want to denude the local highways authority of the power that sits with it.
Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 287, in clause 28, page 36, line 12, leave out “implement” and insert “have regard to”.
This amendment, and Amendment 288, would ensure that councils had to have regard to local transport plans, rather than be under a duty to implement them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 288, in clause 28, page 36, line 33, leave out “implement” and insert “have regard to”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 287.
Clause stand part.
David Simmonds
Mindful of your invitation to repeat my earlier remarks, Ms Vaz, I am none the less going to risk your displeasure by refraining from doing so.
Lewis Cocking
I am in favour of the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I have served on a district council and a county council. Some of the powers to do with highways will sit with the constituent authorities and some will sit with the mayor, so we could end up in a scenario in which a person is elected as mayor with one thing in their manifesto, a council is elected on another manifesto and the two things contradict each other. I was leader of Broxbourne council, and we have the A10 going through the entirety of my constituency. That was not a priority for Hertfordshire county council, which had some highways authority powers over it, and that caused a lot of tensions about where we were going to have growth and where the investment was going to go.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have some sympathy for the point that has been raised. What I would say in response to amendments 287 and 288 is this. Strategic authorities are the local transport authority for their area. We are very clear as a Government that in performing that role, strategic authorities must work closely with their constituent councils, which are responsible for managing local highways. Indeed, that is the way things are operating at the moment in places where the mayoral strategic authority is the local transport authority.
Clause 28 supports this by placing a duty on all types of constituent council to implement the strategic authority’s local transport plan when carrying out their functions. That does not undermine our expectation that strategic authorities work in co-operation with constituent councils. Instead, I hope, it will ensure that local transport planning is consistent across strategic authority areas. This duty already applies to metropolitan district councils. The purpose behind clause 28 is to create consistency between different types of constituent council.
Amendments 287 and 288 would undermine clause 28 by weakening the duty placed on constituent councils. That would reduce the proposed alignment between constituent councils and their strategic authorities. I reassure the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that constituent councils, as members of the strategic authority, have in themselves a key role to play in the development of the authority’s local transport plan. As set out in other aspects of the Bill, that includes a vote on whether to approve the local transport plan. Therefore, I think that there are enough checks and balances, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 88, in schedule 9, page 149, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
“(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here ‘constituent council’ has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority),”.
This clarifies when a county council or a council of non-metropolitan district will not be a local transport authority for the purposes of the Transport Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 89 to 97, 99 and 100.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Government amendment 88 ensures that the combined authority or combined county authority is the only local transport authority for the area with the associated powers and duties once it has completed its first full financial year. That includes having responsibility for local transport planning, bus partnerships and bus franchising, and is in line with its role as the strategic decision-making authority for the area, with other responsibilities such as producing the local growth plan. Constituent councils sometimes need to retain certain local transport powers to continue the operation of, for example, a local authority-owned bus company. That will still be possible through bespoke arrangements provided for in secondary legislation.
Turning to Government amendments 89 to 97, 99 and 100. Paragraph 4 of schedule 9 currently sets out the voting arrangements for adopting local transport plans for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. These amendments extend the provision to cover all types of combined authorities and combined county authorities. This will provide standardisation and clarity for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities about the requirements for adopting their local transport plans.
Regarding Government amendment 92, there are currently no provisions in schedule 9 for the type of vote needed to adopt a local transport plan in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. The amendment provides a clear voting arrangement: a simple majority vote of constituent members. That is in line with the approach taken for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities in the schedule. It ensures that a majority of the constituent members agree with the decision on top of the consent requirement provided for in Government amendment 96.
Government amendment 94 provides detail on how votes to adopt the local transport plan occur in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. In line with the existing provisions in schedule 9 for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities, the amendment ensures that each constituent member has one vote. Unlike mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities though, no member of a non-mayoral combined authority and non-mayoral combined county authorities will have a casting vote. In the event of a tie, the resolution would not pass. A clear majority would be needed. This amendment is important to bring clarity to how votes to adopt local transport plans are taken in all types of combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Finally, on Government amendment 96, the standard voting arrangement for making decisions in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities will be a simple majority vote, as is provided for in clause 6. However, in the English devolution White Paper, the Government committed to ensuring that key strategic decisions would have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those key decisions. Existing non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities already have provisions in their constitutions that require local transport plans to be agreed by all constituent councils.
We know that these provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils, which is why the amendment introduces a requirement for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to get the consent of all their constituent councils before adopting a local transport plan. I commend all the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 88 agreed to.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 265, in schedule 9, page 149, line 37, at end insert—
“(4D) In preparing or revising a local transport plan, a local transport authority must have regard to the air quality guidelines established by the World Health Organization.”
This amendment requires all local transport authorities, including mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities, to have regard to the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines when preparing or revising their local transport plans.
This is a simple amendment that I worked out with the Healthy Air Coalition and my good friends who campaign on air pollution, such as Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah who works in memory of her daughter. The health burden of air pollution falls hardest on those with the least choice—children, old people and low-income communities living near congested roads and industrial corridors—yet the current legal limits for nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter are four times higher than the World Health Organisation recommends.
The latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may show improvements in some cities. Areas such as London and Nottingham are now technically compliant with the legal limits, but compliance with outdated legal limits does not mean the air is safe to breathe. The Bill gives combined authorities a crucial opportunity to align transport planning with public health outcomes and the correct goals.
Combined authorities have shown some real willingness to act, but their ambition can be constrained by national standards that lag far behind the World Health Organisation’s evidence and guidelines. The Bill is a chance to change that by ensuring that local transport plans are designed not just to meet the legal minimum but to deliver genuinely clean and healthy air for communities.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 98, in schedule 9, page 152, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert—
“14 In section 146 (mandatory concessions: supplementary)—
(a) the existing text becomes subsection (1);
(b) in that subsection, in the definition of ‘travel concession authority’, after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(cza) a combined authority,
(czb) a combined county authority,’;
(c) after that subsection insert—
‘(2) A county council or a council of a non-metropolitan district is not a travel concession authority for the purposes of this Part where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”
This removes joint functions as a travel concession authority from constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA once the authority has completed its first full financial year.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Under schedule 9, all combined authorities and combined county authorities will hold powers and duties over travel concessions. This includes the duty to provide concessionary fares for older and disabled people, as well as a power to provide concessionary fares beyond those that are mandatory.
Government amendments 98, 103 and 104 provide for a transition period for all recently established authorities, during which time they will hold these powers and duties concurrently with constituent authorities. That transition period will extend until the end of the first full financial year following the establishment of the authority, at which point the combined authority or combined county authority will become the sole travel concession authority for the area.
These are important amendments that mean that schedule 9 delivers on our aim to have a consistent framework of powers across all combined authorities and combined county authorities. That will streamline the management of travel concessions, making better use of local government resources. Having only one travel concession authority in an area means a uniform approach for passengers, who can rely on their concession passes working across their local area.
I now move to Government amendments 101 and 102. It is essential that newly established strategic authorities can staff themselves and establish robust decision-making procedures—for example, before exercising certain vital transport functions. That is why amendment 101 introduces a transition period, so that newly established combined authorities and county authorities do not have to secure the provision of passenger transport services on day one.
Until the end of the combined authority or combined county authority’s first full financial year, their constituent councils can continue to exercise that duty to ensure that bus services, for example, are provided for local residents. The transition period allows the combined authority or combined county authority to build up capacity and capability, and to agree a suitable approach to taking on the exercise of these functions. That will support a smooth transfer that minimises disruption for passengers and supports the continued delivery of services.
Finally, Government amendment 102 introduces a transition period for powers to make agreement with Transport for London specifically regarding paying for public transport services, in line with similar transition periods for other local transport powers and functions already provided for in the Bill. Proportionate transition arrangements are essential to support the smooth transition of transport powers from constituent councils to newly established combined authorities and combined county authorities. That will be particularly relevant for councils that border London if they form new strategic authorities. Any agreements that they have made with Transport for London to pay for public transport services can remain in place for the transition period, which gives the combined authority or combined county authority time to negotiate agreements during that period, rather than having to do so on day one.
David Simmonds
We have some concerns about the real-world impact of the measures outlined in these amendments. We all recognise that there is a logic in bringing consistency to concessionary travel, but public transport is commonly not uniformly available across all parts of single existing and combined authority areas. If we think of the footprint of Greater London, there are places such as Harefield in my constituency and Orpington on the opposite side of London that are essentially rural villages that do not have access to trains and are not on the tube network. They are entirely reliant on buses and their transport connections are frequently outside the boundary of Greater London. The value to people who live in those places of the transport network for which they are paying is therefore significantly less than it is to people who live in the centre of the city.
It certainly feels like this set of measures will benefit people in urban areas at the heart of some of these new combined authority areas, but leave people in areas on the fringes paying but not seeing much benefit in terms of access to transport. We know that in many rural parts of the country, access to bus services, for example, is infrequent. Such services are certainly not fit for purpose in terms of providing school transport and transport for medical appointments or similar purposes.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. One is around how existing settlements—whereby local authorities that will become constituent authorities are already, in effect, levied through the local government finance settlement to pay into a centrally co-ordinated concessionary travel scheme, which is what operates in London—will be managed.
The London boroughs effectively forgo a part of their budget in return for free public transport being paid for children of school age. The Freedom Pass also operates for older people, alongside a variety of other concessions—for example, for people with disabilities. How will that be managed so that we do not see a situation where the mayor takes control of it but has no responsibility for that element of the financial impact, or indeed chooses to redeploy resources away from the things for which that resourcing was originally provided?
Secondly, how will that issue be addressed in areas where this factor is newly established? When the end of that first financial year comes into effect, the constituent authorities, which may have a variety of schemes—for example, because one has a particular priority around access to apprenticeships and may have set up a concessionary travel arrangement to enable people to access that—might find themselves at risk of losing them because the combined authority does not have the same priority? It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how those arrangements, many of which are designed to take account of specific local circumstances, will be accounted for in the provisions.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will write to the hon. Member on the specifics of that. I will say that the mandatory concession scheme is determined by the Department for Transport and would operate in that way, and then there is the ability for greater flexibility for additions on top of that. The way that is applying at the moment is that it varies between different strategic authorities in the approach that they are taking, both in terms of who is eligible and the way that they implement it. On the details of how the provisions in the Bill are mitigating against the scenario that he sets out, where the strategic authority wants an additional concession and it has a financial impact on constituent authorities—
David Simmonds
If the Minister can give us an assurance that she will provide that in writing before the conclusion of the Committee, I am happy not to press these amendments to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am very happy to give that assurance. I think the hon. Gentleman can accept my word: in a previous sitting, I assured hon. Members that I would come back in writing, and I think we did that within a day.
Amendment 98 agreed to.
Amendments made: 99, in schedule 9, page 152, line 15, leave out “place insert” and insert—
“places insert the following definitions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 90.
Amendment 100, in schedule 9, page 152, line 17, at end insert—
“‘non-mayoral CCA’ means a combined county authority that is not a mayoral CCA,
‘non-mayoral combined authority’ means a combined authority that is not a mayoral combined authority,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 90.
Amendment 101, in schedule 9, page 152, line 30, leave out from “are” to the end of line 31 and insert “—
(a) where the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year, references to the combined authority or combined county authority (instead of to the council), and
(b) until that time, references to the combined authority or combined county authority as well as to the council.”
This provides for combined authorities and CCAs to have joint transport functions with county councils within their area until they have completed their first financial year, and thereafter to hold those functions alone.
Amendment 102, in schedule 9, page 153, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert “—
(a) where the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year, references to the combined authority or combined county authority (instead of to the council), and
(b) until that time, references to the combined authority or combined county authority as well as to the council.”
This provides for combined authorities and CCAs to have joint transport functions with county councils within their area until they have completed their first financial year, and thereafter to hold those functions alone.
Amendment 103, in schedule 9, page 153, line 13, at end insert—
“19A In section 93 (travel concession schemes), after subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) A county council or a council of a non-metropolitan district is not a local authority for the purposes of this section where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”
This removes certain jointly held travel functions relating to travel concessions from constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA once the combined authority or CCA has completed its first full financial year.
Amendment 104, in schedule 9, page 153, line 18, at end insert—
“(d) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) The power under subsection (1) does not apply to a county or district council where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This removes the power in the Transport Act 1985 of constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA to provide travel concessions once the combined authority or CCA has completed its first full financial year.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Transport Authority functions: funding and support—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that relevant authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of those authorities in relation to their transport functions, taking into account the scale and complexity of those functions.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act’ means—
(a) functions of a local transport authority as described in Schedule 9, and (b) any other functions reasonably connected with the transport.”
This new clause creates a requirement for regular reviews of the financial and administrative needs of authorities to carry out their transport functions.
New clause 17—Total transport authority powers for strategic authorities—
“(1) Every strategic authority is a total transport authority for its area.
(2) In any case where an area is covered by more than one strategic authority, the total transport authority for that area is the strategic authority that covers the largest overall area.
(3) ‘Total transport authority’ means a local transport authority (as defined in section 108 of the Transport Act 2000) with the additional responsibilities, powers, and functions provided by this section
(4) The additional strategic responsibilities of total transport authorities are—
(a) the integration of public, private, and community transport within its area;
(b) modal integration of all public transport within its area, including integrated ticketing across all modes of public transport;
(c) integrating the procurement and delivery of transport services with those provided by other public services in its area, including NHS trusts, local authority social care providers, and school transport;
(d) integration of local transport plans with local strategic priorities, including landuse planning and local growth plans; and
(e) entering into cross-border transport agreements with neighbouring transport authorities where the total transport authority or a neighbouring authority consider it appropriate for the purpose of discharging their duties under section 108 of the Transport Act 2000.
(5) A strategic authority may discharge its functions and duties as a total transport authority through either—
(a) the strategic authority itself, or
(b) delegation to a functional body of the strategic authority.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the powers and duties of total transport authorities.
(7) Schedule 23 (Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors) applies to regulations made under this section.”
This new clause would create total transport authorities from existing local transport authorities and provide them with new powers and responsibilities relating to integration of transport.
New clause 18—Report on strategic authority financing of transport projects and schemes—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of—
(a) providing to strategic authorities additional borrowing powers for transport projects or schemes; and
(b) the establishment and operation of tax increment financing schemes for transport projects.
(2) A report under this section must consider—
(a) options for a standardised model for tax increment financing to enable strategic authorities to fund infrastructure;
(b) which revenue streams could be provided to strategic authorities for use in tax increment financing arrangements; and
(c) the potential for revenue generation resulting from infrastructure investment under any such scheme.
(3) A copy of a report published under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the potential merits of enabling strategic authorities to levy a tax increment for the purposes of transport development.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Local transport is a key responsibility of strategic authorities, which will continue to be the local transport authority for the area. These authorities will be responsible for local transport planning, the duty to secure the provision of local passenger transport services such as buses or trams, and other relevant powers for bus partnerships, bus franchising and travel concessions. This will allow them to make strategic decisions to support growth and placemaking across their areas through improved transport outcomes.
Currently, combined authorities and county authorities hold varying local transport powers under diverse governance arrangements. The Bill gives authorities certainty and clarity about these powers by standardising them. I commend schedule 9 to the Committee.
Vikki Slade
I rise to speak to new clause 11 on funding for transport authorities. There is a lot of merit in harmonising and simplifying the way that transport authorities work. Having borders between different systems can cause huge complications for people crossing them. Obviously, such borders will still exist, but hopefully they will be fewer and farther between.
The purpose of our new clause is to address the elephant in the room. The legislation adds a healthy set of new transport functions for combined authorities, set out across the various measures we have already heard about, and many of them are very positive, but the reality is that those transport authorities that are currently local authorities receive a lot of central Government funding, while the strategic and combined authorities sitting at the higher level do not. Their money is not coming from the magic money tree; it is coming from levies and precepts.
Additional responsibilities are great, but given the additional work involved in all this transport reporting that we have heard about, and the additional functions at a higher level, I am greatly concerned that we may be setting some of these organisations up to fail from the start. Through new clause 11, I am seeking assurance that the Secretary of State will continue to assess and review whether authorities have sufficient support and capacity to carry out these functions, and ensure that they are not too onerous given the source of their funding—levies on the authorities beneath them and precepts directly on the taxpayer.
This Bill is a move away from how we have been funding local authorities; yes, some local authorities are on zero revenue support grants, but many are still quite heavily reliant on central Government funding, and this is the first opportunity for me to say, out loud: are we sure this is a good idea? We are creating a whole framework of legislation and a whole set of local authorities, that have no real central funding. New clause 11 provides the first chance to ask that question and get assurance from the Minister about precisely where the money is coming from. If the money is coming directly from our residents through precepting, we should say that out loud, so that they understand what they have let themselves in for.
Sam Carling
I have a brief, technical question. I might be mistaken in my reading of the provision, but I seek clarification about the arrangements for local transport plans. On Tuesday, the Committee agreed to clause 6, which amended the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to introduce a standard of simple majority voting on combined authority boards. However, we included a grandfathering provision to allow some distinctive governance arrangements at existing authorities to continue.
Schedule 9 makes a similar amendment to the Transport Act 2000, specifically for the adoption of local transport plans, as we have heard, but this amendment does not have the grandfathering provision. Thinking of my own combined authority in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, where local transport plans require a two-thirds majority, I wonder whether the Bill could create legal ambiguity that could lead to judicial reviews or legal challenges. According to clause 6, setting out the general arrangements of boards, the existing arrangements stand once this Bill comes into force, but according to schedule 9 they are overturned. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intention there? Then we can find a way to remove that ambiguity.
Siân Berry
I support the arguments made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. We seem to have a lot of new responsibilities, and in transport we lack clarity about where the money is coming from. I agree with the idea of integrated settlements, but will transport continue to receive what it currently does? Will the new authorities be well funded? With austerity so entrenched in local authorities and all this reorganisation happening, will any of that start to be reversed?
With that in mind, I have put forward two new clauses with ideas to solve some of those issues. I will briefly outline why Members might consider supporting new clauses 17 and 18, which are closely related.
New clause 17 is an attempt to put together so-called total transport authority powers for the strategic authorities, to help them to be more of an integrated transport authority than would be achieved by simply transposing local transport plan powers over from the Transport Act 2000. It would add strategic responsibilities around planning and integrating different modes and transport providers in a total transport authority’s area. To be clear, it is not necessarily about providing all those things; many are provided by different parts of the public sector. It is about having responsibility for integrating them.
New clause 17 is also about bringing in integrated ticketing. That is crucial, not just for the convenience and benefit of passengers on public transport, but as a way—particularly at the scale of a strategic authority, which is where these kind of total transport authority responsibilities sit—of achieving the ability to cross-subsidise different modes of travel. This is a good way of making efficiency work in terms of funding, raising money and making the most of the ability to use revenue to create borrowing for investment.
The Department for Transport conducted a viability trial of total transport solutions in 2019 . It was focused on rural areas, and found that local authorities made savings—relatively modest, but they were at the local authority level—and services could be improved without additional costs. This saves money at the wider Exchequer level. If we are talking about the providers of public services listed in the new clause—NHS trusts, local authority social care providers and school transport provision in the area—strategic authorities are asked to look at better integrating those obviously integratable types of transport, and make them more efficient.
The new clause would also enable cross-subsidisation between profitable and non-profitable streams of transport provision. We see that in the London budget, with which I was intimately familiar for many years. The tube network is able to make a profit, which helps to subsidise bus journeys, and that is to everyone’s benefit. That is worth Ministers’ consideration in more detail, and I hope the new clause will prompt them to do that.
It was not my intention to go over the top with this, so I tabled a second new clause—new clause 18—which asks Ministers to look again at tax increment financing, instead of attempting to amend powers already in the Bill. There are clear benefits from tax increment financing. The ability to add a levy to, for example, business rates, as has been done in the past, or potentially on VAT in an area, and to use that to borrow for significant investment, is potentially really powerful. It was used in part for the Northern line extension to Battersea, for example—a glimmer of new tube line that suddenly happened because of that kind of initiative. New clause 18 asks Ministers to look at this issue again and to consider the power for strategic authorities.
We are all wondering where the money might come from. We can see the potential benefits of this level of organisation, but the new clause would put some more powers in place and prompt further reviews of what might be done to help these bodies stand on their own two feet. As we discussed earlier in relation to precepts, powers to raise money will not necessarily lead to a lot of new taxes and levies; they are self-regulating via the process of democracy and are therefore not to be feared.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire and then turn to new clauses 11, 17 and 18.
I assure my hon. Friend that grandfathering arrangements apply. Existing local transport plan voting arrangements for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough that have already been brought into their constitution will apply, and the amendments in the Bill will not override them.
I welcome the intent behind new clause 11 and completely agree with the principle that we need to ensure that the local transport authorities we are creating, which have an vital role to play in our areas, have the resources and funding to do that well. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked whether we have thought this through. We actively have, but more important is that places have thought it through; there is a clamour to move in this direction and to put in place strategic transport functions, because the huge opportunities are recognised.
We already have a mechanism through the spending review by which we can judge and calibrate whether individual local transport authorities have the resources to do the job required. All local transport authorities will make a judgment about the demands versus their funding as part of the spending review decision.
It is worth noting for the Committee that funding for local transport increased in the spending review settlement, with £15.6 billion put in place for transport for city regions, £2.3 billion for areas outside of city regions and £1 billion for buses. That was in addition to local transport funding provided through the local government settlement. That is both proof and an example of how conversations about what is needed are being matched by resources provided.
Alongside that, we are creating as much flexibility as we can through the local government finance settlement, where we are moving to more consolidated multi-year funding, but also through the Department for Transport giving local leaders greater funding certainty and flexibility, again with multi-year funding settlements, which allows them to plan better.
Finally, as we discussed on Tuesday, there is the question of capacity. We must include capacity to ensure that combined authorities and combined county authorities are doing the job that is being asked of them by their respective constituent authorities, voters and us. That is why we are committing to include funding for capacity building.
On new clause 17, I share the desire of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for transport integration. Strategic authorities have been created to seize the opportunities to come together across a larger geography on transport, economic development and regeneration. However, the new clause would duplicate many of the existing powers and actions of strategic authorities, as well as the new powers already being introduced by the Bill.
In addition to the new powers over planning, clause 21, in part 2 creates a new power for mayors to convene other public bodies to assist with their aims. This power could be used to bring these bodies together without creating a new class of authority. Strategic authorities already undertake significant work to bring together transport modes and functions in their areas, and already have wide-ranging public transport powers. We encourage authorities working on these plans to engage with providers, including those of community transport.
I recognise that new clause 18 is well intentioned and well reasoned, but I do not believe that it is necessary. Existing mayoral strategic authorities possess borrowing powers for all their functions, including transport, which enables them to invest in projects and infrastructure. Through the Bill, we are also enhancing the opportunities for mayors to raise revenue so that they can invest more in local transport. This includes enabling the existing mayoral council tax precept to be spent on the full range of growth levers, including transport, and giving mayors the power to charge a mayoral community infrastructure levy. If mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities wish for changes to existing powers, they will be able to express this through the statutory right to request process. For all those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to push their new clauses to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
The Chair
We have to do a little bit of procedure. I am sure you all noticed that we missed the decision on clause 29 stand part. We can remedy this with an amendment to the programme motion that changes the order of consideration, meaning that clause 29 can be taken after schedule 9, which is now.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 16 September be varied as follows—
In paragraph 3, leave out “Clauses 28 and 29; Schedule 9; Clause 30;” and insert “Clause 28; Schedule 9; Clauses 29 and 30;”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Adult education
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 30, page 38, line 3, leave out “adult”.
This would be consequential on Amendment 108.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the sustained demand for education and training places in their areas. In line with the rest of the Bill, the clause places duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18, and those aged 19 or over with an education, health and care plan, are met. Some strategic authorities already have these duties. This provision creates uniformity across all areas and provides the legal basis for the allocation of funding to meet such duties. All areas should benefit from strategic authorities working with their constituent councils to deliver essential education and training for young people.
Government amendment 107 will ensure that at least one full academic year has passed between the establishment or designation of a new strategic authority and its ability to exercise the six adult education functions. It also ensures that the strategic authority delivers those functions from the beginning of an academic year, thereby mitigating disruption for learners and providers. The full academic year gives strategic authorities time to build their adult skills teams, develop their skills strategies and plan how they will fund and procure adult skills provision in their areas, thereby maximising the chances of effective delivery. This approach is in line with that taken for strategic authorities that already exercise such functions. Strategic authorities that already exercise adult education functions will continue to do so uninterrupted.
Amendment 105 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Devolving adult education functions, such as the duty to secure the provision of education and training for persons aged 19 or over, will provide strategic authorities with an essential tool to drive regional economic prosperity. As I have said, adult education functions are already devolved to 21 strategic authorities and delegated to the Greater London Authority, but the arrangements are currently ad hoc and patchwork. Clause 30 will allow the automatic conferring of adult education functions on new and existing strategic authorities, to create a more consistent and coherent model of devolution. It establishes a standardised framework—a key objective of the Bill—so that devolved powers, duties and functions are taken up by all strategic authorities.
Schedule 10 amends the Apprenticeships, Schools, Children and Learning Act 2009 to confer education-related duties to strategic authorities. The manner in which those duties are conferred is in line with the approach for the 13 authorities that already have adult education functions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 106, in schedule 10, page 153, line 22, after “this” insert “Part of this”.
This would be consequential on Amendment 108.
Amendment 107, in schedule 10, page 157, line 37, at end insert—
“10A After section 120A insert—
‘120B When functions become exercisable by strategic authorities
The Mayor of London
(1) The functions conferred on the Mayor of London by this Part are exercisable by the Mayor in relation to—
(a) the academic year beginning with 1 August 2025, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
Combined authority or CCA already exercising the functions
(2) Subsection (3) applies to a combined authority or CCA if functions conferred on it by this Part are also pre-commencement functions.
(3) The functions continue to be exercisable by the combined authority or CCA on and after the commencement day (but as functions conferred by this Part).
Other combined authority or CCA
(4) Subsection (5) applies to a combined authority or CCA—
(a) if functions conferred on it by this Part are not pre-commencement functions;
(b) whether the combined authority or CCA was established before, or is established on or after, the commencement day.
(5) The functions conferred on the combined authority or CCA by this Part are exercisable by it in relation to—
(a) the second academic year to begin after the academic year during which it was, or is, established, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
District or county council already exercising the functions
(6) Subsection (7) applies to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority if functions conferred on it by this Part are also pre-designation functions.
(7) The functions continue to be exercisable by the district council or county council on and after its designation (but as functions conferred by this Part).
Other district or county council
(8) Subsection (9) applies to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority if functions conferred on it by this Part are not pre-designation functions.
(9) The functions conferred on the district council or county council by this Part are exercisable by it in relation to—
(a) the second academic year to begin after the academic year during which its designation takes effect, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
Interpretation
(10) In this section—
“academic year” means each period—
(a) beginning with 1 August, and
(b) ending with the next 31 July;
“commencement day” means the day on which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed;
“designation”, in relation to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority, means its designation as a single foundation strategic authority;
“pre-commencement functions” means functions which were exercisable by a combined authority or CCA immediately before the commencement day by virtue of—
(a) an order under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(b) regulations under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
“pre-designation functions” means functions which are exercisable by a district council or county council immediately before its designation, by virtue of regulations under section 16 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.’”.
This would specify when the education functions dealt with by Schedule 10 become exercisable by a strategic authority. If a strategic authority does not already have the functions, or is established or designated after commencement, the functions are exercisable in relation to the second academic year after establishment or designation.
Amendment 108 in schedule 10, page 158, line 36, at end insert—
“Part 2
Education for 16-19 year olds etc
13 The Education Act 1996 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
14 (1) Section 15ZA (duty in respect of education and training for persons over compulsory
school age: England) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1), for ‘local authority in England’ substitute ‘relevant authority’.
(3) In the following provisions, for ‘local authority’ substitute ‘relevant authority’—
(a) subsection (2);
(b) subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a);
(c) in subsection (4), in the words before paragraph (a);
(d) in subsection (5), in the words before paragraph (a);
(e) in subsection (9).
15 In section 15ZB (co-operation in performance of section 15ZA duty), for ‘Local authorities in England’ substitute ‘Relevant authorities’.
16 In section 15ZC (encouragement of education and training for persons over compulsory school age: England), in subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘local authority in England’ substitute ‘relevant authority’.
17 In section 579 (general interpretation), in subsection (1), after the definition of ‘regulations’ insert—
‘“relevant authority” means—
(a) a local authority in England,
(b) a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(c) a combined county authority established under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.’”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would confer on strategic authorities additional functions relating to education and training for persons over compulsory school age.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31
Planning applications of potential strategic importance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Mayors will be given new powers in relation to planning applications of strategic importance, in order to help them to shape the strategic development in their area. The Secretary of State and the Mayor of London have long had the power to intervene and call in planning decisions; we want to ensure that mayors across the country have the opportunity to do the same. This will help to decentralise decisions away from Whitehall—something that I know all Committee Members are keen on.
Clause 31 introduces schedule 11, which works alongside schedule 12, which is inserted by clause 32. The schedules expand existing Mayor of London powers in sections 2A and 74(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to give mayors outside London the ability to call in or directly refuse applications. Schedule 11 also amends section 2A of that Act to allow call-ins when the local planning authority is a mayoral development corporation.
The powers will apply only to the most significant developments that have the potential to raise genuine strategic planning issues—for example, large-scale housing and commercial developments, or significant development on protected areas such as the green belt, which could have a bearing on the implementation of the area’s adopted spatial development strategy. Mayors will be able to intervene only where applications meet thresholds set out in secondary legislation.
The Government have made clear the importance of getting a spatial development strategy in place, so we will legislate so that a spatial development strategy must be in place before the powers can be used. We will consult on legislation before bringing the powers into force. I strongly emphasise that local planning authorities will continue to make decisions on the vast majority of applications without recourse to the mayor.
Finally, the new powers will not affect the well-established arrangements that have been in place in London for more than 15 years. We are, however, engaging with the Mayor to improve the process in order to support greater housing delivery in London, which I know the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is very keen on.
David Simmonds
I rise to ask some brief questions of the Minister, perhaps starting with the last point, about where there is a conflict. London is a good example. The Mayor’s total failure to achieve the housing targets set by central Government is creating a knock-on pressure at local authority level. We know that, in trying to unlock developments, the Government are currently engaged in discussion about significantly reducing the target for affordable housing. There is the potential for call-in powers to create a conflict with the housing duties of the local authority against its overarching objectives. I can think of places in or close to my constituency—a good example is Hendon circus, where 27 years ago I chaired a planning committee that granted consent. That is still a derelict site, despite multiple interventions with the Mayor of London, because it has basically been ping-ponging between developers. We need to make sure that this legislation has rigour and will actually deliver.
Will the Minister provide some assurance that an effective mechanism will be in place? It is all very well talking about mayoral powers to direct planning authorities, but we often see a mayoral failure to progress developments, to the frustration of a planning authority. How will we ensure that there is that rigour, so the homes for which planning consents are granted actually get built?
Siân Berry
I, too, have much experience of the London system of planning—of putting together the London plan and its implementation through strategic planning applications. I have a couple of things to say.
First, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, we have heard alarming reports today that the well-worked-through, evidence-based requirements that were put into the London plan may be undermined by an unclear process. We would like assurance that once the processes are carried out—once local people have engaged and many local authorities have given evidence in respect of a plan and some policies—the policies are kept in place and used by the mayors who have gone to so much trouble. We hear rumours of CIL holidays and other really worrying things. I will not ask for answers on that now, but we will discuss the community infrastructure levy later.
The issue I want to raise is the transparency and clarity of the online information that accompanied the Mayor of London carrying out his strategic planning responsibility in respect of individual planning applications. As an expert user of that online information in the past, I know it is vastly worse than what is commonplace and very good from most local authorities. One does not get easy access to the accompanying documents or other people’s comments as they come in; they can be incredibly useful in local authority planning applications. By contrast to the national infrastructure planning process, the documents associated with the planning application are not published and the timetable is not necessarily available. I had endless trouble while trying to scrutinise and take part in the process.
I beg the Minister to look at putting in place a more standardised way of making the planning applications that are intervened on by mayors, and the process that happens, more transparent. It should match either of the other two planning levels we have. At the GLA end of things, it has not been very good.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We all share the desire to see housing built. I will not make the political point that the last Government, of which the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner was part, categorically failed to do that. The challenges faced by the Mayor of London are the function of systematic failure over 14 years and a housing market that is in a very difficult position.
We absolutely want to see house building at pace. First, we are putting in place a requirement that there has to be a spatial development strategy that sets out how the mayor will deliver housing needs—a core document that will ensure that it bites. Mayoral call-in powers can be used only once that spatial development strategy is in place. Once house building has been granted permission, we want to see it built out effectively. Obviously, we will keep this under review to ensure that the duty to direct comes alongside the call-in and that the spatial development strategy works effectively to deliver the outcome we want to see.
On the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion’s point about the transparency of the process, residents across the piece often find the planning process, whether at the strategic or local authority level, pretty opaque and hard to navigate. We will continue to look at that, because it is important that when strategic or local planning decisions are made, residents understand why, how, and how they can fully engage in the process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 32
Development orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 32 expands existing Mayor of London powers in relation to mayoral development orders and directions to all mayors of strategic authorities. It will allow the mayor to be consulted on and to direct the refusal of certain planning applications, and it makes consequential changes to other legislation. We will discuss the effects of the schedules that the clause introduces in greater detail later. For now, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12
Development orders
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 12, page 162, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
This amendment would remove provision for the Secretary of State to have the power to approve a Mayoral Development Order where a Local Planning Authority has not approved it by the end of the period.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 59, in schedule 12, page 164, line 1, leave out subparagraphs (9) and (10).
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 58.
Manuela Perteghella
I will speak mainly to amendment 58, because amendment 59 is consequential on amendment 58, which seeks to decentralise even further planning decisions from Whitehall. It would remove the power of the Secretary of State to step in and approve a mayoral development order when the local planning authority has not given its approval within the set timeframe.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but we cannot accept it. In any planning process, constituent authorities will be fully consulted and engaged. Ultimately, the implementation of a local transport plan or of transport decisions that are made through a mayoral development order will require engagement and work with the constituent authority, so the process will be one of consensus. In the broad majority of cases, we expect to see that consensus. Indeed, where we currently see collaboration across boundaries, consensus is what is driving decisions across those boundaries.
However, we recognise that there will be occasions when consensus cannot be reached. It is absolutely right that mayors can then refer the case to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate, to be assessed on its planning merits. The ability to make a referral to the state and the Planning Inspectorate is a standard feature of the planning process, even for local authorities, and we think it is right that it operates. I come back to the point that, ultimately, to implement big schemes, constituent authorities need to be brought in and to be part of the implementation. Finding consensus is not only what happens in practice but the spirit in which we expect mayors to work. This provision is but a backstop.
David Simmonds
I listened carefully to the Minister. We have great sympathy with the amendment. One of the concerns that has run throughout this debate and that on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, with which this legislation interacts, is that it complicates the planning system still further. My earlier example illustrates that well: a developer applies to the local authority and gets consent for something; it comes back for something larger, but is refused; it goes to the planning inspector, gets consent for something else; it puts in another application, going to the mayor and getting the chance of going to a Secretary of State call-in; and then the developer sells the site, and the whole process starts again. No homes are built and no infrastructure is delivered, but value is added from the developer’s perspective, because it has traded the site on.
There is clearly a risk to introducing that extent of mayoral call-ins as well. They will provide massive incentives for a developer at every stage to second-guess the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee at the local authority, the mayor, the planning inspector or the Secretary of State, continuing the merry-go-round of the 1.5 million planning permissions in England at the moment where development has not commenced. In many cases, that is because of that trading process.
We are minded to support the amendment. I appreciate that the Government have the numbers and we will be defeated, but the point is well made: we need to streamline the system, not add to its complexity and bureaucracy in this way.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government agree that we need to streamline and simplify the planning process, making it much quicker and smoother. I will again put on the record that the previous Government had 14 years to do that, but they absolutely, categorically, failed to do so. We are now getting on with it, and my colleagues in the Department have taken the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through the House. Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches should not want to be talking about their record, because they should be ashamed of it.
On the key point about adding another level of complexity, I point hon. Members to the fact that the measure applies only to strategic sites. The planning system will operate as usual, with local planning authorities having the key remit to drive things forward. This provision is for strategically significant sites, partly because of their scale or because they are critical to the strategic development plan.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 252, in schedule 12, page 163, line 19 at end insert—
“(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert—
‘(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure—
(a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and
(b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area’.”
This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert—
“61DCB Density requirement
(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—
(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,
(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or
(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.
(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation
(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”
This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.
Manuela Perteghella
The amendment would require mayors to ensure that planning approvals are consistent with the strategic spatial energy plan and the land use framework for their area. I want to tell the Minister that this is a friendly and collaborative amendment. We want development to be coherent with energy policy and land use. That is important, especially in rural areas that are off grid, or in areas vulnerable to flooding or with protected landscapes, for example. Without the amendment, decisions about housing, infrastructure and new settlements can be made without proper reference to energy needs, grid capacity, or wider environmental and land use priorities. In our view, that would be a great mistake. We have the chance to improve the Bill here.
The strategic spatial energy plan and the local area energy plans set out how an area intends to meet its energy demands and, most importantly, to decarbonise its supply and deliver the infrastructure needed for the transition that we all want to see to net zero. The land use framework also provides a strategic view of how land is allocated to balance the needs of housing, agriculture—in my constituency—and businesses. Education and skills are also important, including adult education, as are transport and so on.
By requiring mayors to check that development applications are consistent with the strategic frameworks and any strategic visions, the amendment would ensure that short-term decisions are made with a strategic mindset and a long-term vision, taking into consideration our national commitments to sustainable growth, sustainable energy, net zero targets and local priorities in a given area, which could be the visitor economy, agriculture, business and so on.
Like the other amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, the amendment would strengthen local voices in decision making. Our local energy plans and land use frameworks are documents and visions that are made by consulting local people. The frameworks have been developed through public consultation and partnership with local councils, businesses, residents and, as I have mentioned before, town and parish councils. Those efforts should be recognised and embedded in the Bill.
The amendment is pragmatic and constructive. It would not remove any powers from mayors, but only ensure that those powers are used in a way that respects local frameworks and national targets, and supports the needs and interests of our communities.
David Simmonds
I shall speak to amendment 304, which stands in my name. I would like to think that it is one of those amendments that the Government will adopt, if they are wise, because it would do something practical towards the delivery of a higher level of housing through the Bill.
Despite the provision of very large amounts of capital funding by the previous Government, the Mayor of London has been a case study in the failure to deliver. There will be complex reasons in the wider market why it has been a challenge, but the previous Government delivered just shy of a net additional 1 million new homes over the life of the previous Parliament, in line with the target. Since then, house building has collapsed. Partly that seems to be because operators in the market—big developers and house building companies—are looking at the Bill and seeing opportunities to increase the potential value of their sites by arbitraging between all the different layers of bureaucracy, rather than delivering homes.
However, many of our constituents look at areas that have good PTAL—public transport access levels—scores, and so an ability to access effective public transport, as offering a high degree of opportunity. The Opposition’s view is that we should prioritise sites like that, which in some cases are quite close to securing planning consent, because of their ability to densify our urban centres. In London and other big cities, such as Manchester, where we had our recent party conference, we see examples of this approach delivering large amounts of additional housing in city centre areas. It contributes to growth, to housing delivery and to the economy of those local areas.
For all those reasons, the amendment is positive, so I hope that the Government will accept that it would add significant value to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Paul Holmes
I echo some of the words of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, and I want to talk briefly about one of the things I feel particularly passionate about in planning: the densification of our urban centres. I spoke at a number of events at Conservative party conference where I advocated for it, as my hon. Friend has, as well as speaking about where we did not get it quite right when we were in government.
I am the first to say that we did not come down as hard as we should have on many speculative developments on green spaces, both in my constituency and across the country. We lost a lot of the ability to regenerate some of our urban centres, which is a fortunate and necessary by-product of unlocking some of the sites in our urban centres, as amendment 304 is intended to do. Our urban centres are where many of our younger people want to live. There is a connectivity already. The infrastructure exists, although I am the first to say that much of the infrastructure in our urban centres needs to be improved. That is where our younger people, our more mobile people, our entrepreneurs and those who want to make a success of their life, particularly in tech centres and economic centres, want to live; but, unfortunately, that is where the higher-priced properties are.
Siân Berry
I endorse the amendment. It is extremely sensible to have this kind of priority in place. It is extremely reminiscent of planning policy guidance note 13, which was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011 and was originally put in place under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2001, if I recall correctly. It was part of an integrated transport policy, making sure that homes and transport were planned in concert and that there was a sequential test for focusing first on areas that were already developed—areas close to urban centres—and then allowing for sequential use of greener areas.
That is something that we lack in planning policy at the moment. Having a policy that is entirely either/or, or where we free up things completely or not at all, without a sequential test, has led to a lot of conflict in planning policy lately. Something that sets a sequence of priorities is much more sensible, and I think the Minister should look at it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for her constructive and helpful amendment 252. In principle, the ability to integrate a land use framework and energy plan at the strategic level obviously makes sense. Regarding the amendment as drafted, the Government have consulted on a land use framework but have not yet provided a response, so the land use framework is not a tangible thing that strategic authorities can hinge their plans on.
Similarly, strategic spatial energy plans, which I have a lot of support for, and which I hope to see across the country, are at an embryonic stage. We do not know how high level they will be. The principle—that as strategic authorities are thinking about their strategic plans they should think about a whole host of things—holds, but we do not think that the amendment is appropriate because of the frameworks that it hinges on.
Vikki Slade
I wish to clarify the purpose of raising the issue of strategic spatial energy plans. There is a real risk that people confuse local area energy plans with net zero and climate change, but there is a possibility for us all to agree that it is far easier to put the role of the strategic authorities to think about the future of energy, from grid capacity to how we get things done, in those terms than to risk it becoming a net zero football. I would love to see, as the Bill goes through Parliament, a way for this measure to be inserted, because there are some real risks coming down the line, with potential leaderships that may try to drive things in a different direction.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I agree with the hon. Lady’s broader point. There is absolutely a piece for us to think about regarding energy infrastructure. Having served as Minister for energy consumers, thinking about how we drive warm homes and the interaction with the grid, there is clearly a big piece of work that needs to be done there, and a role for strategic authorities to play in thinking about that planning in an integrated way.
The frameworks that amendment 252 refers to are nascent and likely to be quite high level, but the principle is that as strategic planning authorities think about their spatial energy plan they should think about both how they effectively use the land and the energy and transport infrastructure that is in place.
I agree with the intent behind amendment 304. I refer hon. Members to the national planning policy framework, which rightly places greater emphasis on the use of previously developed land, and we want to see mayoral development orders used to support urban regeneration. On those points, we are completely aligned. However, we should not over-constrain mayors. We want legislative flexibility to allow a mayor to use a range of land types across their area. Where an urban extension or a new town is the appropriate thing, we do not want to bind the hands of mayoral strategic authorities and stop them being able to use the right land for the right development.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is right to say that the NPPF outlines previously developed land, but it does not include density, so it is not necessarily relevant to this amendment. We seek an incentivisation of densification: does she agree with that policy basis?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national planning policy framework, which tries to encourage and incentivise the use of previously developed land, and to make sure that within our urban centres we are building out as much as we can. That is an issue for the NPPF and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It would not be right, in the context of mayors specifically, to constrain them and say, “You can only use one land type.” We must allow the flexibility but use national planning policy to encourage urban regeneration and urban densification.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not press the amendment, but I would like a reassurance from the Minister on the frameworks. Although they are nascent and in their embryonic state, they are really important. By the time the Bill becomes law, we will be consulting on these frameworks and applying them. Will the Minister write to tell us how this issue will be resolved? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment proposed: 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert—
“61DCB Density requirement
(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—
(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,
(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or
(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.
(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation
(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”—(David Simmonds.)
This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I remind Members to switch off electronic devices. I have lots of people here who can help me do that, but you do not. The usual courtesies prevail. If you want to speak, make sure that you have caught my eye. My job is to make sure that the Minister gets ample time to take her legislation through the House and that other Members have ample time to scrutinise her during that process. We will proceed on that basis.
Any Member can contribute during the line-by-line consideration. I will typically ask the Member who has tabled an amendment to introduce it and the Minister will sum up. As a matter of courtesy, it is better if the Minister does not have to rise several times. The Minister needs ample opportunity to sum up the debate. I do not want a perpetual exchange. I know that is sometimes unavoidable, but I want to be as courteous as possible to our Minister of the Crown.
Schedule 12
Development orders
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Schedule 12 expands on existing powers in relation to the mayoral development orders in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to all mayors of strategic authorities. MDOs grant planning permission for development as an alternative to granting permission through a planning application. They are similar to local development orders, which Members will be familiar with and are used across the country.
Development orders are designed to enable up-front planning certainty for developers and communities. For example, the Gravity LDO in Somerset granted permission for advanced manufacturing facilities and a giga-battery factory is now under construction. We want to give mayors and strategic authorities the same opportunities so that they can support development, which will make a difference to growth and economic opportunities in their areas.
At the moment, only the Mayor of London can make an MDO; schedule 12 would expand that to all mayors. It also streamlines the MDO process. Currently, an MDO needs to be requested by each relevant local planning authority, and their consent is needed before the mayor can consult on the draft order. Schedule 12 removes those limitations. That does not mean that local planning authorities are cut out of the process; they will still be consulted and their approval will be sought for making the order.
In practice, we expect to see local planning authorities and mayors working closely in partnership. However, we recognise that there may be instances where a mayor and a local planning authority cannot agree. Proposed new section 61DCA of the Town and Country Planning Act allows a mayor to request that the Secretary of State consider an order where local planning authority approval is not given. These provisions set the framework; the detailed process for making an order will be set out in secondary legislation, which we will consult on.
Schedule 13 contains consequential amendments to other legislation, which are necessary for the provisions under clauses 31 and 32. I hope that Members will agree that this measure will be an important tool for mayors in delivering the housing and the economic growth and development that we want to see across the country. I commend schedules 12 and 13 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I will do my best not to disappoint you, Sir John, or the Minister or Government Back Benchers. I welcome the Minister to her place and hope that she feels refreshed after last night’s late sitting; we will try to make this as easy as possible.
In relation to schedules 12 and 13, this is a standard procedure used by the Mayor of London. We see this as a perfectly sensible proposal that unifies the regulations with those existing in London. I will just say this to the Minister, if I can without disappointing her. On proposed new section 61DCA, the Minister outlined that the Secretary of State could direct or issue an order, should local authorities not agree to a mayoral development order. I understand that details will come out in secondary legislation, which is perfectly acceptable, but could she outline to the Committee the balance of power? As I think the Minister respectfully acknowledges, we have been consistently worried that, if this is supposed to be a true devolution Bill, giving power to the Secretary of State to order or issue kind of breaks the spirit of that devolution.
Could the Minister give the Committee some reassurance that the views and objections of local authorities would be taken into proper consideration? What would that balance of power be, should the Secretary of State have to use that order? We do, however, see this as a perfectly reasonable schedule, and will not seek to divide the Committee on it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for supporting the measure. In the event that there is not consensus between a constituent authority and the mayoral strategic authority, it would go up to the Secretary of State in the way that planning applications do currently. The Planning Inspectorate will review it based on its planning merits, in the light of issues and objections that have been raised locally, and the full suite of evidence. It is consistent with the current process for planning applications that are called in. We think this will essentially standardise what we do for individual local authorities currently.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 12 accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 33
Power to charge community infrastructure levy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 289, in schedule 14, page 170, line 15, at end insert—
“, and
(b) must, as far as it relates to the exercise of the mayor’s functions as a charging authority, publish details of—
(i) each instance in which CIL has been charged,
(ii) how much has been raised by the charging of CIL, and
(iii) the impact on delivery of housing infrastructure development.”
This amendment would ensure that mayors charging CIL reported on the effect that this has on housing development.
Schedule 14.
New clause 1—Community infrastructure levy charges: guidance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance for charging authorities on—
(a) the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) appropriate procedures for handling technical errors in the calculation, notification, or collection of community infrastructure levy charges; and
(c) best practice for resolving disputes relating to community infrastructure levy charges where technical errors have occurred.
(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include—
(a) guidance on what constitutes a technical error in the context of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) recommended procedures for reviewing and, where appropriate, waiving or reducing community infrastructure levy charges where a technical error has occurred;
(c) principles to guide the proportionate collection of community infrastructure levy payments when technical errors have been identified; and
(d) time limits for the rectification of technical errors.
(3) In this section—
“charging authority” has the meaning given in section 106 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Schedule 14 of this Act;
“technical error” means an error in the calculation, notification, or administration of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge that is not related to a material change in the development to which the charge applies.”
New clause 28—Application of CIL to householders—
“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 205 (The Levy) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.
(2B) The Secretary of State must amend the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 so that they are in accordance with the requirements of subsection (2A).””
This new clause disapplies CIL from householders extending property for their own use.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 33 and schedule 14 will give mayors of strategic authorities the ability to raise a mayoral community infrastructure levy, or MCIL. I am sure Members will be aware that the Mayor of London’s ability to charge MCIL in London was critical to funding delivery of the fantastic Elizabeth Line. We want to extend the same power to other regional mayors so that they too can fund vital infrastructure that will drive growth and create opportunities in their areas.
The power will not be unconstrained. Mayors will need to have a spatial development strategy in place, meaning that they will have to have a clear plan for meeting overall housing and development targets in their area. Mayors will also need to develop and introduce a CIL charging schedule, which will undergo public consultation, examination and approval. That means that the levy rates that apply to MCIL will strike an appropriate balance between supporting development through infrastructure provision and the potential effect on viability of development. We will provide further detail on what MCIL can be spent on through regulations.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair today, Sir John. I support the clause and schedule 14. It is really important that we have devolved fundraising powers, and this is one of the ways in which that can be done.
I have a question for the Minister about the rules for what mayoral CIL in different areas can be levied to fund. In London, the current regulations restrict spending by the mayor to funding roads or other transport facilities. Is the Minister making changes in the Bill, or will she do so through regulations?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Sir John. I welcome the introduction of MCIL. We have spoken before about how these authorities will be funded, and this is another tool in the toolbox. I am slightly concerned about how it will sit alongside strategic CIL and neighbourhood CIL. I would be really concerned if this took away the portion of money that is available for local neighbourhoods through neighbourhood forums or town and county councils to spend on hyper-local infrastructure, which can otherwise never be funded. I am also interested in the pieces of infrastructure that currently are funded through strategic CIL by an upper-tier authority. Will those responsibilities pass in full across to the mayor, so that we do not end up with a situation where the mayor gets the CIL, but the council gets the responsibility?
That is one of the reasons why we have tabled new clause 1, although the Minister may say we do not need part of it. The first part of the new clause states that the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of the Act, prepare and publish guidance on the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges—tt may be that that is going to happen anyway. More importantly, there is the issue of error and incorrect charging. I have been speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who has been involved with the CIL Injustice Group, where there have been miscalculated charges, with councils charging up to £100,000 for the community infrastructure levy completely incorrectly. We know that CIL is supposed to be charged on additional dwellings for commercial use, not on self-builds or extensions, but that has happened in a number of councils around the country. There are a couple of councils in Surrey—Waverley in particular has a huge problem. The new Liberal Democrat council in West Berkshire had to pay back £300,000 in total to 18 different constituents who had all been incorrectly charged. In my own county of Dorset, there are cases where people have been incorrectly charged.
In some instances, people have been building their own home and suddenly had a notice put on the path outside. Some have been chased down for huge amounts of money, and some for tiny amounts of money, and have had court charges applied to them. It is a problem that needs solving. Last Monday in the Chamber—I believe you were present, Sir John—two Conservative Members raised cases from their own constituencies. A previous Minister said that a series of households had been badly hit. It is clear that the CIL regulations are not intended to operate in this way. We do not believe our new clause would create a significant new burden on the Secretary of State; it is there to assist, and we would be grateful for a commitment that its provisions will be rolled into the legislation.
Paul Holmes
I will speak to amendment 289, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, on behalf of the official Opposition. I will also briefly speak to new clause 1. The hon. Lady has just very expertly outlined why the Government should accept it, and the official Opposition agree with her. She is absolutely correct that CIL, although a very good thing, is—not always intentionally, but sometimes negligently—being used in inappropriate ways. Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) mentioned a case in his constituency with his local authority, where somebody was being charged £70,000. That is clearly unacceptable.
Any measure that could improve the regulation and guidance to local authorities, not necessarily to restrict them but to give them clarity—it would also slightly pull on the tail of their coat, so they do not act irresponsibly to people who are responsibly improving their homes—is a good thing. We will therefore be supporting new clause 1 if the hon. Lady chooses to press that to a vote. It clearly does not place an undue burden on the Secretary of State, and it would mean that the system would become more streamlined and transparent. It would give protection to people who are doing the right thing and ensuring that they are following the rules, but the rules are clearly being interpreted in different ways.
Amendment 289, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would ensure that the mayors charging CIL report on the effect that this has on housing development. Similarly to new clause 1, we do not think that that would place an undue burden on the legislation or on the necessary parties because, where the community infrastructure levy is being used at the moment, there clearly is a lack of transparency on what it is delivering for local people. The amendment will improve the transparency that mayors and local authorities would be bringing to the table.
CIL is meant to improve infrastructure and make sure that housing is delivered. We have seen across the country places where existing mayors are not necessarily delivering on their housing commitment, particularly in London. We argue that this amendment would bring transparency because a mayor has to account for how they are using CIL and the effect that that would have on housing development in a city region that they control. We think that is a perfectly reasonable amendment.
For that reason, we will press amendment 289 to a vote, and if the hon. Lady the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole chooses to press new clause 1 to a vote, we will certainly support that today.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will start by addressing some of the questions that were raised, and then move to amendment 289 and new clause 1. There is a key question of how to ensure that the mayoral strategic CIL does not undercut local CILs. The mayor will have to have regard to local CILs that are already being issued, to ensure that there is a balance. The CIL proposal will need to be done in the context of viability assessments, so the mayor will need to think about what is happening at the parish, town and local authority levels in terms of CIL before a strategic CIL is put in place. It is also worth noting that the charging schedule will be subject to statutory consultation. Again, that is another provision to ensure that the right balance is being struck.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked what the CIL will be used for. That will be set out in regulations, but we are clear, up front, that it will be for vital infrastructure that can unlock growth and economic development. Therefore, there will be broader permissiveness within that, but we will set that out in further regulations.
On amendment 289, while I fully support the need for transparency in the use of developer contributions to ensure accountability, the amendment is unnecessary because it duplicates existing regulatory requirements. All contribution-receiving authorities are already required to publish an infrastructure funding statement each year. This annual statement must include details on the amount of CIL collected and spent, and information on infrastructure projects funded, or intended to be funded, by CIL.
The CIL regulations are already very prescriptive about what must be included within an infrastructure funding statement. Introducing further reporting obligations is not necessary and potentially risks confusing things and increasing the administrative burdens on strategic authorities.
Finally, we have an additional safeguarding provision: the Planning Act 2008 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing reporting requirements, or create new requirements, if it is determined that existing arrangements are not necessary. We think that we already have sufficient provisions within existing legislation, which means that amendment 289 is not required.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
We are talking about a mayoral CIL reset, but some local authorities will not introduce a CIL because they get far more out of section 106 negotiations. Will mayors be able to take part in 106 negotiations if they do not bring in their own CIL? If not, why not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Ultimately section 106 will remain with local authorities. I hope that the process of developing a strategic spatial plan means that the mayor and constituent authorities have already had the conversation about housing development and critical infrastructure that needs to sit alongside it, and how that will be well funded. The CIL is a complementary tool that will sit alongside section 106 and other tools that sit with the local authority but, critically, all should be working toward a collective plan for the area that they have all fed into and engaged with. If that plan is done well, there will be consensus across the piece.
Although I completely appreciate the intentions behind new clause 1—to promote consistency and best practice in how the CIL is administered—they are already achieved under existing legislation and statutory guidance. Regulation already includes provisions for correcting errors in CIL charges, including by issuing revised liability notices and demand notices. There are also clear routes of review and appeal, initially to the local authority itself, but also to the Valuation Office Agency in certain cases, and to the Planning Inspectorate. Those are well established, effective safeguards that are used where developers believe that an error has been made. In addition, the Planning Act 2008 allows a Secretary of State to give guidance to charging authorities or other public authorities about any matter connected with CIL, and the authority must have regard to that guidance. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I apologise for what I hope the Minister does not think is a discourtesy—it is due to my rustiness on Bill Committee procedure; I last served on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee—but I wish to speak briefly to new clause 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.
New clause 28 is designed to do exactly what I argue the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, wishes to achieve. In her response to new clause 1, the Minister outlined that the Planning Act 2008 gives guidance on the two charging and reporting mechanisms, and if there is a problem with the amount of CIL that has been charged, it gives applicants the right to try to rectify that through an appeal. That is clearly not working; otherwise we would not be talking about the situations that many constituents have faced over the past years, including the cases that the hon. Lady mentioned and the one that I mentioned in which £70,000 is being charged to someone and they are now, I think, a couple of years down the road and cannot get rectification.
New clause 28 is very simply worded and makes it absolutely clear that
“the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.”
I believe that last week in oral questions, the Secretary of State outlined clearly that he thinks there is a problem here, and that the system is currently not working, particularly for people who are doing property extensions for their own use. The new clause clearly aims to mitigate that problem.
Vikki Slade
Will the hon. Member comment on the fact that, according to the CIL Injustice Group, £1.65 million has been incorrectly charged. The Minister for Housing and Planning said:
“It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner.”
Will the hon. Member join me in asking why the Minister would not take the opportunity to put that provision in the Bill, when it has a clause specifically about community infrastructure levy?
Paul Holmes
I cannot comment on the motivations of the Minister, who I believe is an hon. Lady of utmost integrity, but I suspect that the Government want to amend the Bill on their own terms. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and I both speak for Opposition parties, but we would not make hay if the Minister chose to accept these new clauses. The Government have a position, stated on the Floor of the House of Commons, that CIL is not working for people who tried to follow the rules but are being persecuted and in many cases prosecuted by local authorities, through the wrong charging mechanisms being applied. The Minister outlined the mitigation and the appeal infrastructure that people can currently use, but they are not working either. New clause 1—an admirable new clause—and new clause 28 would make it very clear that people in that situation cannot be charged the CIL.
The Minister is in charge. She has the power to accept the new clauses and improve the legislation to change the lives of people who face injustice every day in the current system. I absolutely accept that the last Government did not do it, but she has a simple choice today: accept these new clauses, change the situation, and make sure that people do not have to go through what these people have been going through. I encourage her to accept these new clauses in the spirit of co-operation and tripartisanship—[Interruption.] Quadripartisanship! We would genuinely support her in doing that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
First, I thank hon. Members for tabling these amendments and for raising the issue. I assure the Committee that we know there is a problem here. We are alive to the cases that have arisen, which demonstrate that the CIL, as it should apply, is not working in practice. Although exemptions exist, they are not being applied in the way that they ought to be.
We are giving careful consideration to this matter as part of our commitment to develop a far clearer and more effective contribution system. As I said, I completely appreciate that the intention behind the amendments is to protect a segment of the market that we want to protect; it ought to exempted. I can clearly confirm that we are looking seriously at this matter and we will revert to it at a later stage, so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments to allow the Government time to consider it properly.
The Chair
I sense that the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole and for Hamble Valley will want to press their new clauses, but that will come later in our consideration of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 289, in schedule 14, page 170, line 15, at end insert—
“, and
(b) must, as far as it relates to the exercise of the mayor’s functions as a charging authority, publish details of—
(i) each instance in which CIL has been charged,
(ii) how much has been raised by the charging of CIL, and
(iii) the impact on delivery of housing infrastructure development.”—(Paul Holmes.)
This amendment would ensure that mayors charging CIL reported on the effect that this has on housing development.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 34 introduces schedule 15, which contains provisions to enable strategic authorities outside London to undertake their housing and strategic planning competences. These standardise the extension of powers relating to the acquisition and use of land currently held by Homes England and local authorities to strategic authorities outside London.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has outlined the clause and set out the responsibilities and changes she wants to make in a very reasonable manner. This seems a perfectly sensible solution; it encourages more transparency and accountability in some of the actions that Homes England undertakes. People in my constituency feel that some of the money allocated to development through the current channels of scrutiny and planning is not necessarily in lockstep with what they want for their local areas. As I have said throughout, a devolution Bill should mean true devolution, so I think these responsibilities coming under the remit of the new authorities is a good thing. I welcome this addition to the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15
Acquisition and development of land
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 15, page 173, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;
(aa) in subsection (2), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;”
This would alter the amendment of section 9(2) so that the function there would not be conferred on the GLA (only on strategic authorities outside London).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 110, 111, 127 and 128.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Bill gives the Greater London Authority, as well as other strategic authorities, the powers of Homes England to acquire land both by agreement and by compulsory purchase. Government amendments 109 to 111 change that, ensuring that the power is conferred only on strategic authorities outside London. This is because the Greater London Authority already has similar powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and so does not need the additional powers, and duplicating powers could create legal uncertainty and confusion. We are providing greater certainty by clarifying these provisions.
Similarly, the Bill provides that part 1 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 applies to all strategic authorities, as well as Homes England. Government amendment 127 clarifies that this should be applied only to strategic authorities outside London, as functions of Homes England are to be conferred only on those authorities. Again, The Greater London Authority already has similar powers to acquire land by agreement through the Greater London Authority Act.
Government amendment 128 would place conditions on how strategic authorities outside London use land that is not consecrated or a burial ground and that at the time it was acquired had a building being used or previously used for religious worship. The use of this type of land is subject to prescribed requirements about the disposal of monuments. This is in addition to the requirement extended in relation to land that contains burial grounds or consecrated land, which is already extended by schedule 15(10).
At present, this provision applies only to land acquired by Homes England, and the amendment would extend it to strategic authorities. This change ensures consistency in how land powers are applied across different public bodies. This is a small change, but it is necessary to ensure that the legislation works properly and longstanding protections are not lost.
Amendment 109 agreed to.
Amendments made: 110, in schedule 15, page 173, lineusb 11, leave out from “on” to end of line 12 and insert “strategic authorities outside London.”
This would be consequential on Amendment 109.
Amendment 111, in schedule 15, page 173, leave out lines 19 to 21.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would be consequential on Amendment 109.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 15, page 173, line 30, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 131, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166 and 167.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments make a series of technical corrections to ensure that the Bill uses the correct terminology. They replace the word “authority” or “authorities” with “council” or “councils” in several places in schedules 15 and 16. The change is important because the term “constituent council” or “councils” is the defined and accurate term used elsewhere in the legislation for the local authorities that form part of the combined authority or the combined county authority.
Using consistent language helps to ensure that the Bill is clear, legally precise and easy to interpret, and avoids confusion about which bodies are being referred to. The amendments do not change the substance of, or intent behind, any of the provisions; they simply improve their clarity and consistency, and hopefully result in a lack of confusion—although I am not clear that they do—in the drafting. I encourage the Committee to support the amendments, to help to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the Bill.
Amendment 112 agreed to.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 113, in schedule 15, page 173, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 116, 118, 121, 123, 125, 132, 135, 137, 140, 160, 163, 165, 168 and 169.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments add the Broads Authority to the list of bodies that must be consulted by mayoral strategic authorities or provide their consent to non-mayoral strategic authorities before land in its area is compulsorily acquired using powers devolved by the Bill. The broads are a nationally important landscape with equivalent status to a national park, and the Broads Authority is best placed to advise on the potential impact of land acquisition in its area. This is about ensuring proper engagement with the right bodies when decisions affecting sensitive and protected areas are made. That reflects the approach already used by existing authorities and ensures that all constituent councils have a clear and accountable role in the decision-making process.
Amendment 113 agreed to.
The Chair
We are moving ahead with alacrity, are we not?
Amendments made: 114, in schedule 15, page 173, line 36, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 115, in schedule 15, page 173, line 38, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 116, in schedule 15, page 173, line 39, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 117, in schedule 15, page 174, line 5, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 118, in schedule 15, page 174, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 119, in schedule 15, page 174, line 11, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 120, in schedule 15, page 174, line 13, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 121, in schedule 15, page 174, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the CCA.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 122, in schedule 15, page 174, line 15, after “council” insert
“that is a strategic authority”.
This would clarify that subsection (8) applies to a county council only if it is a strategic authority (in line with the application provision in subsection (1) of the new section 9A).
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments are, again, about making the legislation clearer and more consistent. They confirm that only councils that are strategic authorities are subject to the additional consent requirements when using the compulsory purchase powers in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This matches what was already set out in subsection (1) of proposed new section 9A of that Act.
Without those changes, there would be confusion about whether all county and district councils are included. That is not the intention: these provisions are meant to apply only where councils are designated as strategic authorities. The amendment is helpful to avoid misinterpretation and ensure that the Bill is applied as intended.
Amendment 122 agreed to.
Amendments made: 123, in schedule 15, page 174, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 124, in schedule 15, page 174, line 21, after “council” insert
“that is a strategic authority”.
This would clarify that subsection (9) applies to a district council only if it is a strategic authority (in line with the application provision in subsection (1) of the new section 9A).
Amendment 125, in schedule 15, page 174, line 22, leave out from “any” to end of line 24 and insert
“of the following bodies whose area contains any part of the land subject to the proposed compulsory acquisition—
(a) any National Park authority;
(b) the Broads Authority.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 15, page 174, line 29, at end insert—
“Main powers in relation to acquired land
6A In section 11, omit ‘by the HCA’.”
This would reflect the effect of the Bill on Schedule 3 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
This technical amendment again ensures consistency in how the Bill amends existing legislation. It removes the words “by the HCA” from a reference in section 11 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to schedule 3 to that Act. In paragraph 10 of schedule 15 to the Bill, “by the HCA” is already being removed from the heading of schedule 3 to the 2008 Act. This change aligns with that. The original wording refers specifically to Homes England, and no longer reflects the full range of bodies that may exercise those powers under the Bill.
This amendment ensures the legislation is clear and accurate, and I encourage the Committee to support it to ensure that we have clarity and consistency across our legislation.
Amendment 126 agreed to.
Amendments made: 127, in schedule 15, page 177, line 2, after “authority” insert “outside London”.
This would alter the amendment of paragraph 17(1) so that the function there would not be conferred on the GLA (only on strategic authorities outside London).
Amendment 128, in schedule 15, page 177, line 22, at end insert—
“(8) In paragraph 21 (other land connected to religious worship), in sub-paragraph (1), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would provide for paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to apply in relation to land acquired by a strategic authority outside London. It allows for restrictions on the use of land that was connected to religious worship but was neither consecrated nor a burial ground.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 129, in schedule 15, page 179, line 34, leave out from “(6)” to end of line 4 on page 180 and insert—
“(a) in paragraph (bb), omit ‘and’;
(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(d) if the land is in the area of a strategic authority to whom this section applies, consult with that strategic authority (in addition to any other consultation required by this subsection).’”
This would require the Secretary of State to consult a strategic authority (as well as the local authority) before authorising a compulsory acquisition
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 130, 143 and 152 to 154.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Amendment 129 revises the consultation process when the Secretary of State is authorising the compulsory acquisition of land. It removes a provision that would have required consultation with a strategic authority instead of the relevant local councils, and adds instead a requirement to consult the strategic authority as well as the councils where the land is located. This ensures that both local and strategic authorities are involved in decisions affecting land in their area. It is a practical and balanced amendment.
Amendment 130 removes the provision that makes the mayor the person responsible for exercising the compulsory acquisition of land function in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Instead, the powers will be exercised by the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority. This is consistent with how the function is currently exercised in most existing mayoral strategic authorities, where decisions about how to use the function are taken collectively. The amendment does not affect the ability of authorities to make timely and effective decisions on land acquisition; it simply ensures that there is collective buy-in behind the decision.
Amendments 143, 153 and 154 ensure that all local authorities, non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities have access to the same powers and restrictions in relation to acquiring and using land under the Town and Country Planning Act. At present, only mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities are covered by these provisions, because they are included in the Act’s definition of local authorities. This creates an unnecessary gap in the legislation, which the amendments seek to close. These are technical but important changes that support fairness, consistency and effective delivery across all areas with devolved powers.
Finally, amendment 152 is again technical, but is an important clarification to ensure that the Bill works as intended. It updates the wording to confirm that the proposed new subsection (4) contained in paragraph 21 of schedule 15 applies to both section 238 and section 239 of the Town and Country Planning Act. These sections deal with the use and development of consecrated land and burial grounds. This is a technical amendment that ensures consistency and accuracy across all our legislation.
Amendment 129 agreed to.
Amendments made: 130, in schedule 15, page 180, leave out lines 10 to 13.
This would remove the provision under which the compulsory acquisition function of a mayoral combined authority or CCA is exercisable by the mayor (so that it would be exercisable by the combined authority or CCA itself).
Amendment 131, in schedule 15, page 180, line 18, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 132, in schedule 15, page 180, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 133, in schedule 15, page 180, line 24, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 134, in schedule 15, page 180, line 26, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 135, in schedule 15, page 180, line 27, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 136, in schedule 15, page 180, line 32, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 137, in schedule 15, page 180, line 33, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 138, in schedule 15, page 180, line 38, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 139, in schedule 15, page 180, line 40, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 140, in schedule 15, page 181, line 1, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the CCA.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 141, in schedule 15, page 181, line 10, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 142 and 144 to 151.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments make a small but important clarification to part 2 of schedule 15. They ensure that the provisions explicitly insert only references to non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. This is because mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities already have these powers conferred upon them by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Specifically, they fall within the definition of “local authorities”, so including them is unnecessary. These amendments do not remove any powers from mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities; instead, they are small, technical amendments that simplify and clarify, and they are important for the consistency and coherence of the Bill.
Amendment 141 agreed to.
Amendments made: 142, in schedule 15, page 181, line 13, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 143, in schedule 15, page 181, line 20, at end insert—
‘Power of Secretary of State to require acquisition or development of land
17A (1) Section 231 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “borough” insert “, or a combined authority or CCA,”;
(b) after the second “council” insert “or combined authority or CCA”.
(3) In subsection (2), after “local authority” insert “or a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.’
This would extend the application of section 231 so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within its scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within subsection (2) as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Amendment 144, in schedule 15, page 181, line 23, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 145, in schedule 15, page 181, line 27, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 146, in schedule 15, page 182, line 3, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 147, in schedule 15, page 182, line 5, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 148, in schedule 15, page 182, line 11, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 149, in schedule 15, page 182, line 13, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 150, in schedule 15, page 182, line 16, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 151, in schedule 15, page 182, line 18, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 152, in schedule 15, page 182, line 24, leave out from “In” to “compulsorily” in line 27 and insert
“sections 238 and 239 ‘relevant acquisition or appropriation’ also includes an acquisition made by a combined authority or CCA under this Part or”.
This would provide for the new subsection (4) to apply to section 238 (as well as section 239); and would remove the reference to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as this does not apply to combined authorities or CCAs.
Amendment 153, in schedule 15, page 182, line 35, at end insert—
‘Overriding of rights of possession
22A In section 242, in paragraph (a), after “authority” insert “or a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.
Constitution of joint body to hold land for planning purposes
22B In section 243, in subsection (1)—
(a) for “local authorities concerned” substitute “authorities concerned”;
(b) for “local authority for planning purposes” substitute “local authority, or non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA, for planning purposes;
(c) for “any other local authority” substitute “any other local authority, non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.’
This would extend the application of sections 242 and 243 so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within their scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within their scope as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Amendment 154, in schedule 15, page 183, line 3, at end insert—
‘Extinguishment of rights of statutory undertakers: preliminary notices
23A (1) Section 271 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1) (in both places);
(b) subsection (5) (in the words before paragraph (a)).
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
“(9) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Extinguishment of rights of electronic communications code network operators: preliminary notices
23B (1) Section 272 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1) (in both places);
(b) subsection (5) (in the words before paragraph (a)).
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
“(9) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Orders under sections 271 and 272
23C In section 274, in subsection (3), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Extension or modification of functions of statutory undertakers
23D (1) Section 275 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1)(a);
(b) subsection (3) (in all three places);
(c) subsection (5)(c).
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Procedure in relation to orders under section 275
23E In section 276, in subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Objections to orders under sections 275 and 277
23F In section 278, in subsection (7), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Contributions by local authorities and statutory undertakers
23G (1) Section 306 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) the heading;
(b) subsection (1) (in the words before paragraph (a) and in paragraph (c));
(c) subsection (2) (in the words before paragraph (a));
(d) subsection (3) (in both places);
(e) subsection (4).
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”’—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would extend the application of these sections so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within their scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within their scope as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35
Housing accommodation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 155 to 158 and 170.
Schedule 16.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Housing is a national priority for this Government, and these provisions play an important role in enabling strategic authorities to contribute meaningfully to this core mission. This is particularly true where regional leadership is needed to unlock delivery. These provisions enable strategic authorities to assess housing demand, provide amenities and acquire land. Land may be acquired compulsorily, subject to consultation in the case of mayoral strategic authorities, and via consent, in the case of non-mayoral strategic authorities. I believe this drives cohesive regional solutions.
Some may argue that local councils have sufficient powers, but the clause grants strategic authorities the scope for the transformational, region-wide impact that I know Members across the House want to see. Clause 35 and schedule 16 harness proven powers to meet regional housing goals, and I commend them to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We know that these powers are used by existing authorities, so we are not going to rock the boat on this one, but I will briefly respond to the Minister. She stated that housing is, quite rightly, the Government’s top priority, and that these provisions enables that priority to be delivered, but where these powers already exist we see mayors not delivering on housing commitments. I think of London, where the mayor who has these powers is not delivering houses; in fact, building in London is at an all-time low, and houses are not being delivered for the people who genuinely need them in our capital city.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
A big reason we have a problem with housing numbers is the Building Safety Regulator. There will be a Back-Bench debate on it on Thursday, which I am sure the Minister will attend in order to give the Opposition’s views. It is critical that we get that sorted to get house building going.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for promoting me to Minister; I cannot wait for that to happen one day. I suspect that I will have more grey hair, and less hair. He is correct, and I am on the record as having spoken about this: the Building Safety Regulator is a barrier to building. I know that this is slightly out of scope, but I have offered to work with Ministers on a genuine cross-party basis to try to remove some of the burdens on the Building Safety Regulator, which I think has purview over too much that is not material to the delivery of housing.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but in terms of the current powers, the mayor is not delivering, and the Government are not delivering on their promise of 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State yesterday said that his job would be on the line if he did not deliver the 1.5 million homes. I suspect that we will see a sacking in the not-too-distant future, because everybody in this country who is an expert in housing—there was a documentary on it just this week—says that the Government will not achieve their stated aim of building that number of homes.
The clause in itself is not a panacea that will unlock huge housing growth in our cities. The Minister should be careful not to overpromise and underdeliver, as her mayors consistently do across the country. However, we know that this is a unification and simplification of the system. We will not divide the Committee on the clause. This is a perfectly sensible solution, but let us not pretend that it is a sledgehammer that will crack a nut, and cause the Government to achieve their aims across the country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It would be remiss of me not to address some of the issues in London. We recognise that we have a housing challenge in London and across the country. I suggest that the hon. Member show a little more humility, because the consequences are the legacy of the Conservative party. He did not mention that the Conservatives in government slashed housing targets across the country, which throttled development; or that they crashed the economy and caused mortgages to rise, which had an impact on demand. He did not mention their record on inflation, which increased construction costs.
Anyone who knows housing knows that there is a lag, so the impacts of the Conservative party’s failure—[Interruption.] The hon. Member solicited this by attacking our brilliant mayor. The Conservatives’ failures are feeding through, and we are now trying to accelerate progress. That is why record investment of £39 billion is going into social housing, and it is why we are seeing housing targets across the country. We are doing our part to get the country building again. Ultimately, we will be the ones to solve the housing crisis.
Paul Holmes
We really should not accept this party political broadcast. One million homes were built over the lifetime of the previous Parliament. Can the Minister explain to the Committee why housing delivery is at an all-time low? Why is it that experts in the housing sector, including the Home Builders Federation, say that the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised simply cannot be delivered, and the Chancellor’s own figures show that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered? That is a failure on the promise that she made, is it not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
If we look at a graph, we see that housing starts plummeted in 2023. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to remind the Committee who was in power at that time—it was the Conservative party. We are trying to accelerate housing development, and we have a 1.5 million target that we are committed to delivering. That is not to underestimate the incredible difficulty, but we believe that homes are a requirement and a necessity. We have a homelessness crisis and a temporary accommodation crisis, so we have to get to grips with this. That is why we are doing the job of accelerating housing development. The amendments, and giving strategic authorities the powers that will enable them to play a role, are critical to that endeavour.
The Chair
I have been generous in allowing that debate to range rather more widely than might generally be thought acceptable. After all those technical amendments, we needed a bit of debate, did we not?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16
Housing accommodation
Amendments made: 155, in schedule 16, page 184, line 17, at end insert—
“(1B) But if a local housing authority has complied with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to a part of the area of a combined authority, CCA or two-tier county council, that strategic authority—
(a) does not need to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1A) in relation to that part of its area; and
(b) may rely on the local housing authority’s consideration of the matters referred to in subsection (1) as if it were the strategic authority’s own consideration of those matters.”
This would remove the duty imposed by the new subsection (1A) where a local housing authority has already carried out the required consideration of housing conditions and enable the strategic authority to rely on the local housing authority’s consideration of housing matters.
Amendment 156, in schedule 16, page 184, line 24, at end insert—
‘Provision of housing accommodation
2A (1) Section 9 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), after “local housing authority” insert “, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority”.
(3) In subsection (4), for “A local housing authority” substitute “An authority”.
(4) In subsection (5), for “a local housing authority” substitute “an authority”.’
This would expand the application of section 9 so that combined authorities, CCAs and two-tier county councils that are strategic authorities are within its scope.
Amendment 157, in schedule 16, page 184, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 185 and insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute—
“(1) A local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority may provide in connection with the provision of housing accommodation under this Part (whether it is provided by that authority or another authority)—”
(1B) In subsection (4), for “A local housing authority” substitute “An authority”.’
This would enable a local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority to provide board and laundry facilities in connection with accommodation, whether the accommodation is provided by that or another authority.
Amendment 158, in schedule 16, page 185, leave out lines 8 to 22 and insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute—
“(1) A local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, provide and maintain in connection with housing accommodation provided under this Part (whether it is provided by that authority or another authority)—”.
(1B) In subsection (3), for “the local housing authority” substitute “the authority”.’
This would enable a local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority to provide shops etc in connection with accommodation, whether the accommodation is provided by that or another authority.
Amendment 159, in schedule 16, page 186, line 16, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 160, in schedule 16, page 186, line 17, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 161, in schedule 16, page 186, line 22, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 162, in schedule 16, page 186, line 24, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 163, in schedule 16, page 186, line 25, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 164, in schedule 16, page 186, line 30, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 165, in schedule 16, page 186, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 166, in schedule 16, page 186, line 36, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 167, in schedule 16, page 186, line 38, leave out “authority” and insert “council”
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 168, in schedule 16, page 186, line 39, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 169, in schedule 16, page 187, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 170, in schedule 16, page 187, line 12, leave out “(1)” and insert “(2)”. —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This corrects the reference to the Housing Act 1985.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36
Mayoral development corporations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause grants mayors of strategic authorities outside London the power to create mayoral development corporations. They are another tool for mayors to enable regional regeneration and economic development. Stripping away these provisions would limit regional ambition. The clause gives effect to schedule 17, allowing mayoral development corporations to spearhead land acquisition, planning and infrastructure projects. This will help to foster jobs, unlock growth, drive infrastructure development and attract investment into our regions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17
Mayoral development corporations
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 290, in schedule 17, page 193, line 2, at end insert—
“7A After section 202, insert—
‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land
Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”
I rise to speak to the amendment, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Although we welcome mayoral development corporations, since this Government came to office an environment has been created, if Members will forgive the pun, where it is easier to build in rural areas but harder to develop our urban centres. As we mentioned in a debate last week, the Government’s planning and building conditions are making it harder to densify urban centres. We have discussed the housing targets in rural and urban areas, and now mayoral development corporations are being created. That is perfectly acceptable, but we do not think it protects the green belt across this great green and pleasant land, and it will essentially allow mayors to build on greenfield land without the necessary checks and balances.
The amendment is simple. We tabled it because we want to make it much easier to build in areas of existing development where there is scope for densification, and we want to protect green belt and greenfield land by restricting building on it where many people to whom the mayor is accountable simply do not want that to happen. The amendment would not rule out such development completely, but it would make the MDC more streamlined and disciplined about unlocking areas where infrastructure exists and it is easier to build, rather than using green fields, where we believe development is more difficult and takes longer.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand the intent behind the amendment. Mayoral development corporations are already subject to the national planning policy framework, which reflects the brownfield-first approach that the hon. Member has talked about, encourages densification where it makes sense and includes strong protections for greenfield land. We think the provisions already exist, because any mayoral development corporation must have regard to the national planning policy framework.
We believe it is important to give mayoral development corporations flexibility, however, because there will be instances, in the case of urban extensions or new towns, when the decision needs to be made to build on greenfield land. We think that the amendment would disproportionately restrict mayoral development corporations and place on them additional restrictions that do not apply to other bodies. Ultimately, it would reduce mayoral development corporations’ flexibility, slow down delivery and add unnecessary constraints on decision making. For that reason, we do not support it, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Paul Holmes
I understand where the Minister is coming from, and I am inclined not to press the amendment to a Division but to treat it as probing. She is aware that I have long advocated for, and pushed her and the Government on, the incentivisation of densification. In our debate on amendment 304 last week, I think she reasonably accepted that a densification strategy was needed. She has come back to the NPPF today, but that is simply not working. We tabled amendment 304 and this amendment to solidify the position. We think that that is a perfectly reasonable approach to the guidance and regulations.
I hope for some reassurance from the Minister that she and the Government will look at further action regarding that incentivisation. If I get that reassurance, I will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 60, in schedule 17, page 195, line 23, leave out from “that” to end of line 24 and insert
“the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”.
This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils.
We welcome the introduction of the mayoral development corporations across the country. Some good successes have been achieved in London; not many miles from here, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park continues to grow and expand, and it has some incredible facilities, including a new arts hub.
The one small thing that we would like the Minister to consider is the make-up of the corporations. It is important that people trust the organisations that are doing such large-scale development, which can potentially make enormous changes to the landscapes around them, whether on credible brownfield sites or, as others have said, through new towns or greenfield development, about which people are far more sensitive.
The Bill states that a mayoral development corporation must have at least one member from each constituent authority and that there must be no fewer than six members, but it does not give a maximum number. There is a real risk that if there is simply one member from each authority—some of these authorities are fairly large to start with—the majority of a corporation may be made up of people who are not connected to the community. It is absolutely right that there should be expertise, strategic people, and perhaps people from other sectors with skills, talents and experience from other places or sectors, but the organisation needs to be locally led. That is why my amendment 60 simply states that a majority of members of an MDC should be
“elected members of relevant councils”.
We think that that is a minor amendment that would benefit and broaden trust, and lock it in to local decision making.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I recognise the hon. Member’s intention to strengthen the voice of local councillors in the decision making of mayoral development corporations in their areas, and I support that intent. The Bill will introduce a requirement on mayors outside London to appoint at least one elected member from each council in which the development corporation operates. That mirrors the existing requirement on the Mayor of London, which has been in place since 2011, and how this function has been conferred on mayors outside London so far. That is working; the evidence from on the ground and from practice is that this approach is the right one and strikes the right balance.
I agree with the hon. Member that membership of a mayoral development corporation should absolutely include local expertise from the relevant councils, but it is important that it should be led by people with experience and capacity in the matters that the corporation is taking forward and delivering. When they work well, the corporations bring together local and technical expertise from both the public and private sectors to address complex, long-term projects that in most cases will take longer than an election cycle to deliver.
I worry that the amendment would weaken the mayor’s ability to choose the right mix of expertise that he or she and the strategic authority need in the mayoral development corporation, and limit the corporation’s capacity to drive delivery. Although we agree that there must be council representation, we think that the amendment as drafted provides that, without binding the hands of the mayor, in a way that allows them to bring in any key technical experience that they might need from outside their area in order to deliver impact on the ground.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 17 equips mayors with the tools they need to drive the critical function that we are asking them to. Mandatory consultation with councils where development corporations are proposed ensures transparency and collaboration. Preserving these provisions strengthens our devolution framework, enabling regions to take targeted, strategic action to boost growth, drive development and create jobs. They add no new duties, but only extend proven mechanisms.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 17 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 37
Assessment of economic conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities, as we have said consistently in discussing the Bill, are a key driving force for local growth. To lead growth for its area, the authority must understand its local economy. That is why this clause will provide combined or combined county authorities with a duty to assess the economic conditions of their areas.
Local councils will continue to play a critical role in formulating the strategic authority’s understanding of the local economy. Combined and combined county authorities will be required to consult and work with the councils in their area when building their assessment of economic conditions. This requirement will ensure that the economic strategy for an area combines a strategic, regional assessment of opportunities with a ground-up understanding of local economies. The duty has been long held by strategic authorities without issue and empowers them to develop a holistic understanding of their local economies.
Paul Holmes
Briefly, could the Minister elaborate on some of the consultation mechanisms that the strategic authority would use with the authorities that currently have the power? We completely understand why she has introduced this, but throughout proceedings in Committee, we and the other Opposition parties have expressed concern about the erosion of existing authorities’ responsibilities with the centralisation that is going on. Will the Minister elaborate on how much weight the new authority will give local authorities’ considerations?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that although we want a strategic assessment of the economic opportunities and risk in an area, and a local growth plan that crosses that area, it must be informed by constituent authorities. The way it is working in practice—we hope the legislation enables this—is that constituent authorities bring into the conversation their understanding, insights, analysis and key priorities for the area, and a collective decision is made. Ultimately, I come back to the point I have made consistently: the mayor’s capacity to be effective and deliver is only as strong as their relations and collaboration with constituent authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clause 38
Local growth plans
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 29—Inclusive economy plans—
“Schedule [inclusive economy plans] confers on mayoral strategic authorities functions in relation to inclusive economy plans”.
This clause renames Local Growth Plans as Inclusive Economy Plans and introduces NS1.
New schedule 1—Inclusive Economy Plans—
“1 (1) After section 107K of LDEDCA 2009 insert—
“Mayoral combined authorities: inclusive economy plans
107L Inclusive economy plans
(1) A mayoral combined authority must prepare and publish an inclusive economy plan for its area.
(2) An inclusive economy plan must—
(a) include an overview of the economic conditions of the area (including the main economic characteristics which are likely to influence current and future economic inclusivity),
(b) identify priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area that are agreed with the Secretary of State (‘shared inclusive economy priorities’), and
(c) identify key projects for achieving economic inclusivity in the area through private or public investment.
(3) A mayoral combined authority must, in preparing an inclusive economy plan, develop a set of local indicators to measure inclusive economic outcomes in its area.
(4) The indicators should—
(a) be developed in collaboration with residents of the area, including by means of public participatory process convened by the mayor of the combined authority, and
(b) include the proposed effect of the plan on—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) health, including inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) happiness and social connection;
(iv) access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) increased power and control of the economy to people living in the strategic authority area.
(5) A mayoral combined authority may revise or replace an inclusive economy plan published under this section.
(6) The authority must arrange for any inclusive economy plan that is revised or replaced to be published.
(7) The requirement under subsection (1) may be met by the publication of an inclusive economy plan before this section comes into force.
107M Secretary of State guidance on inclusive economy plans
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to mayoral combined authorities in relation to inclusive economy plans under section 107L.
(2) A mayoral combined authority must have regard to any such guidance in exercising their functions.
(3) The guidance may include (but is not limited to) guidance about—
(a) who the authority might consult when preparing or revising the plan;
(b) information to be included in the plan under section 107L(2) or the plan as revised;
(c) the process for agreeing priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area with the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 107L(2)(b);
(d) the circumstances in which the authority may revise or replace the plan;
(e) the ways in which the authority may have regard to the plan when exercising its other functions.”
(2) After section 107M of the LDEDCA 2009 (as inserted by sub-paragraph (1)) insert—
“107N Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared inclusive economy priorities
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared inclusive economy priority of a mayoral combined authority when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the authority, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to that priority.
(2) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of 30 section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘shared inclusive economy priorities’ has the meaning given by section 107L(2)(b);
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a non-departmental public body is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(4) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.”
(3) After section 32 of the LURA 2023 insert—
“Mayoral CCAs: local inclusive economy plans
32A Local inclusive economy plans
(1) A mayoral CCA must prepare and publish an inclusive economy plan for its area.
(2) An inclusive economy plan must—
(a) include an overview of the economic conditions of the area (including the main economic characteristics which are likely to influence current and future economic inclusivity),
(b) identify priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area that are agreed with the Secretary of State (‘shared inclusive economy priorities’), and
(c) identify key projects for achieving economic inclusivity in the area through private or public investment.
(3) A mayoral CCA must, in preparing an inclusive economy plan, develop a set of local indicators to measure inclusive economic outcomes in its area.
(4) The indicators should—
(a) be developed in collaboration with residents of the area, including by means of public participatory process convened by the mayor of the CCA, and
(b) include the proposed effect of the plan on—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) health, including inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) happiness and social connection;
(iv) access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) increased power and control of the economy to people living in the strategic authority area.
(5) A mayoral CCA may revise or replace an inclusive economy plan published under this section.
(6) The CCA must arrange for any inclusive economy plan that is revised or replaced to be published.
(7) The requirement under subsection (1) may be met by the publication of an inclusive economy plan before this section comes into force.
32B Secretary of State guidance on inclusive economy plans
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to mayoral CCAs in relation to inclusive economy plans under section 32A.
(2) A mayoral CCA must have regard to any such guidance in exercising their functions.
(3) The guidance may include (but is not limited to) guidance about—
(a) who the CCA might consult when preparing or revising the plan;
(b) information to be included in the plan under section 32A(2) or the plan as revised;
(c) the process for agreeing priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area with the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 107L(2)(b);
(d) the circumstances in which the CCA may revise or replace the plan;
(e) the ways in which the CCA may have regard to the plan when exercising its other functions.”
(4) After section 32B of LURA 2023 (as inserted by sub-paragraph (3)), insert—
“32C Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared inclusive economy priorities
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared inclusive economy priority of a mayoral CCA when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the CCA, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to that priority.
(2) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of 30 section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘shared inclusive economy priorities’ has the meaning given by section 107L(2)(b);
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a non-departmental public body is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(4) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.”
(5) After section 333F of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 insert—
“333G Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared economic inclusivity priorities for London
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared economic inclusivity priority for Greater London when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the Mayor, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to the priority.
(2) A ‘shared local economic inclusivity priority for Greater London’ is an economic priority for Greater London that—
(a) is developed in collaboration with residents of Greater London, including by means of public participatory process convened by the Mayor of the London;
(b) has regard to—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) improving health and narrowing inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) improving happiness and social connection;
(iv) improving access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) promoting increased power and control of the economy to people living in Greater London;
(c) is agreed between the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State;
(d) is published by the Mayor of London.
(3) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority 20 other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a person is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(5) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made 30 under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.
(6) In section 420 (regulations and orders), in subsection (7), in the appropriate place, insert ‘section 333G;’.””
This new schedule renames Local Growth Plans as Inclusive Economy Plans and introduces NS1.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces schedule 19, which requires mayoral combined authorities and county authorities to produce and publish a local growth plan—a critical tool and document for driving the developments, jobs and prosperity that we want to see in areas. We will discuss schedule 19 in more detail later in the debate.
Siân Berry
I rise to speak to my new clause 29 and new schedule 1, which seek to replace clause 38 and schedule 19. They would replace local growth plans with inclusive economy plans, which, following an enhanced process of consultation and approval, would have the same prominence in terms of policy priorities as the proposed growth plans. While we have adopted much of the same drafting and general process, wherever the goal of growth appears, my new version says instead that our goal would be an inclusive economy or economic inclusivity.
It is important to confront the harmful concept of growth for the sake of growth. Prioritising economic growth, wherever it may come from, above everything else is wrong. Growth may be the Government’s No. 1 mission, but what is the point if it does not serve the people? Growth alone is insufficient to address inequality and the environmental crisis. For example, gross domestic product has roughly doubled since 1980, yet the richest five households in the UK own more wealth than 13.2 million people. When it comes to jobs, growth has not delivered, with low pay and stagnant real wages the reality for most.
A test of the Bill, and indeed the Government, will be whether it succeeds in moving beyond growth alone to creating an economy where everyone can thrive. That has to begin with clear intentions for the type of economy we want to build, not growth at any cost. In the case of local government and the new strategic authorities, how this is codified in the prescribed strategies for each area is important. That is the core reason why, working with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, I have proposed this change to the core goals in the central economic strategy that each local authority will produce.
Those comparing our new schedule with the original will see that, in paragraph (3), proposed new sections 107L of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and 32A of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 add further steps to the process of developing a plan so that it can be tailored to each local area through appropriate local indicators of progress. Paragraph (4) of the new schedule would require mayors to bring the public into both setting local indicators and setting out how the plan will help to achieve the inclusive economic outcomes that cover the necessary ingredients for a good life in that area. That is because, if they are going to shape a local economy, they need to listen and deliver for the people who live and work in it.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I am troubled by this concept. In my constituency, which is one of the most deprived in the United Kingdom, we have an opportunity to invest in a vast range of renewable energy to mine again critical minerals that will accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel use in order to transition to an economy based on green energy. I would like the hon. Lady to clarify this, but I think she is suggesting that that kind of growth is not acceptable in some way, and that we cannot have good-quality green growth that supports jobs in areas of extreme poverty and deprivation and deals with the challenges of international imports from areas of the world that do not share our values.
Siân Berry
That is a good question. Where there are opportunities to develop new industries and new jobs and create new economic activity, my new schedule enables local communities such as those in Cornwall to set inclusive economy indicators. In the examples given, that might mean that those new industries are owned and managed by the local people and the local community, rather than through outside investment from extractive industries that will take the profits elsewhere. Those are things for the local community to decide under the new schedule.
I will just finish the quote from the report by the New Economics Foundation and its allies:
“At a time of eroding trust in politics, this is a major problem for combined authorities elected to make the economy work better for people .”
My new clause and new schedule will help authorities to become more purposeful about developing their own unique economies and economic opportunities in a way that truly builds a better economy that serves local people, and not just more production and profits that can be extracted away from them without improving everyday lives. It will bring more people more inclusively into the local economies that we want to develop.
I will not press my proposals to a vote today, but I hope that the Minister has listened and will recognise that the current Government proposals could create the wrong incentives and the wrong measures of progress, and might risk producing the wrong outcomes for the people who live in the areas that will be governed by these economic plans. I also hope that she will make improvements similar to my proposals before the next stage of this Bill.
Paul Holmes
I will speak briefly not only to clause 38 but to new clause 9 and new schedule 1. Although the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion has indicated that she does not wish to push these measures to a vote, it is important that we address her well-intentioned amendments. I absolutely agree with her about the economic situation that this country currently faces, caused by the Labour Government. However, we have a fundamental disagreement about the solution that she outlines.
That is because the Government are doing the right thing here in making sure that local growth plans are adequate and can do what they say on the tin: deliver economic growth for the people the mayor serves and the people we serve. I would argue that, if the economic situations are right, as set down in the powers that the Government are outlining, inclusivity is absolutely enshrined within those powers. If we have growth, twinned with the protections currently within legislation in this country, such as environmental protection, corporate social responsibility and some of the equality legislation that we have, inclusivity will be delivered by the new businesses created by the people being empowered to set them up, and those businesses will be able to grow because of some of the measures that the Government are introducing.
The hon. Lady mentioned consultation and inclusivity in terms of people being able to shape their futures. I believe that that is a debate that we had last week when we were considering her amendment on citizens’ assemblies—she knows my oft-stated view on those. I will not tell the Committee that view again, because my blood pressure might rise slightly if I did. Once again, however, I will argue that the point at which there is inclusivity and advocacy from people is at an election, and that the mayor will be judged at an election on whether they have been able to deliver economic growth and whether they have fundamentally made life better for their constituents over the time that they have been in office.
Siân Berry
Is the hon. Member really saying that that he is against asking the people of a local area what would constitute a good economy for them and making that the focus of the mayor’s economic indicators? Also, if all of these proposals are going to be put into manifestos at election time, how long does he envision the manifestos for these mayoral elections being?
Paul Holmes
The way that people want their economy to go is to have growth, and for them to be able to pay their bills, feed their families and have good jobs. I say to the hon. Lady that any mayor who does not put those things in their manifesto is not worth electing. An election is the point at which the mayor should be held accountable. Any mayor who says that they would not want to make their local economic situation better and improve the lives of their citizens should not be elected. The current legislation that we have enables people perfectly reasonable input into the journey that a mayor might take over their mayoral term.
I believe that over the course of the last few Governments, the House of Commons has made great strides in protecting the environment and in making sure that mayors and public authorities, as well as private businesses, are responsible in how they treat their people, but also grow with the environmental and other protections that are necessary. While I understand the hon. Lady’s argument and I genuinely have a great deal of respect for her, the unintended consequences of the new clause and the new schedule will be to restrict growth, and to restrict the power of the mayor to have a responsible attitude to enabling growth on an even basis within the system that we currently have.
The hon. Lady’s proposals would be restrictive, but they would also take us back. A mayor should be unrestricted in their ability to deliver the growth and prosperity for the people they serve. I do not believe that the new clause and new schedule would do that. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not pushing those to a vote, but if she did, we would not be able to support it, and we would vote against it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clause and new schedule. Let me put on record that I completely agree with the goals of an inclusive economy; they are right, and we have a lot of sympathy for that. This Government are clear that we have to get the economy to work better for people, and I am obliged to remind everyone that over the last 14 years that was not the case.
Ultimately, mayors must have a democratic mandate, and the mark of success will be not just economic growth, but the economy impacting on people’s living standards, jobs and wages—bread and butter, tangible things. We think that the aims that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve are already locked into the Bill. If we achieve growth only on a graph and people do not feel it, our residents, voters and electorate will ensure that we pay the price. Therefore, that democratic lock is already baked into the Bill.
It is also worth saying that local growth plans, as set out in the Bill and as conceived, are a manifesto commitment for this Government, and the existing, established regional mayors have already developed their plans, with many starting to publish them already. By focusing on challenges around housing, transport, skills, employment and innovation, those plans will set the framework for unlocking the growth potential of those areas. As I said, growth only matters if it has a tangible impact on people. The strategic authorities that we are working with absolutely understand that and are trying to drive through measures that will deliver it.
We have already agreed growth priorities with 12 mayors. Those priorities are underpinned by a robust evidence base and a shared understanding of the biggest cross-cutting challenges and opportunities for economic development in those areas. Inclusivity, people and the impact on communities are absolutely central to that. The Government want to see more jobs, more money in people’s pockets, higher wages and investment that touches each and every one of our communities. One of the things we think mayors can do, when we devolve, is to ensure that they rewire their local economics in a way that gives people a greater stake.
Through co-operative ways of organising things, as in Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester, we are seeing new models that put people and communities front and centre to ensure that the growth and development that happens fundamentally benefits people. I believe that we have already baked in the intent behind the hon. Lady’s new clause and new schedule within the very design of this policy, but, more importantly, the power of democracy will drive and unlock it: if mayors and this Government do not deliver for people in our communities, we have the ballot box by which people can show their discontent. I think the hon. Lady has already said that she is not pressing the new clause and new schedule to a vote.
The Chair
If Ms Berry wanted to test on the Committee’s view on the new clause and new schedule it would come at a later stage anyway. Members will remember that we are debating clause 38.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 19
Local growth plans
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 54, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.
(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 55, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.
(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral CCAs to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
Vikki Slade
The amendments would ensure that the local growth plans schedule makes reference to, and considers in some reasonable depth, the needs of nature. I have gone back through the schedule, and I cannot see any reference to nature, nature recovery, or anything that suggests that the Government understand the rural economy. It feels very much like a schedule that is written with towns in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for housing and planning, spoke in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee—I am sure some colleagues in here were also on that Committee—about the importance of bolting in the land use framework to the planning system. I think he described it as otherwise being
“an expensive waste of time”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 94.]
Fundamentally, there is a real risk of a failure to think about the needs of rural economies such as Cornwall’s, which are reliant on the way that we use our land. Those may not be traditional uses of the land—they may be ancient industrial ones—but those need to be considered.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady and I are veterans of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee. She is absolutely right to outline some of the comments made in that Committee, because that Bill has fundamental consequences for this legislation. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns that not only is nature not included within local growth plans, but the consequences of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will mean that nature will not feature at all in some of the planning decisions made in the development of those local growth plans?
Vikki Slade
The shadow Minister is exactly right; that is why so many people are so worried about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. My inbox has been filled with people asking how they can block it, because of the damage it will do to so much of our nature.
The piece missing from this measure is that economic growth in rural areas is fundamentally entwined with nature recovery. In my area in Dorset, Purbeck Heaths is a new national nature park, and nature tourism is actually one of our growth industries. We have incredible charitable businesses, such as Birds of Poole Harbour, that have brought back species to Dorset—species that have been missing for generations and are now thriving—and we now have a whole industry growing around that. The National Trust is also buying land that is no longer commercially viable and restoring it for rewilding, ensuring that it is there for generations to come. Failing to think about that as part of the local economic strategy is a missed opportunity, and it risks subverting development that is already there.
Economic development is not independent of our lives. People move to places because they have nature around them. Those places may have great shops, town centres and theatres, but people will also move there because of the great quality of life. A lot of people will say that being in nature is a part of making their lives better and happier. If times are tough and people do not have a lot of money in their pocket, being close to nature is something that they can still enjoy and that restores their mental health. We underestimate the power of that at our peril.
We have huge areas of countryside where farming is becoming a marginal activity. Rather than being the driver, it is almost becoming something that people are doing because they love it—but they are losing money hand over fist. If we do not bake in that land use framework, which already pre-exists the local growth plan, it will be much easier for farmers to “get rich quick” by moving land out of its existing use and into what the economic development plan sees as the latest, greatest new thing—losing that land forever—rather than complying with a land use framework that explains why it is so important to keep that land in use, and helps to retain the value of that land for farming, or ancient industry, into the future.
I recognise that the Minister has not yet accepted any of our amendments, so I recognise that getting this one through may be a real struggle, but it is so important, particularly given how, as the shadow Minister has already explained, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has really squeezed out nature. I say to the Minister, “Please put nature back in and recognise that the land use frameworks and nature recovery strategies matter.” In many places they already exist and already have local buy-in, and we would not want to see mayoral authorities ride roughshod over what is already there.
The Chair
I feared we might stray into other considerations on planning, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for speaking specifically about land use and nature recovery, which is the subject of the amendment. I call the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. I will say three things. First, local growth plans are locally-led documents with the flexibility to consider the challenges and opportunities that matter to particular areas. Places are already taking into account whether there are green growth opportunities in their area. In rural areas they will take into account the rural economy, the farming economy, and how that has a bearing on economic development opportunities. We need a framework that allows the flexibility for plans to be locally specific. In areas where it makes sense, places are already doing that in practice and we expect them to do that going forward.
Vikki Slade
Local nature recovery strategies matter not only in rural areas. If someone lives in the most urban part of the country, the local nature strategy is critical to those tiny pockets, so I would argue that it is as relevant in cities as it is in rural areas.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She pre-empted the second point that I was about to make, which is that local nature recovery strategies are critical for every part of the country. Decisions that impact on land use and nature recovery will still need to consider the relevant policy framework, including the local nature recovery strategies that exist across the country. Any strategic planning decision will have to have regard to those local strategies. Thirdly and finally, we recognise that economic development sits alongside nature recovery. The two should not be and do not need to be in conflict.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, I recognise that the Minister has set out that the local nature recovery strategies will have to be regarded, and also that local growth plans will be very important. Which does the Minister see as having greater weight in local planning and strategic planning decisions?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
They are doing different things. The local plan is a strategic document. It is not the spatial development plan that will be the key driver for planning decisions. As is the case now, it is absolutely right that the relevant authority making the decision on planning has regard to local nature recovery strategies.
Lewis Cocking
What happens if one plan says one thing and another plan says another? The Minister just said that the strategic spatial framework would take precedence, but what happens if the local plan from the local planning authority has policies that contradict or do not align with the strategic plan?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is why we have the planning process. We will come on to talk about the strategic spatial plan. That is a document that will have to be done in consultation with constituent authorities. It will focus on strategic infrastructure and development that is needed in the area. Ultimately, we hope that that process will be done through consensus. When it is not, and when there is a dispute between the constituent local authority and the strategic authority in the round, we have said that that will go to the Secretary of State to make a determination through the independent Planning Inspectorate. The planning process already has provisions for us to mitigate that instance.
We have discussed the land use framework in Committee before. We have consulted on it and will publish the response to the consultation in due course. Although the principle of ensuring alignment across the piece is the right one, we think that before we have a tangible framework that is live and has been tested, it is premature to put a requirement in legislation that we would need to have regard to the land use framework.
Vikki Slade
I recall a similar argument being made last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and a reference to “nascent” organisations. My hon. Friend pointed out that by the time the Bill comes into play some of the land use frameworks will be up and running, so they predate the legislation that will form the local growth plans. It feels completely pointless and a waste of money for local authorities to spend all that time putting in place the land use frameworks only for this legislation to come along and say, “Well, they haven’t really been tested.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are developing the process of providing a land use framework, and we are taking onboard the responses that have come through the consultation. Whether that framework ends up being high level and strategic or quite granular will come out through that process, so it feels incredibly prescriptive and constraining to put that requirement on local plans at this stage.
Whether it is the local plan that is thinking about how we drive economic opportunities in the area, or it is the spatial development plan that mayors will be required to have in place, it will obviously have to take into account land use, the composition of the area, nature and all the key considerations in order to be an effective plan that works and that is supported by all the constituent members and parts that need to get onboard. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Vikki Slade
Although it may come back at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 352, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils in the local authority area about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils in the area about a mayoral combined authority’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 353, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral combined authority must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing evidence gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined authorities to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 354, in schedule 19, page 201, line 4, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 107L(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral combined authorities’ local growth plans.
Amendment 355, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils about a mayoral CCA’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Amendment 356, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral CCA must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing information gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral CCAs to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 357, in schedule 19, page 202, line 37, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 32A(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral CCAs’ local growth plans.
Manuela Perteghella
Local growth plans are rightly a key part of the devolution agenda, because the plans guide inward investment and set priorities for economic growth, as we have discussed, as well as development and regeneration in combined authority areas. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the importance of inclusive economic and growth plans. Inclusivity is necessary. Consultation and engagement are necessary. Currently, however, there is no statutory requirement for mayoral combined authorities to formally record or engage with town and parish councils in the creation of these plans. These amendments aim to address that gap, increasing local accountability and inclusivity.
Amendments 352 and 355 would require any mayoral authority making a local growth plan to include the views of local town and parish council. Amendments 353 and 356 would go further, requiring active engagement with those councils by, for example, sharing draft proposals and the evidence behind the proposals for local growth plans, and giving councils a real opportunity to provide feedback before local growth plans are made. By requiring consultation at a parish level and genuine involvement in devolution decisions, and by valuing local voices, these provisions resist the top-down approach.
In my constituency we have brilliant parish and town councils. When the district councils are abolished and a new unitary council is made, it is likely that towns and parishes will be asked if they wish to take on more services and assets, including possible development sites.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
We are about to embark on a devolution deal for Cheshire and Warrington. The county of Cheshire alone has more than 330 civil parishes. Is the hon. Lady not concerned about the burden that would be placed on a mayor? Her amendment would require the views of all those parishes to be set out, so requiring the mayor in statute to report on that seems like a big ask.
Manuela Perteghella
I am hearing a lot from the Labour Benches about there being 800 or 350 parish councils, so we cannot engage with them, but there are different ways to engage, such as online consultations or parish fora to which representatives and clerks can be invited. That the mayor cannot engage because there are so many parish councils is not a factor; I am sure that the mayor will be able to.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I do not think it was suggested that the mayor could or should not engage; the question is about putting mandatory engagement in the Bill. Does she accept that is very different from what she has just stated?
Manuela Perteghella
No, I do not accept that. We are saying that there have to be minimum standards for engagement. In fact, amendment 354, reinforced by amendment 357, would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance on minimum standards for engagement. It would then be up to the mayor, but at least the engagement with our first tier of local government would be meaningful and consistent across all mayoral combined authorities.
Setting minimum standards for engagement would provide a baseline for consultation across all mayoral authorities, but that consultation can be in different formats. Let us not forget that two-tier local authorities with county councils often have lots of parish councils and they already consult them on local plans, for example, so there are ways to do it. It is not that the leader of the county has to meet all 200 parish councils individually.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady has made an excellent case, as she has done throughout the Bill Committee, for our excellent town and parish councils, which serve my constituency well. Does she agree that many district councils, in anticipation of being abolished, are already transferring assets—some of which are crucial to local growth and local planning—to parish councils, which are adequately taking them on? If the Bill goes through, however, those parish councils will have no consultation even though they have already taken on some assets that are crucial to the local growth that we are talking about.
Manuela Perteghella
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If a district council is to be abolished, parish and town councils are asked to take on assets or sites that could be development sites, so they become stakeholders in the local growth plans. They will be the landowners, so not to engage with the parish and town councils that take on those assets will be damaging in the long term.
Our amendments raise the quality and legitimacy of decisions by reflecting broader community input and inclusivity. They would, again, prevent a top-down approach. Crucially, they would set consistent standards nationwide, so that engagement is not left to the whim of individual authorities or mayors. I will press amendment 353 to a vote, because the changes are about the principle of genuine devolution and about giving real power to local communities, not concentrating it on the mayors. The amendment is essential to make the promise real, so I will press it to a vote.
Paul Holmes
In the brief time that I have, I want to back the hon. Lady’s excellent points. Throughout the Bill Committee so far, town and parish councils, which deliver so much for our constituents and are being asked to do more in the future, have been wilfully neglected. They are vital to the economic growth that the Minister rightly says needs to be delivered in our local areas, but the structures currently being proposed do not include them, as the hon. Lady has outlined and as I outlined in my intervention.
Assets are already being transferred in my constituency. Our country parks are currently looking at being transferred from our district council, Eastleigh borough council—I have many disagreements with it, but it is doing the right thing in this case—to our town and parish councils. In country parks specifically, there are business opportunities for raising revenue, development opportunities, and nature protection opportunities that town and parish councils simply will not be able to intervene on or to consult on with the new mayors.
Manuela Perteghella
On country parks and forestry, charities that plant forests are providing apprenticeships because the number of our forest rangers has declined. After hearing about the post-16 education and skills strategy yesterday, it is really important to provide these apprenticeships and jobs in rural areas so that our young people can continue to thrive.
Paul Holmes
Is there a clearer example than that of how this issue could contribute to the local growth plans that we are discussing?
The legislation is being drafted at a time when the operational environment is changing. The Minister needs to accept that, as the hon. Lady outlined, because of the proposals, there has been a major asset transfer to our town and parish councils that means they have become quite fundamental and large-scale landowners. Some of that development opportunity—that opportunity to look strategically at where growth needs to come into our local communities—is, crucially, allocated to some of our town and parish councils, but the legislation completely and wilfully removes them from any consultation exercise with a mayor.
I think that this is a pragmatic Government, and that the legislation was drafted before they realised that the consequences of some of the proposed measures were that district councils, because of the funding situation, had started to move some of those assets. The Minister needs to realise that the operational environment has fundamentally changed because, as I have said, it is crucial that town and parish councils are included in relation to land holdings as well as some of the operational responsibilities that they now have. Otherwise, the proposed local growth plans will not deliver on the key aspiration that has been outlined.
Siân Berry
Apart from seeking views, there is a requirement in the amendment to share draft proposals and the evidence base. Does the hon. Member consider that to be an important part of correcting errors in the evidence base and in the assumptions of the draft proposals, which only those councils might have information about?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree, because local parish councillors are experts in the areas that they represent—sometimes more so than district councillors or county councillors, because it is a smaller area. I think that the amendments from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon are perfectly acceptable—I hope that the Minister agrees—and that she is trying to rectify an unintended consequence of the legislation. In many areas, it tries to streamline some of those aspirations, but in this area it is cutting its nose off to spite its face. We will support the amendments, and I hope the Minister will also support them and come back to us on how she imagines that she will strengthen her ability to consult town and parish councils.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
First, let me thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who has been a consistent champion and advocate of town and parish councils throughout the Bill Committee. Let me put it on record again that town and parish councils play an important role in their communities. That is a role that we understand, that we appreciate and that we want to support. We have been clear that the—
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but I reassure the Committee that, as we may be sitting later this evening, we will have a 20-minute break at 4 pm.
Schedule 19
Local growth plans
Amendment proposed (this day): 352, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils in the local authority area about the plan.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils in the area about a mayoral combined authority’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 353, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral combined authority must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing evidence gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined authorities to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 354, in schedule 19, page 201, line 4, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 107L(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral combined authorities’ local growth plans.
Amendment 355, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils about a mayoral CCA’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Amendment 356, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral CCA must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing information gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral CCAs to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 357, in schedule 19, page 202, line 37, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 32A(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral CCAs’ local growth plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for being a consistent champion of town and parish councils throughout our proceedings. We also recognise the important role they play in their communities, which is understood and should not be understated.
We have been clear that local growth plans should reflect the diverse needs and views of a range of local and regional stakeholders. Not only is this already possible, but it is actively encouraged. We have set out in the Bill that, when drafting their local growth plans, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities must have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State. That guidance can already set out who the authority might consult, as well as the information to be included in the plan.
We think that specifying a minimum level of engagement for town and parish councils is disproportionate and over-prescriptive. For too long, central Government have dictated what local areas should do, who they should talk to and how they should do it, and we are calling time on that. This is about empowering mayoral strategic authorities to reach out to the key stakeholders that they know and understand best to drive the changes they want in their place. For that reason, I do not believe this cluster of amendments is necessary.
I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I would not usually speak at this stage, but as the Minister did not outline why she does not believe that the Government should prescribe who mayors and mayoral development corporations should be talking to, will she say why, in earlier clauses, she prescribed that organisations such as trade unions should sit around the table? Town and parish councils that are delivering services on the ground are now being asked to deliver more services because of some of the provisions she has included in the Bill. Why does she not think it is necessary to issue guidance forcing mayors or MDCs to talk to them when they are delivering?
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman moved an amendment specifically to rule out trade unions. The Bill does not rule them in, in any way. I am slightly concerned that he might be misleading us—inadvertently.
Paul Holmes
I am not sure whether it is parliamentary to say that I am attempting to mislead the Committee. He corrected himself, so I will not take offence.
Paul Holmes
I know I am, Dame Siobhain. I cut my teeth against you in Mitcham and Morden in 2015, and I was required to be of strong stuff to try to beat you.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire is correct. What I am saying is that the Minister and the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. On various things, they are prescribing who mayors should talk to, who should be included in a strategy and who should sit around the table. But when it comes to organisations that are delivering services on the ground, and district councils that are to be abolished are transferring assets down to town and parish councils, the Minister says there is no need to prescribe that mayors need to talk to them. In many cases—including in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who so eloquently spoke to this amendment—these town and parish councils are increasing the number of services they provide, and they are taking on sections of land and businesses that are integral to the development of local growth plans. I say very gently, if the Minister wanted to completely devolve power to mayors, that would be absolutely fine with us, but let us not have a patchwork quilt approach by which she is absolutely prescribing who and to which stakeholders mayors should talk in other areas of the legislation, but she does not feel it necessary to include town and parish councils in this part. That is a shame.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To clarify, the Bill does not specify any particular organisation that should be consulted. It says that we will set that out in guidance. That guidance will be driven by a whole host of consultation with strategic authorities and their partners around the range of organisations and bodies we think is necessary. The Conservative amendment specifically picked on trade unions and specifically said we should exclude them. That is what we were pushing back against, so we are completely consistent in this.
In this case, again, there will be guidance that will talk about a range of local stakeholders, but we think it is wrong to prescribe on the face of the Bill that there should be a minimum requirement in order to engage with town and parish councils. That is too onerous and is disproportionate. We should allow the mayor and the strategic authority to know their stakeholders and the people with whom they need to have a conversation, to make sure that they have consensus and the support to drive forward their local growth plan.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 364, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17 at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 365, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14 at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined county authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
Vikki Slade
I am a little confused, Dame Siobhan, because amendments 352 and 353 are in the same grouping. I am assuming that you will return to 353.
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion who has also signed amendment 364, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). Amendments 364 and 365 are a simple pair of amendments; they are identical in wording, but one applies to a county combined authority and one to a combined authority. It really is quite straightforward: economic growth should not be off the back of public health and environmental damage. If a local authority is going to drive economic growth by, for example, creating a large industrial estate that will damage air quality or create incredible congestion, it is not paying attention to the environmental factors.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that all those things form part of a decision on a planning application. However, if this Government are genuinely committed to their international and national obligations on climate change, and if they are committed to reducing health inequalities, in which we know air quality is a major factor, it seems a small thing to make these amendments, which would assure that mayors—who may not have the same commitment as the Government to protecting air quality and our environment—must identify the contributions.
Interestingly, schedule 19 provides that the local plan must include all the economic factors and list their impact. Adding environmental factors would be a minor change. We will press the two amendments to a vote.
The Chair
I remind Members, and myself, that regardless of how amendments have been grouped for debate, we will take decisions on them in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. We will therefore come to a decision on amendment 353 once amendment 364 has been dealt with. I am sure that that is now clear to everybody.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I share the hon. Lady’s concern and her view of the importance of environmental and climate change targets. The economic plans of any strategic authority must be compatible with our legal targets for those core considerations.
National Government and local government at all levels, along with business and individuals, must continue to make a contribution to tackling climate change and improving the quality of the environment around us. I refer the hon. Lady to the local growth plans that are already in place and the actions of mayors who are already in place, which show that a regard for climate change and air quality obligations is a driving force.
Vikki Slade
There is a big difference between what has been done by mayors who have gone before and creating mayors across the whole country. The new mayors will have very different backgrounds and landscapes, both geographical and political, to deal with. The word “hope” has done a lot of heavy lifting today, and although I also hope that all these mayors are as great as some of the mayors who have gone before, the Minister has more confidence in them than I do. Legislation is there to ensure that we are not reliant on the good will of hard-working people in political posts, and to protect us from people who may achieve political office and then seek to create something that we will have to undo, at great cost to our economy and health.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point. Mayoral strategic authorities are already subject to the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets. We have seen that mayors have complied with the duties on local authorities around air quality and producing air quality action plans. Those have shown to be effective in London. The principle and the intention are that we are baking our climate and environmental obligations into the way that we are thinking about how we drive the economy. We will reflect on the guidance that comes alongside local growth plans to ensure that, across the piece, those national obligations are reflected in every tier of Government. The hon. Member has my assurance that we will reflect on it, and I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Vikki Slade
I am minded to press the amendment to a Division, so that our commitment to this is on record. I hope that the Minister will take onboard that this is done in good faith.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 359, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”
This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 360, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral CCA must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”
This amendment is related to Amendment 359.
Manuela Perteghella
These amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and they focus on ensuring that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered in the Bill. At present, the Bill largely focuses on urban centres and large population areas. There is a bit about rural areas, but not about the differences between these often isolated geographical areas, and there is little specific recognition of rural or geographically isolated communities, despite their unique challenges and contributions to the economy.
Both amendments would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits for those areas. In that way, we would ensure that the growth strategies are inclusive, balanced and relevant to the communities within the combined authority area. Combined authority areas can be very different—there could be a very populous urban cluster of unitary councils, and there could also be rural councils, which have completely different needs.
The amendments are fair to rural communities and advantageous to urban areas, because we know that when our rural areas thrive, so does the whole country. There are opportunities across our nation as a whole. Rural and coastal areas need focused attention—for example, supporting infrastructure such as transport networks, energy infrastructure and digital connectivity. There are families in my constituency who do not get any broadband connectivity, and their children have to go to cafés in towns to revise for GCSEs. Not having that connectivity also makes it very difficult for businesses to thrive, so we face unique challenges.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Is there evidence that existing mayors—such as the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough or the Mayor of North Tyneside—are not considering rural communities in their work, which would suggest that we need the amendments?
Manuela Perteghella
That goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was saying. We should not rely on the kindness of mayors to care about the whole of their communities; we need to ensure that local growth plans—which is what the amendments are about—include the needs of coastal, rural and isolated communities such as mine, where we do not have buses to take elderly residents to the nearest hospital. It is important that we make provision for local growth plans to consider the needs of rural, coastal and remote communities.
Obviously, rural areas are not homogeneous. We know that they have different industries—for example, agriculture and the visitor economy—and the demographics are different. Lots of people come to my constituency to retire, for example, which tells us about the health provision that we need our area. We want those needs to be reflected in the provisions on local growth plans in the Bill. A one-size-fits-all approach will lead to not only rural deprivation but missed opportunities for our nation as a whole.
In conclusion, the amendments are about equity, opportunity and smart growth. Rural, remote and coastal communities must not be left behind. Ignoring them would be a missed opportunity for the sustainable and inclusive growth that would power the whole region. Amendments 359 and 360 would ensure that all mayoral authorities plan meaningfully and strategically for every part of their area. For that reason, I will push amendment 359 to a vote.
Paul Holmes
I welcome amendment 359, moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. She outlined a number of issues that she faces in her rural constituency—the land of Shakespeare—where many people retire. I also represent a constituency that Shakespeare regularly visited. He stayed with the Earl of Southampton in the village of Titchfield, where his creative juices flowed.
We are going through exactly the same issues, in that both our areas are diverse in their make-up and population. If I take the proposed mayoral authority that is being created for Hampshire and the Solent, that region consists of two large working-class cities on the south coast, which probably look like old industrial northern working-class cities, in what is otherwise quite an affluent area. As well as those cities of Southampton and Portsmouth, we have many affluent and also deprived coastal communities, and the farming communities in Hampshire.
Without undermining the candidates of all political parties who will be standing—I will talk about Hampshire in this case, because it adequately illustrates the problems of the current legislation—it is perfectly reasonable to assume that because the future mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, like many others, is being asked to represent 2.2 million people, those diverse areas and what the mayor needs to look at in the growth plan need to be codified.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
It is great to see the coalition back in action. To use the hon. Member’s phrase, does he not agree that any mayor worth their salt would naturally have consideration for remote coastal and rural areas in those growth plans, considering that those are the people they are meant to represent? If they do not, they will find out at the ballot box what people in those areas think about it.
Paul Holmes
I have the scars on my back from fighting Liberal Democrats in my political career, but pragmatic policies are being proposed to improve the legislation that—let us face it—could very much be improved. That is the point of the Bill Committee. I in particular have many disagreements with the Liberal Democrats, but the amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon could absolutely improve the legislation.
The hon. Member for Banbury said that a mayor worth their salt should be able to do that anyway, but he just spoke against an amendment that would have enabled a mayor to speak to town and parish councils and do their job better. He cannot have it both ways.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Where in the legislation does it says that mayors will be prohibited from talking to town and parish councils? The way that the hon. Member phrased that implies that something in the Bill stops them from doing so, but I am not clear where that is.
Paul Holmes
Forgive me, I apologise to the Committee if I misspoke. I meant that the hon. Member for Banbury spoke against an amendment that would have guaranteed that mayors would have to speak to town and parish councils.
To return to amendment 359, the way that mayoral authorities are formulated means that mayors will represent diverse areas. As I said to the Minister, we want them to be able to succeed and we want to make sure that their growth plans actually work. In an earlier debate, I tried to adequately back up the Minister’s aim for mayors to deliver that and to make people in their area more prosperous. Businesses being created and economic growth should absolutely be the top priorities of the Government and the mayors that they are creating, and we fully endorse that message. I would argue, however, that mayors cannot do that if there is not guidance—or at least something in the legislation—that requires them to look at our coastal and rural communities and some of the unique challenges that the mayors will be able to face.
I will use the example of Hampshire and the Solent again. I have a friend who will probably end up being the Labour candidate for Hampshire and the Solent. She would make a very good mayor, but she has a history of representing and leading a council in an urban centre in an industrial city like Southampton—that is her expertise. She did it very well; she took over from the Conservative administration that I was part of. What she cannot do, and what she does not have strong experience in, is represent the coastal communities that go down the Solent and the farming communities outside.
The amendment would require rural and coastal communities and areas to be enshrined in the legislation. I do not think that Government Back Benchers, or the Minister, should be scared of that, because it would codify a solid strategic view for the local mayor to follow. I welcome the amendment, and we will support it if the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon presses it to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I know that Opposition Members—indeed, Members on both sides of the Committee—are all too aware of the unique needs and challenges that rural, remote and coastal communities face. I want to reassure them that local growth plans provide a framework for growth for all parts of their regions. That is exactly why we are requiring local growth plans to set out an economic overview of their whole area. Whether it is urban centres, or rural or farming parts of the entire strategic authority area, a proper assessment needs to be conducted. Yes, there is no requirement to specifically reference rural, remote or coastal areas, but there is equally no requirement to specify urban or suburban areas.
Manuela Perteghella
For such an important Bill, I do not think that we should wait four years—my community will be left behind by then. I do not want to wait for the ballot box; I want to give the mayor the tools to have inclusive local growth plans that take areas into consideration. That means they will be empowered to lobby the Government for transport networks or broadband connectivity in isolated areas and coastal communities, which are also, by the way, vulnerable to storms and flooding because of climate change, so they have very different needs.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I hear the passion and commitment of the hon. Lady clearly. Certainly my experience of strategic authorities and mayors who cover a combination of areas—including rural areas—is that they are mindful and clear about it; they want to have a conversation about transport connectivity and digital connectivity, and about how we drive economic growth and prosperity within our farming communities.
There is no evidence to suggest that local growth plans as defined in the Bill do not enable places to drive that. That is certainly not the experience that we are seeing at the moment. I understand the concern that a lot of our mayors have been in more urban areas, but in the north-east and increasingly with the mayors who are coming through our priority programme, they are clear about the importance of their rural communities and the fact that they will need certain powers and functions to drive that.
Although I completely understand the intent and legitimate concern behind the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I think they are too prescriptive, and it is right that we create the flexibility for mayors to understand their patch across the piece and then respond effectively in their local growth plan. I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment 359—although I think she said she will press it to a vote.
Manuela Perteghella
I would like to press amendment 359 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 19, page 201, line 6, at end insert—
“107MA Funding and support relating for Local Growth plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 53, in schedule 19, page 203, line 1, at end insert—
“32BA Funding and support relating to local growth plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral CCAs have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral CCAs in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral CCAs with regard to local growth plans.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 52 and 53 are about funding strategic authorities for the local growth plans. I apologise to Committee members—they are going to get bored of hearing me say the same thing—but the point I am trying to make with these amendments is that we are pushing huge amounts of responsibility, cost and activity into a space that does not yet have clarity about how that will be paid for.
As we all know, our local authorities are at breaking point, with many of them expecting to make section 114 declarations within the next 12 months. I am deeply concerned that additional responsibilities to help to fund a strategic authority above them—they will have to pay in through a levy but they will have only minimal involvement in the decision making coming back down—will put them under more pressure.
These amendments are designed to make that point, to probe the Minister and to ask for further consideration about how the Secretary of State can assure local communities, who will be paying for these authorities, that there will be sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge the functions involved in the preparation, publication and delivery of the local growth plans. There is no point in having a fantastic plan if it cannot be delivered, or if the organisations beneath the strategic authority have just gone bust.
I have said it before: the money is coming either from levies, from precepts, or potentially from grant funding through central Government. These amendments are really about probing to ask whether these growth plans will be coming with the money attached to them so that local areas, wherever they are in the country, have a fighting chance of producing a really good growth plan that benefits every resident within their area. That is why I have tabled these amendments: to try to draw a bit more out of the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for these probing amendments. Again, we had a debate about this earlier in Committee. Let me put on record that we are clear that, if we are asking strategic and mayoral strategic authorities to drive this critical function, they must have the capacity to do that job well. It does not serve them, the Government or their constituents if they do not have the capacity and capability to do that well. That is why we are, for example, providing capacity-building funding for mayoral strategic authorities, so that they can not only set up but do some of the core enabling functions, such as producing plans, well and effectively.
As I said, the principle holds that capacity-building support must be there to ensure that strategic authorities can do their functions incredibly well, but I do not think it is necessary to specify that on the face of the Bill, not least because we already have the spending review process where strategic authorities set out their demands, ambitions and resources, and have a conversation with Government about ensuring that they are adequately resourced.
The principle of capacity building is therefore absolutely clear and firm, and is designed into the way we are trying to drive the legislation forward. Putting it on the face of the Bill would be too prescriptive when there are already processes in place to enable it to happen.
Vikki Slade
For clarity, at the point of the spending review when Departments are given their spending powers, are we to expect the strategic authorities to be separately and directly given a settlement each year, or will that be over a three-year period in the way that local authorities are given that settlement? I just want clarity that it is a separate pot of money from local authority funding, because I would not want to see them have to fight like rats in a sack with the mayoral authorities above them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The process in practice is distinct from the local government funding settlement. Established mayoral combined authorities are all going through the integrated settlement process, which is a negotiated process where the demands and ambitions of the mayor are weighted against the funding in Government Departments that we have provided with an integrated settlement. That is being rolled out among established combined authorities.
For other mayoral combined authorities that are not established, the process in practice has been, “This is what we have tried to do in our area. These are the resources, and this is where we can use, for example, the mayoral precepting power,” and then there is a conversation with Government to enable them to do what they want. We are moving towards multi-year settlements, because we think that is a better way to run the public finances. The principle of multi-year settlements applies to local government and across Departments, and will apply in the context of mayoral combined authorities.
Vikki Slade
On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 172, 173, 175 to 177, 179 to 181, 183 to 185, 187, 189, 190, 192 to 194, and 196.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are quite a few amendments in this grouping, and all are broadly technical, clarifying and consequential amendments. Government amendments 172, 181 and 190 are consequential amendments that expand the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities agreed with mayoral strategic authorities. The change reflects the original intention set out in the White Paper to apply the duty to arms-length bodies.
Government amendments 174, 182, and 191 simply clarify that public authorities that operate GB-wide or UK-wide may be specified in regulations as subject to the duty to have regard, and that the duty will apply only to their activities in England.
Amendment 171 agreed to.
Amendments made: 172, in schedule 19, page 201, line 8, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 173, in schedule 19, page 201, line 11, after “of the” insert “mayoral combined”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 174, in schedule 19, page 201, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the local growth priorities of mayoral combined authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 175, in schedule 19, page 201, line 18, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 176, in schedule 19, page 201, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 177, in schedule 19, page 201, line 26, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 178, in schedule 19, page 201, leave out line 28.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government amendments we just discussed enable the Government to specify a broader range of public bodies in secondary legislation, to reflect the original intention of clause 38 and schedule 19. To avoid inadvertently curtailing the effect of those amendments, it is necessary to remove the restrictions on specifying a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department in regulations. Government amendments 178, 186 and 195 will have the effect of allowing the Government to specify in regulations Executive agencies and non-ministerial Departments. This reflects the duty as proposed in the White Paper.
Amendment 178 agreed to.
Amendments made: 179, in schedule 19, page 201, line 37, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 180, in schedule 19, page 203, line 2, leave out “bodies” and insert “authorities”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 181, in schedule 19, page 203, line 3, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 182, in schedule 19, page 203, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the shared local growth priorities of mayoral combined county authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 183, in schedule 19, page 203, line 11, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 184, in schedule 19, page 203, line 12, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 185, in schedule 19, page 203, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 186, in schedule 19, page 203, leave out line 21.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Amendment 187, in schedule 19, page 203, line 30, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 188, in schedule 19, page 203, line 35, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (5)(a), after ‘subsection’ insert ‘(8)(ab) or’;
(b) in subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(ab) under section 32C(2);’.”
This provides that regulations made under new section 32C of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (public authorities: duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities), as inserted by Schedule 19 to the Bill, are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The amendment provides that regulations that specify the relevant public authorities that must have regard to shared local growth priorities agreed between the Government and mayoral combined county authorities are subject to the negative procedure. Use of the negative procedure provides an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for these regulations. The amendment will enable us to introduce the duty on relevant public authorities in the most efficient way.
Amendment 188 agreed to.
Amendments made: 189, in schedule 19, page 203, line 37, leave out “bodies” and insert “authorities”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 190, in schedule 19, page 203, line 39, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 191, in schedule 19, page 204, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the shared local growth priorities for Greater London will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 192, in schedule 19, page 204, line 12, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 193, in schedule 19, page 204, line 13, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 194, in schedule 19, page 204, line 20, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 195, in schedule 19, page 204, leave out line 22.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Amendment 196, in schedule 19, page 204, line 29, leave out “person” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I know that the Committee agrees on the need to boost economic prosperity—there is broad consensus on that—and to do it in a way that reflects national and, critically, local priorities. Although many places have a plan for growth, there is no consistent requirement for places with a mayor to do so. Currently, only London is required to set out a strategy for its economic development, and we can see how London’s economy has benefited over the decades. Where places have taken the initiative, their plans do not have consistent central Government backing.
Schedule 19 will change that by creating a process for all mayors to agree local growth priorities with the Government. It will provide a common approach for mayors outside London to set out their priorities and investment opportunities in their local growth plan. Mayors up and down the country have given their backing to local growth plans, and we are already seeing this in practice. We have already agreed shared local growth priorities with the 12 longest established mayoral authorities, but agreeing and publishing shared local growth priorities is not enough. Mayors need to know that these priorities will be acted upon, which is why we will require public bodies to have regard to them at key points.
The approach will ensure that everywhere with a mayor has a clear plan for growth and economic prosperity in their area, whether that is a local growth plan or the economic development strategy for London. Crucially, it will ensure that the priorities we agree with mayors have Government backing, with relevant public bodies alert to them, so that all levels of government can pull in the same direction.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 19, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 39
Local Government Act 2003: expenditure grant
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Often, funding held by combined and combined county authorities is best used by local councils to deliver their responsibilities. Consistently throughout our proceedings, I have said that the mayor is only as strong as its partnership and relationship with the constituent authorities that have to drive the delivery. That is why the clause will standardise the power already held by most existing combined and combined county authorities to pay grants to their constituent councils.
The ability of combined and combined county authorities to pay their constituent councils is vital to the smooth running of transport, for example. Constituent councils are the highways authority in their area, with the duty to manage their road network and deliver highways maintenance; the authority therefore needs a power to fund them for delivering those key functions. We understand highways authorities’ need for sufficient funding to deliver against their duties, which is why clause 39 requires combined or combined county authorities to have in mind the necessity of ensuring a council has enough to deliver its highways functions when paying grants.
Vikki Slade
I welcome this provision. It is hugely important that money can flow in both directions, but there is one glaring omission, and the Committee will know what it is. The clause gives the strategic authority the power to pay a grant to a constituent council, but not to a town or parish council.
It may be that a town or parish council is fulfilling one of the areas of competence for the strategic authority. For example, under clause 2(g), public safety, a town council might be running CCTV or paying for community safety accreditation team officers. Under clause 2(e), environment and climate change, that parish or town council might be delivering solar insulation or be rewilding. I did not table an amendment on this, but might there be a drafting error in not allowing the strategic authority to pay a grant to an organisation associated with a constituent council? There is an opportunity there to use our town and parish councils in this way.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I commend the Liberal Democrat Members for their consistent championing of town and parish councils. This power is focused on the constituent authorities, in part because the use case we have in mind is transport, where we can see the importance of highways authorities in particular.
The hon. Lady will know that town and parish councils in the round tend not to draw down Government grant or funding. In conferring on strategic authorities this power, which currently goes from the Secretary of State to constituent authorities, we are thinking in particular about grant funding. That is why we have constrained it in the way we have set out. I will take her point away and consider it to make sure we have not missed a trick, but our focus is particularly on transport and highways authorities and the ability to pass through grant funding.
Vikki Slade
I thank the Minister for that assurance. I simply want the opportunity not to be denied. Town and parish councils often say, “Well, we are not allowed to access that,” but there may be an opportunity here, and to exclude them would be a shame. Perhaps use of “may” would give that opportunity for grant funding. I would welcome a tiny amendment at some point in the future. It is something to reflect on.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Encouragement of visitors and promotion of visitors
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 358, in clause 40, page 40, line 31, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area.
(1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include—
(a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and
(b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes—
(a) form of engagement used;
(b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and
(c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’”
This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 41—Visitor levies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area.
(2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”
Manuela Perteghella
Amendment 358 would require a strategic authority to engage with town and parish councils when using its powers to encourage tourism. Tourism is a vital part of the economy for many local areas, supporting jobs, local businesses and community services. The Bill allows strategic authorities to exercise powers to encourage visitors, but with no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in the process, as we explained before.
Andrew Cooper
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. If she likes
“piña coladas, and gettin’ caught in the rain”,
may I suggest that she looks no further than the Piña Colada festival in Northwich, which is delivered by Northwich town council and adds £500,000 to the local economy? I completely agree with her about the contribution that town and parish councils can make with stuff like this, but she would place a duty on the mayor that they “must” consult, and not all parishes are the same. Will she comment on that?
Manuela Perteghella
I said strategic authority—this is at the strategic authority level. Parish and town councils are different, of course, and so they have different needs. Some areas depend on the visitor economy. My town council is represented in arts and culture and in the tourism strategies for the town.
Vikki Slade
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now quite common for a town council to run the tourist information centre? The only two places in my constituency that have a tourist information centre are Wareham and Wimborne. Often, the tourist information centre might be in a museum that is run independently, but it is not the local authority that runs it any more; it is the town council.
Manuela Perteghella
In the case of unitaries, yes. The district council in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon is still in charge of the visitor information centre, but that will probably go to the town council when our district council is abolished.
Sean Woodcock
The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way many times on all her amendments. I understand the spirit in which she has tabled them—to make sure that parish and town councils are acknowledged for their work—but one of my concerns about this amendment, as with many of her others, is the amount of work that it would put not just on the strategic authority, but potentially on the parish and town councils. They will be given a blitz of things and asked to respond to them, but many will not have the capacity to do so. Does she not accept that that is a potential challenge to this being done properly?
Manuela Perteghella
As I said, we need to ensure that the strategic authority has the tools to consult town and parish councils. In an area such as mine, which is to go through reorganisation and devolution, we do not know what will happen to many smaller parish councils.
Andrew Cooper
My problem with the hon. Lady’s argument is that her amendment states:
“Engagement…must include…consulting town and parish councils”—
not “can include”, but “must include”. Of 300 parish councils, some might be home to only 150 people and some to 20,000 people, so they are completely different. I do not think that “must include” is appropriate.
Manuela Perteghella
The onus would be on the strategic authority to consult, not on the parish or town council to respond. The argument that there are 300 parish or town councils, so we will not bother to ensure that their voices are heard, really disappoints me. The amendment would require strategic authorities to consult town and parish councils when developing
“tourism strategies, policies and investment priorities”.
The amendment also asks the Secretary of State to issue guidance on minimum standards of engagement. Again, we must give the strategic authority the tools to engage with town and parish councils, which, I remind the Committee, are going to take on a lot of assets and services when district councils are abolished.
Overall, the amendment is about giving local communities representation in tourism planning. That is important, because town and parish councils know the attractions, infrastructure needs and growth opportunities of their areas best. If a theme park is proposed, the town or parish council will know exactly whether, for example, a bypass is needed. Engaging with them will ensure that tourism plans are grounded in the reality of each community. I repeat that the onus to engage should be on the strategic authority.
The amendment would also ensure inclusive planning. We talked this morning about inclusivity. Small towns, villages and rural areas are often overlooked in broader strategies, but they are vital to our economy. By considering them, we support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. The authorities would also have to report on how councils are engaged and what input they have provided. That would promote sustainable tourism, because the authority, by consulting on the views of parishioners through parish and town councils, would be able to balance visitor growth with the needs of residents. That is very important for areas such as my constituency. In short, the amendment would empower local communities, strengthen democracy and make tourism strategies more effective and inclusive.
New clause 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), would require the Secretary of State to review the idea of giving local authorities the power to introduce visitor levies in their areas. This is an important power for strategic authorities. Towns and cities across the country are proud of the role that they play in supporting the visitor economy, both domestic and international, but the system needs to be made fairer through a recognition of the costs, as well as the benefits, of such a high degree of tourism. The new clause would compel the Government to conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies.
Scotland introduced the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which gives councils direct powers to apply tourist taxes. Wales followed suit with the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025, and now Manchester and Liverpool have introduced a voluntary levy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole has introduced a levy.
Vikki Slade
On that point, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council did attempt to introduce an accommodation levy. Unfortunately it failed on a technicality, but it may well come back. The amendment asks for a review into a visitor levy, but what is important is that, if one is implemented, it does not end up going back to the Treasury. There would be no benefit to a local community whatsoever if money collected from a visitor paying £2 a night to stay in a hotel ends up going back to Government, when it is the local economy that is damaged and the local economy that can benefit—
Manuela Perteghella
I thank my hon. Friend for the example from her council. As she said, it is important that the levy is ringfenced for the strategic authority to reinvest in the local area, so that it could provide, for example, additional regional funding streams for arts and culture and for residents themselves. I hope that the Government will at least commit to conducting a review into visitor levies, so that we can safeguard our hugely valuable tourism industry.
Paul Holmes
I will speak to amendment 358, in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and to new clause 41. I do not want to reiterate what I said previously, Dame Siobhain—your face indicates that that would not be looked upon advantageously—but I think that the sustained efforts of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to have the rights and responsibilities of town and parish councils recognised is admirable. I believe that it needs to be repeated to the Minister, and it is now coming from two Opposition parties.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member for Cornwall, somewhere—he claims to speak for the whole of Cornwall—keeps saying “coalition”. I have already explained to him my view on pragmatic and sensible amendments to legislation that is flawed in many areas, as indicated by the number of Government amendments. We should not be so proud and tribal that we do not back other parties’ amendments when they make absolute sense.
Paul Holmes
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will reform his ways.
Perran Moon
In Cornwall alone, there are 213 town and parish councils. The amendment suggests that all 213 of them must be consulted. The hon. Gentleman does not strike me as somebody who likes layers of bureaucracy, but the bureaucracy involved in consulting 213 different town and parish councils for Cornwall alone seems to me not very sensible.
Paul Holmes
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the premise of the argument that we can back pragmatic amendments to legislation to improve it. I hope that he might look on that in his career, particularly when it comes to recognising the independence of Cornwall and having the mayoralty just for Cornwall that he is striving for.
Vikki Slade
A couple of amendments have been tabled on that issue. I think they were supported as a coalition by the Opposition, but not by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth.
Paul Holmes
I am not giving way any more, as I would like to make some progress. I am sure Government Back Benchers would like to go home at some point. I am happy to speak all afternoon, but I would like us to make some progress.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is absolutely correct. This comes back to a serious point: many town and parish councils across England are already taking on more assets that form an integral part of the stated aims of clause 40. I will give the Committee a brief example. In my constituency, we have Royal Victoria country park, and a proposal is being looked at to abolish the county council and have it go into a strategic authority. However, proposals are actively being considered to transfer Itchen Valley country park, which is managed by Eastleigh borough council, to the local town and parish council. Those country parks have a large number of businesses, conference centres and other things that would directly help a mayor to sell our great region and attract people into it. The circumstances are the same across the country in many regions, which will be left out of consultation.
Paul Holmes
No, not at the moment. I know that anything about town and parish councils exercises the hon. Members for Mid Cheshire and for Banbury. They may want to speak shortly, but I will first answer the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. I do not think he is an analogue politician in a digital age, but consulting downwards could merely mean that an email is sent to a mailing list. I am sure he has a huge mailing list, given the number of constituents who admire his work. That is one click—it does not mean his constituents have to respond to it, and it would not mean that his councils had to.
Vikki Slade
I wonder whether the hon. Member has a situation in Hampshire similar to ours in Dorset, where we have the DAPTC—the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils. Nothing in the amendment states that the strategic authority would have to engage with each and every town and parish council; it just says,
“with town and parish councils”.
That could be through their associations and through clusters of town and parish councils, such as the DAPTC.
Paul Holmes
It could also be stipulated in secondary legislation, if the Government wanted to go ahead with this. A council could literally advertise to town and parish councils that a consultation was going on. There could also be a mailing list where a strategic authority could send an email to the 300 parish councils. Those town and parish councils do not have to respond. That is devolution to town and parish councils, which the Government seemingly want to achieve.
Sean Woodcock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He has been very generous, as always, with his time. Does he accept that the danger with inserting the consultations that have been proposed in so many Opposition amendments is that the only growth we will see is in the number of officers in the strategic authorities sending out consultations, and the number of people in parish councils responding to them?
Paul Holmes
I am sure the hon. Member uses surveys when he communicates with his constituents. When he sends them out, I am sure he is not worried about overburdening his constituents in their lives, whether they want to respond or not. The same principle applies. There are many perfectly good programmes that could be used now to send out a consultation to people who are already programmed into a mailing list. If they want to respond, they can, and if they do not, good on them—that means that they are perfectly happy with what is going on.
I do not understand the constant fear about consulting town and parish councils. That is particularly the case—I say this with all due respect and with realism about the situation out there in the country—given the stated aims of the Government and the situation in local government, where, without a manifesto promise, districts and county councils are being abolished and there is a rush to transfer assets to town and parish councils. They are taking on mainstream responsibilities because of what the Bill will do. Whether we are talking about local growth plans or attracting visitors, many will miss out on having a visitor strategy that is worth the paper it is written on.
We are now discussing several authorities that already have the responsibilities. This legislation was drafted at a point from which we have moved on, and it puts unintended consequences before local authorities. I ask the Minister, in the spirit of constructive debate, to go away and properly look at how town and parish councils can be consulted. They are doing a lot more than the Minister or the Government Back Benchers who have spoken this afternoon realise.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for that lengthy and robust debate. I will start with clause 40, and then I will pick up on the amendments. I remind the Committee that the purpose of clause 40 is to promote tourism and cultural activities, which we think are critical to boosting regional economies. These provisions enable authorities to encourage visitors and provide facilities such as conference centres, driving job creation and investment. Authorities can add value by forging a regional brand, and by attracting business and visitors, they can make the most of their multifaceted areas and the strengths of each local authority area. That is key to creating thriving hubs for visitors and residents.
Amendment 358 and new clause 41 touch on something that has been a constant theme throughout the debate. I understand the aims behind the provisions, and I understand opposition parties’ desire to have regard to town and parish councils. I come back to the fact that we have agreed that town and parish councils have an important role. They are important local partners, and we expect authorities to work with them where appropriate.
However, we do not believe that it is proportionate or right to put that in the Bill as a legal requirement. We trust authorities to decide how best to engage with their local partners, including town and parish councils, based on what is right and appropriate for their areas. Requiring formal consultation and reporting could, as my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth have so eloquently said, create unnecessary administrative pressure, burden and resources at a time when we want these strategic authorities to be focused on delivery. Of course we want to encourage collaboration, but not to prescribe it. Engagement should be flexible. It should not be dictated by central Government or indeed this Committee; it should be left to mayors and strategic authorities who know their patch and their partners best.
I recognise the type of levy that new clause 41 would introduce, and I recognise that it is supported by local authorities and mayors. The Government keep all tax policy under review, and any changes to tax policy will be announced at a fiscal event in the normal way. I do not believe that the Chancellor would be very pleased with me if I were to make tax policy now in this great Committee.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It would. One thing that the Bill does create is a statutory duty for Government to respond to formal requests from mayors for new powers—the right to request. Calls for any new fiscal powers should be made through that process. The Government propose to take account of the impact of visitors on local authority areas through the fair funding review. That point has been made by local authorities and by Committee members, and we are doing so to account for the fact that visitors—
Vikki Slade
I fear I am about to be told off by the Chair, but—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister has just taken an interest. I welcome the Minister’s comment that the impact of visitors will be taken into account in the fair funding review. It is really important to add that that affects the fair funding review for our police authorities, as well as our local authorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are already mechanisms to enable places to introduce overnight stay levies through the accommodation business improvement district model, as the hon. Lady mentioned. With that, and allowing that this good Committee is not the Chancellor, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the amendment.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not press new clause 41 to a vote, but I would like to do so with amendment 358, which concerns consultation with parish and town councils on tourism strategy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Perran Moon
On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. On a point of clarification, it was suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that I am now in favour of a mayoral combined authority for Cornwall. For the record, I would like it to be known that I am not.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I do not mean to detain the Committee, but I like to think I am a man of integrity. On the point of order by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, it was not actually the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole who said that; it was me, and I apologise.
The Chair
I am sure the Committee would like to thank you for being so candid.
Clause 41
Co-operation with local government pension scheme managers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 41 requires that strategic authorities work with the local government pension scheme to identify and develop suitable investment opportunities. The local government pension scheme already plays a vital role in supporting local growth, with a portion of its £400 billion in assets invested in local projects. Such investments must of course provide a suitable return to pay pensions while also contributing to local prosperity, including through affordable housing, clean energy and local regeneration.
Although some combined authorities already maintain productive relationships with their local government pension scheme funds, clause 41 ensures that that collaborative approach becomes standard practice, embedding local government pension scheme engagement into local investment planning. That will not be a one-way responsibility. The Pension Schemes Bill introduces a corresponding duty on local government pension scheme funds to work collaboratively with their strategic authorities. Those reciprocal requirements are designed to foster key partnerships between the two parties to unlock investment in local growth and deliver benefits to communities across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Miscellaneous local authority functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These functions are essential to the effective operation of strategic authorities. We are now standardising these functions across all existing and future authorities. These powers are core functions that any local government body needs. Standardising them across strategic authorities will create consistent foundations for them to build on and thrive from. Without these functions, we risk significantly debilitating new institutions before they have a chance.
Paul Holmes
To bring some agreement to the Committee, the Opposition absolutely understand, as we did earlier about standardisation, such recommendations to give powers to CAs and CCAs. We are perfectly in agreement with that and we thank the Minister for bringing the issue to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 20
Miscellaneous local authority functions
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 197, in schedule 20, page 205, line 6, leave out—
“, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.
This removes the reference to combined authorities and combined county authorities inserted into section 113(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 as these bodies are already included in the definition of “local authority” under section 146A(1) of that Act.
This is a minor and technical amendment to prevent duplication in legislation.
Amendment 197 agreed to.
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43
Health improvement and health inequalities duty
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 247, in clause 43, page 44, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 248, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a CCA has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to have regard to the needs described in subsection (1).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a CCA insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of CCAs with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 247 and 248 are similar to those that we tabled on other issues. They seek the assurance that combined authorities will have “sufficient financial resources” and “adequate administrative support” to fulfil their duties on health and health inequalities. I will not repeat myself, because we have a lot to get through this afternoon, but I will add that there is a real risk that more and more responsibility is going to the strategic authorities from other Departments. The Department of Health and Social Care is under huge financial pressure, but it would be remiss if this responsibility were moved across to a strategic authority without sufficient funding. I am assured by the Minister of sufficient capacity-building funding and an integrated settlement for these organisations in future. I trust—I need some assurance—that that will include sufficient funds to take account of the health inequalities in our regions. If that happens, I will be happy not to press the amendments.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I reiterate the assurances that I have given. We have a vested interest in ensuring that, where strategic authorities take on new functions and duties, they have the resource and capacity to do so. That could mean: providing capacity funding to the strategic authorities; ensuring that the budgets necessary to deliver the outcomes that they are committed to are in place through the process of devolution, or, ultimately, when they become established combined authorities, through the integrated settlements. I again put that reassurance on the record.
Vikki Slade
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
The Member who tabled amendment 262 is temporarily not present. I will suspend the sitting for 20 minutes—[Interruption.] Let us carry on.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 43, page 44, line 24, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 263 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 263, in clause 43, page 45, line 20, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 262 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
Siân Berry
I apologise, Dame Siobhain, for my temporary absence at the crucial moment. I would very much like the Committee to listen to my proposals for amendments 262 and 263. [Interruption.] Apologies, Chair—is there an issue?
Paul Holmes
We were going to have a break, but then we did not when you came in, so it is fine.
Siân Berry
I will be as quick as I can—it is a very short speech.
Although the health improvement and health inequalities duty is very good, the determinants of health outlined in clause 43 are limited and lacking in consideration for the impacts on health from a wide range of activities that these new authorities will be able to influence. My amendments aim to fix that. It is positive that the Opposition parties all immediately spotted the need for improvement to this clause, and that both Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have aimed to fix it, albeit in different ways.
Amendments 262 and 263 would replace references to “prosperity” with “poverty and socio-economic inequality” in the clause. They would make clearer what causes and exacerbates ill health. I do not believe that “prosperity” on its own is sufficient. I will not repeat all my earlier arguments, but there is much supporting evidence for this from a range of organisations, including the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, the Reclaiming our Regional Economies programme, and the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, which I co-chair. This is just one of the ways that the Bill can make improvements, by focusing on reducing inequality and not simply creating growth within these new strategic authorities. I hope that the Government will accept my changes.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for the intention behind the amendments. I completely understand her key points. I think there is consensus that tackling health inequalities and their determinants is a key priority, which is why we included this clause in the Bill. We have deliberately drawn from the well-established approach in the Greater London Authority, which names “prosperity” among the general health determinants. It is deliberately broad so as to encompass a wide range of things. Our intention is not to establish an exhaustive list here, but to ensure that we cast the definition broadly enough to cover the issues of poverty and inequality that the hon. Lady raises.
There is a gradient across society for the determinants of health inequality, and my concern is that if we were to replace “prosperity” with poverty and inequality, we would cast the definition too narrowly. The broader “prosperity” definition captures poverty and social inequality, but it also captures other critical factors. Although we absolutely agree with the intent, we have tried to craft the legislation in a way that is broad and permissive, but that critically draws on the experience and track record of the Greater London Authority. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Siân Berry
I will withdraw the amendment for now, but I hope we see some measures coming through from the Minister, particularly in regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 253, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 258, in clause 43, page 44, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 257 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Amendment 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Amendment 254, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 260, in clause 43, page 45, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 254 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Siân Berry
I intend to speak at some length on the amendments—my apologies, Dame Siobhain, but this is a very important issue to me, as Members will hear from my speech.
My amendments 257, 258, 259 and 260 would all add access to green space and nature and environmental pollution to the list of potential determinants of health. They would also define the terms “green space and nature” in the Bill, in terms of green and blue space, as well as natural features in general that deliver benefits in health and wellbeing. The amendments would not necessarily expand the defined scope of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to combined authorities, but they would add clarity and support to strategic authorities that recognise the importance of those health determinants.
My amendments would add what I would argue are some inarguable determinants of health that are particularly connected to economic and trade activity, transport and land use, and so on. They would add air pollution, water pollution, contaminated land and any other forms of environmental pollution, as well as any that capitalism might invent and disperse in the environment in future. They are broad and helpful amendments.
The amendments seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions by explicitly recognising exposure to environmental harms as a general health determinant. They make it clear that the conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green spaces they access and the pollution they are exposed to—are fundamental drivers of health outcomes. I cannot see why currently the Bill completely omits environmental factors from its list of health determinants, despite overwhelming evidence that air pollution and green space profoundly affect health. The Minister commented in response to the previous amendment that the list is intended not to be exhaustive but to be broad enough, but in this case, by not including the environment at all, it is very much not broad enough.
I have been working with the Healthy Air Coalition and the Wildlife and Countryside Link on the amendments, and there is so much evidence that makes it clear that, on the environment and health, the Government have left important gaps that we should fill today. I will be pressing the amendments to a vote today. The 2022 chief medical officer’s annual report was, I think, the first to highlight the link between health inequalities and poor air quality. According to the report:
“Studies of hospital admissions and mortality show increased health risks associated with exposure to air pollution among those living in areas of higher socio-economic deprivation.”
According to Asthma + Lung UK, people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are seven times more likely to die from a lung condition than those in the richest areas.
It was my honour earlier this year to present the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, alongside colleagues from across parties in the House. That Bill is also named Ella’s law, after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose death from asthma at age nine has helped to prompt a sea change in how we view the impact of air pollution on health and its close links to inequality. My Green colleagues in the other place are now working towards Zane’s law with the parents of Zane Gbangbola, who died at age seven when hydrogen cyanide was carried into his home by floodwater from a contaminated landfill site. It would have been Zane’s 19th birthday today.
Including environmental harms in the list of health determinants would honour the goals of Ella’s law and Zane’s law. It would recognise that lives can be profoundly affected and even ended by environmental pollution and the harm it brings. My amendments would ensure that combined authorities embed both the prevention of environmental harm and the protection and enhancement of natural infrastructure at the heart of their work on health inequality.
Even in their own terms, the amendments are fully aligned with the Bill’s wider objective of providing greater local prosperity, better public services and improved wellbeing. In brief, access to nature will deliver directly on all three by boosting productivity and skills through improvements to mental and physical health, by reducing NHS costs—if everyone had good access to green space, the estimated savings would be over £2 billion a year—and by attracting investment and supporting regeneration through high-quality environments.
The amendments would play a big part in ensuring that combined authorities take into account the well-established relationship between the environment and public health inequalities when exercising their other functions too, particularly in transport, housing, planning and regeneration. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to consider risks from pollution and to plan at the landscape scale for natural benefits, connecting parks, rivers, floodplains and urban trees across boundaries. The amendments would provide a framework for joined-up, place-based decision making and good, popular place making—the kind of integrated governance that devolution is supposed to achieve. Embedding these goals on health inequalities into statute would also help to prevent local disparities, ensuring that clean air, water and land, and access to nature is a universal right, not a postcode lottery.
In conclusion, recognising that access to green space and exposure to environmental harms are core health determinants is essential to tackling inequalities that persist across England. Devolution is about empowering local areas to act. These amendments would empower them to tackle the root causes of poor health, not just the symptoms. The Government should take them up, and today I will be pressing them to do so.
Manuela Perteghella
I would like to speak to amendments 253 and 254. These are simple amendments, but they can make a meaningful impact and save lives. We want to add nitrogen dioxide levels and general air quality as a factor that combined authorities and combined county authorities must consider in their work to reduce health inequalities. That would ensure that environmental health risks were treated as core determinants of health, not as an afterthought.
We have heard a moving speech by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. We know that nitrogen dioxide pollution and poor general air quality are major contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and they disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Including air quality as a health determinant would protect the most vulnerable. As we have heard, poor air quality causes thousands of premature deaths every year and leaves many others with chronic illnesses, but these are preventable. We also know that pollution hits deprived communities and those near busy roads or industrial estates the hardest, yet without action, their voices will be ignored. By explicitly including air quality, we can create healthier communities, which will translate into fewer hospital visits and a better quality of life for everyone.
By explicitly including air quality in the duty of combined county authorities and combined authorities to reduce health inequalities, amendments 253 and 254 would ensure that environmental factors are considered alongside social and economic ones. They also would encourage authorities to make evidence-based decisions across transport and planning, and also about the siting of heavy industry in an area, so we would like to hear the Minister’s views and assurances on these important issues.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank both hon. Members for their heartfelt contributions to the debate. Let me put it on record that we absolutely recognise that air quality is one of the greatest environmental threats to our health and that its impacts are not felt equally in our society. Action by local authorities is absolutely pivotal in improving air quality locally. The Environment Act 1995 already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to work directly with local authorities on air quality action plans for their areas. Local air quality management statutory policy guidance also sets out ways of joint working with public health professionals to ensure that plans reduce health risks and disparities in affected communities to which local authorities must have regard.
Equally, we recognise the importance of environmental factors beyond air quality to people’s health. The scope of the general health determinants in the Bill has intentionally been crafted broadly. Some examples are given, but it is not our intention to set out a definitive list, as we think that would be too constraining. Combined authorities and combined county authorities remain the experts in their local areas. They will understand how air quality or environmental issues are impacting on their local communities, and they are best placed to decide how to consider general health determinants to deliver for their communities.
Siân Berry
Will the Minister clarify how the list in clause 43 as it stands was put together? It is bizarre that the use of tobacco and those kind of lifestyle choices are somehow explicitly listed, when environmental factors as a whole are left out.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Those are examples that we are giving based on existing precedents and drivers that we know local authorities are grappling with, but the list is not exhaustive. The intention is for it not to be exhaustive or definitive. We want to keep it broad, so that combined authorities and county authorities can decide the core determinants in their areas.
We as a Government are committed to the enhancement and protection of our environment. It is the Government’s intention to publish a revised environment improvement plan to protect and restore our natural environment with delivery information to help to meet the ambitious Environment Act 2021 targets. This will help us to restore our natural environment, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature. That is something we want to hardwire into what the Government are doing and what we are seeing at all levels of government.
However, I come back to the point that it is important to cast this as broadly as we can, to allow constituent strategic authorities and mayors to establish the determinants that are most pertinent in their areas. While I have sympathy with and support the intent behind the amendments, there is enough provision in the Bill as drafted to ensure that what strategic authorities are doing is aligned with a host of national and local requirements already in place to drive health equality and improvements in the environment.
Siân Berry
I thank the Minister for her comments. I cannot accept that a detail such as tobacco use was put in, and standards of housing as a result of Awaab’s law and the things have gone on there, and yet environmental factors have not yet been included. I am determined that they should be, and I still intend to push this to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 43, page 44, line 40, at end insert—
“107ZC Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy
(1) A combined authority must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 107ZB.
(2) In preparing the strategy, an authority must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—
(a) directors of public health within the authority area;
(b) Integrated Care Boards within the authority area;
(c) NHS bodies providing services in the authority area;
(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the authority area; and
(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
(3) The strategy must—
(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;
(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—
(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,
(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);
(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy; and
(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.
(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—
(a) life expectancy,
(b) healthy life expectancy,
(c) infant mortality rate,
(d) rates of obesity and overweight,
(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and
(f) suicide rates
within the authority area.
(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—
(a) household relative poverty rates,
(b) employment rates,
(c) relative child poverty rates,
(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,
(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and
(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.
(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).
(7) A report under subsection (6) must—
(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,
(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and
(c) be made publicly available.”
This amendment requires mayoral authorities to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 256, in clause 43, page 45, line 36, at end insert—
“24B Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy
(1) A CCA must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 24A.
(2) In preparing the strategy, a CCA must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—
(a) directors of public health within the CCA’s area;
(b) Integrated Care Boards within the CCA’s area;
(c) NHS bodies providing services in the CCA’s area;
(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the CCA’s area;
(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
(3) The strategy must—
(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;
(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—
(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,
(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);
(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy;
(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.
(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—
(a) life expectancy,
(b) healthy life expectancy,
(c) infant mortality rate,
(d) rates of obesity and overweight,
(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and
(f) suicide rates
within the authority area.
(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—
(a) household relative poverty rates,
(b) employment rates,
(c) relative child poverty rates,
(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,
(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and
(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.
(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).
(7) A report under subsection (6) must—
(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,
(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and
(c) be made publicly available.”
This amendment requires CCAs to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.
Siân Berry
Amendments 255 and 256 would add a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy to the requirements of the Bill. Life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010, something that has not happened for well over a century. According to Professor Sir Michael Marmot, that is a sign that society has “stopped improving”.
The Government have committed to halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions of England, but that cannot be achieved without concerted action from the strategic authorities. Good population health is the foundation of a thriving economy. The Government have committed to halving the gap, and amendments 255 and 256 would go further than the Bill does currently to achieve that, simply by requiring mayors and strategic authorities to have regard to health through adoption of a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy document. The amendments would also require consultation with relevant entities and create accountability through targets and metrics. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I go back to the core principle underlying the duty. We believe that a driving purpose of the strategic authority should be to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities, so we are absolutely aligned with the intent behind the amendment, and nothing in the Bill prevents local partners from agreeing to align on an area-wide approach or strategy. We are very clear that we must allow combined authorities and county authorities local discretion to decide the best way to fulfil the duty and deliver for their communities. We do not want to overprescribe or constrain local thinking and innovation—indeed, many local areas throughout the country are well ahead of the national Government in some of their thinking in this area.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.—(Siân Berry.)
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 44, page 46, line 2, at beginning insert—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require that”.
This amendment would ensure the powers for mayors to exercise Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) functions across 2 or more areas must be approved by Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 44, page 46, line 6, at end insert—
“(1B) Regulations under section 107F and 107FA are subject to the affirmative procedure”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 21.
Amendment 23, in clause 45, page 50, line 25, at end insert—
“(c) a statutory instrument containing a draft of any such order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State to alter the size of PCC areas when transferring powers of PCCs to strategic authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 21 to 23 relate to the integration of police and crime commissioners into the strategic mayoral system. They are quite straightforward, requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations and thereby ensure more parliamentary oversight of the inclusion of the police and crime commissioners, given that this is such a fundamental change in so many areas.
I am upset that established authorities in several areas have already taken on those roles, but many of the strategic mayoral authorities are brand-new organisations that will potentially be taking on functions way beyond their scope. They will also potentially be taking on police and crime functions that run across completely different policing and crime areas with different strategies and ways of working in terms of police and crime panels and their scrutiny. We believe that to do that through the proposed process will produce a rushed system. I commend the Minister for her decisiveness, but sometimes it is better to pause and take a slower approach to bringing together those organisations, rather than rush the process.
We are already seeing huge changes to our integrated care boards, with many being abolished. Rather than alignment, we see some coming together for financial reasons or for convenience. There is a real risk that trying to do all of that in harmony ends up not with the right outcomes but ones that suit the creation of a very simplistic jigsaw. Most of the mayors will be taking on roles that they have never performed before. We feel that it is time to pause, slow the pace and ensure that this has more parliamentary oversight.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The purpose of the provision in the Bill is to give the Secretary of State the power to make that transfer in a way and at a time that makes sense. Whether with regard to the electoral timetable or to issues of deliverability and the viability of the transfer, the Secretary of State’s ability to take a view and set a future date is why we have provided that power to mitigate the issues the hon. Lady is concerned about. The default should be that the police and crime commissioner function sits with the mayor where the geographies align. That is an important principle as we build up the mayoral strategic authorities across the country.
Vikki Slade
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
The Chair
Before we resume, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 198, in clause 44, page 46, line 29, leave out “fire and rescue” and insert “police”.
This would correct the reference in the second sentence of new section 107FA(4).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 199, 202, 200, 201, 203 and 204.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This basket of amendments seeks to correct drafting errors, including inconsistencies and inaccurate references, to ensure that the Bill functions as intended. Amendments 202 and 203 are consequential to Government amendments 77 and 80, which the Committee passed when it voted on clause 11 on the mayoral precept. They ensure that mayors’ police and crime commissioner functions are ringfenced as a separate component from other functions.
Paul Holmes
We cannot expect the Government to get it right all the time with minor things, and these seem like sensible changes to smooth the legislation. We therefore have no problem with this group of amendments.
Amendment 198 agreed to.
Amendments made: 199, in clause 44, page 46, line 36, leave out—
“mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA”
and insert “combined authority”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 202, in clause 44, page 47, line 8, leave out from “there” to the end of line 11 and insert—
“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 77.
Amendment 200, in clause 44, page 47, line 34, leave out “mayoral”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 201, in clause 44, page 48, line 8, leave out “mayoral”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 203, in clause 44, page 48, line 19, leave out from “there” to the end of line 22 and insert—
“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 80.
Amendment 204, in clause 44, page 48, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/112),
(b) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023 (S.I. 2023/1432), and
(c) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 1 to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024 (S.I. 2024/414),”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would remove the unnecessary word “after” from paragraphs (a) to (c), insert references to the relevant Schedules to the Orders, and correct the citation of the South Yorkshire Order.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause sets out the criteria for transfer by default of police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor of a strategic authority, where the mayoralty matches the geography of the police force area and a transfer date has been set. Making mayors responsible for policing governance offers a more joined-up approach to preventing crime and driving local economic improvements. It will enhance mayors’ broader ability to bring about local change by bringing together responsibility for policing and crime with mayors’ wider remit for economic development, skills and infrastructure. This delivers the ambition set out in the English devolution White Paper.
Mayors who have police and crime commissioner functions will be required to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime. That will ensure that the mayor has sufficient capacity to discharge their functions, while ensuring there is dedicated oversight of policing on a day-to-day basis. The clause provides for a mayor to exercise police and crime commissioner functions for either a single police force, or more than one force when the boundaries of those forces align with the mayoral area when taken together.
Paul Holmes
We welcome this section of the legislation. I congratulate the Minister, the Government and officials on ensuring in legislation a smooth process for transfer of responsibilities, and on including a target date. The people served by the mayors—that is, our constituents—will want to understand very simply what new powers and responsibilities are being handed to the mayor. This is a sensible solution.
We also welcome the creation of the deputy mayor for police and crime. Given the responsibilities outlined in other sections of the Bill, the mayor will quite rightly have many and multifaceted responsibilities. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to provide in statute for a deputy mayor specifically to cover the police and crime powers of the mayoralty. That will ensure that policing and crime is looked at as a top priority for the residents they serve. We welcome this sensible section of the legislation, and will not seek to oppose it.
Vikki Slade
The Lib Dems have long wanted to see the end of police and crime commissioners, and we know that that has also been Labour policy for at least 12 years. [Interruption.] Do I hear a “Hear, hear!” from the Government Benches? I believe we are in violent agreement on that, which is great. Where we differ is in the how. I spent a lot of time as a councillor trying to get through the police and crime commissioners, who really take no accountability for what goes on. If I ask the police and crime commissioner about a particular incident, the answer always comes back, “That’s an operational matter. That is not for me.” It is always the local councillors who end up dealing with issues, and they are always the ones held accountable by the residents.
Where we disagree is that we do not believe that a police and crime commissioner should be an appointment of the mayor. We think that they should be held accountable to boards of councillors within councils, as was formerly the policy of the Labour party. Quite straightforwardly, the amendment would remove the provision allowing the mayor to appoint a person to manage policing and crime. We do not actually believe that this should be a mayoral appointment; it should be down to the elected persons of the area.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
PCCs and police areas
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 205 and 206.
Amendment 26, in schedule 21, page 209, leave out lines 25 to 31.
This amendment would remove the provision to allow mayors to appoint a person to manage policing and crime for their area.
Government amendments 207 and 208.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause sets out the functions of a police and crime commissioner that a mayor will exercise where they have been transferred under the Bill. The clause also amends the Secretary of State’s existing power to alter police force boundaries by order, so that orders can be made at the same time as the transfer of the police and crime commissioner functions to a mayor. These would be used where a local case had been made to change the boundaries to facilitate a transfer of the PCC function.
Paul Holmes
As with the previous clause, we see that clause 45 is a perfectly sensible provision. The Minister has done an admirable job on what I know has been a long day, particularly after the late night yesterday. She is explaining the legislation in an excellent way.
I wish to touch on amendment 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. In order to dispel the myth, for the hon. Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth, that there is a coalition going on, this is where unfortunately the coalition comes to an end. Amendment 26 is not pragmatic or sensible. It would essentially remove the mayor’s power to appoint a deputy mayor to a day-to-day role for policing. The amendment would be bad for the legislation because, as I outlined in relation to the previous clause—and as we on the Conservative Benches agree—the mayoralty is a multifaceted role, and a role that is accountable to the public. In many previous sittings of the Committee, we have outlined that there has to be that democratic accountability. That is given in this legislation by a mayor appointing a deputy mayor for policing who is accountable to the public, but also accountable to the mayor who is accountable to the public.
I understand the Liberal Democrats’ longstanding view that PCCs should not exist. We fundamentally disagree with that. We think PCCs are one of the better solutions of the coalition Government. We believe that policing is a public priority and that the public should have a say in the way in which their police forces are run. I am not sure whether opposition to PCCs is a widely held view within the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Hamble Valley, who stood against me, also stood for the PCC election for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and put himself forward for election as Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent.
Paul Holmes
In one moment. It seems that that Liberal Democrat candidate perfectly endorses the solutions that the Government are putting forward, and actually wanted three jobs at once.
Vikki Slade
There is a fairly well established position in which those people who wish to see something abolished have to work within the current system. I believe that our dearly beloved Lord Paddy Ashdown desperately wanted to see the abolition of the House of Lords and yet was able to take up a seat. It is quite common for people to go into a role knowing that their job is to try to reform or remove that role.
Paul Holmes
I would say, in a respectful tone to the hon. Lady, that the thing that the Liberal Democrats are most known for is saying one thing and in their actions doing another, but we will leave that there. Clause 45 is perfectly sensible. We will oppose amendment 26 if it is pushed to a vote. I am pleased to see that the hon. Lady has reverted to the Liberal Democrats’ traditional position of holding many positions at once. We support the clause, and oppose amendment 26.
Andrew Cooper
I agree entirely with the principle of mayors holding responsibility for police and crime commissioners where the boundaries of the roles are coterminous, and the idea of appointing a deputy mayor to that role makes absolute sense, as does the power to align boundaries where it makes sense administratively. That all works in principle. My concern is about how this will be applied in Cheshire. Halton local authority is part of the Liverpool city region. That was a decision made when the Liverpool city region was first proposed—at the time the Minister may well have been in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a civil servant—and for Halton, then, it was the only game in town.
The proposed Cheshire and Warrington combined authority will cover the remainder of Cheshire—Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East and Warrington—and is not coterminous with Cheshire police, which covers all of Cheshire and includes Halton, as does Cheshire fire and rescue. This measure will therefore allow the Home Secretary to change the police boundaries, and there are significant concerns within Cheshire police that, were this to go ahead, their viability would be at risk, as well as practical concerns about the location of the custody suite.
This power already exists regarding fire and rescue services, but, under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the Secretary of State is required to consider whether the order is in the interests of public safety before it is made. That test is not included in this Bill. In her summing up, could the Minister provide some reassurance that this power will not be exercised in Cheshire’s case without due consideration of that public safety factor, as well as significant consultation with local stakeholders to make sure that any future alignment is right for Cheshire?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to the specific amendments, then come to my hon. Friend’s important intervention about Cheshire and some of the specific challenges that we face there.
It is worth noting on amendment 26 that the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the deputy mayors for policing and crime are supportive of this measure. Deputy mayors for policing and crime are already making a difference in areas such as West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. They are driving through improvements in their local police forces, fostering collaboration and doing the role that we absolutely need them to do.
On my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire’s important point, because we are not working from a blank piece of paper, and because there are complexities around the boundaries, we are trying to be sympathetic, sensitive and mindful. Obviously, the strategic intent of Government is to ensure that, when there is a transfer of police and crime commissioner functions, that is not to the detriment of the functions on the ground, because we absolutely need those to hold out. We are therefore having specific conversations with Cheshire and Warrington, and the local leaders in that area have raised the specifics of the PCC function. We will work with them to come to the best solution and resolution—one that has no detriment to the constituent authorities involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 21
Functions of police and crime commissioners
Amendments made: 205, in schedule 21, page 206, line 9, after second “the” insert “police”.
This clarifies that “the Area” means a police area. This amendment is connected with amendment 206, which deals with the case where a mayor exercises PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas.
Amendment 206, in schedule 21, page 206, line 11, after “commissioner” insert—
“; and, in a case where a combined authority or combined county authority meets the eligibility condition in relation to two or more police areas (see section 107FA(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or section 33A(4) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), this Schedule applies separately in relation to each of those police areas and ‘the Area’ is to be read accordingly”.
This clarifies that where a mayor exercises PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas that together make up the area of the combined authority or CCA, “the Area” here means each of the police areas (rather than the area of the combined authority or CCA).
Amendment 207, in schedule 21, page 209, line 41, at end insert—
“(j) a person who is the deputy mayor for policing and crime for a different police area.”
This would prevent a deputy mayor for policing and crime for one police area from being appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime for a different police area.
Amendment 208, in schedule 21, page 213, line 4, after “if” insert “—
‘(a) after subsection (1) there were inserted—
“(1ZA) If a combined authority or combined county authority meets the eligibility condition in relation to two or more police areas (see section 107FA(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or section 33A(4) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)—
(a) subsection (1)(b) does not apply; but
(b) a person is disqualified from being elected to the office of police and crime commissioner for any of those police areas at any election unless, on each relevant day, the person is a local government elector in at least one of those police areas;
and for that purpose a person is ‘a local government elector in’ a police area if the person is registered in the register of local government electors for an electoral area in respect of an address in that police area.”;
(b)’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This provides that, where a mayor is to exercise PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas that together make up the area of the combined authority or CCA, a candidate is disqualified only if the person is not on the electoral register in any of those areas.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Twenty First schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The schedule sets out the content of the new schedule 10A that will be inserted into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. It provides that once the functions of a police and crime commissioner have been transferred so that they are exercised by a mayor, there will no longer be a PCC for that police force area, which I know the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole will be delighted about. It also explains how mayors are to exercise PCC functions where functions have been transferred.
I beg to move that this schedule stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 21, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 46
Functions of fire and rescue authorities
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 209, in clause 46, page 51, line 10, leave out from “for” to end of line 14 and insert—
“the whole of its area if the Secretary of State designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that area in accordance with section 1A(1);
(g) a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA is the fire and rescue authority for a part of its area if the Secretary of State—
(i) specifies that part of its area, and
(ii) designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that part of its area,
in accordance with section 1A(2) and (3).”
This would enable the Secretary of State to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority for its area or part of its area. Amendment 212 makes further provision about these powers.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This cluster of amendments to clause 46 allow a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral county combined authority to take on the role of a fire and rescue authority, where appropriate.
These amendments strengthen the fire and rescue provision in clause 46. They give the Secretary of State the power to designate strategic authorities as fire and rescue authorities. They also ensure that where strategic authorities cover more than one fire and rescue area, they take on responsibility for all fire and rescue authorities in their area.
Collectively, these amendments provide consistency and prevent fragmentation of governance, by requiring mayors to cover all fire and rescue authority areas within their boundaries, creating stronger accountability across local areas.
Amendment 209 agreed to.
Amendments made: 210, in clause 46, page 51, line 17, leave out from “for” to second “a” and insert—
“an area by virtue of subsection (2)(f) or (g),”.
This is consequential on Amendment 209.
Amendment 211, in clause 46, page 51, line 23, after “the” insert “combined authority or”.
This corrects an omission.
Amendment 212, in clause 46, page 51, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 52 and insert—
““1A Designation of mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs
(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the whole of its area.
(2) The Secretary of State may—
(a) by order specify a part of the area of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, and
(b) by order designate the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the specified part of its area.
(3) But, if the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred by subsection (2) in relation to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA (the “relevant mayoral authority”), the Secretary of State must ensure that those powers are exercised so as to secure that—
(a) two or more parts are specified under subsection (2)(a) which, when taken together, consist of the whole of the area of the relevant mayoral authority;
(b) the relevant mayoral authority is designated as the fire and rescue authority for each specified part;
(c) all of those designations come into effect at the same time.
(4) Accordingly, where the powers conferred by subsection (2) are exercised in relation to the relevant mayoral authority—
(a) there are separate fire and rescue authorities for each area specified under subsection (2)(a);
(b) the fire and rescue authority for each of those areas is the relevant mayoral authority.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the name by which an area specified under subsection (2)(a) is to be known.
(6) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make consequential alterations to any other—
(a) section 1A(2) area,
(b) section 2 combined area, or
(c) section 4 combined area.
(7) The alterations that may be made by virtue of subsection (6) include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of such areas.
(8) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make provision for the abolition of—
(a) a metropolitan county fire and rescue authority,
(b) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2, or
(c) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies.
(9) The provision that may be made by regulations under section 52 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (incidental etc provision) for the purposes of, or in consequence of, an order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) relating to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA and particular area includes—
(a) provision for functions of a fire rescue authority to be exercisable in relation to the area by the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA during a shadow period (and not by any fire and rescue authority by which those functions would otherwise be exercisable),
(b) provision for those functions to be exercisable only by the mayor on behalf of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA;
(c) provision about who is to scrutinise the exercise of those functions;
(d) any other incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision.
(10) In this section—
“section 1A(2) area” means an area specified in an order under subsection (2)(a) (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“section 2 combined area” means an area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, or used to be, constituted by a scheme under section 2 (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“section 4 combined area” means the area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, used to be, constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“shadow period” , in relation to provision made in accordance with subsection (9)(a) in relation to a particular area, means a period which—
(a) ends when the designation of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the area takes effect, and
(b) is no longer than one year.””
This would make further provision about the Secretary of State’s power to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority (see Amendment 209). In particular, subsection (3) would ensure that, where the area of a mayoral combined authority or CCA is to consist of several fire and rescue areas, it must be the fire and rescue authority for all of those areas.
Amendment 213, in clause 46, page 52, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 53.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would be consequential on Amendment 209.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 46, page 53, line 15, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Vikki Slade
I should probably declare a personal interest—my father spent his life as a London firefighter throughout his career; I was a member of the local fire authority, and I have spent a lot of time talking to and engaging with the fire and rescue services. That was not because I managed to set my bedroom on fire as a child—although I did—but because fire safety has always been a lifelong passion of mine.
I am troubled that the Bill rolls fire and rescue services into the role of a mayor. That may be a great idea; in some cases, I know that fire and rescue services have come together with police and crime. However, the amount of attention that this Bill gives to fire and rescue, and indeed the comment made last week when I asked questions about the precepting and the funding of fire, which suggested that it was outwith the scope of this Bill, makes it feel as though fire and rescue are an afterthought. It feels as though the work of the fire and rescue services is not being given enough attention and that there has not been real thought about how they can best be delivered.
Fire and rescue authorities around the country are doing a really good job in supporting our services, often on tiny precepts, and in dealing with big, and changing issues. Wildfires around my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency have been horrific this year, and we have just put in for Bellwin funding. The proportion of energy that is used in dealing with fires that are usually human-caused and flooding, which is also related to climate resilience, has gone through the roof.
To add fire and rescue services in as a couple of pages in a large Bill feels inadequate, which is why we are looking to ensure that regulations made under clause 46 are subject to the affirmative procedure, and why we are seeking more parliamentary scrutiny and energy around bringing in the fire and rescue services, particularly where they do not align.
My area is likely to be Wessex, if we get into the next round, and it will probably cover three different fire authorities. As well as having to get two or three different police authorities together, we will now have to get two or three different fire authorities from the police authorities. Adding the clause in at this stage is complicated, and sticking it in as two and a half pages of a Bill feels inadequate. Therefore, we ask that regulations made under the clause are subject to the affirmative procedure and receive suitable parliamentary scrutiny.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I want to put on record that the Government absolutely recognise the vital role the fire and rescue authorities are playing across the piece; there is a huge amount of work going on in my Department to ensure that they are fit for purpose, that they are resourced and that they can continue to evolve. The Government believe that the negative procedure is the right and proportionate route for these regulations. The powers here in the Bill are simply technical powers, enabling powers that are already conferred in legislation for the fire and rescue authority functions to be transferred. That is why they take up such a small proportion of the Bill—it is a technical change rather than a substantive one, which exists already in legislation.
It is important that there is a timely transfer of these functions so that mayors can deliver joined-up services without lengthy procedural hurdles. Subject to clause 46 standing part of the Bill, Parliament would have already approved the principle of mayors exercising fire and rescue functions. This part of the Bill makes that transfer live and real. I hope the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole appreciates the care that we certainly have around the fire and rescue service and that there is much wider work going on outside the scope of the Bill about how we ensure those services are fit for purpose, and will therefore withdraw her amendment.
Vikki Slade
I would have loved to do that, but I feel that this transfer needs to be a deliberate and active thing. I spoke to my chief fire officer, who seemed completely oblivious to what is going on. If our chief fire officers are not really aware of what is going on, then more needs to be done, and therefore I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 220, in schedule 22, page 234, line 12, at end insert—
“LDEDCA 2009
1 (1) LDEDCA 2009 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 107D (delegation of functions by the mayor), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 107DZA.’
(3) After section 107D insert—
‘107DZA Limitation on delegation of mayoral functions
(1) The mayor may not make an arrangement under section 107D(3)(a) or (b) for the exercise of any fire and rescue functions of the combined authority.
(2) The power to make an arrangement under section 107D(3)(ba) is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 5BA.
(3) In this section “fire and rescue functions of the combined authority” means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the combined authority has by virtue of an order under section 105A (and here “fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), or
(b) functions which the combined authority has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.’
LURA 2023
2 (1) LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 30 (functions of mayors: general), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 30A.’
(3) After section 30 insert—
‘30A Limitation on delegation of mayoral functions
(1) The mayor may not make an arrangement under section 30(3)(a) or (b) for the exercise of any fire and rescue functions of the CCA.
(2) The power to make an arrangement under section 30(3)(ba) is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A.
(3) In this section “fire and rescue functions of the CCA” means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the CCA has by virtue of regulations under section 19 (and here “fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), or
(b) functions which the CCA has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.’”
In new sections 107DZA and 30A, subsection (1) would prevent the mayor from delegating fire and rescue functions to a deputy mayor or another member or officer of mayoral authority; and subsection (2) would replace wording in clause 9(2) and (5) (see Amendment 68 and Amendment 69).
As the Committee has previously discussed in the context of consequential amendments 68 and 69 to clause 9 of the Bill, Government amendment 220 ensures that responsibility for fire and rescue functions sits directly with the elected mayor. The mayor can delegate those powers only to the public safety commissioner and not to deputies or officers, which strengthens accountability. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 220 agreed to.
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47
Mayor with PCC and fire and rescue functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces alternative ways by which a mayor or strategic authority may exercise fire and rescue and police and crime commissioner functions introduced by the Bill. The Government aim to establish mayoralties with the full range of powers and responsibilities wherever possible. The clause enables the Secretary of State to authorise a mayor of a strategic authority to delegate fire and rescue authority functions to a chief constable and to authorise that chief constable to further delegate fire and rescue authority functions to police and fire rescue personnel. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Sharing of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities have a number of responsibilities in relation to public safety, something that I know Members across the House care very much about. The Bill deepens those responsibilities. The clause brings combined and combined county authorities into a group of public sector organisations that can receive information in relation to crime and disorder. It also places a duty on the combined or combined county authority to share information about crime and disorder with other public sector organisations as required, and vice versa. That will empower the combined and combined county authorities and partner organisations to develop intelligence, make informed decisions and implement appropriate responses to crime and disorder issues such as crime prevention. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 49, page 54, line 30, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Where a notification under subsection (1) is given, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the notification is given, give effect to the change or changes proposed by the mayor or mayors.
(4) Effect may be given under subsection (3) by means of regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument made under subsection (4) is —
(a) subject to the affirmative procedure if it—
(i) amends an Act of Parliament, or
(ii) confers or modifies a function which relates to an area of competence;
(b) where neither of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment creates a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval before implementing mayoral requests for greater powers over funding or legal changes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 49, page 54, line 36, at end insert—
“(4) No decision under subsection (3) may be implemented unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has made regulations giving effect to the decision,
(b) a statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and
(c) save as where provided for otherwise, regulations giving effect to any decision made under section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would require any decision of the Secretary of State following a request from a local authority to be implemented by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause stand part.
New clause 32—Devolution of further powers within strategic authority areas—
“(1) A strategic authority may—
(a) devolve to any local authority within its area any second-stage power;
(b) form bodies, and groups within its area to coordinate action needs, provided that any body or group includes representatives from all affected local areas.
(2) In carrying out any action under subsection (1), the strategic authority must consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level and, where it considers this to be the case, must act in such a way to enable such devolution.
(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this section is commenced, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how it intends to carry out the duty under subsection (2) (a ‘community empowerment plan’).
(4) A strategic authority must review a community empowerment plan at least once during the period of four years starting on the day on which the plan is published.
(5) In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or body to which it has devolved powers.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the powers of a strategic authority in the event that the authority considers there to be a serious failure or breach of duty in relation to a power devolved to a more local level.
(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
New clause 33—Devolution of powers from non-departmental public bodies—
“A Strategic authority may request the transfer of duties and functions from Homes England, Highways England, and any other non-departmental public body as the Secretary of State may specify.”
New clause 53—Annual report on requests made under Section 49 of this Act—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which section 49 is commenced, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report about notifications given under that section.
(2) Each report must summarise—
(a) the number and nature of notifications given by mayors;
(b) the Secretary of State’s decisions in relation to notifications, including the number and nature of—
(i) cases where the Secretary of State agrees, and
(ii) cases where the Secretary of State does not agree,
with the notification;
(c) any further legislative measures mayors have requested the Secretary of State takes to further enable mayors to make notifications to fulfil their objectives in areas of competence.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report summarising notifications made by Mayors for powers to be devolved and the Secretary of State’s responses and any requests by Mayors for the Secretary of State to take legislative steps to enable Mayors to adequately fulfil areas of competence.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 3 and 9 would require that, when a mayor or a mayoral strategic authority wishes to obtain more powers, those powers are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is fairly common practice for Members to be called into a Statutory Instrument Committee to make changes to such things. If we are going to ensure full transparency and ensure that mayors do not exercise powers beyond what seems appropriate, there should be some level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 3 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek Parliament’s approval through secondary legislation before implementing those requests. We do not believe that decisions around funding and changes of law should be made without that oversight and approval. It is hugely important to maintain the highest level of democracy; to remove that would be a missed opportunity. We therefore ask that the legislation should be protected from abuse whereby future Secretaries of State could implement requests without laying them before Parliament.
Siân Berry
I have a broad interest in this group of measures. First, I will raise some issues with the clause as a whole; then I will speak to new clause 53, and then new clauses 32 and 33 on a separate topic. I hope hon. Members will bear with me as I work through those three parts.
I support clause 49, which provides a way for mayors of strategic authorities to usefully request more powers, but the gap in the Bill highlights that we need the Government to make bolder policies in the areas of competence so that strategic authorities can request that they should be devolved to the lower levels. I will turn to the example of housing in a moment but, in general, it would be great to see strategic authorities working together to develop models of rent controls. As I understand it, however, because those powers do not currently exist centrally, strategic authorities cannot make requests for them under the clause. We need to be bolder at the centre to maximise the effectiveness of devolution on such issues.
If a Bill is not the right place to create a new power that is usable only in a local area, what is? Can the Minister explain why the Government have not taken the opportunity of the Bill to allow councils or new authorities to request those kinds of powers in areas where the Government do not currently act? It is on that principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) tabled new clause 53, which I will speak to now. It does not do what I just suggested, but it does allow for clear reporting of the conversations between mayors and the Government on the use of clause 49 powers. That includes where authorities have made requests for powers to be created and devolved to them, even when there is no existing national power to devolve.
If the Secretary of State’s goal is to make sure people take back control of their own destinies, it is only right that this power should be considered. Ministers need to pay serious attention to the full range of powers that mayors are already saying they need in order to make a material difference to people’s lives. As the Secretary of State for Housing said in his speech at the Labour party conference, communities have been held back because they do not have the power to make the changes they want. The new clause would at least help to keep track of the powers mayors are asking for under clause 49, as well as the additional powers they are telling Ministers to legislate for to enable them to do the best for their communities and, ultimately, to fulfil their areas of competence.
The new clause is not prescriptive as to which policies and areas need to be considered, but as I implied earlier the area of competence that inspired it is housing. That is because we are in an acute affordability and evictions crisis, and mayors have been calling for rent control powers from Ministers for some time. For example, in 2023, the Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and London wrote to the then Secretary of State calling for a rent freeze, in order to immediately relieve the pressure on millions of people in the private rented sector in their areas. Recently, the Mayor of London said that the power to control rents was now at the top of his list in terms of devolution. His position follows many years of pressure and dialogue with politicians such as the Greens on the London Assembly—of which I used to be one—and with independent grassroots renters groups.
That is just one example of the kind of power that would be involved. Rent controls are something close to my heart, and we heard new figures today showing that 172,000 children are now in temporary accommodation in the UK. On average, people spend 36% of their income on rent—in my constituency, it is 42%. This is a classic policy for that issue.
The annual report the new clause requires would recognise the need for transparency over the discussions taking place about powers in the Bill—in the absence of the changes I have asked for in it—and also let us see what is going on in the conversations happening outside of the powers in the Bill.
New clauses 32 and 33 do what I just talked about and what clause 49 does, but at the level of the strategic authority. This is about the strategic authority having a duty to have a plan for devolving more of its powers and duties to smaller local authorities in its area. I recognise that the aims of devolution can often be in tension, particularly in terms of the balance between scale and geography. It is correct to have some powers at the level of combined authorities, so that they cover sufficiently large populations and enable authorities to exercise strategic policy making. But large authorities will not necessarily empower local people to address issues that are unique to their area; they might not represent the diversity of things going on around that area, and issues that people really care about in local communities might be better addressed using deeper local knowledge.
The new clauses do not prescribe a single model for this further local devolution. There is such diversity. We have discussed today the differences between coastal areas, rural areas, towns and larger urban areas. We have talked about areas with countryside and nature to protect, areas that need new investment, and areas with unique industries that could be developed locally.
I do not think that we should be prescriptive in our new clauses; we should just put in place a legal duty that makes some kind of move towards subsidiarity across the whole of English local government. Under the new clauses, the strategic authority would have a duty to set out how it would devolve its own responsibilities to the lowest possible level for effectiveness—including, where they exist, district, town and parish councils. I think that would be a really positive thing that would please most Opposition Members on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take that onboard and come up with some way of codifying the need for the new strategic authorities to avoid becoming too centralised and to make a plan for listening and devolving powers down to the right level.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their amendments and new clauses. Let me say a word about clause 49, and then I will speak to those.
We are clear that devolution is a continuous process. Our intention in the Bill is therefore to create a framework to establish mayoral strategic authorities and empower them to deepen devolution. That is what the right to request, which we have been debating, does. Critically, the right to request will hardwire the process of continual extraction of power from the centre—from Whitehall and Westminster—to our local areas, which is why the clause is so important.
In my view, amendments 9 and 3 are too constraining, as not all mayoral requests will require a legal process in order to be implemented. For example, requests to change funding, or pilot schemes or partnerships, do not have any legal requirements and do not require legal clearance. My concern is that the amendments would make the process too onerous and bureaucratic and, critically, slow it down. Anyone involved in the devolution process knows that extracting power from Whitehall is slow and painful as it is. I would not want to add further hurdles to that process.
I appreciate the intent behind new clause 32, but similar mechanisms to those proposed in it already exist. Any combined authority or combined county authority can enter into a joint committee with another local authority and collaborate across boundaries to jointly discharge their powers. Also, the additional requirement proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for strategic authorities to publish a community empowerment plan may end up being too burdensome and, critically, risks conflating the roles of the strategic and the local authorities.
We are clear that we want to see double devolution, and that we want to extract power from Whitehall and make sure that it is pushed down to the strategic authority level, the local authority level and, critically, the community level for community empowerment. We will go on to talk about neighbourhood governance—we have talked about it before in debates. There is a vital role for local authorities to enable and enshrine that community empowerment and engagement, and there is a risk that we conflate the strategic economic role of the mayor and the combined authority with the critical enabling role of the local authority.
Earlier, Members across the Committee talked eloquently about the need for us to ensure that local authorities continue to have a vital role and are empowered. I would not want to take something that I think is a core competency of local authorities, which are well placed to drive that community engagement, and lift it from the local authority level to the strategic level.
Finally, on new clause 33, the Bill already provides adequate powers for strategic authorities to request and receive functions and duties from non-departmental public bodies. On clause 53 and the notion that the right to request should be made transparent, while the process is transparent, I think it is important that we create the space for mayors to have detailed policy conversations with the Secretary of State and with Secretaries of State across Departments, and that those conversations can be open, frank and sensitive. We do not want to create a process whereby we constrain mayors’ ability by publishing all the detail. The outcomes will be put in the public domain, but it is important that we create the space for mayors to undergo a policy process and that we allow an internal and private space for frank, robust policy conversations to happen in this context.
Siân Berry
Will the Minister take this opportunity to urge those mayors who are seeking greater powers to continue to do so, and to talk about it in the public sphere, as they have done?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I must tell the hon. Lady that I can barely hold them back. Our mayors are pretty independent-minded and robust, and they are very clear when they want a particular power. They run effective campaigns and they are very good at advocacy, so I do not think the Government need to—or indeed can—tell them what to do. They are very clear about the powers they want; they build consensus among all their partners to ensure that they apply maximum pressure on Government to respond effectively to the right to request, and rightly so. That is the case now and I suspect that, once we give them legal powers in this Bill, it will continue to be so.
Vikki Slade
I am content that the scope of the amendment may have been broader than intended in terms of some of the minor things that a local authority may wish to do, but I ask the Minister to keep in mind the larger-scale changes that may be required, which really should come with some form of Government statutory intervention. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank you, Dame Siobhain, and all hon. Members for the swift and substantial progress we have made on the Bill today. I am grateful for everyone’s patience and the constructive way they have engaged in debate.
The devolution framework delivered by this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition for devolving real powers to local communities. That is why we are taking the power to add new functions to the framework, which will ensure that strategic authority mayors have the powers they need to deliver for local people. The Government will not be taking those decisions in isolation; any new functions added to the framework will be subject to votes in both Houses of Parliament and to consultations with the mayor, the constituent councils and the body currently holding those functions.
It is important that the governance arrangements within strategic authorities enable local leaders to make effective decisions to deliver for their people, so the Government are taking the power to modify governance arrangements where necessary. In some cases, the best way to bring about real, substantive devolution across the country will be to test it in one or two places first. The Bill therefore allows the Government to confer or modify functions on a pilot basis, which will enable local leaders to innovate in order to deliver the best outcomes for their citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 23rd October 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 October 2025 - (23 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Amendment 408, in the name of Alison Bennett, was tabled late last night. As a result, it is not selectable for debate today.
We will continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members wishing to speak that they should bob to attract my attention. If a Member wishes to push to a Division an amendment that is not the lead amendment or new clause in a group, they must inform me in advance, or I will skip straight past it. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Schedule 23
Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 307, in schedule 23, page 237, line 9, at end insert—
“()ba a single foundation strategic authority.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations which would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authority to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 309, in schedule 23, page 237, line 28, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under this paragraph may—
(a) create conditions which must be satisfied prior to the mayor exercising a function,
(b) create a requirement for members of the relevant strategic authority to assist the mayor in exercising a function,
(c) create additional powers for the mayor for the purposes of exercising a function,
(d) authorise the mayor to appoint a person as a political adviser for the purposes of exercising a function,
(e) create requirements for an appointment under subparagraph (4A)(d).
(4B) Powers under subparagraph (4A)(c) may not include a power to borrow money.
(4C) Regulations under this paragraph must have the consent of the relevant authority.”
This amendment would create additional boundaries for regulations which may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor.
Paul Holmes
Good morning, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, and to see everybody on the Committee on this very sunny Thursday morning. I know everybody is delighted to be here, and I welcome the Minister too.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authorities to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority. Amendment 309 would create additional boundaries for regulations that may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor. In essence, we believe that amendments 307 to 309—we will come to amendment 308 in the next grouping—would address the issue that single foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall currently cannot access the highest level of devolution, because the Bill only allows for combined or county combined authorities with a mayor to exercise the functions that the Government are putting forward.
Amendment 307 promotes fairness and flexibility by allowing foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall to benefit from the same level of democratic leadership as combined authorities. That would empower local areas to choose a directly elected mayor if they wish, strengthening accountability and enabling them to access greater devolved powers, which the Minister has outlined as a key priority for the Bill.
Amendment 309 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer functions to a strategic authority’s mayor, and would ensure that devolved powers can be effectively localised and exercised by accountable leadership. The amendment would complement amendments 307 and 308, by giving mayors the tools they need to deliver on local priorities, ensuring that devolution works in practice, not just in principle.
I will move amendment 308 at a later stage, but together, our amendments would effectively let foundation strategic authorities have mayors and the associated powers of delegation and function transfer, putting them on par with mayoral CAs and CCAs, and I encourage the Government to support them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Let me take amendment 307 first. To be clear, the single foundation strategic authority will not have a mayor. That is not the intent of the provision or of the Bill and it is not in the Government’s plans. Invariably, however, we want to be sure that at every level we are devolving power. Certain powers will be devolved to single foundation strategic authorities, such as Cornwall, in order to enable it to respond to some of its issues. We are also clear that certain powers will be reserved to mayors, because a level of democratic accountability is critical to the exercise of such powers. That is the distinction that we have made throughout the design of the policy and it is built into the Bill.
Amendment 309 is out of the step with the Bill’s objective of streamlining the process for conferring and modifying the functions of strategic authorities and mayors. The Bill already puts in place sufficient guardrails when functions are transferred to mayors. When making functions exercisable by the mayor, it is already the case that constituent authorities will be consulted before such a change. Requiring the consent of those authorities will create an unnecessary barrier to enabling mayors to take on functions and to get on with the job delivery, which is what we need of them.
Finally, many mayors can already appoint political advisers—another piece of amendment 309—as agreed through the establishment of statutory instruments. The Bill will also allow mayors to appoint commissioners to support them in the exercise of their functions. That is the right balance to be struck to ensure that the mayor has what he or she needs to do the job that their constituents or voters require of them. With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I hope that the Minister understands our motivation for tabling the amendment. We are not trying to score a political point, but to strengthen the Bill. I am reassured that the Minister has given us some reassurance that she sees that every kind of authority should be devolved and that the powers should be aligned with those. We may come back to this on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 308, in schedule 23, page 237, line 30, at end insert—
“Functions moving from mayors to deputy mayors and strategic authority members
5A (1) Regulations may provide for the mayor of a strategic authority to allow any function of the mayor to be exercised by—
(a) the deputy mayor,
(b) a member of the relevant strategic authority,
(c) a committee members of the strategic authority appointed by the mayor.
(2) Regulations may create requirements for the committee in sub-paragraph (1)(c) including—
(a) requirements about the membership of the committee,
(b) requirements about the appointment of a chair of the committee,
(c) requirements about the process by which the mayor may appoint members to the committee,
(d) requirement about the committee’s voting procedures,
(e) requirements about information which must be disclosed by the strategic authority to the committee.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority, or a committee of a members of the relevant strategic authority.
This amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an extension to my earlier amendments 307 and 309, as I said. In essence, it would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate the exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority or a committee of members of the relevant strategic authority. Allowing mayors of strategic authorities to delegate functions would ensure consistency with existing mayoral models, making government more effective and responsive. The amendment would provide practical flexibility so that mayors can share responsibilities appropriately and ensure that local decisions are made at the right level.
I expect the Minister to resist the amendment, but I look for some reassurance on whether we can ensure that the Bill brings some standardisation, an efficient transfer of functions and efficient exercise of the functions proposed. I am interested to hear her thoughts, but at this stage we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, depending on what the Minister comes back with.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Again, I understand the intent behind the amendment. I would say that mayors are already able to delegate the majority of their functions to deputy mayors and to members of constituent authorities. In the evidence session, for example, Councillor Bev Craig from Manchester was responsible for the economic development portfolio in Greater Manchester. Such functions are already in place. In part in recognition of the fact that local councillors, in particular leaders and cabinet members, have busy paid jobs, we want to increase the mayor’s pool of support, which is why we are creating the ability for the mayor to appoint and to delegate functions to the commissioners. That will give the mayors options. We are not specifying how the mayor should do it, and ultimately each mayor will figure out what works for their area and the mix between deputy mayors, commissioners and lead members, but this provision will increase the pool and the options available to them.
Paul Holmes
We are content with that answer, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Third schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The schedule is introduced by clause 50. I have already spoken about why the clause should stand part of the Bill. As I explained previously, the schedule is essential to providing Government with the powers to add new functions to the framework. That will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors have the powers they need to deliver for their local people, which is what all this is about. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 23 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 51
Health service functions: application of existing limitations on devolution
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This Government want to ensure we have a national health service that is fit for the future, and we are doing huge amounts to repair the damage to the national health service done by the Conservative Government. That is a core function of what we are doing. It is therefore right that certain core functions, such as the NHS constitution or university clinical training, remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This clause retains the existing limits on the devolution of health functions in England. Protections against devolving health functions are not new—they have been in place since the Government began the process of devolving functions to combined authorities—and the Bill maintains them. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I was going to stay quiet, but unfortunately for the Minister I was inspired by her speech, so I hate to disappoint the Government Whip by speaking very briefly. The Minister, quite rightly—it is her job—outlined that she wants to rectify some of the supposed damage done to the national health service over 14 years, but I gently remind her that waiting lists are increasing and that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking at possible strike action while putting forward a reorganisation that he cannot afford.
I look to the Minister for some reassurance regarding whether wider health policy, such as that reorganisation and some of the local functions of integrated care boards, which we know are changing, may affect the provisions in the clause. Could there be some effect on the ground that may create delay or necessitate some changes to the clause in the longer term?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Obviously, the NHS is going through huge reform. We are working closely with the team in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that reforms sit alongside our plans for devolution. A big part of what we are trying to do through our health reforms is to provide community-based healthcare, and there is a big opportunity for local and regional government to work alongside the NHS to deliver integrated services that work for our communities and are user-led. We are making sure that every stage of the reforms, including the changes to the ICBs, is done in lockstep with what we are trying to do across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Incidental etc provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This is a simple provision. When functions are conferred on, or modified for, strategic authorities in the future, the Government will sometimes need to make technical changes to other pieces of legislation to ensure that the functions conferred on strategic authorities work as intended. That is why the Bill includes this technical clause—it is just a technical clause—to allow the Government to have the power to make technical changes to existing legislation when necessary. The clause will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors are able to effectively exercise the functions, as intended by policy. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Transfer of property, rights and liabilities
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 299, in clause 53, page 57, line 31, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment removes the provision for the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) to apply to a transfer by virtue of section 53 regardless of whether the transfer is relevant to the regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 221.
Clause stand part.
Paul Holmes
We understand the overarching aims of this clause, and the debate does not necessarily have to revolve around whether or not it should happen, but we tabled this probing amendment because we understand that the legislation is essentially applying TUPE regulations regardless of whether they legally apply. We want to challenge that and probe why, if TUPE regulations need not legally apply in cases of transfer, the Government have insisted that TUPE regulations have to go into this regardless. Can the Minister answer that key question?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
TUPE regulations are there to ensure that staff are not dismissed for the sole reason that functions are being transferred from one public body to another. We believe that they are fundamental to protecting staff, which we want to make sure happens throughout this process.
In line with the Cabinet Office guidance, this clause tries to ensure that the regulations apply when we have public bodies moving to strategic authorities. The amendment, as drafted, risks creating uncertainty for staff and disrupting the smooth transfer of functions.
TUPE regulations are there for a reason—to protect the workers that are fundamental and critical to delivering any public institution. When we are going through the process of creating these strategic authorities, it is important that we embed those TUPE regulations. That is why I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for her full and direct answer, and I understand it. I take it she accepts that TUPE is being put into this clause regardless of whether there is a legal necessity for it to apply. Has she had any correspondence or lobbying from the trade union movement to make sure that it is included?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To answer that question directly: no, although it helps that I am a new Minister. The clause is in step with long-standing Government practice. It mirrors provisions that have been made in previous legislation by the previous Conservative Government, including in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It is standard practice and it is done by all parties. It is there because we need to protect staff.
Paul Holmes
I feel very reassured that the Government are following the excellent judgment of the last Conservative Government. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 221, in clause 53, page 58, line 16, at end insert—
“(8A) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would make regulations under clause 53 subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Prohibition of secondary legislation removing functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government could easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is sovereign, and the Government will always be able to table primary legislation to redesign how functions are delivered. However, the Bill makes sure that Governments will have to make that argument in Committee and on Report, as we are doing now. It must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. We want this to be locked in because we fundamentally believe that this is how to deliver for communities across the country. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this or any future Government to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation, so that they can be exercised again by central Government.
I commend clause 54 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
This is a difficult one for us. I am not saying that the Minister is trying to bind the hands of future Governments, but it does feel like the Government are trying to make this increasingly difficult. We would argue that any elected Government have a mandate to make legislative changes as they see fit. I wonder whether this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Of course, we accept the need for parliamentary scrutiny, but an elected Government should be able to use any mechanism they want to use. I ask the Minister once again to consider whether she thinks this is really necessary. A Government who might want to remove some of the functions would have a democratic mandate to do so, and arguably very good reasons for doing so when future structures need to change. I would like to challenge her on whether she thinks this is absolutely necessary, which may depend on our forcing a vote on this issue.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his question. My view is that devolution is a fundamental shift in power and a rewiring of how we govern the country. At the heart of the devolution process are a lot of democratic processes, where people vote for a mayor on the basis of what they say they will deliver for their community. To make a fundamental change, it is absolutely right that a future Government must get the consent of Parliament to rewrite it. That is the premise on which we think about the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and devolution, and it is what we have done in the context of Scotland and Wales. These are fundamental shifts in power, and it is right that there has to be a full democratic process within Parliament to reverse them.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government. I come back to the fundamental point that this is not about reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake; it is about creating better-functioning unitary councils that are more sustainable and better able to deliver the high-quality services that their residents want and fundamentally deserve.
Schedule 24 enables the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise. We are committed to working in partnership with local areas. Therefore, this will be used only where areas have failed to make progress following an invitation. It also includes new merging provisions to enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change would be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. That aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.
With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed in the Bill to ensure these reforms work in harmony. The first mechanism is the ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority. This is a straightforward and common-sense provision. When local government reorganisation takes place in an area covered by a combined county authority, we need a streamlined way to convert the authority into a combined authority.
The second mechanism is the ability to abolish a combined authority or combined county authority if local government reorganisation renders that authority obsolete. This mechanism would be used only in very limited circumstances: if a new unitary authority covers or includes the whole area of an existing combined authority or combined county authority. Any local government reorganisation proposal requiring the use of this abolition mechanism will need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as per the Government’s reorganisation criteria. That ensures these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.
I commend clause 55 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
Clause 55 essentially goes to the heart of the Bill. As we argued when we voted in the House against local government reorganisation, the thing in this Bill that most people out there—our voters—will notice, aside from the devolution aspects and the creation of mayors, is the bread-and-butter transactional services that people see on the ground. That will be the biggest impact the change will have on their daily lives.
We oppose clause 55 because we believe the Government have no democratic mandate to deliver local government reform. It was not in their manifesto, they did not ask the British people to vote for them on the basis of local government reform, and we fundamentally have—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth looks shocked at my proposition, but if he can refer me to where this was in the Labour party’s manifesto, I will happily withdraw that point. I suspect he cannot, because it was not there. That is a key aspect of why we oppose the clause.
The other reason why we oppose the clause is because there is no overwhelming evidence showing that services or local government would be more efficient with larger organisational structures and a larger population being encapsulated into unitary authorities. I am a big fan of unitary authorities—I declare an interest in that I am a former lead member of one, and I was very happy to be so—but we have to accept that the nature of devolution means that a standardised model is not adequate for everywhere in the country. In some areas, it may not be what is best or wanted by local people. That comes back to the democratic deficit we believe the Government have in announcing these LGR proposals.
I know the Minister is relatively new in post, so she will not have had as much communication with local authority leaders as her predecessor did—that does not reflect on her or her ability; it is just the nature of her period in post. But, in previous sittings, she outlined and indicated to this Committee that there is overwhelming excitement from many local authority leaders who welcome LGR and the new mayors proposed by the Government. She will also be aware that this has caused a huge amount of disruption to local people and the working of local authorities, at a difficult time for their operational capacity and capability, with reduced budgets. This is not needed.
For example, there are now three proposals to Government in my area. One is from the 12 district councils, which absolutely do not want to be abolished. There is unified agreement on that, except from Gosport borough council, which has opposed everything completely. There is a county council recommendation, lauded previously by the Minister, which is not supported by MPs who represent the area. And there is another proposal that is contested. One of my Hampshire colleagues has just entered the room, and he takes the same view as me.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, Stratford-on-Avon district council will be abolished. I worked as a district councillor there, and I know how close district councillors are to their communities. They know their area best, and all that expertise and knowledge will be wiped out. Residents are really worried. For example, they do not want councillors in the north of Warwickshire to take decisions that will affect them in the south. There is a worry among our communities about—
Manuela Perteghella
Sorry, Chair. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the resulting democratic deficit sets a dangerous precedent?
Paul Holmes
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. As I have said before, she has the best interests of Stratford-on-Avon at heart. From her experience in local government, she knows the expertise held by district councillors who know the areas they serve.
In my local area, two new unitary authorities are proposed —one that looks eastward and one that looks westward. What happens to the semi-rural areas of my constituency, now having new unitary councils headquartered in Southampton and Portsmouth? Those unique connections that district councils have, which suit their smaller areas, will not be served as well by a larger unitary authority. That view is endorsed by the District Councils’ Network, which suggested in its briefing note that focusing on authority scale and population size during local government reorganisation would not lead to optimal outcomes. It stated:
“it will be tempting to pursue approaches to LGR that make it as easy as possible to implement—focusing only on scale and minimising disruption.”
The Government say they want to deliver growth and get the public finances in good order, but there are no concrete suggestions for how their proposals will save money. Just going bigger and larger, and having one tier across the whole UK, does not necessarily mean that services will be better. As I have said consistently, many district, town and parish councils do not want this to happen. Many Members across the House may say, “That is the vested interest of elected people who are going to be got rid of,” but that is not the case.
Paul Holmes
I will finish this point, and then I will give way, because I am a fan of the hon. Gentleman. Smaller district, town and parish councils know their local areas. This is not an efficient way of delivering reform. We will have councillors on a larger scale who do not take into account the unique structures and environments in which we serve our constituents.
Sean Woodcock
It is great to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I refer the hon. Member to a point I made to his colleague in Committee a couple of weeks ago. Ten years ago, the district councils of Northamptonshire were dismantled by his party and forcibly put into unitary authorities. Where was his umbrage then? If district councils are so good, why did his Government not reform them, give them more money and reconstitute them? Clearly, his Government felt there was a reason why they worked better as unitary authorities. So what is the problem?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. There were unique circumstances where everything was going bankrupt, so strict action had to be taken. This Government are proposing, unilaterally and without any consultation with those who do not want it to go ahead, to change local government structures across the whole of the United Kingdom without democratic legitimacy.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Does the hon. Member recognise the state of local government—the absolute mess and the financial vulnerability of local authorities—that his party left us with? Unique circumstances, absolutely. We are having to fix the mess we inherited. We absolutely want local government to be successful and to thrive, but it is on its knees after 15 years of austerity. That is why we are having to take the action we are taking.
Paul Holmes
If the Minister is seriously suggesting that a complete and wholesale reorganisation across the whole United Kingdom is the one answer to making sure that local government can operate on a sustainable footing, I do not buy that at all. There are many things that this Government could do to make local government much more efficient and to deliver for people. First is an uplift in funding.
Paul Holmes
Well, the Minister should speak to the many council leaders across the country who do not agree that it is enough.
If the Minister is seriously saying that abolishing 90% of elected councillors in rural areas across this country will somehow be the miracle cure for local government, and that is what is driving these measures, then I am sorry but this Government need to go back to the drawing board.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is great to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Cornwall reorganised in 2009 and is now the third largest unitary council in the UK. There is no question of any sort of democratic deficit across the whole of Cornwall. Why does the hon. Member think that is?
Paul Holmes
I think it was reorganised under a Labour Government. When people in this country went to the polls in July 2024, and we accept that we lost the election—[Interruption.]—and lost it pretty badly, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield says. I absolutely accept that, and I do not think there is any disagreement on why or how that happened, but can the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth point me to where his party’s then local government spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), said to councillors in her party that they were about to be abolished, or where she said to local government leaders or the general public that Labour would carry out a huge reorganisation of local government? If he can, I will eat my words. I challenge him to show me where his party said at the general election that it was going to do that. Can he do that?
Perran Moon
When I was knocking on doors in Cornwall, people were worried not about a democratic deficit but about waste and bureaucracy in local government. They wanted a more streamlined local government structure, focused on delivering services. That is what the Bill aims to do.
Paul Holmes
Councillors across this country aim and strive to do that day in and day out, within the current structures. Any suggestion otherwise is an insult to elected councillors across the UK, and I am not saying that he said that—I am saying that every councillor in this country is elected to serve and to deliver services in the best way they can. My fundamental disagreement is that, as the Minister has said, reorganisation in a pure attempt to save money and deliver more efficient services is not provable. Many unitary councils across the country—a single tier of local government established in the last reorganisation in 1997—are now in huge financial trouble. That is not just because of the allocations that were put forward by the previous Government. It is because a single tier of local authority of that size does not necessarily deliver for an area. This Government’s aim of ensuring that that goes on across the whole country will not tackle some of the fundamental financial issues that our local authorities suffer from.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion, which is very much informed by his local circumstances in Hampshire. I can share my local circumstances in Kent, where the current two-tier system just does not work for my constituents. We have some great councillors in Swale and some good councillors in Kent, but over decades the system has not worked because the needs of people in certain parts of Kent are so different from the needs of people in my constituency, which is a much poorer, more industrial and more deprived area. We have been overlooked. I am afraid that the people in Tunbridge Wells, which is a great town, do not get the needs of people in Sheerness. This change will be a massive improvement for people in my neck of the woods, and that is why I support it.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is uniquely qualified to speak about his local circumstances—that is why he is sent here every day to serve his constituents—but I do not understand his argument. If he is saying that a larger authority that serves the whole of Kent, or two authorities in Kent, will know the unique circumstances of two fundamentally different areas, I suggest to him that nothing is going to change.
Kevin McKenna
It is obvious. My area has a very different socioeconomic status from that of the rest of Kent—frankly, a lot of the coastal parts of Kent are very different from the centre of Kent. The authority will not be as large as Kent county council, which currently is responsible for the biggest challenges—special educational needs and disabilities, adult social care and children’s social care. Those are a lot of the things that matter most to my constituents. Having more like with like areas in a unitary authority, the likely outcome of this reorganisation where I am, will be a massive improvement and will allow other parts of Kent to focus on their special needs.
Paul Holmes
What the hon. Gentleman describes is the very essence of devolution. I absolutely believe that if local authorities or local people want that reorganisation and unitarisation, that is up to them. My disagreement is with the Government and the Minister—not just this Minister, but the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who said in the House that everybody must do it. If this Government are seriously saying that this measure is universally welcomed by local authorities, they are heavily mistaken.
This Government are forcing reorganisation. They are putting a gun to the head of our county leaders and other local authority leaders in areas such as Hampshire and elsewhere in the country who have essentially been made to feel that they have to do this now or it will happen to them anyway. That is not genuine consultation. That is not devolution that allows local authority leaders to choose the structures that they want. It is unilaterally forcing all local authority leaders to undertake a form of reorganisation—gainsaying them. The Government do not have the democratic legitimacy to drive that forward. That is the fundamental difference between the Minister and the Labour party and the Conservative party. We believe that people should be able to restructure and reorganise, but in the way and at a time that they want. That is not to case under the Government’s proposals.
Finally, the Conservative party does not support the delaying of local elections if the Bill comes into force. Other parties have made many suggestions that the Conservatives have been calling for the delay of local elections. The pending creation of other local authorities has created a fundamental democratic deficit in the country. Some councillors who were elected in 2021 are still in post. That is not a sensible or ideal solution. People deserve to have a say in elections over the way their services are run. This Government’s unilateral reorganisation has prevented that from happening. We believe there should be local elections, so I hope that the party political literature stating that we want to stop the next local elections will cease.
I think I have made my point clear—I hope so, at least. We will oppose the clause.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is great to have you back in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I also wish to speak against this clause and against the Government suddenly pushing through local government reorganisation in this form. Of course, local government reorganisation does happen. Councils can, by consent, currently make such changes. The Government’s imposition of these changes, in a process that seems rushed and top-down to many people across the country, is against the spirit of devolution and against the spirit of the title of the Bill.
I do not believe that the introduction of new strategic authorities demands a quid pro quo of abolishing all remaining two-tier authorities in such a dismaying hurry, and I do not believe that one size fits all. I have served in unitary authorities, and I understand that they can work well. I am not a huge fan of county councils, but nevertheless, it should be up to local areas to do this by consent.
One point that is important to make is that there is no strong case for this change on cost or service delivery grounds. There is no consistent or conclusive evidence to justify a belief that the much larger councils that the Government want will result in services that are cheaper to run. Why even force attempts at savings of this sort now, when local government is still struggling so badly? Research from Unison has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of £4 billion by the financial year of 2026-27, and a cumulative funding gap of £7.4 billion by 2027-28. Let us please fix austerity first.
There are other problems, and I draw on the experience and expertise of the Association of Green Councillors in making these points. With this process, we are likely to see the destructive marginalisation of community identity in many places. There is no serious evidence to back up the choice of target for councils to serve 500,000 people, which Ministers have been asking for in their correspondence to councils. Many people in localities already affected are struggling to see how this will not result in arbitrarily drawn, essentially meaningless sub-county unitary councils with no identifiable sense of place.
Many very substantial towns, with history and a strong identity, often associated with strong values of independence of thought as well as governance, community spirit, welcome, inclusion and mutual support—places that people love—are currently or imminently in danger of being wiped off the local government map. They too are saying we should fix austerity first. The Committee has heard strong evidence of a clear and dramatic reduction in community representation from these changes, and we are already an under-represented population. Look anywhere in Europe or North America and people have far more peers, elected from their community, to represent them in decision making.
Unlike in so many other countries—unlike so many city council members or state representatives—our councillors, although they work hard, do not work as full-time representatives. I see no plans to make these new councillors with extra duties full time. Many existing councillors put in time way over what their allowances might cover, given the poor support and resources they often receive. They are overworked, and the job of councillors in these new super-unitaries is set to become harder if they are to maintain the strong community connections they currently have.
Hard-working local representatives also take on so much casework, helping people directly when public and private services drop the ball and helping them to navigate complex systems. We must not forget the value of a friendly face from the community who just listens and takes someone’s case up in a crisis. Have Ministers considered that the loss of thousands of people doing casework, advice and support work of this kind could have an impact on the caseloads of the hard working and hard-pressed staff and MPs taking up casework in local areas already? Have Ministers considered the impact on local advice services?
Sean Woodcock
Like the hon. Lady and councillors in my area, I too get casework, and one of the frustrations that people have in areas where there are two levels of local government—district and town councils—is that they sometimes go to one council and are told, “Sorry, we can’t do it. You need to go to the other one.” The priority for residents is surely getting things fixed and sorted. Does she not see benefit in having all services under one roof, so that the councillor knows that he can go straight to his officers and get it fixed, without having to say, “Sorry, it’s not my department”?
Siân Berry
I do not disagree with the essence of that point, but the Government are seeking to impose reorganisation, which could abolish a whole tier of councillors overnight and cause a spike in casework and the need for advice services. I do not believe they have really considered the impact of the transition.
This week, I met AdviceUK, whose survey of member groups found that the average advice service in the country has lost three staff members or volunteers in the past year, and needs three more advisers just to meet current demand. Have the Government considered that such services might face a spike in demand as a consequence of this reorganisation and the loss of community representation that is being imposed?
There are surely consequences for democracy. In contrast to the cost-saving argument, there is clear evidence that size matters when it comes to democracy and accountability, even with unitary authorities that work well—my constituency is in a well-established unitary. The proposed increase in population and geographic scale is likely to have a damaging effect on a range of democratic criteria, including electoral turnout, public trust in councillors and officers, and levels of participative engagement.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is making a very interesting point. It has been argued that a single tier, under one authority, might improve democratic participation, but does she agree that someone in Hedge End in my area, whose council headquarters will be far removed from them geographically, may feel that their council represents them less, and therefore democratic participation would be reduced?
Siân Berry
Having been a local councillor, I can see the other side of the Government’s argument. A local councillor based further away, representing a larger ward, will have to work very hard to maintain the face-to-face interaction with their community that makes residents feel represented. I do not believe the Government have really considered that. No matter how hard-working councillors are—even at Green levels of all-year-round hard work—residents will have less familiarity with who their local councillors are and what they do, which may increase alienation from local democracy and feed populist narratives.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley made this point well, but I have to complain that, unlike the new strategic authorities, which are about devolving power, forced and hurried local government reorganisation was not in the Labour manifesto, so I must oppose the clause.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I agree with much of what has been said already. This clause goes to the very heart of the Bill and highlights why it is bad.
I led Broxbourne council, a district council, and was a county councillor on an authority that represented 1.2 million people, so I can say from experience that bigger does not always mean better. I wish other Committee members had been elected to councils so that they could have had that experience. I only wish that it worked in the ways that Labour Members have described, and that it were so easy to get things done in large authorities. From my experience of serving on a large county authority, I know that councillors are more removed from the residents they serve. Those authorities are very officer led, and it is very difficult to get things done. At the end of the day, it is the residents who fall out from that.
District councils have planning powers, the best way to transform lives. I fear for what will happen to planning services when we have big new unitary authorities of 500,000 or 400,000 people. Those services will be far removed from the people the councillors are making decisions for.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
There has been a lot of conjecture about what could happen. I am from an area that has a unitary, because the Conservatives bankrupted the county council. Has the hon. Gentleman spoken to people who have unitaries in order to fix some of his ideas in some sort of foundation? It is great to hear people’s ideas, but let us ground them in reality.
Lewis Cocking
When I go out to speak to people in Broxbourne, they are completely against this—they do not want it. They fear a large council. I have spoken to many councillors, and my reflection is that things depend on the size of the unitary. For those serving in a smaller unitary, people tend to be happier with the council and the services it delivers, but I am yet to find people—in particular, back benchers on a large unitary council—who feel engaged and motivated, with residents respecting that. However, the hon. Gentleman will have different experiences in his constituency.
I do not think unitarisation is a good idea. I have a lot of experience in local government, and it will cost people more in council tax where councils go through unitarisation and districts are forced to merge. My district, Broxbourne, has the lowest parish council tax in the country, so whatever happens through the proposed reorganisation, the good residents of Broxbourne will pay more in their council tax bills, probably for fewer services. Simply going through the reorganisation does not mean that we will see better services.
We are told constantly that councils have been underfunded and that services will improve, but no one can show me a council that has been through reorganisation that is awash with money. I have not spoken to one council that has been through reorganisation that has said, “Do you know what? We have been through a reorganisation. We have made loads of savings and we have become more efficient.”
In actual fact, all the councils that I have looked into that have gone through reorganisation have set up delivery mechanisms and organigrams of staffs and departments based on the old district boundaries. They all have area planning committees that all have to be costed and so on. A number of reports include farcical figures claiming that an area will save millions and millions from going through the reorganisation, because of redundancies, and better and joined-up services.
Let me tell the Committee this: many district councils already have joined-up services and have already gone through that process. Some services, such as human resources, are shared with upper-tier authorities, while others such as waste collection are shared across multiple authorities. The councils have already made lots of those savings, which are already baked into their district budgets and so on. I am yet to see any concrete figures for how much money reorganisation will save.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend, as an experienced local government leader, is making a very good speech. Many Government Back Benchers groaned when he spoke about the Government saying that better services would be delivered through the reorganisation. He outlined councils that have been reorganised, where services have not improved. The Government claim that austerity over the previous 14 years was the problem. Has he seen any policy proposition from the Government to suggest that local authority funding will get better, and that therefore councils will improve their services, if they go through the reorganisation?
Lewis Cocking
No, I have not. My authorities have lost out and are no better off under the Government proposals. In particular, rural authorities lose out even more. I have already touched on the fact that millions of people across this country will pay more in council tax.
We are also always told that we have to hit the figure of 500,000, which is the most efficient number and when we get all the savings. If that figure is so important, however, why are we not reorganising London? A number of unitary councils in London do not meet, or come anywhere near, the half a million mark. I suspect the reason why we are not reorganising London is that the Government do not want to upset thousands of Labour councillors. The reason we are reorganising the rest of the country is that the elected representation for the Government party in those councils is probably not where they want it to be.
We are always told that about half a million is the perfect sweet spot—where we get the best services and will be really joined up and so on—but that works only for one part of the country. In the rest of the country, where there are loads of examples of councils that face difficult financial challenges and yet have low population compared with the figures that the Government want, those areas are not being reorganised at all.
Paul Holmes
In talking about London not being reorganised, my hon. Friend makes what I might describe as a cynical but correct supposition that that is slightly related to the party political colours of the councils elected in London. Does he share my concern—the Minister might call me cynical—that 90% of rural councillors being abolished through this reorganisation also reeks of party political gerrymandering? Most of those councillors are Conservative, so there will be much more Labour representation in local government as a whole.
Lewis Cocking
I could not agree more. I think that is true, and it is an important reason why the Government are focusing on certain parts of the country and not others. If it were true that all councils have to be of a similar size to get the best services and save the most money, and the evidence supported that claim, then surely what is good for one part of the country should be good for all the country. The Government should be representing everyone in the United Kingdom, not just certain parts. They are rather worried about taking on their own councillors.
Mike Reader
I have some evidence on this point: under reorganisation, we actually lost Labour councillors. As the council came together, there were more Conservatives post reorganisation than before, so I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman’s evidence base for his suggestion that this is gerrymandering by the Labour party.
Lewis Cocking
Not as many under this proposal. The Government do not have a mandate for this. They said lots of things in their manifesto about what they would and would not do, but they have done lots of things that were not in their manifesto, which is really damaging for democracy.
The Government should be asking local people what they want, as I am sure we all do when we go out and speak to our constituents. I have two district councils in my constituency, Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire, and not one person has told me, “Do you know what we need to solve lots of the our problems and day-to-day challenges? We need to reorganise the council. We need a bigger authority. We need to be further removed from it.” This policy does not stack up, and it has been rushed.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s argument. In many ways, it is the ultimate Conservative argument that the status quo is exactly right and exactly what we need. Has the hon. Gentleman done any research on public opinion of local government reorganisation in London in the 1960s, or the 1974 local government reorganisation in. I read a leading article in The Times from April 1974 in which there was a criticism of planning being at the district council level and highways being at the county council level, as that created problems between the two. Things change, do they not?
To suggest that the state of local government is optimal as we have it right now seems ridiculous to me. It is divorced from our experience, and many of us Government Members served as councillors. Surely we need to reorganise things so that they can run more efficiently.
Lewis Cocking
I have served in the two-tier system and know it is not perfect, but nor is what the Government are proposing in the Bill. There are some unitary councils, such as Slough, that face really difficult financial challenges. Just having all the levers of two councils around the same table does not make for better service delivery. I served on a county council covering over 1.2 million people, and I have been in meetings to discuss where we should invest for roads infrastructure in places that I had never even been to. That is what will happen with these large-scale unitary councils, and there is evidence for that.
When councils go through a reorganisation, why do they set up service delivery arms based on the old district boundaries? Why do they set up area planning committees, if everywhere is interlinked? What we are failing to understand or consider is how we will do planning and place, and how we will bring our communities with us. There are loads of areas around the country— I can speak for Hertfordshire on this—that have several significant towns all of the same size, and lots of people do not travel between those towns. My constituency probably feels closer to London, which is where lots of people commute for work, rather than to the county town of Hertford, which is just 10 minutes up the road in a car, if I can get through the traffic. We are not thinking about how we create communities and place.
I fear for the democratic deficit; no one ever says to me in my constituency, “Lewis, you know what? We really feel like a part of Hertfordshire. We are on the edge of the county. We want a single unitary council. We want to go through that process. We are going to get better services because of that.” I do not believe that is the case. This is being forced upon local councils. They were told in the letter that they had to reply to it. The timescales are just astronomical. I have led a council, and I know that sometimes it is really difficult to get things done. The timescales for the rest of the country, outside the initial wave of the six plus Surrey, to be reorganised are astronomical.
We are not doing this in a sensible and pragmatic way, and mistakes will be made. At the end of day, we should think about how to set up local government that is fit for the future. We should try to take the best bits for that, not create large super-unitary councils. The Government want to build 1.5 million homes, but they also want to rip up the existing planning committee system and put councils through this reorganisation. That will take a lot of work.
I was leader of my authority in 2021, when we were nearly marched up the hill by the previous Government. Some have commented, “Why didn’t you speak up then?” but they can read my press releases from that time and see that I was against it then, so it is not a party political point. We need to do best by existing councils and the councillors who work day in, day out, for their residents. Making big strategic unitary authorities covering large geographical areas and hundreds of thousands of people, is not the best way to do that. The Government need to look again. If they think this is so popular locally, why not commit to having local referendums where reorganisation is proposed and letting local people have their say? The Government could hold their head high and say, “We let local people have their say. They have agreed with us,” or, “They have not agreed,” and go from there.
Paul Holmes
Government Members raised their eyebrows when my hon. Friend talked about local referendums. Does he remember that it was a stated policy of the last Labour Government to have referendums when they were looking at devolving to regional assemblies?
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is interesting that the Government have moved away from that, particularly because I have not met one person who thinks that reorganisation into large unitary councils is a good idea.
If it is good for parts of the country, I hope that the Minister can explain why London and lots of the metropolitan boroughs in the north are not being compelled to reorganise. If this 500,000 figure is the sweet spot and the Government have loads of evidence to back that the claim that this will make services more efficient and put councils on a better financial footing, why is it good for only certain parts of the country, and not the whole country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their robust contributions. I will say a few things. First, we acknowledge that any process of change or reform is difficult. The Government do not underestimate the challenge of the process, but I come to why we are doing this. I made an intervention earlier to point out the state of local government that we inherited. Any one of us will know the huge pressures that local government are under. Fifteen years of austerity and rising demand has made local government increasingly unstable. The status quo is not tenable or sustainable. We have to do something systemic, because we have a systemic issue in local government.
Reforming and reorganising local government will deliver better services, because we can locate services at a level that works for residents. This is not reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake. It will be tough for our areas, but we are doing it because we are trying to ensure that local government services can work for their residents. It is about sustainability. We need to ensure that we have a model of local government that is fit for purpose and can be sustained in the future, because they provide absolutely vital services for residents. It would be completely reckless of this Government to see the state of play that we inherited and say, “We’re going to sit on our hands and not do anything.” That may be the Conservative way, but it is not the Labour way. We are clear that we have to help drive through a process of reform, and we are doing that because we want to ensure that local governments are fit for purpose to deliver those services for their residents.
There is a fundamental point about accountability and accessibility to residents. If we talk to any of our residents, they will say that they barely understand how local government works—who is responsible for what. Creating structures and systems that work, and that our communities can interact with and cohere with, is absolutely right.
We are very clear: this is not a one bullet solution. It absolutely is not. We know that local government reform needs to sit alongside other things that we are doing. We recognise the funding pressure that local government are under. That is why we boosted local government funding last year, and why we are delivering a real-terms increase to local government funding, despite the tough fiscal inheritance from the last Government. We are moving to multi-year budgets because we think that the system of year-by-year funding for local government is madness. We are making that reform. We are also moving towards consolidated budgets. Having lots of silos and funding streams has made it hard for local government to be strategic and to drive integrated services; we are reforming all of that. We are clear that this measure sits alongside all of that.
The final bit is our funding review. We understand that there are huge pockets of deprivation across the country—I come back to the Conservative party, which had a Prime Minister who boasted about the fact that he took money away from deprived areas to give it to affluent Tunbridge Wells. We will not do that. We are trying to recalibrate funding so that we can reduce deprivation and drive improvements across the country.
On the process—just to be clear and put it on record—we have not put a gun to any heads in councils; the Secretary of State has invited councils to put forward their proposals. Areas are now going through a process. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley talked about three proposals in his area; that is because we are making it bottom-up and saying, “Have a conversation about what model works best. We have a set of criteria to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Consult your residents and your stakeholders, and put that proposal to Government.” That is the process that we are undergoing at the moment.
Paul Holmes
The Minister says that there is no gun being held to local authority leaders’ heads. Can she therefore outline, in a clear way, what would happen to a county or district authority that said that it did not want local government reorganisation and refused to engage? They would be forced to reorganise, would they not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
They have been invited. There is a backstop power, but we do not think we will need to use it because the conversation now playing out across local government is that, yes, this is hard, but everyone recognises that the status quo—standing still—is not feasible or sustainable.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way one more time. She is being very generous, especially as I know that I have spoken for a while. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that Government Back Benchers are so delighted with my speaking.
I ask the Minister again, because she has not committed to this in clear language: if a county council leader or a number of district councils refused to engage with the Government’s process on local government reorganisation, they would be forced to reorganise, would they not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is not where we want to be. That is not where we think we will end up. We have invited places and, to the credit of local government, everyone recognises that change is required. What is now happening is that places are making decisions about the best proposal to deliver the outcomes that they want for their constituents. This process has been hard—of course it has—but, throughout it, every single local authority has understood that the status quo will not deliver for their residents. That is the thing that is driving the impetus for change.
I will say a few words on the 500,000 population figure because Opposition Members have mentioned it. That is not a hard and fast number. We have said that it is a benchmark. If we think about other authorities that have gone through the process of local government reorganisation over the past 20 years—the likes of Somerset or Cornwall—500,000 is the sort of number that they have gone for, and we have seen that their reorganisations have delivered improvements in services and in the way that they operate. Places can go below or above that number. Ultimately, it is for places to figure out the best configuration of their locality to deliver for their residents. We have been clear and consistent about that point.
I want to address the specifics on London. We are open to a conversation with any part of the country that wants to talk about reorganisation. London, with its boroughs, obviously has a different configuration locked in legislation. It is distinct from our two-tier areas, which is why we are not focusing on it. But we are very open to a conversation about London, where we tend to have big authorities that are delivering some of these integrated services anyway.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 24, page 245, line 30, after “merger’” insert “or splitting”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 50.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in schedule 24, page 246, line 14, after “direction” insert “under subsection (1)”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 50.
Amendment 50, in schedule 24, page 246, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may invite or direct a principal authority to make a proposal that there should be more than one single-tier local authority for an area which currently consists of—
(a) the area of a single authority, or
(b) one or more eligible areas.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to invite or direct an authority to split into more than one single-tier authority..
Amendment 51, in schedule 24, page 246, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) An invitation or direction under subsection (1A) may—
(a) be made in such a way that the authority may choose which eligible area or areas should form the proposed area of each new single-tier local authority;
(b) specify which eligible areas should form the proposed area of each new single-tier local authority.”
This amendment is related to Amendment 50.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful for your indulgence on this, Dame Siobhain, because I know that we have had a very long debate on the substantive clause to which it relates. I want briefly to speak to amendments 48 to 51. Most of the amendments are consequential on or directly related to amendment 50, and they are all in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). My hon. Friend thinks that this is a simple amendment that goes to the heart of what we were just discussing: the driving force behind devolution should be local situations and the local wants and needs of local people, rather than the standardised, central, top-down approach to local government reorganisation that this Government are advocating and forcing on local authority leaders across the country.
Amendment 50 would allow the Secretary of State to invite or direct—the emphasis is on “invite”—an authority to split into more than one single-tier authority. This applies to many of the situations across the UK where there are a number of district councils or county councils that do not want to engage with the Minister’s local government reform, but are being forced to do so, as we discussed in the last segment of this Bill Committee. Local people or a local authority leader could decide to enter into a form of local government reorganisation, but do so in the way that suits them best. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, in tabling this amendment, would have been referring to the situation around Bradford. Many people in the surrounding areas and in his constituency have indicated to him that they do not wish to be part of a local authority including Bradford. There is nothing wrong with Bradford—I have been there and it is a wonderful city—but there are two different and distinct types of geographical area within the single area proposed by the Government.
The same could be said of my local government situation. Many Members across the House know the distinct nature of Hampshire and the differences in approach to life between the people of Portsmouth and the people of Southampton. They would not necessarily want to be in the same local authority as each other—that is not the circumstance at the moment—but district councils in the proposed reorganisation simply do not want to engage because they want to stand alone to form a single-tier authority, perhaps with some of their partners. One proposal, which would not have met the Government standard test, was for a single-tier authority between Fareham, Gosport and Havant. They should be allowed to do that, but they are not, because of the top-down nature of the reorganisation.
Manuela Perteghella
In Warwickshire, too, four of five district and borough councils proposed a South Warwickshire—they wanted two unitary councils, rather than one huge, single unitary. That put them in collision with the county council proposal that was just voted through. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need flexibility and the proposals should not be directed by the Secretary of State?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady in that we need responsibility, bearing in mind that amendment 51 would give the Secretary of State the power in this case to enforce that flexibility. A problem in the proposed local government reorganisation is that it focuses overly on the role and consent of county authorities, but the voice of district councils has not been listened to in this approach, as I outlined earlier when quoting Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, who was leader of the District Councils’ Network.
I know what the Minister will say to our amendments, and I respect her position in doing so, but the Conservative party believes that devolution can mean so much to so many if done with the bottom-up approach that the Minister insists is hers. We want some words of encouragement that she may look—although I know she will not—to reduce the restrictions on a single tier for larger geographical areas. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, as it is a probing one. However, I have it on the good authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley that he will table similar amendments on Report. We will listen to the Minister’s response with great enthusiasm.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me say three things in response. First, there is already flexibility in the creation of boundaries and geographies for unitaries to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that they work for the communities they need to serve.
We are clear that, on the other side of local government reorganisation, councils must be the right size to deliver the high-quality services that residents deserve and need. Judgment on proposals will be driven by that fundamental question. Splitting up existing unitaries, further fragmenting and disaggregating services, does not feel like it would be in the interests of the residents concerned in delivering better and more efficient services, or value for money for taxpayers and those residents.
Clearly, we must have a reform process that fundamentally delivers those outcomes. There is now a process to do that. We will look at the various proposals and, ultimately, the test is: will the proposal deliver local government that is fit for purpose and deliver for our communities? Voters across the country want that and respect it.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for what she said. I absolutely knew what she was going to say—that comes as no surprise to us in the Opposition—but this is about what we discussed before. She said that it would not necessarily be to the advantage of local people were we to allow the splitting of unitary authorities, but she is missing the fact that some people want that. I think that the non-uniform approach to local government works. I still believe that this is a community empowerment and devolution Bill. One size fits all across the UK is not the way that the Government should be going. I will withdraw the amendment, but I have no doubt of further amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 23rd October 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 October 2025 - (23 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 24, page 246, line 27, after “government” insert —
“having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to—
(a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to—
(i) economic zones,
(ii) physical geography,
(iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and
(b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.”
This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations.
In an earlier sitting, the Committee discussed amendment 25, which would have required the Secretary of State, when preparing a proposal for a new combined authority—something we oppose—to follow such a proposal with a statement explaining how it would affect the physical geography, community identity and the boundaries of other public services. Amendment 5 focuses on the need, when we look at local government reorganisation into a single tier of local government or unitary council, to bring communities together by preserving or creating a sense of space.
It is our view that, when merging tiers of local government to create a new unitary council, as part of the strategic authority process, particular regard should be given to the size of the area covered by the new authority, which we have obviously debated in depth, as well as the merger’s impact on community identity, heritage, cohesion and pride. After the passionate intervention of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about the need to focus on the socioeconomic requirements of the geographical landscape and the connection of communities within his constituency, perhaps he will support the amendment.
Obviously, from a central Government perspective, we accept that reorganising an area may improve clarity, but it is crucial that the Bill delivers clear devolution benefits for communities. To do so, areas merged or otherwise must remain responsive to their communities, and they must continue to engage with those communities by carrying forward a shared identity or a sense of place in some form. It goes to what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said this morning about unifying communities in his area and reinforcing a sense of place. That is why the population figure of 500,000 must be just a benchmark—it must be flexible—and I know the Minister has already confirmed that.
We have already spoken about the existing boundaries of public service provision, including integrated care boards, local NHS areas and police and crime commissioner areas. To reiterate, however the reorganisation takes place, it must be responsive to the particularities of the area, not purely directive. It is that direction from Government that we oppose, and the amendment would mandate that, when deciding mergers, the Secretary of State considers these very important local characteristics that other Committee members have raised.
There is an intrinsic logic to the way in which those public service areas evolved to intersect and connect, and chopping them up just for the sake of numbers, without due regard to all these characteristics, is taking a significant risk with our public service delivery. For example, to narrow it down to one specific question, will our local NHS trusts and ICBs be brought along with plans to merge levels of local government, so that the staff in both the health services and the new unitary authority can keep effective working relationships and continue to provide high-quality services and care for their local populations? In conclusion, we think the amendment is important, especially in relation to the merger of authorities to form single-tier unitary councils, and we are minded to press it to a vote.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise in support of amendment 5, spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. This is where the Government should have started. The amendment seeks to put place at the very heart of local government reorganisation, which the Government have missed. In coming up with the arbitrary target of half a million people or thereabouts, they have not thought about place and how communities connect with shared identities.
I have spoken in Committee before about Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire has a number of significant towns, all of relatively the same size and population, but there is very little interconnectivity between the towns, particularly on rail and road. Not many people move between those towns, and I fear the consequences of an arbitrary target of around half a million. I appreciate what the Minister has said about the flexibility of that target, but even setting a target of 300,000 people is not looking at what best serves communities; it is sitting in Whitehall, coming up with a figure, and saying, “This is what we want to push top-down throughout the country. This is what we need to do,” rather than saying to places, “We want to reorganise you. Please come up with appropriate examples of how you might best do that within your communities.” That is what the amendment speaks to.
We really need to think about place. If we want these new councils to be successful, they must have buy-in from local communities. Local communities must have a shared sense of identity and a shared sense of vision. We cannot lump places together that have hardly any connectivity—places that people do not travel between—because we would be setting up those councils to fail, and to have competing priorities for the towns they want and do not want to invest in. The amendment is logical, and it is disappointing that the Government did not start off in this place and give more flexibility to the top-down reorganisation they are forcing on large parts of England. If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon wishes to push the amendment to a vote, the official Opposition shall support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment behind the amendment, but we are already building in provisions to reflect the issues that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has raised.
The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already provides that a direction for local government reorganisation can be issued only if the Secretary of State deems the proposal to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Having regard, therefore, to size, geography, public services and local identity is fundamentally embedded in the decision-making process. That is demonstrated by the statutory guidance and criteria shared with areas currently preparing for reorganisation. The hon. Lady is right to highlight those factors that matter for the sense of place, and therefore the boundaries of councils, and we think that the statutory guidance and safeguards fundamentally lock them into the process that we are going into.
On whether this process is top down or bottom up, let us look at it: we have invited places to go through a process of reform, and those places are now having conversations among themselves to come up with proposals. Those are not Government proposals; they are proposals from local areas. We are already allowing conversations to be had about what makes sense for those areas and how we take into account the specifics of identity and other issues in those proposals. Whatever proposal is chosen must be consulted on before it is implemented, which, again, is an opportunity for local people to have a conversation, and to have some say and voice in the process.
Although I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, we have legal provisions and, critically, have set out a process that fundamentally addresses the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Manuela Perteghella
I would like to press the amendment to a vote, because it is important to mandate that the Secretary of State consider these criteria. They will have many proposals from the same area, so these criteria would give guidance on how we can keep the cohesion of communities that hon. Members have discussed before.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 45, in schedule 24, page 247, line 38, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (3), insert—
‘3A The Secretary of State may not in any case make an order under subsection (1)(a) unless he has satisfied the conditions under Section 7A (Requirement for a public referendum).’”
This amendment is a preparatory amendment for Amendment 46.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in schedule 24, page 248, line 9, at end insert—
“(6A) After section 7 insert—
‘7A Requirement for a public referendum
(1) An order cannot be made under section 7 of this Act unless a referendum has taken place in all areas proposed to be included in any merger under any order, and a majority of voters in that referendum has approved of the proposed merger.
(2) Arrangements relating to referenda held under this section may be such as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that the referendum is—
(a) conducted under the first past the post system, and
(b) held no sooner than six weeks from the date it is first publicly announced.’”
This amendment would require that no order could be made to implement a proposed merger of single tier areas unless approved by a referendum in the affected area.
Amendment 47, in schedule 24, page 250, line 6, after “opening words” insert—
“(a) after ‘an order made by the Secretary of State under section 7’, insert 7A, and”.
This amendment is a preparatory amendment for Amendment 46.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak to these amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). These are simple amendments—the Minister has heard me say that before; any amendments that we have tabled are very simple and aim just to do the job adequately.
My hon. Friend has tabled these amendments because, as we have said, the Conservatives believe that this is a top-down reorganisation that has not been endorsed by the people we serve. As I said earlier, it was not in the Labour manifesto. Many local authorities do not want to go ahead with local government reform, and the Minister tacitly acknowledged earlier that any local authority that did not want to go forward with local government reform would be forced to do so anyway.
We believe that is wrong. The lack of democratic legitimacy and the democratic deficit in the decision to pursue this very expensive and needless local government reorganisation require the people who we serve—the people who councillors serve—to have their say. There must be democratic accountability to them, which means there should be a requirement for a public referendum when a new authority is proposed.
The Government should not fear that. In fact, the policy of the last Labour Government, from 1997 to 2010, was massively to advocate for local referendums. The Greater London Authority was created following a public referendum in 1998 in which the Government wilfully accepted that it needed to be created. It was their proposal, they sought the consent of Londoners, Londoners approved, and they went ahead and created the GLA. I think that is a very good thing; they had democratic accountability.
In the early 2000s, a north-east assembly was proposed by the late Lord Prescott and rejected by a referendum that the Government sought. It was rejected by the people who would have been affected by the proposal. The Government not only gave them a referendum, but listened and took away the proposal for that assembly because people did not want it.
The last Labour Government therefore had a history of listening and asking people for their democratic consent to reorganisations, so I do not understand what this Government have to fear. They have chosen to go forward with this reorganisation without any consent. These referendums would provide the consultation that the Government have so far lacked by asking and ascertaining, with certainty, whether people back it in local areas.
So far, the Minister is charging into a tunnel without any public say. I am sure that she will talk about local government consultations in her response, but most of the consultations that have happened have been very small and the democratic participation has been very low. In areas such as Gosport, which neighbours my constituency, people do not want this reorganisation and their council has refused to engage. They do not want it to happen, but the Government will force it to.
Under the Local Government Act 2003—passed by the previous Labour Government—an authority can hold a non-binding referendum on any local issue that it wishes. I do not believe that any local authority has undertaken that yet, but we certainly would encourage them to do so. The Government do not have to follow or respond to that referendum, but I wonder what weight the Minister and the Government would place on a referendum held by a local authority, given that the legislation was passed under a previous Labour Government.
The previous Labour Government had some quite radical thoughts on reorganisation that we opposed at the time, I think—I was at secondary school then; I know many people will not believe that, looking at me after more than six years in this place! That Labour Government believed in consulting the people who they served when implementing huge reorganisations of central, regional and local government.
That Labour Government had a proud history of listening to the people, but unfortunately, in many areas of policy, this Government have shied away from that. Instead, they have pushed ahead with policies that were not in their manifesto and do not have the democratic mandate of the British people. I have been clear from the beginning that they have a democratic mandate to govern, and a huge majority—although it was won with a very low proportion of the vote—but they do not have a democratic mandate for this local government reorganisation. They should not be afraid to ask people whether they want it or not.
The Government should take this amendment on board and make it part of this flagship legislation.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Local government reorganisation is already possible through existing legislation and does not require a referendum. In the last 20 years, we have precedents of local government reorganisation, and a referendum has never been part of that. Adding a referendum on to the process is disproportionate and will slow it down. We need to go through this process for all the reasons that we have talked about in the debate.
To be clear, however, before any local government reorganisation proposal is implemented, all affected authorities must be consulted. Residents can submit their views during those consultations, and authorities will engage with their residents through the proposal development process that is going on at the moment.
Furthermore, all implementation orders for new unitary authorities must pass through Parliament’s affirmative resolution procedure. That allows elected Members to have their say on proposals based on the feedback that they are getting from their constituents. All these provisions are proportionate, right and consistent with what we have done in the past. Therefore, this additional measure is disproportionate and unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I will respond briefly. The Minister is entitled to say that she does not want to accept the amendment, but I ask her to look not at the logistical and legal arguments of the legislation, but at what is right and what is wrong in the practice of implementing local government reorganisation. As I say, we are all democrats—we are all elected to serve here—so she should not fear asking the people whether they endorse the local government reform that she is currently implementing without the consent of the public or many local authority leaders. We will not press these amendments to a vote, but notwithstanding what I have said before about other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, we will table amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Clause 56 stand part.
New clause 24—Impact of local government reorganisation—
“(1) Whenever the Secretary of State has made any order or regulations in pursuance of provision inserted or amended by Schedule 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must, at the end of a period of two years beginning on the day of the making of the order or regulations, issue a report.
(2) Each report required by subsection (1) must include, but shall not be limited to, details of the following, as far as they arise from any reorganisation resulting from the order or regulations—
(a) the cost of the reorganisation;
(b) the impact on service delivery, including the quality of social care provision and quality of SEND provision;
(c) the impact on development, including the number of homes delivered against local targets;
(d) the performance of individual commissioners;
(e) the sustainability of the finances of the newly created authority;
(f) the extent to which Council Tax has increased and the extent to which any mayoral precept has increased; and
(g) satisfaction of local residents with the standard of services provided by the authority established or changed by the reorganisation.”—(David Simmonds.)
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 55 introduces schedule 24 and I have already spoken in detail about it.
On clause 56, we must avoid a situation in which a predecessor council—one soon to be replaced by a new unitary council—could delay devolution by withholding consent to the establishment of a new strategic authority. Where a new unitary council is keen to progress devolution during the transitional period, the requirement for the predecessor councils to give consent will be disapplied.
The Bill will ensure that consent is given by the new unitaries, which will form the constituent councils of the new strategic authority. Consent should come only from those with a stake in the future strategic authority. This clause ensures access to devolved powers as quickly as possible, where the elected representatives of all shadow unitary authorities are in agreement. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
The Minister says it has not, but I will convince her that it has. All morning we on the Opposition side have been talking about the fact that the Government are forcing this to happen without consent. The mask has slipped because this clause disapplies the ability of a currently existing council to refuse consent for the creation of new authorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
On a point of clarification, it is consent to the creation of a new strategic authority, so this is the tier above.
Paul Holmes
Fine. I thank the Minister for her intervention, but the point I am about to make still applies: the people who currently serve have a stake. The people who send those people to serve have a stake. The way in which this clause is being put forward shows again that the Government are forcing change on a number of organisations and predecessor authorities that currently exist and serve their local people—so the mask has slipped. We have been saying all day that this is a proposal and local government reform that is not in the manifesto and is being forced on local authority leaders who do not want it.
The Minister said last week that she had had lots of enthusiastic conversations about people who want to go forward with devolution. I put it to her again that many local authority members do not, and the only reason they are going forward with it is because she is going to force them to do it anyway. Now that those local authorities might want to refuse to give consent to the creation of strategic authorities—something that should be within their gift anyway—she is disapplying their right to say that they do not want them. The Government are invoking a top-down reorganisation and not listening to the views of local leaders or of the people they are elected to serve.
I say to the Minister once again on this clause: throughout the Bill, she has advocated for it being a bottom-up reorganisation, but this is the sledgehammer of central Government refusing local people the voice that they should have. The mask has slipped and the Minister has just admitted that it is a centrally imposed thing, which many people do not want. The clause should be removed from the legislation, and we will oppose it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is important to disaggregate two processes, although I appreciate the challenge because we are doing them concurrently: there is a local government reorganisation process and a devolution process. To clarify, I am the Minister for Devolution, so when I refer to the enthusiasm in my conversations with local government leaders, that was on devolution, where it absolutely is felt. It is right for devolution that the authorities that will form the constituent authorities and ultimately have a stake in the future direction of the strategic authority are the driving force behind it.
It would be wrong if one single authority that was about to be shifted in the context of local government reorganisation were able to scupper, delay or veto the creation of that strategic authority when there is consent and support for it. This is completely rational if we allow that there are two processes. This part of the Bill is about the creation of strategic authorities and about who ultimately has the ability to drive them and consent to them. It should be those constituent authorities that will form part of the strategic authority to come.
Paul Holmes
Forgive me, Ms Vaz; as the Committee can see, I got rather carried away and I forgot to speak to new clause 24 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Briefly, the new clause should be included in the legislation, because all in the House believe in transparency. In the process, subsection (1) of the new clause would require an impact assessment of the local government reorganisation to be published. Each report would be required to include things such as the cost of a reorganisation, something that the Minister has advocated will deliver more efficient services and will not be onerous.
A report will allow us to see not only whether that is true post the creation of the authority, but the impact on service delivery and development, as well as the number of homes delivered—we have seen mayors who are not able to deliver the number of homes required of them—and an assessment of the performance of individual commissioners. It would provide a clear link for the people who live in those areas where the reorganisation is to go ahead. We believe that would not be onerous on the new authorities and that new clause 24 would bring the right balance between transparency and accountability, so we ask the Minister to accept it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am sympathetic to new clause 24, but there is no need for the Secretary of State to publish a report after the implementation of every single reorganisation proposal. Ultimately, local authorities are responsible for their own financial performance and the delivery of their local services, and they are accountable to their local electorate. As many currently do, local authorities may report on their performance each year to their electorate. That is the appropriate place for the responsibility to lie.
The Government already have mechanisms to monitor the performance of local authorities and to ensure that our councils are fit, legal and decent. As part of the process of reforming local government, we recently launched our local government outcomes framework, providing outcome-based accountability for councils. I think that there are enough mechanisms, including those that are baked into what councils need to do for their local electorate and our overall performance review and assessment process. In essence, those will deliver the intent of new clause 24.
Paul Holmes
I genuinely hate to detain the Committee—I do not just say that out of politeness—but I believe that we should press new clause 24 to a Division, when we come to that point.
The Chair
We will vote on new clause 24 at the end, when we come to the new clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 24 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 57 and schedule 25 will simplify and bring consistency to local authority governance arrangements. By abolishing the committee system, we will ensure that all councils operate an executive form of governance, providing clearer, more easily understood governance structures at a local level and more efficient decision making.
We will accept the continuation of the 13 legacy directly elected council mayors, while introducing measures to prevent the creation of any new ones. This will ensure a more consistent approach to governance and avoid the potential confusion caused by the establishment of new regional mayors for strategic authorities and mayors for councils. It is at this strategic level that we think the single focal point of leadership for the area and direct electoral accountability and mandate works best, and we believe this provision delivers the right powers in the right places.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz.
I rise to speak against clause 57; I believe it is extreme control freakery and overreach from the Government and in no way essential to this Bill. Why impose a leader and cabinet model on all councils, even against their will, along with all these other changes? The Government can see only the benefits and, like a poorly run council, they ignore the critical risks.
Good governance benefits in many places from a deeply involved voice for principled opposition councillors to vote on policy, check the numbers, put forward good ideas and raise mission-critical questions about issues such as fire safety, service quality or big projects and contracts, even when that is uncomfortable for the administration. Places need the right to choose, democratically, a new model of governance when appropriate—especially when councils face problems and need a fresh start.
Changes of this sort are sometimes made after a crisis or a period of problems; I will talk in the next debate about changes made by referendums. I hear the claims of stagnation and indecision often levelled at committee systems, but I point out that under the current system people who see that happening have the right to change the model and try something else. A new administration can vote to switch to a leader and cabinet for a period, or to a mayor, if it wishes, or the people can make the change themselves by calling a referendum. The Government want to take away all that choice. That is very wrong and this clause is overreaching in the extreme.
Given the exceptions being made for mayors in the mandate for leader and cabinet, it seems that the committee system is the one most under attack from the Government in this Bill, so I want to provide some words and examples from cross-party local councillors about its benefits for their areas. In July 2025, Sheffield city council voted unanimously for a motion defending its democratically chosen model, stating that
“the benefits of the Committee System demonstrated in Sheffield include: greater collaboration across political groups in policy formulation and in decision making; overcoming party political tribalism and focussing on areas of agreement, not antagonism; improving the culture of the Council, with officers and Councillors focusing on what is best for the city; all Councillors being involved in the decision-making of the Council, and greater accountability to the electorate; and improved outcomes for the residents of Sheffield”.
That is a cross-party view.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I ran a constitution review for Cambridge city council while I was a councillor there, and we spent a lot of time talking about the committee system versus the cabinet system. Does the hon. Member not agree that what she has just described is an example of really positive culture in a council, which can be had regardless of the governance system? Does she also agree that the key thing about the committee system is that it is slow, inefficient and leads to much worse scrutiny? Under a leader and cabinet system we have scrutiny committees, and we end up with much more detailed questioning of evidence in those than in a committee system.
Siân Berry
I implore the hon. Member to listen to the rest of my speech and further points I shall make on other amendments. In Sheffield, at the same time, the council resolved unanimously that
“Sheffield benefits from fairer, more representative governance arrangements, and that people expect the Councillors they elect to have a vote on the decisions that affect them”.
Bristol also has a committee system, and Bristol Green councillors have told me how their cross-party committees have had a series of task and finish groups, where policy is developed with the input of councillors from all parties. They say that, while everyone does not always agree, this process allows for much more rounded development of policy ahead of implementation, not just scrutiny afterwards or divisive call-ins. There is rich debate, with more voices taking part in it.
Those councillors also say that the committee system also allows for back benchers to have more influence and input, with a positive effective on equalities as well, so that more councillors with a variety of different characteristics have space to input, and that, in turn, has a positive effect on policy development. New councillors also have more of a chance to develop their skills and interests than under a cabinet model, where only a handful of councillors have proper influence and are hand-picked by the leader or mayor in many cases. Sheffield councillors also say:
“The critical budget-setting process has worked better in Sheffield since the committee system was introduced, avoiding last minute wrangling and hasty deals between the parties. This is because the detail of the budget process is worked through each Committee in the months leading up to the budget, so all councillors are involved. This contrasts with the last budget brought under our Cabinet system where the budget proposal was voted down as the council meeting descended into chaos.”
I also urge the Committee to note that none of the councils that have issued section 114 notices in recent years have been run under a committee system. Worcestershire city council has had a committee system since 2017, implemented after a council motion that was proposed by Conservatives and seconded by Greens. Councillors there tell me that they see scrutiny within the committee system working really well to improve policy before any decisions are made, and it has improved cross-party working relationships and helped to build consensus.
The council has also been independently praised for its collaborative approach, and was commended in the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge in April, which said:
“The peer team found evidence of good governance across the organisation. The peer team found there was positive Member collaboration across political groups which makes the most of the opportunities in this type of governance and there was comprehensive coverage of council business at Policy Committees”.
I can speak on cabinet governance from my previous experience as a councillor in a Labour council, as it is currently the choice of the Labour administration in Brighton and Hove, where my constituency sits. Cabinets can obviously be quicker to act through a rapid decision-making process, but that has risks too. For good reason, the saying is not “Measure once, cut once”. I have noticed a disturbing trend of scrutiny committee time being squeezed by leaders and cabinets, with some councils having just one broad scrutiny committee—I did not experience that and I honestly cannot even imagine it working in agenda terms.
A single scrutiny committee has, by definition, only a limited time to examine a wide range of upcoming decisions in any detail, and surely has no space on the agenda for the kind of through pre-decision scrutiny or issue-based evidence gathering to generate ideas or feedback on services that good scrutiny committees also do, and which I have seen. There are further risks; along with maintaining first past the post, the leader and cabinet model preferred by the Government is a recipe for seeing purely one-party decision making in more places, overriding all opposition voices when key decisions have to be made. One-party states are not more efficient or effective.
Manuela Perteghella
Does the hon. Lady agree that the heart of the issue is actually choice? In this brave new world of unitary councils, local councils should have the ability to choose and shape their own future governance model.
Siân Berry
I quite agree. We have heard a lot about the benefits of this new model, and this change is a sign from the Government that they are not even going to trust their new unitaries to choose their own governance systems. I find it a really strange addition to the Bill.
The Electoral Reform Society, in its 2015 report “The Cost of One-Party Councils: Lack of Electoral Accountability and Public Procurement Corruption”, estimated the cost to the public purse of councils having weak opposition to be about £2.6 billion a year. Finally, in November 2017, the current Prime Minister told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme, “In my experience in life, the best decisions are made with proper scrutiny, and the worst mistakes come from not having scrutiny.” The Government should listen to that man. This clause—of all the bad parts of the Bill—is the most exact opposite of community empowerment. If it stays, the Bill should be renamed the “Very Little Devolution and Too Much Centralised Control Bill”.
Paul Holmes
I will speak briefly to clause 57. The Opposition recognise why the Government are bringing in this system. As I have said before, I was a councillor in a unitary with a leader and cabinet system, and I think that that delivers the fastest decisions, and the most accountable decisions when there is a full council. In fact, we were able to constitute an overview and scrutiny committee, the chairmanship of which we gave to the opposition.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Having been a district council opposition leader for 10 years, I can say with some real clarity that the agenda was not always dominated by the controlling group; in fact, a lot of the motions put forward by the group I led were accepted by the controlling group. It is all about the quality of the councillors and the opposition—it goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said about culture—rather than necessarily the system. Does the hon. Member agree?
Paul Holmes
I do agree. I am sure the main reason his group’s motions were accepted is that they were very well written. I know how he behaves in here—I do not agree with his speeches most of the time—and he comes from a decent place. I know that any motion would have been beneficial to the residents of wherever he served at the time.
Councils will have the power to internally constitute themselves to give opposition councillors the best way to scrutinise them. As I said, in Southampton city council, we gave the Labour group leader, or an allocated person, the chairmanship of a genuine overview and scrutiny committee, whose power the administration used to fear. Particularly at a time when the first-past-the-post system delivered what might have been a hung council or a minority administration, that committee, consisting of opposition councillors, had huge power. So I do not have a huge amount of agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on that point.
However, we have just had a debate about referendums, and an amendment asking for referendums to allow people to say whether they want local government reorganisation, so I want to say something about paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 25. Paragraph 3 would prevent any local authority from deciding to establish a directly elected mayoralty, which is absolutely fine. Paragraph 4 would amend the Local Government Act 2000 to allow an authority with a mayoralty to change to a leader and cabinet system. However, it leaves in place provisions governing how that change could take place, and a mayoralty established after a referendum could be abolished only if that is approved in another referendum, which can be triggered by the local authority, a petition or the Secretary of State.
In the schedule, the Government want to hold referendums to try to get what they want, so they approve of them. But they somehow do not approve of referendums to ask people in the first place whether they want to go into this local government reform. If the Minister could explain how that is not having her cake and eating it, and being completely inconsistent in the Bill, I would be grateful. Here, she is saying, “Well, we want you to change to a leader and cabinet system, but you need a referendum to do that, because you have already had a referendum.” That is tacit approval from the Government; when it comes to local government reform and changing how a local authority is set up, they want the consent of the people, but on the overarching view of local government reform, they somehow do not. After the last debate, I would ask the Minister to clarify again: do this Government believe in the right of local people, by referendum, to change the way in which they approve their local structures and live their lives? Yes or no? If it is good enough for this clause, she should go back to the schedule we have just discussed and put in the amendment we discussed to approve a referendum there.
I am slightly teasing the Minister, but she must understand that there is inconsistency in the Government’s approach—although I am not surprised about that. Overall, that is not enough for me to say that the clause is not worth being in the Bill. I think it does deliver a streamlined and accountable process for a leader and cabinet system, but she really does need to tell her officials, whom she leads and gives political direction to, to be consistent about when the Government believe the public should and should not be asked.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand hon. Members’ sentiments, but 80% of councils currently operate a leader and cabinet model. My view is that that executive model allows for greater accountability and better decision making, and that is why we are proposing these changes.
My hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire and for Banbury eloquently set out the experience of that model and said that it leads to quicker, better decision making and efficiency. It is about spending less time in committees and meetings and more time delivering. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about things that make that consensual, collaborative way of governing work, but critically they are more to do with the culture in the council and the quality of the councillors, as my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire and for Banbury pointed out.
We think the model used by the majority of councils is working. Delivering for residents is at the heart of the entire Bill, and we think that that model can lead to much stronger governance and decision making, which will deliver for residents. That is why we are keen for this provision to remain in the Bill.
On the point about consistency, there is always a place for referendums. As the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said, the last Labour Government were a great fan of them and introduced provisions to lock them in, but there was always a balance around proportionality. My issue is not about the logic of having a referendum or not; there is a judgment to be made about what is proportionate, given what we are trying to do and the urgency of the reform agenda. Local government is under pressure, and there is a need to deliver services when resources are really tight. Our constituents rightly demand good-performing public services, and that is what is driving us. We think we have the balance right in the provisions and safeguards in the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to support the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 315, in schedule 25, page 251, line 1, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 316 to 325 makes the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems match the provisions for legacy mayor and cabinet executive systems, while maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 318, in schedule 25, page 251, leave out lines 9 to 19.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 316, in schedule 25, page 251, line 10, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 319, in schedule 25, page 251, leave out lines 27 and 28.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 320, in schedule 25, page 251, leave out from line 33 to the end of line 7 on page 252.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 321, in schedule 25, page 252, line 8, at end insert “or committee systems”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 322, in schedule 25, page 252, line 12 after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 323, in schedule 25, page 252, line 14, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 325, in schedule 25, page 252, line 18, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 326, in schedule 25, page 252, leave out lines 20 to 24.
This amendment removes provisions relating to the discontinuance of the committee system.
Amendment 327, in schedule 25, page 254, leave out paragraph 7.
This amendment removes provisions relating to the discontinuance of the committee system.
Siân Berry
Having spoken about clause 57 as a whole, I will now speak to amendment 315 and the other amendments in the group, which support its goals. As the Government will not listen and have not removed the clause, the amendment is essential. It is about fair play. While maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive, it would simply match the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems to that for legacy mayor and cabinet systems.
Allowing places that have chosen committee systems to choose for themselves whether to change their governance back is important. I will highlight briefly, for the record, the story of two places that have chosen by referendum, driven by the people, to move to committee systems, and their case for allowing their choice to stand, unless and until they decide to make a different choice. As the Local Government Association told us in its evidence, it is not right for these democratic decisions to be disregarded. Councils using the committee system should be allowed to retain their governance system until they or their communities choose to move to a leader and cabinet system.
My first example is Sheffield. This is from the Green councillors, and the full story is available in their written evidence. Sheffield is a good example of the committee system being a success and making things better for residents after a crisis. Over time, the people of Sheffield became very dissatisfied with how the council ran things under the cabinet model, and particularly its disastrous handling of the long-running street trees fiasco. That brought Sheffield into disrepute. The Lowcock report on the eventual independent inquiry into the street trees dispute found:
“While a Strong Leader cabinet model with fewer checks and balances arguably gives authority to get things done, it can also, as in this case, enable the wrong things to be done without serious challenge.”
The ruling administration of Sheffield city council never agreed to switch to a committee system; that was people power. More than 26,000 people signed a petition demanding a statutory referendum. On 6 May 2021, the people of Sheffield voted by 65% to 35% to require the council to change to a committee system. For Sheffield, the committee system works better. The Green councillors told us:
“We know from talking to our residents and our election campaigns that people wanted to see parties working together”
after all this strife. They continued:
“They wanted to see an end to secretive decision-making behind closed doors and they wanted to see all the councillors taking responsibility for making decisions, not just a select few...There has been a culture shift, making working conditions better for staff, as well as improving outcomes for residents of the city. Even amongst those who were doubtful of the benefits of the committee system, very few argue for a return to the Cabinet regime.”
As mentioned in my last speech, the council voted unanimously to defend the committee system against the changes in the Bill. In June 2025, the Labour leader of the council issued a statement, with cross-party support:
“Since its implementation, and the publication of the Lowcock Report in 2023, we have been on an improvement journey to listen, change and rebuild trust with the city, a journey which was recognised in our recent nomination for Most Improved Council at the LGC Awards.”
My second example is Bristol city council, which changed after a referendum in 2022 from mayor and cabinet to a committee system. The Liberal Democrats proposed the motion to Bristol city council to bring about the referendum. It was seconded by the Greens and supported by the Conservatives. The city was given the choice of continuing to have a mayor and cabinet or changing to a committee system. The referendum result was 59% in favour of the change.
The people of Bristol, by a sizeable majority, expressed their dissatisfaction with the mayoral model, and cited a desire for more transparency, less tribalism and less power concentrated in one person as reasons for moving to a committee system. Under the new system, the people of Bristol now expect all councillors to take part in making decisions that affect the city, and that all councillors and political parties should work within the committee system to the benefit of local residents.
There has been more public engagement too since the committee system came in. There have been more public questions and statements, with each committee having a public forum. There has been a marked improvement in the governance of the city with this refreshment of the governance model. That has been evidenced in council worker surveys and through feedback from residents. Far from the predicted slowing down of policymaking, policies have been developed in good time and delivered, and many people have commented on the overall improvement in the working culture of the council.
The people of Bristol have now twice rejected a leader and cabinet model via referenda, once in 2012 to vote for a mayoral model, and again in 2022 in favour of a committee system. Those were local decisions, and to overturn the most recent decision only three years after it was made, without another referendum, would directly overturn the clear democratic mandate of the people of Bristol. It is not in the spirit of devolution to not respect places that have chosen what kind of local governance suits the people of that area. If people vote for a committee system in a referendum, they think it will work for them. It is not about what members of the governing party think will work or would like to operate, and it is not up to them to impose that on places where they are not in power.
My amendment is constructive: it respects the way in which the Government want to create new authorities. However, where authorities that remain in place and have made a decision, the Government need to be consistent between legacy policies for mayoral authorities and legacy policies for committee systems. I hope the Government will act and make the schedule consistent in what legacy systems it respects. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Manuela Perteghella
I want to support the hon. Lady. The national Government should not force structures of local governance on local councils. We saw written evidence from Councillor Martin Smith, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Sheffield city council, showing how the committee system has made the governance of the city council more transparent. Abolishing the committee system in Sheffield and Bristol, and in other areas where local people wanted a change from the leader and cabinet system, would go against the will of the people in those areas. For that reason, if the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion were to press amendments 326 and 327 to a vote, I would support them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for talking us through some of the specifics, particularly in the context of Sheffield. My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) have been very effective in explaining the specifics of Sheffield to the Government, including the history of how the council got there and how the democratic process has played out. We are very mindful of that, and we will reflect on that and on the question of legacy.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I would just like to give a counter. We have heard some very interesting evidence, but my own local authority has the misfortune to operate under the committee system, which was largely brought about in a deal that created a rainbow coalition with the Greens and some other local parties. Honestly, it is a dismal failure. Contrary to the evidence that has been presented, it has made the council more siloed, and fewer councillors feel that they can engage well with the council. Frankly, it is the whim of every individual committee chair as to how they operate, often constraining meetings to an extremely short duration. That has reduced the amount of scrutiny and gummed up the business of the council. I would like to present that as evidence from someone who actually lives within a council that has a committee system.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We made this proposal because we fundamentally believe that the cabinet and leader system provides more effective governance. There is a question about legacy and what the transition will look like, and we have heard representations on that from my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Sheffield Hallam. We will reflect on how to get the balance right, because in the end we want stronger, better governance for residents and constituents across the country, and obviously we have to ensure that the transition is done in a way that minimises disruption and has local support. We will reflect carefully on how to get that balance right.
Siân Berry
I am grateful for the Minister listening to those important points, which I stress again are cross-party points. I look forward to seeing further developments on the clause, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 336, in schedule 25, page 253, line 25, at end insert—
“Duty to introduce code of conduct, inductions and ongoing training (England)
4A (1) Every local authority must adopt and enforce a code of conduct for elected members that—
(a) includes provisions addressing harassment, discrimination and online abuse; and
(b) provides for independent investigation of alleged breaches, overseen by the monitoring officer.
(2) Every local authority must provide a structured induction programme for all newly elected members, which must include—
(a) professional standards and responsibilities;
(b) equality and diversity duties; and
(c) family-friendly and inclusive working practices.
(3) It is a duty for local authorities to provide further such training every two years following the election of new members to the authority.
(4) Local authorities must also make provision for continuing professional development for elected members.
4B (1) A monitoring officer’s functions shall include responsibility for—
(a) investigating breaches of the code of conduct in accordance with paragraph 4A of this schedule;
(b) promoting councillor welfare and wellbeing;
(c) ensuring compliance with equalities duties; and
(d) maintaining transparent procedures for the handling of complaints.
(2) Every local authority must publish an annual report on complaints received by the monitoring officer, including—
(a) the number of complaints received, and
(b) outcomes of those complaints.”
This amendment ensures that all local authorities are required to maintain clear and enforceable codes of conduct for councillors, tackling harassment, discrimination and online abuse and mandates induction and continuous training on equalities and conduct. It embeds and extends independent oversight by monitoring officers.
The amendment deals with a separate matter of inclusive practices. It is aimed at improving more diverse access to elected office and arises from work I have been doing with the organisation Elect Her, which aims to motivate, support and equip women in all their diversity to stand for political office in Britain, and to nurture an ecosystem of organisations reshaping the political system so that all women can thrive once elected. Its research found that weak codes of conduct, poor induction for new councillors and lack of financial recognition all deter women from entering and continuing in office. The amendment would help deal with that.
Elect Her’s report on Scotland by demonstrates how inclusion can improve when councils adopt stronger codes of conduct, structured induction and clear reporting mechanisms. The amendment would introduce a duty to have a code of conduct for elected members, which would include provisions against harassment, discrimination and online abuse. It would provide for independent investigation of alleged breaches overseen by the monitoring officer, and a structured induction programme for newly elected members.
Setting the stage for behaviour is crucial, particularly when new councillors are elected, before things start to go wrong. The programme would include important information and training on professional standards, equality and diversity duties, and family-friendly and inclusive working practices. It would also mandate that the training should be refreshed, particularly following the election of new members. Continued professional development is also covered by the amendment. It asks monitoring officers to investigate breaches of the code of conduct and gives them duties to promote councillor welfare and wellbeing, equalities duties and transparent procedures for complaints. It also asks for an annual report on complaints.
The provisions are sensible suggestions that I hope the Government will take up. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote, it speaks to the fact that while we have discussed potential problems with workload that councillors in these new authorities may have, which are also inclusion issues in some cases, the Bill could more directly address some of the issues that we know affect people’s ability to carry on in the job. We have received disturbing evidence from Elect Her on the extent to which councillors report abuse. We know that women and minorities are disproportionately likely to experience abuse, and we have a duty to do what we can in the Bill to make being a local councillor a more inclusive job. My amendment addresses some of the systemic barriers that might stand in the way of local democracy truly representing all of our communities. I hope the Government will look again at the options.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government fully understand that greater devolution relies on local authority members embodying the highest standards of conduct, so we absolutely agree with the spirit of the amendment. We have consulted on proposals for comprehensive reform of the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. Our response to the consultation will be published shortly and will set out in detail the scale of our ambition for a whole-system reform of the standards and conduct framework.
Our ambitions go significantly further than the amendment in terms of introducing a clearer and consistently applied framework for standards and conduct, and ensuring misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly in every type and tier of local government. We will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, so I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the amendment.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 250, in schedule 25, page 254, leave out lines 3 to 12.
This amendment retains the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 251, in schedule 25, page 254, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (2)(b), insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), at least one of the newspapers must—
(a) have paid-for of free distribution in the relevant local area, and
(b) be published at regular intervals.””
This amendment ensures that at least one of the newspapers in which a public notice is printed is a local newspaper.
New clause 55—Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000—
(a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and
(b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority).
(2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters—
(a) the economic viability of local newspapers,
(b) access to information for local authority residents, and
(c) local democracy and accountability.
(3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”
Amendment 405, in clause 78, page 78, line 3, leave out “1 to 6” and insert—
“1 to 5, 6(1), 6(2)(b) and 6(4)”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 406.
Amendment 406, in clause 78, page 78, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) Paragraphs 6(2)(a) and 6(3) of Schedule 25 come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, but such regulations cannot be made until the Government has responded to the consultation provided for by virtue of section [Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals].”
This amendment is consequential on N55 and would prevent subparagraphs 6(2(a) and 6(3) of Schedule 25 coming into force until the consultation provided for in NC55 has been carried out and responded to.
Amendment 407, in clause 78, page 78, line 17, at end insert—
“(11) Regulations under subsection (4A) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 406 and would require such regulations to be subject to Parliamentary approval.
Manuela Perteghella
Amendments 250 and 251 would protect the right of local residents to be properly informed about decisions that affect them by retaining the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.
Amendment 251 would ensure that the newspaper in which notices are printed is truly local, relevant and published at regular intervals. The legal requirement to print notices in local newspapers must remain to protect transparency and local accountability. That is the baseline. Printed notices are still one of the main ways in which residents, including hundreds of my constituents, find out about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and other council decisions. We cannot restrict the dissemination of important public notices that directly affect the lives of residents just to the online world and social media.
In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon not everyone is online, and we have discussed the challenges for rural and isolated communities to even have broadband or wi-fi connectivity. I told the Minister that this week I had students who had to go to cafés in town to revise for their GCSEs, because they could not get a signal in their homes. Older rural residents are often digitally excluded, and many struggle with internet access.
In those areas lucky enough to still have them, local newspapers have a very important role to play in holding local government to account. On top of publishing statutory notices, they report on local democracy and help to keep communities informed and engaged. The amendments will also help local journalism, which relies in part on statutory advertising income, to survive.
Amendment 251 is important because it adds a definition to make it clear that at least one of the newspapers used must actually be local, published regularly and distributed, whether paid-for or free, in the local area.
The amendments will guarantee that public notices reach the people affected, and reinforce the principle that information should be accessible, inclusive, local, useful and timely. A person who is not online will not know that, for example, the road between their house and their GP will be closed on a day they have to attend an appointment. There will be unintended consequences. Together, the amendments keep community engagement open to everyone, not just those who have broadband connectivity. I was very surprised to see the removal of public notices in print newspapers in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
I am delighted to speak to amendments 250 and 251, and to new clause 55 and amendments 405 to 407, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I am sure that pleases everybody— I remind the hon. Member for Banbury that I have been seated for quite a while now, and I do not want him to miss out on my dulcet tones.
This is slightly complicated, but I will not spend too long on it. New clause 55 will require a consultation on the publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals. Amendments 405 to 407 would essentially act as a block to the regulations set out in the Bill until the proposal is consulted on and an assessment undertaken of the consultation responses on
“the economic viability of local newspapers…access to information for local authority residents, and…local democracy and accountability…. The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”
We believe that it is crucial to consult on the different aspects and different geographical situations of our local newspapers. Local newspapers are essentially the beating heart of various sections of our society who are not online and who rely on or may be interested in such information. It is not a novel thing for people to be interested in what is going on in their local area. As we have seen, with the reduction in regional TV broadcast news and the restructuring of our national broadcaster and other local news providers on television and radio, local newspapers can be the only channel for local people to see what is going on in their local authority area.
I am sure that many people on this Committee have been lobbied by various trade bodies and organisations on behalf of local newspapers. With the advance of digital technology and the internet, the circulation of physical copies of local newspapers is declining. When I was a councillor in 2008, the amazing and historic Daily Echo, which covers Hampshire and Portsmouth news, had a circulation of around 200,000 hard copies sold; it has fallen to around 40,000 now. Local newspapers rely heavily on the income stream from statutory notices and local government notices; it is a lifeline for local newspapers.
Such notices allow people to read about what is going on with their planning applications and some of the changes that local authorities are putting forward. In my local authority, as in local authorities across the country, these statutory notices and planning notices sometimes act as a safeguard when—I hate to say this— a local authority does not act on its statutory duty to alert relevant people to a planning application or a statutory notice. I would hate to guess how many times we have had an email from a constituent that says, “I didn’t know that this planning application was going to go ahead, and I’ve missed the consultation and can’t do anything about it,” either because the postman did not deliver the letter, or the local authority did not deliver to everybody in a restricted cul-de-sac some information about a block of flats going up next door. If they miss that information, they lose their chance to be consulted.
Sean Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman rightly praises the role of local newspapers. I have some brilliant ones in my constituency, including one that goes out in Chipping Norton and hence is called Chippy News. It is produced by volunteers and does a lot of the things that the hon. Gentleman talked about. However, he mentioned the diminished circulation of newspapers. If he really wants better consultation and engagement with residents, does he accept that making the proposed amendments that might not be the best way to ensure that?
Paul Holmes
There is an argument for accepting that, but I would ask in return why the Government are giving local councils the opportunity not to use newspapers. Why put that in the Bill rather than allow the status quo to continue while enabling local authorities to do it in other ways? Why are we bringing forward legislative changes that will harm our independent newspaper sector? I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about not making useless amendments or putting useless new clauses into legislation, so why is this measure in the Bill in the first place? That is why we feel that we have to amend the Bill to protect our local newspapers, the vulnerable people who use them and their engagement in the democratic process.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and impassioned speech. Does he agree that all of us in this room should understand the importance of printed paper to get our message across, considering that during our election campaigns we deliver thousands of leaflets to get our messages out? Does he agree that we should support these amendments to make sure that councils still have the ability to connect with communities that are not digitally connected?
Paul Holmes
As you would expect, Ms Vaz, I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s words. I suspect that if we took the motivation of this part of the Bill and told Labour Members that they could not put out any of their “Labour in touch” communications, or whatever they call them, they would be shouting from the barriers that they could not communicate with residents who are digitally challenged or not engaged in digital communications.
It is important that there are varied and diverse ways for our punters, if I can call them that, and our voters to find information and to engage in the process. I do not understand why the Minister is proposing to actively harm our local independent newspaper sector in a Bill that has admirable intentions and will radically change the face of local government, in some cases for the better, but in the majority of cases for the worse when it comes to accountability. We all see that press is becoming much more large scale and a lot less local through TV and media restructuring. I do not understand why the Government would put in such a retrograde step for independent local newspapers.
We support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. When the Committee comes to new clause 55, we will push it to a vote. I am not sure whether we are voting on the consequential amendments to new clause 55 today, but if we are, we will push those to a vote too.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I agree completely that we need varied forms of communication to engage with our residents and that local media play a vital role. We will continue to do everything we can to protect that part of our ecosystem, because it is fundamental to our democracy.
Let me be clear about what we are doing in the clause: we are shifting the focus from prescribing how information is published to ensuring that the public are effectively informed. The Bill will give councils the flexibility to publish notices of any governance change in whatever manner they consider is most appropriate for the local circumstances, because they know their residents better than we do.
In some respects, it is bizarre that we were ever prescribing exactly what councils should do, so now we are saying it is up to councils. Ultimately, it is in their interest to reach the very residents we care about, because they are their voters and residents too. To be clear: nothing in this provision stops a council from including local print newspapers, which will continue to play an important role. We are simply enabling councillors in the 21st century to think about the range of media that makes sense for the constituents, voters and residents they need to reach.
It is important to put this debate into perspective. As we have said, 80% of councils already have the leader and cabinet model. We are talking about the 20% of councils that do not that would go through some sort of process. This provision is talking just about that small proportion of councils. It is right that we give maximum flexibility to councils to make the right choice about how they communicate.
In the context of a pretty small, practical measure relating to the specifics of the decision to shift away from the committee system, the official Opposition’s proposal on consultation is completely disproportionate and overblown. We absolutely recognise the importance of local media. We recognised the need for an overall review, which is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently undertaking a review of local media and putting in place a local media strategy—to address the very issues that the hon. Members have raised. We agree that we need to do the job of making sure local media can survive and thrive in the 21st century. I hope that the amendment is not pressed.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 4—Funding for Local Authority governance reorganisation—
“The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As we have debated amendments to the schedule, we can deal with it formally.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 25 accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I realise that Ms Perteghella wished to speak to new clause 4, which was grouped with schedule 25, which we have agreed to. I will suspend the Committee briefly to determine the correct way to proceed.
The Chair
Order. We have not debated new clause 4, but since the selection and grouping of amendments is always provisional and at the discretion of the Chair, there will instead be a chance to debate it at a future sitting of the Committee. This is, effectively, a conscious decoupling of the new clause from the group.
Clause 58
Local authorities: effective neighbourhood governance
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 58, page 60, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) It is a duty of a local authority to specify the description of a neighbourhood area that will apply within the local authority’s area for the purposes of subsection (1).”
This amendment assigns the power to define “neighbourhood area” to the affected local authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 61, in clause 58, page 60, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure local authorities receive adequate funding to implement the “appropriate arrangements” in subsection (1) which relate to neighbourhood planning functions.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to deliver neighbourhood planning functions.
Amendment 13, in clause 58, page 60, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) But regulations may not—
(a) alter—
(i) any function exercised by, or
(ii) any power available by or under any Act of Parliament to,
a parish or town council, or
(b) make provision for the abolition of any parish or town council.”
This amendment would ensure that the Bill’s provision for effective neighbourhood governance does not alter any functions performed by a parish or town council or lead to the abolition of a parish or town council.
Amendment 15, in clause 58, page 60, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under this section may not include power for the Secretary of State to specify the description of any neighbourhood area.”
This amendment precludes the Secretary of State from exercising any power to define a neighbourhood area.
Manuela Perteghella
I will address these amendments as two separate groups. Amendments 14 and 15 are simple and, in combination, would ensure that the definition of a “neighbourhood area”, which is important in this clause, is decided by the effective local authority and not by the Secretary of State. In these amendments we are again trying to devolve powers to grassroots governance. For the sake of clarity, we drafted amendments 14 and 15 to grant that neighbourhood areas are defined in accordance with local perspectives, rather than with the view from Westminster.
Amendment 13 complements those changes. Within the locally agreed and defined neighbourhood area, the authority would be required to make appropriate arrangements to secure effective governance. This amendment specifies that those arrangements must not alter any function performed by a town or parish council, or result in the abolition of a town or parish council. As I have explained previously, it is really important to keep town and parish councils. The amendment would give important protections for our smallest and first tier of local governance. The Committee has already debated how town and parish councils perform a crucial role in effective governance and in providing services. They are to adopt many more services as well. We talked about them being consulted, and this amendment is about making sure that they do not get abolished in the definition of a “neighbourhood area” and “neighbourhood governance”.
The Liberal Democrats continue to be surprised by the lack of protection for, or even reference to, town and parish councils in the Bill. This is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to protect those tiers of governance, and put on record her support for hyper-local government, as we consider devolution more broadly.
Amendment 61 has a different purpose. Throughout the Committee debate, hon. Members have spoken about the need for authorities to be able to access support of all kinds, including financial and advisory support, while delivering local planning functions. The amendment is relevant in the light of the Government’s decision earlier this year to remove funding for localism and neighbourhood planning, which was an excellent initiative that put planning and growth plans in the hands of local people. That initiative saw more than 1,000 neighbourhood plans approved at referendum, and was a key way of securing other local involvement in planning proposals and decisions, giving the local community the power to shape their own future in development. Neighbourhood plans were also very much linked to local housing needs, such as locally how much social housing is needed in a village or town, so they were really important.
Removing funding from neighbourhood planning seems to run contrary to this Government’s aims of devolution and community-engaged house building. I urge the Minister to reinstate some form of funding. I would like to hear reassurances from her, especially in relation to the protection of town and parish council governance, which I set out in amendment 13.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The key thing to say in response to this group of amendment is that provisions in the Bill are not about central Government imposing a model of neighbourhood governance without the flexibility or consideration of local places and their requirements; they are about setting a standard for smarter, more responsive decision making for our communities and, critically, ensuring that there are no black spots or gaps across the country, so that every community has the ability to shape, and have a voice, say and power in the decisions that impact their neighbourhoods.
We are not designing the regulations in isolation; we are working closely with local government and the community sector—including the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the We’re Right Here campaign—to make sure that the provisions in this part of the Bill reflect how we get effective good community governance.
On amendment 13, throughout the debates in this Committee I have said consistently that we absolutely recognise the important role that town and parish councils play in our democracy and our community life. There is no intention to abolish parish and town councils in the Bill. It is not about duplicating them—in fact, I have consistently said that where we are building neighbourhood governance, we should rightly build on the civic institutions that are there anyway, to ensure that we have both depth and proper coverage across the country. The regulation-making powers in the clause therefore cannot be used to make regulations that amend primary legislation, which protects town and parish councils already, and there is no intent to do that.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the Minister for her reassurance, but would she put what she has said about the protection of town and parish councils in writing to us?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am happy to put that in writing, but I will state again that there is already primary legislation in place that protects town and parish councils and means they cannot be abolished. There is nothing in the clause that undermines that. I will absolutely put that in writing. Again, the intention of the clause is to recognise that town and parish councils exist in some parts of the country, but not others. We want every community across the country to have effective neighbourhood governance structures, so that people can have power, agency and a voice to shape their locality and their direct neighbourhood.
Finally, on amendment 61, again, I agree that we should protect the important functions of neighbourhood planning. That is why my Department has already committed to ensuring that local planning authorities continue to be appropriately funded for their neighbourhood planning functions, including for plan examinations and referendums. Funding for those costs is provided through a claims-based system. We will make an announcement on the claims for this financial year in due course. As I said, there is nothing in the clause that undermines effective neighbourhood planning; it is quite the contrary. We think there is an opportunity, as we strengthen neighbourhood governance structures across the country, for that to enhance and build on the work that has been done through neighbourhood planning. I ask that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon withdraw the amendments.
Manuela Perteghella
In the light of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 264, in clause 58, page 60, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) requiring that local engagement activities under paragraph (d) meet minimum standards to ensure meaningful community participation, including—
(i) the use of deliberative processes such as citizens’ panels, assemblies, or community conversations;
(ii) the active inclusion of communities most likely to be impacted by the policy measures, and communities underrepresented in policy making; and
(iii) reporting, and publication of resulting reports, on how community input has influenced local plans and decisions;
(f) providing existing local democratic bodies, including parish and town councils, with appropriate powers, funding and infrastructure to support and facilitate such participation.”
This amendment requires regulations on neighbourhood governance to set minimum standards for involvement, including deliberative processes, inclusion of underrepresented groups and transparency.
This is a really important amendment. It proposes a minimum standard for meaningful community involvement be added to this part of Bill on neighbourhood governance. It aims to put people at the heart of the new local decision-making structures by setting minimum standards so that community involvement is inclusive, uses deliberative methods and clearly shows how people’s views have shaped decisions. It would also give local councils the powers and funding that they need to make that happen effectively. The problem with the Bill as it stands is that “appropriate arrangements” is left undefined. That risks weak or inconsistent community participation. The amendment would ensure that the arrangements meet minimum standards and would make engagement consistent, inclusive and transparent.
The Bill’s success depends on whether it achieves what the Minister has been assuring us of throughout these proceedings: a shifting of democratic power. It needs to ensure that decisions are made with people rather than consulting them or imposing on them. I am sure we are all aware of the ladder of engagement, where final decisions are simply waved in front of people for consultation. That is the bare minimum and, in many ways, the worst form of engagement with the public. People will often look at a big proposal and respond in great detail, only to then see that nothing has changed. That really undermines trust. We need to make sure that people can see how their voices are shaping outcomes at a local level. This amendment would enable us to rebuild public trust through the Bill.
We need to ensure that we actively facilitate and enable community participation, and it is important that it is properly funded. Doing a consultation is a very separate thing to participation. We do know that people want participation. Demos polling from 2024 found that 63% of the public would very likely accept an invitation to take part in participation exercises of this kind, but 41% said that they would be less likely to take part if they believed that the Government would not listen to what they had to say. I recognise that the Bill presents the opportunity for secondary legislation to fill these gaps, but if the Government cannot support the amendment, it would be helpful for the Minister to put clearly on the record that those regulations would include deliberative processes, real involvement and reporting back on the ways in which decisions are changed, as the amendment would require.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am pleased to see the focus on community engagement in this amendment. However, we already have powers to set standards for local engagement through regulations, and that is what we will do. We are currently working with local government and the community sector to understand what best practice looks like and what is already happening on the ground. My view is that it is right and appropriate that different principal authorities work out the best way to engage their communities, which can be very diverse and will need different approaches.
We are clear that principal authorities can and should already be working to support their communities through meaningful and robust community engagement and coproduction. The very best councils already do that, and we have examples of that across the country. It does not always happen in the way that it does with the very best, so we will work with and support councils to have meaningful community engagement. At the heart of this is giving communities and residents—people in our localities—proper voice, agency and ability to drive decision. We will ensure that we design this in a way that enables and supports that.
Siân Berry
I appreciate the detail of the answer that the Minister is giving me, but I would like some further reassurance that poorly performing councils will face some sort of redress under the system that she is talking about.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As I said, for this to work, we need councils to enable it. We will introduce a set of measures including peer-to-peer support—so, where we have great practice, sharing it with other councils—as well as capacity building and training, in order to make sure there is meaningful community engagement, because we believe it is fundamental. If we get this right, it is fundamentally about empowering our communities and residents. Every tier of government, from national Government through to strategic authorities and local authorities, will all have to play their part to ensure we do that well.
Siân Berry
I am content with the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 222, in clause 58, page 60, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—
“‘local authority’ means—
(a) a county council,
(b) a district council,
(c) a London borough council;”.
This narrows the types of local authority in England that are bound by the requirement to make arrangements to secure effective neighbourhood governance.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Bill sets out our clear ambition to embed communities at the heart of local decision making. This is about ensuring that decisions are shaped by those who know their communities best. Our ambition is that this will result in visible improvements in every neighbourhood across the country. Neighbourhood governance moves decision making closer to residents. It empowers communities to hold leaders accountable for their decisions and ensures that local priorities are understood and considered in the decision-making process. This will improve public trust in our councils, enhance our local democracy and ensure that our governance arrangements are rooted and working in the interest of our communities.
Turning to amendment 222, the policy intention is that only county councils, district councils and London borough councils will be subject to the duty to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. As currently drafted, the Bill also includes parish and town councils, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London within scope of the provision. That is not the policy intention, and our amendment seeks to rectify it. We do not consider that town and parish councils should be subject to the duty, as it would be disproportionately burdensome.
Lewis Cocking
Does the Minister include metropolitans and unitary councils in what she has just said?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes. This is purely putting in exemption for parish and town councils, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London corporation. That is because, in the instance of town and parish and councils and the Isles of Scilly, it would be disproportionate and extremely burdensome. Town and parish councils are already doing effective community engagement, and we will continue to support them to do that. At the heart of this is empowering our communities and creating structures that enable effective neighbourhood governance.
Amendment 222 agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: supplementary vote system
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 312, in schedule 26, page 259, line 35, at the beginning insert “For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,”
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in local authorities.
Amendment 313, in schedule 26, page 261, line 27, at the beginning insert “For any elections on or after 1 May 2026”
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined authorities.
Amendment 314, in schedule 26, page 263, line 6, at the beginning insert “For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,”
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined county authorities.
Schedule 26.
New clause 7—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system—
“(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This amendment would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to clause 59 and schedule 26 now, and I will then respond to hon. Members on their amendments.
The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. Given the large population that each regional mayor and police and crime commissioner represents, far exceeding that of Members of Parliament, the Government believe they should have a broad base of support among the electorate. We believe that a supplementary voting system, a preferential voting system, will achieve that and is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. The supplementary voting system will help to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose their first-choice and second-choice candidates, and it will require the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for begrudgingly giving way. She has just outlined that she believes a winning candidate should win a majority of the vote. We entirely agree with her, which is why we support first past the post. Why does she not seem to think that the supplementary vote should also be used to elect MPs, who are single executive politicians but do not necessarily always receive a majority of the vote?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
MPs going to Parliament to work as part of a collective is very different from a single individual who needs democratic accountability to drive decisions. Those are two very different models, which is why we think the single transferable vote makes sense in the context of mayors and police and crime commissioners but the first-past-the-post system that we currently have for MPs is right for collective decision making.
Finally, mayors and police and crime commissioners are currently elected via first past the post, which we think is the wrong approach. We think that shifting to this new system will provide greater consensus for the electorate.
Manuela Perteghella
I will speak to new clause 7. I commend the Government for their decision to do away with the first-past-the-post system for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. As has been said, the decision to move mayoral elections to first past the post was a complete disaster, and this improvement will ensure better local voter representation. The Mayor of the West of England, for example, was elected with only 25% of the vote. Supplementary voting is a significant improvement, but the Liberal Democrats believe we should introduce the alternative vote system as a further advance on that.
We all want to see genuinely representative local elections to ensure that local people know that every vote counts, and so that the councils they elect are truly representative. Where the supplementary vote system allows people to vote for their first and second choices, the alternative vote system allows for a more comprehensive ranking by each voter. For example, under first past the post, a candidate with no majority backing can still win because of vote splitting. We believe that an alternative vote system will increase engagement and deliver fairer outcomes. Our new clause has the support of the Electoral Reform Society, which strongly recommends that it is incorporated into the legislation. I await the Minister’s response.
Siân Berry
Amendments 312 to 314 aim to achieve the same thing: formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system, which is already being legislated for, at next year’s local mayoral elections, including the newly established combined authority areas of Greater Essex; Hampshire and the Solent; Norfolk and Suffolk; and Sussex and Brighton, in which my constituency lies.
The Government have clearly admitted, accepted and legislated for the need to return mayoral elections to a more proportional system—in this case, supplementary vote, which achieves a majority vote for whoever wins. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said on Second Reading:
“We are backing the ambition and untapped potential of local areas with a more ambitious role for the mayors representing them. That must be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. Because of changes made by the last Government, mayors can be elected on just a fraction of the vote, despite serving millions of people and managing multimillion-pound budgets.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 185.]
I will give a few examples of the election outcomes we might expect if we go ahead with next year’s elections under first past the post. I remind the Committee that the results will be baked in for four years in each case and have serious implications.
Andrew Cooper
We have established a principle in this country of changing our electoral system via referendum. We had a referendum on the alternative vote system during the coalition era. The Bill is going to switch the system back to single transferable vote as it was when it was originally envisaged, so I believe that it is fair enough to go ahead without a referendum. But what the hon. Lady is proposing would be to change to an entirely different system without any democratic mandate to do so.
Siân Berry
I want to clarify that I am talking about the supplementary vote for mayoral elections in clause 59.
To return to some examples of mayoral elections under first past the post with results that are not optimal for democracy or public confidence: the 2025 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayoral election saw Paul Bristow elected on 28.4% of the vote, with a turnout of 32.9%. That gave 9.3% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result.
In none of my examples am I saying that the result was wrong, but they are not results that clearly command the confidence of a majority of the people in the area —that may well have been the case had a second vote been counted, but no second vote was allowed. I do not think that is a good way to conduct things. The 2025 West of England mayoral election saw Helen Godwin elected on 25% of the vote. With turnout at 30%, that gave 7.5% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result. The 2025 Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election saw Luke Campbell elected on 35.8% of the vote. With turnout at 29.8%, that gave 10.7% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result.
In contrast, the last election held under the supplementary vote system in 2022 for South Yorkshire saw Oliver Coppard elected with 71.4% in the second round, up from a first round vote of 43.1%. That is a sea change in confidence and mandate compared with some of those marginal wins on a small turnout that we have seen in other areas.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady says that Oliver Coppard got 71% of the vote in the second round, but her quote leads me to believe that the number of people who voted was no different from what it would have been under first past the post. Is that correct?
Siân Berry
I stopped reading out turnout results, but turnout was 42.8%—much higher than in previous examples. To be honest, I would prefer a ranking of all candidates down the ballot paper, but I believe that when people are able to use their votes to express both their first and second preferences they are not discouraged from turning out. When parties are not forced to put out leaflets all about who might win but leaflets are instead about the actual issues that might affect people’s lives, turnout goes up. It is really important that this change is made.
On consistency, I want to raise an issue from Sussex. A motion passed by East Sussex county council makes a really good point:
“When Sussex decided to join the priority programme there was no suggestion that there would be any democratic disadvantage from being at the front of the queue”.
That is the problem: the areas that have stepped forward sooner are being forced to accept a substandard election system. I recognise that the motion at East Sussex county council was to delay the elections, and that is not my wish either. I absolutely recognise that there is a timetable challenge: if the amendments were accepted today, they would need to wait until the Bill was enacted to come into force. We cannot make changes to an imminent election, so I do not intend the press the amendments to a vote today.
However, I call on the Government to fix the situation. I would like the Minister to go away and talk to colleagues about how she might be able to fairly resource all the areas holding mayoral elections, including those that have chosen to go first and should face no penalty, so that they can conduct next year’s elections under the supplementary vote in the way that other areas will benefit from later.
Paul Holmes
I have to speak to this group of amendments because only one party has consistency when it comes to a “one vote, one election” philosophy: the Conservative party. It is lovely to see the weird and wonderful array of views on electoral systems from parties that want to gerrymander political systems to try to suit their own ends. That is what we have seen this afternoon.
At the mayoral elections, the first-past-the-post system worked because it clearly showed that when the people entitled to vote have one vote, the candidate who gets the most votes wins. We would always argue that that is the simplest and fairest system for the election of a single politician. I do not often compliment the Government, but they have always been consistent on this issue when it comes to mayoral elections. But we cannot keep asking the same person to be subject to two votes and claim that in the second round they have 71% and therefore an overwhelming mandate, when the turnouts under AV or SV are not markedly different from first past the post. Actually, the 41% turnout cited by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion still means that fewer than half the total electorate voted for that winning candidate so the hon. Lady’s argument against first past the post is exactly the same as that in favour of the gerrymandering political voting mechanism that she wants to bring in.
Siân Berry
I would not claim that a turnout of nearly 43% is a triumph, but the hon. Member has to admit that it is a good turnout compared with that of most local government elections.
Paul Holmes
I would argue that it is up to us as politicians and candidates in the election to advertise the position and generate excitement among the electorate, so that people vote for them. It was still 41%, I think, in the election that the hon. Lady cited; it was below half the total electorate, so this is not a panacea for improving electoral participation.
Also, I know that the hon. Lady was advocating for SV, but the Liberal Democrats have always been vehement in their approach to AV, despite the fact that they lost the national referendum that they managed to get on the AV voting system. [Hon. Members: “You gave it to them.”] We gave it to them because that is coalition, but they lost and we won, so I am quite happy with the outcome. They lost a test on the national system.
AV was used in mayoral elections and PCC elections when these positions were created, and turnouts were demonstrably low and very low in some cases—12% to 18%. They are now massively higher. Okay, they are not high enough, but they are higher now because they have become a constant and well-established institution in our voting system. That is not because of the voting system. It is because the system has been allowed to bed in and people have the choice of whether to elect a PCC or mayor or not. That is one of the bedrocks of our political systems today.
I thought I was triggered on the amendment where I saw the words “citizens’ panels”, but now I am even more triggered; we have a long history of speaking about citizens’ panels and citizens’ assemblies. As I said at the beginning, there is a clear need for local people to have a straightforward system that does what it says on the tin. The Conservative party will always believe that first past the post is the system that does that. Other parties want to gerrymander a system to try to suit their own preferred political outcomes.
The Minister said that directly elected people need to have the widest possible mandate and number of people voting for them. Her Prime Minister secured 32% of the vote in a national election and won a majority of the size that he did. [Interruption.] It is not a reason to support another system at all. I do not think that the Minister can advocate for a different voting system in one case, but then—the Government’s position is confused on voting systems—accept that a 32% vote share got well over 60% of the seats on a turnout, I think, in the high 60s. That is not exactly representative, either. The Government need to have a solid position on all kinds of elections, not just ones that suit their potential candidates.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me address amendments 312 to 314 first. I am happy and pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is keen on the supplementary vote system that we want to implement. The challenge to her amendment was summed up by the hon. Member herself in the final part of her speech. We are moving at pace because we want to drive through these reforms. We want to drive through the rewiring of the state and the devolution of power. However, we do not expect the Bill to come into force in time to restore the supplementary vote system for the elections in May 2026, as much as I would love us to.
Once the Bill is enacted, we will need to bring forward secondary legislation to implement the measures updating the conduct rules for these polls. Also, returning officers will need to prepare for polls under the new voting system and we need to ensure that there is sufficient time. Therefore, with all the will in the world, with the full gusto of the Government on what we are trying to do, we do not think we will be able to hit that timetable. But for subsequent elections, the new system should be in place.
On new clause 7 and the alternative vote system, I say two things. First, I again gently remind Liberal Democrat Members that there was a referendum on AV and 67.9% of voters rejected it at the time, so it is not clear that there is a groundswell of desire for that voting system. And critically, from our perspective, it is slower, more expensive to run and more burdensome. Therefore, we think that the system that we are proposing—supplementary votes—is the right and appropriate system and I ask hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will convenient to discuss new clause 54—Duty relating to community empowerment—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment).
(2) The report must—
(a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and
(b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision.
(3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England—
(a) access to a clean and healthy environment;
(b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim;
(c) access to land for food growing;
(d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level;
(e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value.
(4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report.
(5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Many Members will have pubs or community centres in their constituencies that are at risk of loss or closure, despite being the heart of their community and playing a crucial role in local lives. Too many valued community spaces are being lost because communities do not have the powers they need to protect them. That has a massive impact on the vibrancy and identity of local areas. Clause 60 and the associated schedule 27 will put control back into the hands of communities, giving them real power to take ownership of cherished local assets and protect them for future community use.
The clause will strengthen the existing assets of community value scheme in England, which since its introduction in 2012 has seen only 15 in every 1,000 listed assets come into community ownership, and create a new, far more effective and far more powerful, community right to buy. This will give communities a right of first refusal on the purchase of valued community assets. It will give an extended 12-month period to raise funding to purchase the asset, as we recognise that the current six months is not long enough. It will also introduce an independent valuation process to ensure a fair price for everyone.
We know that village shops and bank branches are a lifeline to our communities. The clause will therefore extend the definition of an asset of community value to include those with an economic value and assets of historical importance, so that communities can protect and make use of them.
Finally, the clause will address the historically low uptake of sporting assets under the current regime by establishing a new sporting asset of community value designation. Sports grounds across England will be automatically and indefinitely designated as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that these cherished facilities, vital to our communities, are protected for generations to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 27
Assets of community value
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 349, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out lines 1 to 8.
This amendment would remove the provision for assets of community value to be removed from the list of assets of community value after five years.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 350, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out from “value” in line 10 to “the” in line 11.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 349.
Amendment 351, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out lines 13 to 15.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 349.
Manuela Perteghella
Amendments 349 to 351 concern the rules around assets of community value. The designation of a building such as a pub, community shop or village hall, or even a piece of land like a community orchard, as an asset of community value allows local people to protect the places that play an important role in their community. They are often linked to wellbeing and social cohesion. The intent behind the original legislation was to give communities a real say on places that matter deeply to them, particularly when they are at risk of being sold or redeveloped.
There is, however, a flaw in the current system. Under existing law, once an asset is listed on the register by a local authority, it automatically drops off the register after five years. This creates a huge burden not only on the local community, including local community groups and parish and town councils—as they have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to resubmit the application to the local authority—but on the local authority itself, as the application has to go through its legal department and be scrutinised once again. In the time it takes for that to happen, a cherished community asset might be sold off.
Like sporting assets of community value, these important buildings and sites must remain on the list of community assets. Amendment 349 would remove the automatic five-year expiry for assets of community value for all buildings and places on that list. It would mean that, once an asset is listed as being of community value, it will stay on the register indefinitely, unless there is a clear reason for it to be removed.
The amendment would shift the burden from communities to maintain protection for something that is still vital to local life. I had an experience in my constituency where one of the village pubs, which had been put on the register of assets of community value, dropped off the list during covid. Obviously, we were all preoccupied with the pandemic, and we only realised later that it was not protected any more.
Amendments 350 and 351 are consequential to amendment 349. In a way, these amendments would also take away the burden on local authorities that have to assess the application once again. This change matters because reapplying is not a simple process; it takes time, organisation and paperwork, and it is handled by volunteers who may have limited capacity and resources. Removing the time limit for all assets of community value would mean that we provide continuity of protection and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for both communities and local councils. It would also recognise that community value does not just disappear after a few years. A local pub or post office that was vital to a community in 2019 is still vital in 2025.
In our view, these amendments sit entirely within the spirit of the Bill by giving communities more tools to strengthen local decision making, and not limiting them with arbitrary timeframes. I urge the Minister and the Committee to cut the red tape and strengthen local power, and I ask her to consider reviewing the time limit.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. We absolutely want to ensure strong protections for assets of community value, and the five-year listing period recognises the need of the community in that period of time. We also recognise that the need and desire of the community may change over time. Something that is an asset of community value in year one might not be an asset of community value in year six or seven. This allows a review process to happen.
We are also trying to balance the protections that we absolutely want to give to communities with those of the asset owners, and to ensure it is proportionate. We think that five years is a fair balance between both parties. I am also mindful of the risk that if we designate assets of community value permanently, local authorities may be incentivised to take tougher judgments on requests from communities to list assets of community value. On balance, when we think about the incentives to create more assets of community value, protections that we need to give to communities and protections for the asset owners, five years feels like the right amount of time to allow the system to operate in a way that is fair for all parties. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her amendment.
Manuela Perteghella
Would the Minister consider looking at extending that five years to give a bit more time to the community to—
Manuela Perteghella
Okay. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 27, page 265, line 41, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
This amendment would require environmental interests to be considered as a criterion for establishing a local authority’s area as land of community value.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 35, in schedule 27, page 266, line 4, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Amendment 36, in schedule 27, page 266, line 12, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Amendment 37, in schedule 27, page 266, line 18, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Manuela Perteghella
These amendments are interlinked. First, I would like to speak in support of the Bill’s provisions to protect assets of community value under the new sporting category. Those are important, and we are all delighted to see them in the Bill. These are key community hubs, including for our grassroots sports clubs and particularly for our young people. They play a fundamental role in building local pride, building engagement and developing young people’s skills. I thank the Government for these welcome provisions.
In that context, the Bill’s exclusion of environmental assets of community value seems stark. Social, economic and environmental impacts are often grouped together in legislation, and yet although sporting assets have been added to the group of possible categories for an asset of community value, environmental assets have not. The environmental impact is absent. We can only assume that exclusion is a protection against environmental considerations being used as a mechanism to prevent development. Perhaps the Minister can explain that in her response. This seems needlessly reductive, because the positives outweigh the negatives, and the negatives can be mitigated if there is a concern.
There is widespread support for these amendments. We worked on them with Locality and the Community Land Trust Network, in conversation with them I heard about sites all across the country that could be protected. I am sure that Members can think of many examples in their constituencies. Given the value of environmental conservation—the value of nature for its own sake, as well as its benefits for public health and mental health—we ask the Minister to consider including provision for considering environmental impact in assets of community value. It would be of huge value to my constituents to be able to ensure that measures are in place to protect the environmental value of, for example, Meon Vale woods, which they fought to save and which has become a local nature reserve. Depending on the Minister’s response, I will press amendment 34 and consequential amendments 35 to 37 to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government absolutely want to ensure that the community right to buy can be used to protect a wide range of assets. That already includes a wide range of environmental assets where communities can demonstrate an existing historical, social or economic purpose, including allotments, woodlands, parks and other green spaces. We know that many of those can already be found on local lists of assets of community value.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 373, in schedule 27, page 266, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) it is land of on which there are buildings of historical significance.”
This amendment would expand the criteria for a local authority classifying land as of community value to include land on which there are buildings of historical significance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 40, in schedule 27, page 267, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a local authority is responsible for assessing whether land in its area is a sporting asset of community value, the Secretary of State must ensure the authority receives adequate funding to make the assessment.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to assess whether land in their area is a sporting asset of community value.
Amendment 374, in schedule 27, page 276, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) If there is no preferred community buyer, the Secretary of State must ensure the relevant local authority receives financial support to buy the land of community value.”
Amendment 42, in schedule 27, page 279, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) The relevant local authority must as far as reasonably practicable support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase land of community value.”
This amendment would require local authorities to provide support for the preferred community buyer in agreeing and meeting an offer to buy land of community value.
Amendment 41, in schedule 27, page 280, line 28, at end insert—
“(9A) The Secretary of State must ensure local authorities are adequately funded to meet the expenses of a valuation under this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to meet the expense of land valuations in their area.
Amendment 249, in schedule 27, page 283, line 8, at end insert—
“(f) matters relating to requirements about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.
New clause 51—Community ownership fund—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—
(a) voluntary and community organisation, or
(b) parish or town council,
to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.
Manuela Perteghella
Amendments 40 to 42 and 249 seek to improve how the assets of community value system works in practice. Amendment 40 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to carry out assessments of whether land is a sporting asset of community value. Amendment 41 makes the same point on valuations, and amendment 42 would require local authorities, as far as reasonably practicable, to support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase of land of community value. Finally, amendment 249 would ensure that community value does not stop mattering once a planning application is lodged by allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring the planners and His Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate to give special consideration to land of community value when making decisions.
Amendment 40, which would make sure that local councils are properly funded when assessing whether land is a sporting asset of community value, is vital in identifying and assessing sporting assets. It must not be a simple tick-box exercise, because evidence has to be gathered and local groups have to be consulted, and competing claims between landowners and residents often have to be resolved.
This can be done only with time, specialist knowledge, consultants and often site visits, all of which cost money. As we know all too well, and as the Minister has reminded us today, many councils are already stretched thin. Without additional funding, there is a very real risk that this new protection for sporting assets will be inconsistent or, at worst, non-existent.
For the same reasons, amendment 41 would require adequate central funding for land valuations. If councils cannot afford them, communities face delay and uncertainty and opportunities are lost. Adequate central funding would make the process faster, fairer and more consistent across the country. With this financial support in place, more communities will be able to come together to make a bid for their grassroots sports clubs and other important cultural assets in their communities.
Amendment 42 goes to the heart of community empowerment, requiring councils as far as is reasonably possible to support the preferred community buyer by guiding them through the process and helping them to gain access to expert advice and funding. Right now communities have the right to bid, but they are left on their own; this amendment would turn that right into success.
Amendment 249 would ensure that community value is not ignored in the planning system. At present, even a listed community site can be granted planning permission for demolition or redevelopment; it is my understanding that there is nothing in regulations to ensure that consideration is given to the fact that a particular site is on a list of assets of community value. This amendment would require planning authorities to give special consideration to the community value of such land before approving development. It would not block development, but would ensure that community value is considered and that the community’s voice is properly heard. It is a modest improvement.
Without these improvements to the legislation, the right to protect community assets risks being just words on paper. When it becomes a genuine tool for local and community empowerment, which is the welcome title of this important Bill, it will live up to the spirit of devolution that we all want to deliver.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Amendment 373 would include historically significant buildings as community assets, while amendment 374 would support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer; if no community group comes forward, the local authority can step in.
Amendment 373 would expand the legal definition of what can be classed as an asset of community value to include land or property with buildings of historical significance. We all have those in our constituencies: even if their current use is not community based, they are still part of our built heritage, and they shape our sense of place, so they are really important. While the current asset of community value system focuses mainly on social use, some historically important sites might not fit neatly into that community use test, even if they are locally important and of historical significance.
Historical buildings are obviously important in their own right, of course, which is why we have the listed building system, but they also connect people to the story of their place and past industries—the movements that shaped their community. When those buildings disappear, communities lose part of their collective memory and character, and once they are gone, they cannot be replaced. That is really important.
More than that, though, historical buildings are community assets in waiting. Many historical sites, such as disused chapels, mills, railway stations, schools and places that are part of our industrial heritage can be restored into vibrant hubs, cafés, arts venues and co-working spaces. They can have a community-based use, and protecting them buys time for communities to develop and put forward a viable plan to the authorities, rather than watching the bulldozers move in. With imagination, we can help these historical buildings to become community hubs.
Amendment 374 is designed to support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer, by requiring the Secretary of State to provide financial support to the local authority to purchase the land itself. This is an essential amendment, because not every community will have the resources or capacity to raise the funds, especially in disadvantaged communities; even if they want desperately to save it, there is no recourse. No community anywhere in England should lose its assets simply because local people cannot afford to buy it or act fast enough. The amendment would mean that councils could step in temporarily, for example holding the assets in trust or leasing it back to the community once funding or a long-term plan is secured.
I will move on to new clause 51 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). The clause would create a statutory community ownership fund, which the Secretary of State must set up within six months of the Bill becoming law. Under this new clause, strategic authorities could apply for up to £2 million to support community groups or parish and town councils in buying assets of community value that are at risk of being lost; having been on the list for five years, they can be dropped without the community knowing.
The regulations to create and run the fund would follow the negative procedure, meaning Parliament could annul them, but not amend them. The new clause would give the community real financial teeth, turning the right to bid into a right to buy, giving the tools so that the community can act. Communities, as hon. Members will know from experience, often identify assets worth saving, but they lack the up-front capital to act. A permanent statutory fund would give councils and community organisations the power and financial support to ensure that assets of community value stay and are preserved for community use. By placing it on to a statutory footing, the clause will make community ownership funding a permanent part of local government support for community empowerment, and not just a pilot scheme.
Sean Woodcock
Briefly, I want to put on the record how much I value the protection of sporting assets. I have already mentioned Chipping Norton in my constituency, and how the football club there lost its land to a rather unscrupulous developer the best part of a decade ago and ever since has not been able to play in the town itself; it has to play almost 10 miles away. The protections are very close to my heart and I very much support them.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon talked about pubs. I have numerous pubs in my constituency with active campaigns—the Fox Inn and the Bell Inn, for example—where the community is very active and keen to take on the pub to save it so that it is not lost to the community.
I rise to speak, however, because sometimes pubs close down and, with the best will in the world, are unable to reopen, despite the efforts of the community and people nearby. There is a real danger of unintended consequences if the amendment puts in too much protection and removes the flexibility that is necessary to allow historical buildings to survive.
I offer an example from my constituency, where massive efforts were put in to retain a particular pub. The brewers who owned it put it out to all sorts of people. Unfortunately, the amount of money required to bring it back up to standard made it totally unviable, not only for other brewers or people wanting to take it on, but for the community. The pub was in a historical village, and the real danger is that we wrap it up so much in protection and regulations that, in trying to save the pub, we will lose the historical building. If the landlord is not able to do anything with it, it can fall to rack and ruin, and even with the best will in the world we can end up losing that historical building. That pub ended up becoming a house; granted, it is no longer a pub or a community asset, but the building is retained and is no longer a dilapidated ruin in the middle of a village.
Although the amendment comes from a really good place, I cannot support it. I support the Government making it easier for communities to get involved, giving them more time and granting them more powers to take on historical pubs that are important parts of the community, but there is a real danger that the amendment could have an unintended consequence: a historical building being lost purely because it is so wrapped in regulation and protection that nobody is able to do anything with it. I would therefore vote against it.
Siân Berry
I will speak briefly on new clause 51. It is really encouraging that there is a cross-party effort to reinvigorate community ownership funding, which has lapsed. Although I am excited about the pride in place funding, which is quite extensive and goes into local areas in quite an intensive way, I think the community ownership angle of that is limited to the geographic area covered. Things such as sporting assets or community assets that serve a whole town may not be within that area. I would like to hear from the Minister that, if she will not accept new clause 51, something will be done for other parts of the country to ensure a fund to support community ownership.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will try to work through all the amendments. Let me start with amendment 373. I appreciate the commitment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to protecting historical assets. The Government are proud to support communities to celebrate heritage buildings and assets, and there are already protections in place for them to do that. Historical buildings that are valued by local communities, but do not meet the criteria to be nationally listed, can be listed by local authorities as non-designated heritage assets. That protects them through the national planning policy framework, so the protection is already there.
On amendment 40, I reassure the Committee that we already have established processes in place to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to deliver new policies, and this is no exception. The new burdens doctrine requires that all new responsibilities placed on local authorities are properly assessed and fully funded by the relevant Department. We are assessing the cost of the process for local authorities and will provide new burdens funding accordingly.
On amendment 41, I can confirm that we are assessing the costs of independent valuation to local authorities. Where the owner and community buyer cannot agree a purchase price for an asset through negotiation, the local authority must appoint an independent valuer. We will provide new burdens funding to meet those costs accordingly, once assessments have been finalised and tested with local government. I hope that that provides some assurance.
On amendment 374, we know that some community groups may not come forward as they do not have the capability or capacity to put together a bid for an asset. The intention of the 12-month sale period is to give communities time to organise and to raise the funding required. We will continue to work with community organisations to ensure that they have the support to do so. Requiring local authorities to step in to purchase assets where there is no community buyer would put too much of a burden on local authorities, and we could end up with local authorities taking over and having to run theatres and pubs. Although those assets might have value for the community, that does not feel appropriate for a local authority.
We think we have the balance right and that this measure is proportionate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said eloquently, however much we might want a particular asset to stay in its original form, sometimes that may not be viable. We do not want buildings becoming dilapidated when they could be retained in a different way.
On amendment 42, we are already putting requirements on local authorities to enable and facilitate this process. For example, they must arrange that joint meeting between the asset owner and the community buyer at the start of the process and enable that process of negotiation and, as I have said, local authorities again need to step in to provide the independent valuer if negotiations fail. We think that is the right role for the local authority, not least because it has to be an arbiter in the process.
However, we want there to be enough capability across all our communities, irrespective of the level of social capital, to be able to take on these powers. There is a range of community organisations with the expertise and experience to provide this kind of support to communities, such as Plunkett, Power to Change and Locality, and we are working with those organisations on the additional support that they can provide to communities across the country.
Amendment 249 would restrict what an asset owner can do with their property once listed. We think that it is ultimately up to local planning authorities to consider planning applications in accordance with their development plans and other material considerations. That could include the listing of an asset of community value. The weight afforded to material considerations in making the decision will be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we think it is right that that is left to the local planning authority.
Critically, the national planning policy framework already includes important safeguards to protect against the unnecessary loss of social, recreational and cultural facilities that serve an important value for the community. We think that the balance between what already exists in the planning system and the protections that we are providing through the community right to buy is right and appropriate.
Finally, on new clause 51, let me be clear: this Government are absolutely committed to empowering our communities. We are giving communities everywhere the power to take ownership. Our pride in place programme, which the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about, is providing £5 billion over 10 years to support 244 places, to enable and support them to take on such community assets of value.
We will continue to review this area, because we are committed to communities having a stake in and ownership of their assets, and we are committed to doing our part as a Government to enable them to do that. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her many amendments.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not press the amendments to a vote, although my hon. Friends might table them again on Report, but I will press new clause 51 to a vote later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 236, in schedule 27, page 275, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—
“(b) the relevant local authority has determined that the preferred community buyer does not meet the progress requirements after any of the review periods (see section 86U), or”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 234, 223 to 233 and 235.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This group of amendments introduces and defines the new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. This will permit landowners to request evidence from the preferred community buyer no less than two weeks before the end of the new 16-week review period. The period begins on the date when a notice of intent to enter into a relevant disposal is given. At the end of the 16-week review period, the local authority will decide whether the community has met the progress requirements and will give written notice of its decision to both the owner and the buyer.
While I remain committed to empowering communities to take ownership of larger sports grounds, I also recognise the importance of ensuring that they have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively. That means putting in place processes to safeguard the long-term sustainability of those assets, ensuring that community buyers are well-prepared to take on the responsibilities of permanent ownership for an asset that will be critical to their community.
Amendment 236 agreed to.
Amendments made: 234, in schedule 27, page 281, line 39, leave out “that” and insert “the notice”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 223, in schedule 27, page 281, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the land that the notice relates to is a sporting asset of community value which can accommodate over 10,000 people, and the owner makes a request in writing, the relevant local authority must—
(a) determine whether at the end of the 16 week review period the preferred community buyer has met the progress requirements, and
(b) as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of the determination to the owner and the buyer.”
This provides that where requested by the owner a preferred community buyer of a sporting asset of community value which is a large venue must show additional evidence of progress of their proposed purchase at an earlier stage in the process.
Amendment 224, in schedule 27, page 281, line 13, leave out “first” and insert “6 month”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 225, in schedule 27, page 281, line 18, after “subsection” insert “(1A) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 226, in schedule 27, page 281, line 19, leave out “first review period” and insert
“review period that it relates to”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 227, in schedule 27, page 281, line 21, leave out “second” and insert “12 month”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 228, in schedule 27, page 281, line 28, leave out
“the first and second review periods”
and insert “each review period”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 229, in schedule 27, page 281, line 34, at end insert—
“‘the 16 week review period’ is the period of 16 weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of a wish to enter into a relevant disposal was given under section 86M(1) (‘the notice date’);”.
Amendment 230, in schedule 27, page 281, line 35, leave out “first” and insert “the 6 month”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 231, in schedule 27, page 281, line 35, leave out “six” and insert “6”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 232, in schedule 27, page 281, line 36, leave out from “with the” to the end of line 37 and insert “notice date”.
Amendment 233, in schedule 27, page 281, line 38, leave out “second” and insert “the 12 month”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 235, in schedule 27, page 281, at end of line 39 insert—
“‘review period’ means the 16 week review period, the 6 month review period or the 12 month review period.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Tuesday 28th October 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 October 2025 - (28 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind Members again that we observe all the normal courtesies: speaking through the Chair, not having our phones ringing, not eating food or drink of any kind, apart from water, bowing or nodding to the Chair on entry or exit, and remaining courteous throughout, which I know the Committee is. You have made great progress since I was here last. We will now continue our day-to-day consideration of the Bill line by line. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Bob in the normal way if you wish to contribute. I shall ask the movers of amendments if they want to press them to a vote, as we have done throughout.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Twenty Seventh schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value—
“(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area.
(2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may—
(a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or
(b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.”
This New Clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement.
New clause 20—Right to apply to purchase derelict, mismanaged or inaccessible sporting assets of community value—
“(1) A community interest group or a parish council may apply to a local authority to purchase land to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to land that is a sporting asset of community value (as defined by section 86C of the Localism Act 2011, as inserted by Schedule 27 to this Act) and meets one or more of the conditions specified in subsection (3).
(3) The conditions are that the land—
(a) has been left derelict for a continuous period of at least 2 years;
(b) is being, or has been, mismanaged in a way that significantly impairs its sporting value or public benefit; or
(c) has been unreasonably made inaccessible to the community, where it was formerly accessible for sporting purposes.
(4) For the purposes of this section land is—
(a) derelict if it is not actively used for its primary sporting purpose, or is in a state of disrepair that renders it unfit for such use, having regard to its previous use and condition;
(b) mismanaged if its condition or use is such that it fails to realise its potential as a sporting asset, due to neglect, poor maintenance, or inappropriate development, contrary to the interests of the local community;
(c) unreasonably made inaccessible if measures have been taken to restrict public access or use for sporting purposes without a compelling public or safety justification, where such access or use was previously permitted or established.
(5) An application under subsection (1) must—
(a) be in writing,
(b) identify the land to be purchased,
(c) include evidence demonstrating that the land meets one or more of the conditions specified in subsection (3),
(d) outline the community interest group’s or parish council’s plans for the future use of the land for sporting purposes, and
(e) be accompanied by such fee (if any) as the local authority may reasonably require.
(6) On receiving an application under subsection (1), the local authority must—
(a) notify the owner of the land of the application within 14 days, and
(b) consider the application.
(7) The local authority may not reject an application under subsection (1) if it is reasonably satisfied that—
(a) the land is a sporting asset of community value and meets one or more of the conditions specified in subsection (3),
(b) the applicant is a community interest group (as defined by section 86D(2)(b)(ii) of the Localism Act 2011, as inserted by Schedule 27 to this Act) or a parish council, and
(c) the applicant’s plans for the future use of the land are viable and will in the opinion of the local authority further the social or economic well-being or social or economic interests of the local community.
(8) If the local authority decides to approve an application, it must—
(a) notify the applicant and the owner of the land of its decision, and
(b) facilitate negotiations for the sale of the land to the applicant at a price to be agreed or, failing agreement, at market value determined by an independent valuation.
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision for, or in connection with, applications under this section, including (in particular) provision about—
(a) the form and content of applications,
(b) the evidence required to demonstrate the conditions specified in subsection (3),
(c) the procedure for considering applications,
(d) appeals against decisions of local authorities, and
(e) the process for determining the purchase price and facilitating the sale.
(10) In this section, ‘local authority’ has the meaning given by section 86Z4(1) of the Localism Act 2011, as inserted by Schedule 27 to this Act.”
This new clause creates a right for local residents and organisations to apply to a local authority to purchase sporting assets of community value that are derelict, mismanaged, or unreasonably made inaccessible.
New clause 52—Assets of negative community value—
“In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert—
“92A Assets of negative community value
(1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset—
(a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality,
(b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or
(c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use.
(2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area.
(3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may—
(a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset;
(b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship;
(c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value;
(b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets;
(c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets;
(d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups.
(5) For the purposes of this paragraph ‘community group’ has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”
This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation.
New clause 59—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.
(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—
(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously,
(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),
(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section86S(4)), and
(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with anyone other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).
(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
When I spoke last week on why clause 60 should stand part of the Bill, I covered the provisions in the schedule, but I will restate my position. The schedule strengthens the existing assets of community value scheme in England and will give communities real power to take ownership of cherished local assets. Together with clause 60, the schedule is vital to delivering the Bill’s community empowerment goals and protecting assets at the heart of our local communities.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley set out the view of the official Opposition during the debate last week, so I will not relitigate that in its entirety, although I am sure he will be keen for me to emphasise the sheer cross-party commitment on assets of community value.
We know about the risk to assets that are at the heart of a community, from a village pub or cricket field through to community centres and business premises. We need a means laid out in the law whereby the value they add to the local community can be retained where necessary. That was enshrined in legislation by our party when we were in government, and in general we support the direction of the current Government in taking up those principles. We will listen carefully to the debate.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I will speak to new clauses 12, 20, 52 and 59. New clause 12 stands in my name, new clause 20 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), new clause 52 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and new clause 59 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
New clause 12 would give local councils a legal duty to oversee how land listed as a community asset is managed. That means that if the owner neglects or mismanages land of community value, the council can take powers to purchase compulsorily, take ownership and restore the land to community use, or to block planning changes that would further damage or undermine the land’s community value. Such powers are essential to protect local assets from being run down deliberately to justify redevelopment. By granting councils those powers, we enable them to hold absentee or speculative owners accountable and ensure that designated community assets are properly maintained and used for community benefit. We all have in our constituencies examples of land that has been mismanaged or assets left derelict. With the new clause, councils would become a genuine safeguard for assets of community value far beyond simply listing the assets. They would have real power to hold landowners and speculative developers to account.
New clause 20 would give community groups and parish or town councils a legal right to apply to buy sports facilities such as playing fields, leisure centres, gyms or pitches that have been derelict for two or more years, managed in a way that harms their sporting value, or unreasonably made inaccessible to the public. If the council agrees that those criteria have been fulfilled, it will be able to facilitate negotiations for a sale. As we spoke about in a previous debate, the abolition of district councils means that town and parish councils will be asked to take on more assets. It is therefore important that the safeguards are in place and that the unitary councils support them.
New clause 20 would save local sports facilities that have been locked up or left to decay by private owners by empowering local communities to bring them back into use. I had an example of that in my constituency a few years ago. A sports pavilion was built as part of the conditions for a new settlement, but it was locked—it was not used. When I became the councillor for the area, I asked why it was not open, and was told that the condition was to build a sports pavilion, not to manage it. The community managed to get the sports pavilion opened, and it is now a fantastic community hub and café, but it took a lot of campaigning from the community and parish councils, lots of grant applications and so on. It is important that we give councils all the tools they need. It is not fair that local sporting heritage and public access to sports facilities are lost due to neglect, speculation or profit-driven redevelopment. The new clause would put power back into the hands of communities to reclaim their pitches, courts, clubs and sports pavilions, and to keep sport where it belongs—in public hands and for the public good.
New clause 52 would create a new category complementary to assets of community value: assets of negative community value. Those would be properties or land that encourage, for example, antisocial behaviour, cause harm or disruption to community wellbeing, or have been vacant and derelict for at least three years with no attempt at restoration. I am sure we all have such assets in our constituencies. I can think of a couple in mine. Once the assets are listed, local authorities could take steps to secure temporary management or community stewardship. That would also contribute to wider community wellbeing. The councils could invite community groups to propose new uses or use compulsory purchase orders to bring the assets back into productive community use. New clause 52 would also allow local authorities to tackle eyesore or nuisance buildings that attract crime or vandalism. It is a way to contribute to the sense of place. We could speed up regeneration by giving councils and communities tools to deal with long-term neglect.
New clause 59 would give local councils greater power to protect and manage land that has been officially recognised as being of community value, such as local parks, playing fields, pubs or community halls. If a council found that such land was being mismanaged, it would have the power to compulsorily purchase it or, again, to refuse planning changes. The new clause would strengthen community protections against speculative neglect and misuse of valued local assets. For example, it would stop landowners from deliberately running down community buildings, green spaces or sports facilities so that they can later argue for redevelopment. The new clause would make councils stewards of community assets, rather than just record keepers of a list. It would give real teeth to the community right to buy, which obviously is welcome, and to the assets of community value system, which is set out in the Bill.
Overall, our new clauses would expand community rights and local authority powers from just protecting community assets by listing them to actively reclaiming and repurposing land that has been neglected or misused. We feel that the new clauses are drafted in the spirit of the community empowerment aspect of the Bill. They aim to strengthen local control and community ownership, especially where private ownership fails the public interest.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree with the importance of protecting community assets from unscrupulous owners, but it is not clear that new clause 12 is wholly necessary or appropriate, and I am worried that it would place an unreasonable burden on local authorities by requiring them to monitor the management of all assets of community value in their area.
The substantive provision of the new clause gives local authorities the power to intervene and take on assets of community value, but those intervention powers already exist where land has been neglected or mismanaged. For example, under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local authorities can take steps to clear up land and buildings whose condition adversely affects the amenity of the area, and we are refreshing the guidance to ensure that local authorities can make full use of those existing powers. For that reason, I do not think that new clause 12 is necessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon not to press it to a vote.
Regarding new clause 20, it is really important to make it clear that the purpose of this policy is not to compel landowners to sell their property without first disclosing an intent to sell under proposed new section 86M of the Localism Act 2011. There are already well-established legal mechanisms for the acquisition of land without the consent of the landowner—I refer again to the existing compulsory purchase order powers. Local authorities can use those powers on behalf of community groups or parish councils to acquire sporting assets of community value that are derelict, mismanaged or inaccessible.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister talks about existing compulsory purchase rights for local authorities, but that is very different from communities wishing to list assets of community value and then coming together to go through the process of purchasing them. If the Minister wants to say, “Well, this isn’t needed because we already have that,” why is the Bill even bothering with assets of community value or giving communities the right to buy? This provision is designed to put the power in the hands of the community. We know that most of the district councils will not exist anymore, and the strategic authorities will not be interested in a little block of garages or piece of land. That is why the new clause is about the assets being in the hands of the community.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree that the community right to buy is about putting power into communities, but the new clauses would require local authorities to enable and facilitate. My point is that, in the instances where we need a local authority to step in, support and enable, there are existing powers to do that. We want communities to have the right of first refusal, and that is why we are including this provision. We want them to be able to designate vital local assets as being of community value, and combined with existing CPO powers, our view is that this provides the right set of provisions to ensure that the system works, and that it works in the interests of communities.
David Simmonds
I sympathise with the Minister’s argument, but does she agree that there is a general weakness in the Bill in that the opportunity has not been taken to tidy up the legislation, particularly the role of parish councils and parish meetings in this context? The point has been well made that it is often through those vehicles that we see districts and others going through reorganisation already looking to enshrine the community value of these assets. It is a missed opportunity if we leave it hanging so that the convoluted but robust powers that the Minister outlined, which can take years to put into effect, remain the only available route, when there is an opportunity for an alternative structure to deal with that now.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I take the hon. Member’s point. I also take the point that a process of asset transfer between authorities and town and parish councils is happening. Our judgment is that the provisions we are putting in place sit well alongside that and will enable the processes to happen, but we will keep that under review, because the end goal is to ensure that communities are able to say, “This asset really matters to us, and we want it for the use of the community,” and that we enable them to do that. As we do with any legislation, we will keep this under review ,and if it is not biting in the way that we intend, we will consider how to build and strengthen the provisions. None the less, the intent is very clear.
On new clause 52, I commend and share the ambition of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to combat antisocial behaviour and eliminate vacant and derelict properties. We all have them in our constituencies; we know how much they are hated and the blight they cast on our communities. We are absolutely committed to creating thriving places and to reversing the decline seen in many of our communities. That is why, through our £5 billion pride in place programme, we are enabling communities to play a role in driving forward. Alongside that funding, we have ensured that local authorities have access to a suite of tools to meet the challenge, which we understand and we know is real. That includes powers to auction the lease of persistently vacant high street properties via our high street rental auctions and compulsory purchase powers, which we have discussed. Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out powers to clean up land and buildings that may be affecting the amenity of the area and encouraging poor behaviour. The community right to buy will play an important role in ensuring that assets are used in a way that is appropriate and adds value to the community.
Finally, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government are strengthening the powers available to the police and other agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. Every police force now has a dedicated antisocial behaviour officer to work with communities to develop an action plan and give residents a say. We recognise the problem that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has highlighted through new clause 52, and we have put in place a suite of things that will fundamentally get to the heart of that problem, which we know all our communities despair of and hate. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Manuela Perteghella
We will not press new clauses 12, 52 and 59 to a vote, although we may reintroduce them on Report, but we will push new clause 20 to a vote.
The Chair
As you know, new clauses are debated now but decided later, so you will have the chance to test the opinion of the Committee at a later stage in our consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 27, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 61
Establishment of Local Audit Office
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 237, in clause 61, page 62, line 20, at end insert—
“(8) Subsection (9) applies to any sum received by the Office by way of penalty under—
(a) paragraph 2A of Schedule 1B (penalties against external registration body), or
(b) arrangements made for the purposes of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1C (penalties against registered local audit provider),
including any interest.
(9) The Office—
(a) must pay the sum to the Secretary of State, but
(b) may deduct any costs incurred by it in connection with the imposition or enforcement of the penalty, so far as those costs are not otherwise recoverable.”
This amendment makes provision about the destination of penalties enabled by Amendments 238 and 240.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 238 to 240 and 242.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments contain provisions relating to criminal offences and enforcement among audit providers, lead partners and external registration bodies. It is vital that the local audit system has the right levers to deter and sanction improper behaviour and to establish beyond dispute the Local Audit Office as the regulatory authority for this system. This is about maintaining stability rather than effecting change. The amendments maintain the existing criminal offences relating to misleading statements and wrongful holding out, and set out oversight powers over professional accountancy bodies similar to existing powers. We will also retain the principle that a professional accountancy body, where recognised as an external registration body, will be responsible by default for enforcement. An external registration body will be required to investigate and impose a sanction for serious breaches committed by audit providers and lead partners.
The LAO will supervise any enforcement activity conducted by an external registration body. This could include setting guidelines on indicative sanctions, depending on the type of breaches, and monitoring live cases. The LAO will have the power to reclaim responsibility for any particular enforcement decision if it is considered to be in the public interest. This will ensure that the LAO is the final authority on all quality matters. An improvement-led approach will be central to the LAO’s regulatory work, and we expect that any enforcement action will be considered only as a last resort. However, it is vital that these levers exist to ensure that the local audit system is accountable and responsive, rather than broken, as was expressed very powerfully in our oral evidence session.
David Simmonds
Again, the Opposition are broadly sympathetic to the Government’s direction of travel, but I will put a couple of questions to the Minister. I previously raised the issue that, in respect of local audit, there are a number of accredited accounting bodies to which professionals may belong. I have not seen a response, but I know that at the time there was some discussion about the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy being the identifying body. I seek an assurance that the Government have given due consideration to what will happen where that qualified individual of an appropriate status belongs to another professional body that sets accounting standards, rather than CIPFA, not least because accounting is often as much an art as a science, and there are differences of opinion as to how different accounting provisions might be made.
Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister can give some clarity to the Committee. Government amendment 237 requires that, when a penalty is imposed, the Local Audit Office must pay the sum of that penalty to the Secretary of State. Clearly, where there has been a failing in local audit, it is the specific local authority, or the general group of local authorities, that is the victim; they are the ones who have suffered a demerit or deficit as a consequence. It seems a little illogical that the penalty would be paid to the Secretary of State rather than those who have been directly affected by that failing. It would be helpful if the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that, where those failings have had an impact, and where penalties have been gathered to make some degree of remedy, it is the victims that see the benefit, rather than it essentially sitting in a Government office.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. He raised the question of CIPFA, and I committed to clarifying that in writing. I believe we have done so, but I will make sure that we come back to confirm that. On his very good point about ensuring that the penalties are not gobbled up by the central state, we are moving towards a more centralised system, whereby the LAO reports to the Secretary of State, who is then accountable to Parliament. That is the mechanism through which this will happen. However, the principle is right: if fines are imposed, they will be used to bolster the system, which we know needs huge repairs. We know that over time, as we reform the system, we will need to ensure that we are investing in it. Whatever the collection processes for these fines, it is right and fair that they ultimately go towards bolstering the system and ensuring that it is improving.
The Chair
The Minister has been very courteous in saying that she will make the letter available to all members of the Committee. Will it include the guidelines she mentions? Shall we discuss that offline, rather than testing her on it now?
The Chair
I know that the Minister mentioned guidelines that will be published, and I just wondered whether they will be available during the course of our consideration, but let us think about that at the end of today’s sitting.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 237 agreed to.
The Chair
Can everyone in the Public Gallery hear us? I saw people leaning forwards and straining to hear. We are amplified, but this is a very large room. I ask all Committee members, for the benefit of those in the Public Gallery, to be guided by the great Joe Chamberlain, who is presiding over us here—he is one of my political heroes. Think Joe Chamberlain when you are speaking. In that spirit, let us move on.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 28.
Government new clause 9—Review of audit and reporting arrangements at Secretary of State’s request.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The local audit system is broken. There is consensus about that across the House and within this Committee. It is fragmented and has significant capacity and capability challenges. The problems in local government reporting and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of Government accounts for the past two years. This provides no assurance to Parliament, and puts public accountability and trust in the system at risk.
The Government are leading the most transformative programme of audit reform in over a decade. Clause 61 will enable the Local Audit Office, a new statutory and independent body, to be established by autumn 2026. The LAO will have an oversight, regulatory and appointing role in the local audit sector. It will cover a wide range of public sector bodies responsible for delivering essential services and managing public funds, as well as oversight of aspects of the NHS audit system.
The LAO will be instrumental in overhauling the local audit system and will play a crucial role in ensuring that reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers and support economic growth. The LAO will be vital to rebuilding transparency, accountability and public trust in local government, and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities.
Schedule 28 sets out the core elements of the LAO’s constitution and governance to enable this new organisation to be established. Part 1 establishes the requirements for the board, as proper constitution of the LAO is critical to establishing its authority, ensuring operational readiness and enabling it to deliver its objectives. Part 1 also covers other provisions that are integral to the successful set-up and operating function of the LAO.
Part 2 of the schedule allows the Secretary of State to put schemes in place to legally and properly transfer employees who are currently performing functions that the LAO will be responsible for after it is established.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Sir John. I am asking for a genuine point of clarification from the Minister. The Library briefing says:
“If an MP were appointed”
to one of these boards,
“they would be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons”.
Why have the Government chosen to do that? There is no motivation behind my question; this is just for clarification.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is a very niche question. I will have to write back to the hon. Member to clarify.
Paul Holmes
I do not expect the Minister to know the answer this morning, but if she could write to me before the end of our sittings this week, I would be grateful. The reason I ask the question is that these are local audit offices for local authorities. The Secretary of State is appointing these boards, and there is obviously political oversight of those appointments, but it would seem sensible to have the expertise of someone representing the area. If this is a devolution Bill, appointing MPs would seem to be perfectly fine, so I am not sure why the Government are disqualifying them. If she could come back to me on that point, I would be most grateful.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am happy to write to clarify that key point.
Everything that we are doing through these new clauses and this reform package is in order to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, fair and operates so that we can build trust and accountability within public bodies at the local level. Committee members will appreciate the importance of providing certainty to the people who have worked to maintain the local audit over the years, which is why we are putting in place these two provisions.
New clause 9 will provide the Secretary of State with a new power to require the LAO to conduct a review of local bodies’ financial reporting and audit arrangements. The LAO will have the power, through contract management and quality oversight, to monitor timeliness in the sector, and will have levers to hold firm account where audits are late. Those statutory reviews will address the accountability gap by providing a way to understand whether individual local bodies have adequately supported the audit process. We believe that those reviews are vital to restoring public accountability, providing assurance at each stage of the audit process and rebuilding our early warning system. They are an integral part of a much bigger reform that we think is both necessary and long overdue. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds
Will the Minister set out the role of the section 151 officer in relation to the Local Audit Office? Primary accountability around local government finance is in the council tax fixing process. By law, it has to be balanced in-year. The audit process sits behind that, verifying that the information presented, on which that decision has been lawfully made, is true and accurate. The section 151 officer holds that legal duty in each local authority. Can she set out how the accountability that she has described, which revolves around the role of that individual, will be dealt with by the law, particularly given the role that the Secretary of State is taking on in the appointments process?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are trying to ensure that there is a coherent system operating across all of local government. That is the core role that the LAO will play. The system is fragmented at the moment. There are multiple bodies, whether that is the NAO or other bodies, that are in some respects duplicating functions. The consistency and clarity that we need across our local public bodies is therefore not there.
The local government accounting system will remain as it is. Through guidance, but also through practice and working with the new LAO, we will try to ensure far better alignment between the functions held by local authorities, whether that is the accounting officer role or the audit committees, and the infrastructure that we are trying to provide at a national level. We do not think that the new clause will duplicate or undermine that system; it remains a core pillar.
However, we hope that the new clause will ensure that we have a national framework that works across the piece, that we are contracting auditors of the highest standards and that local authorities can use the insights from those audits to make sure that they are managing their public accounts effectively. We think it is complementary and supports our existing institutions. At the moment, it feels like the national infrastructure is undermining the efforts at the local authority level.
The Chair
With the courtesy that she has shown throughout the Committee, the Minister has agreed to write a further note to clarify some of those points. I am grateful for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 28 agreed to.
Clause 62
Local audit providers: registration and public provision
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 62, page 65, line 17, leave out from “acting” to end, and insert
“who—
(a) are wholly independent of the Local Audit Office, and
(b) possess appropriate expertise.
(2) The Secretary of State must approve any appointment made for the purposes of subsection (2), and may only do so when they are satisfied that the person to be appointed satisfies the criteria specified in that subsection.”.
This amendment makes provision about the independence of persons appointed to scrutinise local authority audits.
This is a very small amendment that replaces
“acting independently of the Office”
with
“who are wholly independent of the Local Audit Office, and…possess appropriate experience.”
Small words can make a big difference. There is a difference between acting independently and truly being independent—I am sure that we have all been subject to suggestions that we are not really independent. We often rework our institutions retrospectively, and this is a great opportunity, at the beginning of a new organisation, to get the language spot on and set the Local Audit Office up with the highest chance of successfully fulfilling its functions, particularly as there has been so much dysfunction within the very local audit offices up until now.
Without this small amendment, we run the risk of certain members of the public and organisations challenging the true independence of the organisations, because often people will be double-hatting—acting in one space and then moving back to another, saying, “No, no. It’s okay, I’m independent”. Let us address that by writing this amendment into the legislation.
It is right that the Secretary of State should approve appointments made under the terms proposed in the amendment because that would create distance from the Local Audit Office and the Government, and if we are to treat this process with the importance it deserves, the Secretary of State should be required to retain some of these things. This is a small amendment that would make a big difference. I hope the Government will approach the amendment in the spirit in which it has been tabled, and will consider either issuing guidance or changing the Bill in these very small ways.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me first clarify that no decision has yet been made on who will deliver public provision. It is important to state that. The Bill is drafted deliberately to allow flexibility, whether through the Local Audit Office itself, through a company that it establishes or in collaboration with the private sector. That said, I fully agree that if the Local Audit Office does act as the audit provider, it must be subject to robust and independent scrutiny to maintain trust and confidence across the sector. That principle is wholly right, and I think everyone would agree with it.
Clause 66 already requires the Local Audit Office to appoint an independent entity to scrutinise its audit work. We do not consider that amending the language from “independently” to “wholly independent” would change that position, although I recognise that it is a small change and I understand the intent behind it.
The expectation that the appointed body must possess appropriate expertise is inherent in the function itself and a statutory requirement for expertise would be unnecessarily prescriptive—it is in the practice, the guidance and the strength of the infrastructure and the institution that we are creating.
The LAO will remain accountable with the Department, and there will be robust mechanisms to ensure transparency and competence. That is a big priority for us as a Department, given the state of the system that we inherited. The Secretary of State will continue to use all the available levers to ensure we have a system and an LAO that is independent when it needs to be and of the highest standard and competence. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there are sufficient safeguards in place and will withdraw the amendment.
Vikki Slade
I believe the public would expect it to be very clear that someone was not “acting independently”, but were in fact independent, so I will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 62 will establish a new framework for the regulation of local auditors, which will be overseen by the Local Audit Office. Independent reviews have been consistently clear that local audit regulation is too fragmented and lacks central co-ordination. The system is failing and, at the same time, audit quality requirements designed for corporate audits have driven up work on areas of accounts of little relevance to users. That contributes to delays and increases costs.
The clause enables the LAO to hold a register and regulate the sector directly, or to designate and supervise an external registration body to oversee the registration, quality monitoring and conduct of audit providers. Designation of an external registration body would reduce potential conflicts of interest for inspectors and monitoring. The LAO would retain overall authority for the audit quality and act as the final arbiter where enforcement action is required. We expect the LAO to continue the current model under which a professional accountancy body is recognised to register and oversee audit firms, although it will not be bound to do so. The framework will facilitate high-quality, timely audits and restore the confidence of local bodies and users.
Schedule 29 sets out the detail of the new framework for the registration, oversight and quality of local audits. It replaces the existing statutory framework, which aligned local audit regulation with corporate audit regulation, and had rigid statutory safeguards and regulatory functions delivered by a range of bodies. That reflected a move to the private market provision of the local audit, with the expectation that local bodies would individually appoint their own auditors. By contrast, the LAO will restore central oversight and public accountability to the local audit system, with mandatory and independent auditor appointments to all local authorities, as well as some other local bodies. The schedule streamlines and simplifies the regulatory framework. I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I will briefly return to the question of accounting standards and how they will operate. As the Minister set out, the aim is to streamline and, broadly, to restore the Audit Commission district auditor-type system we have seen in the past, which itself had a number of issues. Clearly, when local authority councillors make their decision on fixing council tax—when local authority finance officers put that information together—they will always be mindful of the accounting standards that apply.
One of the issues is that there are a lot of different ways of approaching that. Some may use cash accounting and some will use accruals; some will use Sage and some will use Oracle. All of those have different characteristics in managing the system, and different auditors may have different views about which they prefer. Many of us will have experience of where a difference of opinion between auditors on the treatment of a transaction can have a significant impact, including by directly impacting the level of council tax that needs to be set.
I have not been able to locate a response from the Minister on the different types of accounting. Can she set out how the system will ensure sufficient flexibility to recognise legitimate professional differences between different types of accountants, authorities, businesses and systems? None of them is inherently wrong or incorrect; they just reflect different approaches to managing the finances of that local authority. Flexibility for local decision making should remain at the heart of what is supposed to be a devolution Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I apologise to the hon. Member for the lack of response—I will make sure we get one to him swiftly. Inevitably, different accounting standards will be used. We will set out guidance, and we will of course look to retain flexibility within that, so that local authorities can ensure that they are using the appropriate standards. We do, however, need a far more centralised and streamlined process, whereby the appointment of auditors is done through a central function—the LAO. Across the piece, there will be uniform and consistent standards that apply both to local authorities and public bodies. That is currently sorely missing, but within the system, there will be different accounting standards and professional body accreditation that individual auditors will apply to. For us, the key is consistency and clarity across the piece on the standards and norms that all professional accountancy bodies are using.
David Simmonds
The key challenge is that, unlike any other public body, local authorities are democratically elected. They are subject to an annual process of budget fixing, where they are legally obliged to balance that budget in year. That rule does not apply to any Government Department, or NHS bodies and so on, all of which have a conversation with central Government about how overspends, capital expenditure, borrowing and so on are dealt with, in a completely different way from local authorities. Could the Minister address that, and ensure that the Committee is fully aware of how those provisions will be considered?
Local authority finance is not the most exciting subject—[Interruption.] I hear murmurs of agreement—but ensuring investment for housing, children’s social care, adult social care, education and local transport depends on us getting this right. Rather than create a system that sets local authorities up to fail, we need to have that debate and put that right straightaway. Taking into account fully the specific, unique legal and financial impositions on local authorities in this audit arrangement is critical, so that decisions can be made locally in good faith and with the relevant level of local democratic accountability.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s original question. The accountability of the finance director, the sets of standards already locked in and the legislation they have to consider to ensure good use of public funds completely apply to this. It is their responsibility to ensure that the council’s decisions are right, that it is financially viable and that it is delivering the services required. The changes we are putting in place do not cut across that or undermine it. It remains a fundamental plank of this.
We are, however, changing the oversight. First, we are enabling an independent auditor to come in and do the function of auditing, as that is currently not happening. Secondly, it will be done with auditors who adhere to a standard code of norms consistent across the public sector. That ensures that we are raising standards across the piece. If a council gets an audit, it will know it is an audit of good quality that will drive and deliver the change that we want.
Thirdly, we already have the best value regime, where central Government can intervene when local authorities are not performing, or there are financial considerations at play. That will still apply. This takes the best of the current system but deals with the existing gap, which is that we do not have a uniform, consistent auditing regime that ensures an independent review of what individual councils are doing. The new system will also ensure that when problems are found, there is a mechanism for escalating, so that councils will be financially viable and delivering effective services. We all want to achieve that but, sadly, the audit regime is not delivering it at the moment. It beggars belief, but it is where we are now. These additional provisions will strengthen the entire infrastructure, add to the responsibilities of our finance directors as accounting officers, and deliver local authorities that are more financially secure and able to deliver the services their users require.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 29
Local audit: registration bodies, registered providers and qualifications
Amendments made: 238, in schedule 29, page 297, line 17, at end insert—
“Financial penalties
2A (1) If the Local Audit Office considers that an external registration body has failed to comply with a requirement under—
(a) this Act, or
(b) an agreement under section 6B(5),
the Office may impose a financial penalty on the body.
(2) A financial penalty is imposed by giving the body a written notice requiring the body to pay the Office a financial penalty of a sum specified in the notice.
(3) Such a notice must—
(a) explain the Office’s reasons for imposing the penalty, and
(b) specify the time by which, and manner in which, the penalty must be paid.
(4) An external registration body must, as soon as practicable after the end of a financial year, notify the Office of its total income in that year from fees charged under section 6A(5).
(5) The amount of a penalty imposed on a body under this paragraph may not exceed 30% of the sum last notified by the body under sub-paragraph (4).
Directions and penalties: procedure etc
2B (1) Before giving a direction under paragraph 2 or imposing a penalty under paragraph 2A, the Local Audit Office must—
(a) give the body a notice of intent, and
(b) consider any representations made by the body in response to (and in accordance with) that notice.
(2) A notice of intent is a notice that—
(a) states the Office’s intention to give the direction or impose the penalty,
(b) sets out the intended terms of the direction or of the notice imposing the penalty,
(c) explains the Office’s reasons for intending to give the direction or impose the penalty, and
(d) specifies the time by which, and manner in which, representations may be made.
(3) Where the Office has given a direction under paragraph 2 or imposed a penalty under paragraph 2A, the Office may by written notice given to that body—
(a) cancel the direction or penalty, or
(b) vary the direction, or the notice imposing the penalty, it in any way that does not make it more onerous.
(4) The Office must publish—
(a) a direction under paragraph 2,
(b) a notice imposing a penalty under paragraph 2A, and
(c) any notice cancelling or varying such a direction or notice.
(5) But it must do so only after the direction or penalty can no longer be cancelled or varied on appeal (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time).
(6) If a penalty imposed under paragraph 2A is not paid in time—
(a) the penalty (or the unpaid part of it) carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838;
(b) the Office may recover the penalty (or the unpaid part of it), with the interest, as a debt.
Directions and penalties: appeals
2C (1) An external registration body may appeal to the High Court against a direction given to it under paragraph 2 or a penalty imposed on it under paragraph 2A.
(2) The grounds on which an appeal may be brought are—
(a) that the failure of compliance on the grounds of which the direction was given or the penalty was imposed did not occur, or
(b) that any of the following is unreasonable—
(i) the decision to give the direction or impose the penalty;
(ii) any of the terms of the direction;
(iii) the amount of the penalty, or the time or manner of its payment.
(3) If satisfied that any of those grounds is made out, the court must allow the appeal and do whichever of the following it considers appropriate—
(a) cancel the direction or penalty, or
(b) vary the direction or the notice imposing the penalty.
(4) Otherwise, the court must dismiss the appeal.
(5) The court may—
(a) make an interim order suspending the effect of a direction or penalty appealed against under this paragraph;
(b) if it allows an appeal under this paragraph against a penalty, make any order as to interest that it considers appropriate (including an order varying the effect of paragraph 4(6)(a)).
Compliance orders by the court
2D (1) This paragraph applies if the High Court is satisfied, on an application by the Local Audit Office, that an external registration body has failed to comply with a requirement under—
(a) this Act, or
(b) an agreement under section 6B(5).
(2) The court may order the body to take steps that the court considers will secure that the requirement in question is complied with.
(3) Such a step—
(a) must be one that the body has the power to take;
(b) may consist of not doing something.
(4) This court may not make an order under this paragraph in respect of the requirement to comply with a direction under paragraph 2 unless it is satisfied that the failure of compliance on the ground of which the direction was given did in fact occur.”
This amendment empowers the Local Audit Office to take enforcement action against an external registration body if it fails to comply with its duties.
Amendment 239, in schedule 29, page 301, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) arrangements for the imposition of sanctions in respect of breaches that are established, and
(d) registration rules and lead partner rules designed to secure that providers and lead partners are bound by any sanctions.”
This amendment and Amendment 240 require the body maintaining the register of local audit providers to put in place a system of sanctions, including financial penalties, against registered providers and their lead partners.
Amendment 240, in schedule 29, page 301, line 30, at end insert—
“(3) The available sanctions must include financial penalties.
(4) The arrangements and rules must allow for appeals to be made to a person who will determine the appeal independently of the maker of the decision appealed against.
(5) The arrangements and rules must allow for the Local Audit Office to be able—
(a) to determine that a particular case raises or appears to raise important issues affecting the public interest, and
(b) to assume enforcement responsibility in a case in which it has made such a determination.
(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5), the Office assumes enforcement responsibility if it assumes responsibility for the final decision (subject to any appeal) as to—
(a) whether the requirement or rule in question has been breached, and
(b) if so, the sanction to be imposed.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 239.
Schedule 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63
New appointment arrangements for non-NHS audits
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 63 is central to our reform agenda. It will give the new Local Audit Office responsibility for appointing auditors for all local authorities, as well as some other local bodies, such as police and fire bodies. Currently, such bodies can choose to opt into an appointment scheme overseen by Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd or appoint their own auditor. In practice, more than 99% of bodies are opted into PSAA’s scheme, demonstrating the sector-wide support for a centralised appointment regime.
Centralised appointments significantly reduce burdens on individual authorities. The LAO’s position at the heart of the audit system will make it uniquely qualified to ensure that audits provide value for money, support market sustainability and effectively manage audit contracts. The clause will also establish a proportionate framework in which the LAO will make appointments, including requirements regarding when and how appointments are made. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds
A number of these other local bodies are subject, in the Treasury’s eyes and legally, to different accounting rules. In particular, Government Departments have revenue and capital departmental expenditure limits, and the Treasury is happy to shift money between those annually: capital may be allocated to cover revenue shortfalls and so on. That is something that a local authority cannot do. Will the Minister set out how the appointment process will ensure a high degree of transparency, particularly at the local level, so that people can see the difference between bodies that are subject to the local authority regime of in-year balancing and the other local bodies that are subject to a separate regime, and why the levels of assurance and the nature of decision making may be different? I would be grateful for clarity and assurance on those points from the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I confess that I am not 100% clear about what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. I might partly answer his question by saying that the majority of public bodies—99%—are going through the Public Sector Audit Appointments regime anyway, because they see value in it. What we are now doing is taking that function, aligning it with the oversight of the entire regime and putting it in the Local Audit Office. That will make it streamlined and more effective. We are not fundamentally changing the decisions that individual local bodies are making.
If there was a big clamour for diversity in the market, that would be a different thing, but at the moment we hear from local public bodies that they want a centralised system. That makes their life much easier; it means there is a standard procurement process, which reduces the burden on them. It means that they get an auditor that is accredited and approved to be of a certain standard, and therefore they can be confident in that auditor. The system should make it easier for all our public bodies. At the moment, all our conversations suggest that they hugely support the direction of travel and have no concerns about it. Perhaps I have not understood the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are taking something that is happening by default anyway and making it better and standard, in a way that will work for all those public bodies.
David Simmonds
I am reassured to a degree by what the Minister says. I was personally involved in the setting up of the PSAA, although I do not have any direct interests in it. The market has clearly moved in that direction. My concern with bringing all these things into a central accountability stream that sits with the Secretary of State is that the legal and financial environments in which these bodies operate are quite different. If an NHS trust or a police organisation has overspent, it can ask the Secretary of State to reallocate capital for building, for example, a new police station to cover the revenue shortfall, but the local authority cannot do that.
The risk is that, if there appears to be a consistent standard, the judgments produced in respect of authorities that are operating within one legal and financial framework will be very different from those produced in respect of bodies operating within another. Given the Bill’s envisaged reorganisation of local government and the centralisation that the Minister has referred to, we need to retain a level of local clarity about what differences arise as a result of local decision making, so that council tax payers can see them, versus things that result from interactions with central Government via the Secretary of State.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Decision making at the local authority level will remain. Accountability to the constituents in the local authority will remain. We are not fundamentally changing that regime, and hopefully we are making it better by, for example, moving to multi-year budgets for local authorities and consolidating budgets, so that there is far more flexibility for them to manage the challenges that we know they have to manage.
That is complementary to what we are trying to do by creating a national audit system that is coherent, of a high standard and works, which is not what we have now. These arrangements will not undermine the decision-making ability of local authorities. They will mean that a proper accountability system is in place, so that we are better able to validate when authorities are either failing or in financial distress and put in place the measures that I have talked about, such as the best value regime, to get them out of distress.
Once again, the clause is not an attempt to run counter to the accountability system that local authorities must have for their people. It is an attempt to strengthen that accountability system, so that local people have an independent basis to verify what the local authority is doing. I think that Members across the piece will support that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Audit providers to nominate lead partner
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause will change the current requirement whereby local audits may be signed off only by a key audit partner—a senior auditor who meets specific eligibility criteria determined through statutory guidance. The current requirement for local audit sign-off is both rigid and unique to local audits. No other audit category places such a specific condition on the eligibility of senior auditors. That has restricted the pipeline of senior auditors to the sector and places a significant barrier to market entry. It can be difficult for a firm wishing to enter the market to recruit or develop individuals who can satisfy the specific criteria.
Under the clause, the requirement for key audit partners to sign off local audits will end. Instead, local audit officers will work with an external registration body to establish suitable competence requirements. The measure will empower the sector to draw on the best possible range of talent, while continuing to ensure that senior auditors are competent and understand the distinctive element of the local audit. I commend the
David Simmonds
The section 151 officer is the person in the local authority who has whistleblower protection; they have a legal obligation to ensure that the local authority has the information that it needs when setting its budgets, and that the information is true and correct. However, disputes about the treatment of financial decision making are also common, where a section 151 officer may have a lesser degree of comfort about a risk arising from a decision.
We talked earlier about assets of community value, and there are many MPs in this room who will have campaigned for their local authority and undertaken responsibility or an intervention to preserve an asset or local amenity. That leads to a debate about whether that is a good use of taxpayers’ money. The elected folk may be of the view that it is, but a section 151 officer may say that it does not stack up in financial terms. There needs to be a process for resolving that dispute, and that will revolve around the professional standards that the Minister has just set out. It would be helpful if she could set out what process of assurance there will be following a decision, so that we can all be clear that there is an adequate pipeline of people, as she has described, to undertake those roles, and that we do not suck out all of the expertise of section 151 officers, who are the only people who can undertake them. What consultation has the Minister undertaken with accounting bodies, such as the Association of Consulting Actuaries, CIPFA and all the others, so that they can ensure that the necessary degree of influence has been exerted to ensure that the training standards and process that will emerge from this will be sufficiently robust?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We recognise that we have a challenge in bringing in sufficient audit capacity of the standard we need. That is the status quo. We are working closely with the sector to ensure that we are generating a pipeline and that there is training provision. We are working with the Local Government Association to ensure that that happens.
To be completely candid, we are in a mess. I will not play party politics by mentioning where that mess came from, but the status quo is dire. The regime is failing, and we do not have sufficient audit capacity of the quality that we want. That is why we are putting these reforms in place. I reassure the Committee that we completely understand the challenge we face. We want to keep high-quality finance directors in local authorities. We understand the risk that there might be bleed into the much bigger audit infrastructure and regime that we are creating, but the job now is to reach into the private and public sectors to train up a cadre of auditors so that the system is fit for purpose. At the moment, the system is under strain and collapsing. There is urgency, certainly on the part of the Government—that is why we are bringing forward these reforms—to address the problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Code of audit practice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This clause will transfer responsibility for the code of audit practice from the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office to the Local Audit Office. The clause also unequivocally sets out that, as the standard-setter for local audit, the LAO will be able to modify auditing standards to reflect the needs of local public bodies—a point that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner was making.
The LAO will review the interpretation and/or application of international standards on auditing, including where the requirements of specific standards should be interpreted for the local audit context. Currently, auditing standards are interpreted for corporate and local audit by the Financial Reporting Council. In the current system, it has not been possible to vary the interpretation of standards to better reflect the risk profile of local bodies.
It is vital that the LAO has the powers to interpret some standards differently for local audit. Otherwise, extensive work will continue to be required on areas of accounts that have little relevance to account users, contributing to timeliness and capacity issues as well as undermining value for money. Through its ownership of the code of audit practice, the LAO will be empowered to define appropriate audit requirements for different categories of body in the principal audit regime. This is central to delivering our commitment to a risk-based and proportionate approach to local audit that is focused on the needs of local bodies and account users. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds
Will the Minister briefly set out some examples of things that are being undertaken but she feels are not adding value? We are all sympathetic, but it would be helpful to the Committee’s decision making if we understood what we are going to stop doing as a result of the decision we are being asked to take.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is not wild or out there to say that the new auditing body we are creating should have full flexibility to ensure that the standards being applied are appropriate. The feedback we are getting from local government and public bodies is that the status quo is not fit for purpose, that it is onerous, and that its requirements do not align with their needs or, critically, the needs of the user. Is the hon. Member suggesting that the current system is fit for purpose? Is he suggesting that we retain it or that it does not require reform? If he is, he should stand up and say so.
David Simmonds
The Minister is perhaps being a little mischievous in responding politically to what was essentially a technical question. We all recognise that there are challenges. Broadly, the audit system suffers not from a lack of regulation but from a lack of capacity. Measures such as Public Sector Audit Appointments were designed to address that, but they have not been sufficient, despite being implemented in consultation with the sector. We therefore agree that an alternative approach is required.
The Minister has been clear to the Committee that she feels that many of the requirements imposed by the current system are unnecessary. She has returned a number of times to the point about there being things that do not add value and are onerous. It would be helpful if she set out what those things are so that our colleagues in local authorities can understand what will be removed from the requirements upon them and the Committee can understand what risks, if any, that poses to the public.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I dare not do the job of the Local Audit Office, or indeed trained auditors, and go into detail. This provision creates powers for the LAO to design a system that works for local bodies. As I said, the feedback that we have had from local authorities and public bodies is that the current system is onerous. It will depend on whether we are looking at a fire and rescue service or a local authority service, but it is absolutely right that we confer the powers on the LAO to look at the system and say, “We will change and adapt the standard so that it is fit for purpose.” I do not think that is controversial; I do not think it requires me to talk about it in great detail. We will issue guidance for the LAO and it will set the standards and what is appropriate. It is right that we give it the powers to do that in the Bill.
David Simmonds
The treatment of the dedicated schools grant, which has a huge impact on local authority budgets, is an example of an issue that comes up regularly on the Floor of the House. It is CIPFA’s view that, because it sits within a legal ringfence that has to be balanced each year, it is a budget killer for local authorities. However, ownership of that sits with a different Government Department that takes a different view about how it should be addressed. To me, that is a good example of something that is onerous and requires a lot of work, but in practice, the Government have collectively decided that they are going to deal with it in a different way and effectively ignore the rules that they imposed on local authorities to make it go away.
The Minister keeps returning to the point that she feels that there are elements of the system that are onerous and burdens that should be alleviated. It would be helpful if she briefly set out a couple of examples for the Committee so that we can understand what she thinks we should no longer look at so that we and our council taxpayers can at least understand the risk and reward associated with it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
If the hon. Member wants examples, one example—I am sure that we can give others based on the conversations that we have had with local government—is that pensions do not drive local government decision making and financial resilience, so the audit reviews focus on operational assets that may not be necessary, depending on the local body that we are talking about. There are clearly examples within the system.
I come back to the fact that we are not prescribing this; we are saying it is right that a new body that will have oversight of a regime that we all agree needs to be reformed should be able to make sure that those standards are commensurate with what is required by the local authority and public bodies as well as the user. That is not controversial; that is common sense. It is right that we create the provisions for that new body to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Audit committees
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 66, page 70, after line 28 insert—
“(4A) A Local Audit Office may make arrangements about—
(a) the membership of an audit committee;
(b) the appointment of the members; and
(c) the conduct and practices of the committee.”
This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in appointing audit committees and provides LAOs with the ability to oversee the membership and work of audit committees.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 66, page 70, leave out from beginning of line 29 to end of line 7 on page 71.
This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in overseeing the membership of audit committees.
Amendment 362, in clause 66, page 70, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) the training of members newly appointed to an audit committee.”
This amendment would require the provision of training for all new members of an audit committee.
Manuela Perteghella
These amendments go to the heart of local accountability and good governance. They would ensure that the checks and balances that protect public money are independent and not micromanaged from Whitehall.
Amendments 17 and 18 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to appoint or control audit committees, and instead allow local people to decide their own membership, appointments and practices. Local audit officers are closer to the ground and so understand the specific challenges facing councils, combined authorities and local agencies. Let us give them the power to shape their own audit committees so that they reflect local context, expertise and priorities.
At a time when councils are under intense pressure, when residents are anxious about how their money is spent, and when public trust in local government finances has been shaken, the last thing we need is the perception that Ministers can influence who audits local authorities. Audit committees are there to hold power to account, not to be overseen by it. Removing that oversight would be a simple but powerful step towards a transparent and decentralised local audit system.
Amendment 362 would require mandatory training for all newly appointed audit committee members, so that they understand their responsibilities and the technicalities of local audit. Mandatory training would ensure that new members start with a shared understanding and pick up those very important skills. Without training, there could be missed red flags, opaque decisions and audit delays that cost taxpayers millions.
We are calling for the mandatory training of audit committee members so that they know how to scrutinise budgets, assess risks—that is the most important thing—and challenge constructively. Those are essential skills for their positions, so amendment 362 would raise standards across the board. As we have done throughout, the Liberal Democrats would like to see local power given to local people, with local decisions made by our local councils. We want to ensure that our local audits are not only independent but equipped with the skills to help prevent the next financial crisis before it happens.
David Simmonds
I am sympathetic to the issue behind these amendments, although I am not convinced that this is the mechanism to address it. I will briefly explain why, and where this sits in the context of the previous debate. The Minister gave the example of the pensions audit as something that we could alleviate, but my personal experience would suggest that is a very poor example, and amendments 18 and 17 connect to it.
If we think back to the last big financial crash when the last Labour Government were in office, the local government pension scheme, which is currently overfunded, saw a huge fall in the value of its assets to the extent that it was then 30% underfunded. Local authorities across the country, which have a legal obligation to make up any such shortfall, were then faced with this question: to what extent will we have to make financial cuts to public services to bridge that gap at short notice so that, if the pension fund is falling short, council tax will bail it out? That is not something about which we could say, “You don’t really need to know about it, and you can safely ignore it.” It is something that, if it goes wrong, could be critical to the finances of that local authority.
When these amendments talk about local arrangements, I think they are seeking to enable flexibility in a local authority, for example, whose pension fund profile may be slightly different from its neighbours or outwith the norm, because it has a younger or older workforce than is typical, or because it has entered outsourcing arrangements. That flexibility would allow the local authority to have people on its audit committee who have the relevant experience to ensure that the audits and information reflect that, and that the decision making properly reflects those risks and does not unduly impact on council tax payers. Does the Minister have a good view or a strong reason as to why that element of local expertise should be disregarded, given the extremely significant financial risks associated with the example that she gave the Committee of something that she envisages the Government will stop requiring councils to do?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me deal directly with amendments 18 and 17. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon what I have consistently said: the governance regime of local government finance is not changed by the measures in the Bill. It will still stand, including the decisions that accounting officers and the finance director need to take, and the accountability to the local community still holds. We are shoring up the system of assurance so that it is fit for purpose, and to ensure that there is independent scrutiny that then feeds back into what the local authority does. That is how the system should be operating, but it is not currently, which is why we are driving through these reforms.
On the amendments, I recognise the important role that the Local Audit Office will play in overseeing the local audit system. Amendments 18 and 17, however, would delegate important policy and legislative functions from Ministers—who are directly accountable to the House, which is the way we believe it ought to be—to an independent body.
Given the central role that audit committees play in local financial governance, it is essential that responsibility for their statutory framework remains with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the overall integrity and effectiveness of the local government system. My Department will continue to work closely with the Local Audit Office and key stakeholders in the sector to ensure that audit committee requirements are effective, proportionate and well-functioning. We think, however, that parliamentarians would want the Secretary of State to be ultimately accountable, so that Parliament can hold them to account. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
On amendment 362, I fully support the hon. Member’s view that audit committee members must demonstrate the necessary skill, understanding and competence that we are asking of them. The committees are integral to robust local governance, playing a critical role in ensuring that public resources are used efficiently, transparently and in the public interest. Clause 66, however, already provides for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance in relation to audit committees. It is our intention that the guidance will include a requirement for members to undertake appropriate training.
Alongside that, we will continue to work with the LGA and CIPFA to ensure that training programmes support existing and new audit committee members. There is a job to be done to make sure that we have a pipeline of members, that they are fit for purpose and that we have the right training and capacity building in place. I hope that that assures the hon. Member that we are doing everything we can to ensure that training is fit for purpose, as we need audit committee members of a high quality and standard, and that we will continue to work with the relevant bodies to ensure that that is a reality.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 362, in clause 66, page 70, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) the training of members newly appointed to an audit committee.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require the provision of training for all new members of an audit committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 45—Local public accounts committees—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment of a public accounts committee in each mayoral strategic authority area (‘local public accounts committees’).
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) make provision relating to the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment; tenure; and arrangements for chairing of committees;
(b) make provision about support for local public accounts committees by the relevant local audit services;
(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services in the mayoral strategic authority area;
(d) make provision about the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power of the committees to report on—
(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;
(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the strategic mayoral authority.
(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘local partner’ has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).”
This new clause would require the introduction of Local Public Accounts Committees within one year of this Act coming into force. LPACs would ensure scrutiny and accountability across the whole of the local public service spending and activity.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 66 introduces a statutory requirement for all local authorities, excluding NHS bodies, to establish an audit committee with at least one independent member. Members will be aware that audit committees are the cornerstone of good governance and financial management in local government. They provide independent oversight of financial controls, risk management and internal audits, reinforcing transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.
Although many councils have already adopted audit committees as best practice, and combined authorities are required by statute to do so, it is time to standardise this requirement across the board. Consistency in governance structures is essential to ensuring that all local bodies are held to the same high standards of scrutiny and accountability.
In addition, the clause mandates that at least one member of the audit committee must be independent. Independent members bring impartiality, technical expertise and continuity, ensuring that scrutiny is robust and well informed. Where elected members may lack specialist knowledge in audit or finance, independent members can provide the professional insight needed to effectively challenge financial reports.
Mandating audit committees is a key pillar of our local audit reform programme. It is about getting the basics right. Good governance and financial management start at the heart of local authorities. The clause is a practical, proportionate and necessary measure to strengthen local accountability and ensure that every authority is equipped to manage public money responsibly, and I commend it to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I have a brief question for the Minister. One challenge is that most local authorities will have an arrangement, although it is not always called the audit committee; sometimes it is the finance scrutiny committee or the overview committee—there are lots of different arrangements. Could the Minister set out briefly what specific requirements, if any, she intends to impose on local authorities about who can be a member of an audit committee and what its composition is? Will it sit within the overall political balance structure that exists in all local authorities? I ask that just so that we understand where it will fit within the new arrangements.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will issue guidance when the Bill gains Royal Assent. The broad principle, which is applied across the piece with all our reforms, is that where there is good practice, we look to build on that. However, we will set out principles that we want to see standardised across the piece, to ensure that we have mechanisms that are fit for purpose and effective. To take the example of the independent member, we think that having that expertise massively helps, whatever function it is. However, where there are existing arrangements in place, our intent is to transition those to something that adheres to a set of principles that we will set out in guidance.
Vikki Slade
Thank you, Sir John; I was feeling slightly confused. There is an irony about the issues in the Bill being followed by a reassurance that we should not worry, because the Government will issue guidance after Royal Assent. This is the point where we have the ability to improve the Bill, but we are not debating the areas where we want to do that—on things like requiring people to be properly trained—or to understand a bit more about the shape of these organisations. That is disappointing.
I want to talk specifically to new clause 45, on local public accounts committees. On Second Reading, the then Secretary of State showed a lot of support for the introduction of local public accounts committees. We have already established—indeed, the Minister just said—that all strategic authorities will be held to the same high standards, as they should be. But we believe that that should apply across the public sector and to all those who hold public sector money and contracts.
New clause 45 would make provision for new local public accounts committees to be formed within one year of the legislation being passed. These LPACs would be at mayoral strategic authority scale to ensure scrutiny and accountability of the mayor, but also scrutiny across the whole of local public services. Given the mayor’s convening power across all those areas, that feels like the right space for them.
To convince the Minister of the necessity of LPACs, I direct her towards an excellent report by the Institute of Public Policy Research entitled “Accountability matters: Securing the future of devolution”. In it, the authors summarise the case well:
“The system of mayoral accountability currently in existence is complex and broad, but yet also manages to be insufficient to keep up with the developing power of mayoral authorities.”
Therefore, there is a clear need to ensure that as the Bill broadens the range of functions to be held, a suitable accountability system is built to keep powers in check. The local accounts committee is very much about the financial lens, but we also want to talk about accountability—justifying why money has been spent in a certain way and why choices have been made. The Public Accounts Committee in Parliament is held in high esteem not only in Parliament but out in the real world, where its reports are considered to be almost a go-to space for real scrutiny.
I accept that there was talk on Second Reading about a single local public accounts committee possibly following, that is still going to be very remote. The south-west of England, for example, will have two or three strategic mayors, which is very different from Greater London or Greater Manchester. If we have a single local public accounts committee trying to talk about how things work in, say, Manchester, that will not mean very much to local people—it will not mean much more to them than the PAC here does. We have an opportunity to scale things down to a local level.
Having led a local authority—as several members of the Committee have—I regularly witnessed the frustration of the public and council members when other organisations were not democratically accountable. The health authority is the perfect example, and I can see lots of raised eyebrows in the Committee Room. As a local government leader, I tried to sit in integrated care board meetings to bang the drum for local government, but people were not interested. However, it is local members who then knock on doors and get grief about the problems in the health service, the police service, the Prison Service or housing associations—all the organisations that people have experiences with. But it is local authorities they then turn to when they want someone to blame.
Council members have a unique opportunity to ask the questions that no one else can, and it would be a huge missed opportunity—in setting up a whole new regime, with strategic authorities and the Local Audit Office—if we did not put an LPAC-shaped piece of the puzzle, as a holding space, into the regime. We are not asking for it to be set up now—we recognise that there is a lot going on—but for a commitment to put it into the system going forward, so that these organisations know that it is coming and can start to prepare for what it means. This is a perfect opportunity to do that.
I will end with a quote from the Department’s White Paper on devolution, which set out plans to
“improve external scrutiny of value for money on local public spending, including exploring a Local Public Accounts Committee model.”
So it was there in the White Paper; there were quite a lot of things in it that did not make it into the Bill, and we would like to see this one dragged through.
David Simmonds
The only element where I have any disagreement with the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is over whether the legislation needs to be implemented for local public accounts committees to happen. There have been a number of measures in this regard, and I think of the Localism Act 2011, where there was a great deal of debate about the role of the local armchair auditor and the requirement for local authorities to publish all expenditure over £500—itemised—so that people can see what is being spent day to day, as a means of bringing about transparency.
In this debate about audit committees, we have already covered the fact that there are different local arrangements. Some have everything dealt with by a single, financially focused scrutiny and overview committee, while others do it as part of a wider context or in the context of individual service areas. So there are different approaches, and it is important that that local discretion continues to exist.
I am not convinced that it is necessary to have further legislation, but it is right that we bring the matter to public attention. One weakness of the Westminster-focused Public Accounts Committee is that it does not always grasp local nuance. Home-to-school transport in rural Lincolnshire or North Yorkshire is a completely different challenge from that in Greater London, where all local authorities are, effectively, levied so that public transport in the capital is free for children going to school. Such things are difficult to capture. When we hear that North Yorkshire spends £51 million over a couple of years taking kids to school, that sounds like an extraordinarily high level of expenditure, but it is driven entirely by local circumstances; it is not the result of inefficiency or negligence on the part of decision makers. The point is well made that we have to have that really clear grasp in decision making that comes from people understanding and knowing their local place.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for tabling new clause 45, and I have a lot of sympathy with what it tries to do. She rightly quoted the English devolution White Paper, in which we committed to explore local public accounts committee models. We consulted on the initial proposal for such a model in December last year, as part of our local audit reform strategy. The Government’s response on 9 April confirmed that they would explore how any model could draw on audit findings and interact with the Local Audit Office, once established. It is important to consider how that would fit with the reformed local audit landscape.
Mayoral strategic authorities are already expected to follow the principles and processes described in the English devolution accountability framework and scrutiny protocol. That includes the requirement to have overview and scrutiny committees and an audit committee. We absolutely recognise that there is scope for further strengthening the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities, and we are carrying out engagement with the sector on what that looks like. Although I accept the principle of new clause 45, the Government intend to do further work to ensure that whatever new regime or additional arrangements to strengthen the status quo we put in place, they work well alongside not only the huge reforms we are driving through in the audit system but what already exists on the ground, to ensure that we are not duplicating or creating confusion.
We need a little time to work that through and to think about the right set of reforms to put in place. However, the principle that we absolutely need to strengthen the status quo is one we completely accept and recognise the need for. I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to allow us the time to do the work properly, so that we can come up with a system that works alongside the reforms we are driving through. I therefore ask her not to press the new clause.
Vikki Slade
My resistance is because I wonder how long it is likely to be before the different stages of the Bill go through. What assurance do we have that the new clause does not disappear, in the same way as other things have disappeared on the journey so far? That puts me in a difficult position, because this issue is hugely important. Allowing the Government time and then seeing the new clause disappear would not give us the chance to have anything on the record. It is because enough organisations feel that they want to have it on the record that we have pushed it. I know that the Minister wants me not to push the new clause, but I need to for the benefit of all those organisations that have worked so hard on it and that want to see it go as far as it possibly can.
The Chair
The hon. Lady does not need to decide now. I can tell that she is cogitating. If she so desires, we can come back to the new clause and test the view of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Smaller authorities: change of terminology
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 67 paves the way for greater flexibility in how audit regimes are determined, moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach that relies solely on the size of a local authority. We recognise that local authorities vary not just in scale, but in complexity, risk profile and the services they deliver for local people. This proactive measure will enable the Local Audit Office, working closely with my Department and the sector, to design and implement audit frameworks that are proportionate, targeted and fit for purpose. Although any changes to the classification of local bodies within the category 2 regime would require secondary legislation, the clause removes any ambiguity about the future basis for audit regimes. It makes it clear that size alone should not determine audit requirements; risk and complexity should also be considered. That flexibility will lay the foundations to reduce unnecessary burdens on smaller or lower-risk councils, while maintaining robust oversight where it is most needed.
On clause 68, fixing the broken local audit system for authorities is the intention behind all the measures we are debating in this part of the Bill. However, the Bill also provides an important opportunity to address specific challenges within the smaller authorities audit system. In recent years, Salisbury city council and Lindsey Marsh drainage board have surpassed the outdated financial threshold for smaller authorities—a limit that remained unchanged for more than a decade, despite significant growth in local budgets and financial activity. Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd has been unable to secure auditors for those bodies under the principal regime, leaving them without external assurance, and contributing to the wider audit backlog.
The principal regime demands significantly more complex financial reporting, which smaller authorities may not be well equipped to deliver. There is currently no transitional support for those moving into the regime, despite limited internal capacity and capability. Overall, those circumstances mean that auditors from the principal regime are reluctant to be appointed to those bodies, particularly given the wider capacity problems.
Clause 68 lays the groundwork for regulations that will allow those two bodies to be retrospectively treated as smaller authorities, enabling them to receive a limited assurance review. That is a more proportionate and practical solution than leaving them unaudited in the principal regime. It will help ensure that public resources are used more efficiently, both within local authorities and across the audit system, while maintaining robust yet appropriate external scrutiny.
David Simmonds
Broadly, the Opposition agree with the Government’s direction of travel, and this seems a logical thing to do. This kind of update is periodically required. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out, for the benefit of transparency in Committee, what the assurance process will be around risk. To reflect on where things have gone wrong, West Somerset district council—then the smallest local authority in England—was essentially not financially viable, but it was also the planning authority for the Hinkley Point nuclear power station, so it was absolutely critical that it could do its job for the needs of national infrastructure. Its budget was essentially broken by the loss of a business rates appeal in respect of Hinkley Point, which cost its £6.5 million out of its already very small budget.
Sometimes there are risks that sit beneath what will be classified as smaller authorities, especially given our earlier debate about how reorganisation is seeing asset transfers between districts and parish and town councils as a result of the need to manage opportunities and challenges. Could the Minister therefore set out who will be accountable? Will Ministers sign this off? What is the role of the delegated legislation Committee in making these decisions? What will be the role of the Local Audit Office in deciding how risks are managed? We need to be confident that what may appear to be a low-risk environment does not produce a very nasty surprise.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It will be the Local Audit Office, working closely with my Department, but we will obviously engage with the sector while doing that. As the hon. Member will understand, there is always a judgment call in this, and it is about balancing a set of factors. Our job is to ensure that the Local Audit Office has the capabilities and skills to be able to make that judgment, working with our respective authorities. Ultimately, if we get it wrong, it is for Parliament to haul up the Secretary of State and hold them to account.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Amendment paving way for separation of LGPS accounts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner was dissatisfied by my pensions example. In part, I hope the clause speaks to some of the challenges that we are trying to get at.
Clause 69 is the first step in separating pension fund accounts from the accounts of the administering authorities. It removes the implied requirement in the current legislation for the accounts to be published together. We can then make regulations to introduce the change in practice. Decoupling the accounts is widely supported by auditors and local authorities and was recommended by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in the last Parliament. The clause implements that recommendation. It is a relatively straightforward change that will deliver real practical benefits. Pension fund audits will no longer be held up by audit delays on administering authority accounts, allowing timely assurance to be provided to scheme members and admitted bodies.
Many other organisations rely on pension fund audits to confirm pension figures in their own accounts, and their audits have been disrupted and delayed by problems around administering authorities that rarely relate to the pension fund. As well causing problems for local bodies, the issue has caused problems in completing the audits of the whole of Government accounts and at least two Government Departments. Decoupling will shorten and simplify administering authorities’ accounts. It is more logical to publish pension fund accounts separately, as those funds are ringfenced for the benefit of scheme members and not available to the administering authority for other purposes.
David Simmonds
In many ways, the clause reinforces the concerns that I set out earlier. The Minister said that this was an area where no value was being added and that it was the Government’s intention to reduce expectations. In fact, the clause increases expectations: it requires the publication of a separate opinion on the pension fund’s accounts. As I set out earlier, the concern we all recognise is that, where there is a shortfall, the local authority is required to make up that shortfall and, where there is potentially a surplus, it may choose to reduce the pension contributions that it makes on a regular basis, as is already the case. We have seen examples across the private sector in the past when that has been significant in both negative and sometimes positive ways.
The assumptions made about the pension fund are critical to the setting of the council tax, which is a statutory process. This is not the only set of relevant accounts that must meet that same test. Local authorities have limited but varying degrees of control over the parking revenue account, housing revenue account and dedicated schools grant, but all are ringfenced for specific purposes and all can create significant financial liabilities that fall on the council tax payer in the event that something emerges within them that had not previously been considered.
Although I understand that the Minister thinks that separating out the requirement makes life easier for some parts of the Government, it can none the less create significant issues in the council tax fixing process. Will she set out the Government’s thinking about how those risks will be managed? In particular, how will the legal requirement to set an in-year balanced budget be met, and how does imposing a requirement for an additional and separate opinion, with a separate timetable, represent a reduction of the burden on the local authority?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are having the same debate over and over again. Ultimately—I have said this before and I will say it again—it will be for the accounting officer and the finance director to make the judgment about their accounts in year and over a multi-year period. We are not changing that. Given that pensions are administered by a single body, it is bizarre that the system at the moment involves individual local authorities having to audit their pension funds.
David Simmonds
I invite the Minister to reflect that she may have inadvertently misled the Committee. Each local authority has a statutory duty in respect of its own pension fund. There are some pooling arrangements and common standards, but if a local authority in one place has chosen to invest in something that has gone down, it will have a shortfall that will not be replicated in the neighbouring authority that has invested in something else. It is not the case that there is one single scheme. Each of the individual schemes will have an impact on the local authority that employs those members; they are not part of some amorphous national scheme.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
No, they are not, but the auditing requirement at the moment is burdensome, as local authorities and, under the previous Government, the Select Committee have said. I think the hon. Gentleman is just asking a probing question, which is fine, but no one is telling us that this measure is a bad idea. No one is telling us that decoupling is not helpful. It will mean that local government auditing does not hold back pension fund auditing and vice versa. Everyone agrees that this is a simple provision.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will not give way; I am going to have to close down this debate. Critically, none of this detracts from the core function of the finance director, nor does it detract from the core function of local authority governance or local authority financial accountability. Everyone agrees that it will make the system stronger, so I struggle to understand the hon. Gentleman’s issue with it. No one says that the status quo is fit for purpose, and he himself has conceded that it is not. We are taking the existing system and providing stronger assurance and stronger audit to fix a system that is fundamentally broken, and I come back to the fact that it was broken under the Conservatives’ watch.
The Chair
The Minister has been very generous in taking interventions, and I have allowed them to be quite lengthy, if I can put it that way. She has made her position clear.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 241.
Schedule 30.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 70 introduces schedule 30, which makes minor and consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament—primarily, the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Despite the amendments being minor and consequential, this schedule is an integral part of the wider reforms that we are driving through, by ensuring consistency across legislation.
As we have said, the Bill establishes the LAO as the body responsible for appointing auditors for all local authorities, as well as certain other local public bodies. However, health service bodies will continue with their existing arrangements to appoint their own auditors. Government amendment 241 corrects a minor drafting error and omission from the Bill as introduced, by ensuring that all previous references to relevant authorities in the provision now apply only to health service bodies.
I ask that these minor and consequential amendments stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 30
Local audit: minor and consequential amendments
Amendments made: 241, in schedule 30, page 311, line 10, at end insert—
“(b) for “body by a relevant authority” substitute “Office or body by a health service body”.”
This amendment makes a consequential amendment that was missing from the Bill as introduced.
Amendment 242, in schedule 30, page 316, line 28, at end insert—
“Offences of deception etc
32I False or misleading information
(1) It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to provide information that is false, misleading or deceptive in a material way—
(a) for the purposes of, or in connection with, an application under the local audit provisions, or
(b) in purported compliance with any requirement having effect under those provisions.
(2) In subsection (1), “the local audit provisions” means—
(a) Parts 2A to 5A of this Act (including any regulations under any of those Parts),
(b) an agreement under section 6B(5), and
(c) registration rules within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1C.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).
32J Wrongful holding out
(1) It is an offence for a person who is not a registered local audit provider to—
(a) describe themselves as a registered local audit provider, or
(b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are a registered local audit provider.
(2) It is an offence for a person who is not an external registration body to—
(a) describe themselves as an external registration body, or
(b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are an external registration body.
(3) It is an offence for a person who is not a recognised qualifying body to—
(a) describe themselves as a recognised qualifying body, or
(b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are a recognised qualifying body.
(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).
(5) In subsection (4), “the maximum term for summary offences” means—
(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;
(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment creates offences, similar to those currently provided in the Companies Act, about misleading conduct in the context of the new local audit regime.
Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71
Rent reviews and “put options”: prohibited terms
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 71, page 72, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
“54A Rent reviews and arrangements for new tenancies
(1) Schedule 7A makes provision about rent reviews.
(2) Schedule 7B makes provision about terms relating to rent in arrangements which require a new tenancy to be granted or taken.”
This is consequential on the amendments of Schedule 31 in my name.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 376 to 381.
Government amendments 384 to 386.
Government amendment 391.
Amendment 303, in clause 78, page 78, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Section 71 will not come into force until the Secretary of State has—
(a) completed a consultation about the impact of section 71 on businesses, and
(b) laid a report summarising the consultation before both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would prevent section 71 from coming into force until a consultation on its impact on businesses has been completed and a report summarising the consultation has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 71 and schedule 31 will ban the use of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases in England and Wales. Those clauses put commercial tenants at a disadvantage by keeping rents artificially high even when the market declines. In no other credible market would one party be contractually bound to accept only upward price changes, with no recourse to changing conditions. We saw in covid how damaging that can be. We have also heard at first hand from stakeholders and business representatives—including UKHospitality, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Independent Retailers Association—about the adverse effects that upward-only rent reviews have.
An efficient and dynamic market for leasing commercial property is vital for growth and for the vitality of our high streets. Upward-only rent reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties that we have seen, ranging from high street shops to empty office floors. The UK is an outlier in continuing to permit those clauses. This ban follows the lead of countries such as Ireland and Australia. We absolutely recognise that the ban creates some initial uncertainty for investors. However, landlords will still have access to a range of lease models, such as stepped rents and inflation-linked leases, that offer predictability and flexibility; and we have committed to consulting on whether to permit the use of rent “collars” via secondary legislation.
It is important to remember that our high streets are more than retail spaces; they are the social and economic heart of our communities. The Government have set out ambitious steps to support high streets through our Pride in Place strategy. This measure is part of that. If we want new businesses to take a chance on a tenancy and if we want resilient high streets, it is essential that the leasehold market works efficiently. I urge that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Government amendment 375 is a technical amendment updating clause 71 in line with the amendments in schedule 31 tabled in my name. The amendment ensures that readers can continue to navigate the scope and effect of those provisions as intended when drafted.
I now turn to Government amendments 376 to 381, 384 to 386 and 391. These amendments work together to clarify the scope of the ban on upward-only rent reviews, ensuring that tenants are provided with protection when it is right that they receive it. Government amendment 376 brings forward a large proportion of these changes. In particular, the new part 1 sets out a new definition of “business tenancy”. It expands the scope of the ban so that a tenant who is still bound by the lease does not lose the protection of the ban simply because they have vacated the premises, have not yet taken occupation, do not intend to take occupation, or have sub-let the whole premises. It is right that tenants receive the protection of the ban in these circumstances. Without the amendment, it is likely that they would be deterred from sub-letting, which might in turn damage their ability to trade successfully.
Part 2 expands the tenant’s ability to trigger the rent review, so that it applies regardless of whether the lease contains prohibited terms. It also applies if the lease was granted in a compliant manner but was later varied to include non-compliant terms. Finally, paragraph 5A of part 3 provides for the ban to apply in circumstances where a lease is granted in a compliant manner but later varied to include non-compliant terms.
Finally, I turn to Government amendment 391 and to amendment 303. To further ensure that tenants are provided with protection when it is right they receive it, amendment 391 replicates new paragraph 1 of new schedule 7A, contained in amendment 376, in schedule 7B. Cumulatively, the amendments will ensure that the enacted ban is robust, clear and applies in the right circumstances.
Amendment 303 would require the Government to undertake a consultation on the impact of the ban on upward-only rent reviews before the provision comes into force. But that amendment is not mine, so I will speak to it later.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak about this issue. I thank the Minister, who has been gracious in giving me a lot of time to discuss upward-only rent reviews. I hope to use a couple of minutes to clarify a couple of points in the Minister’s statement that I do not think completely reflect the evidence that we have heard and, perhaps, the current position of the Bill. I say that in a constructive way, recognising that there is further opportunity to improve the Bill and make sure it delivers what we promised in the White Paper. As the Minister herself says, we have to protect high streets and small businesses, which can often be caught in really challenging upward-only rent reviews. She is completely right that the impact was seen particularly during the covid era.
I will talk about international evidence first and then come back to how we can improve; I recognise that the amendments start to go that way. The Minister mentioned Ireland in particular, which is often cited as one of the great examples of action on upward-only rent reviews; industry there was concerned that sectors would collapse, but actually there was a relatively minimal impact. I am sure that the Minister’s civil servants will argue that that is a great example of why the worries of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the British Property Federation, the UK Warehousing Association and agents such as Colliers, which have all written to me in the past week or two to share their concerns, are perhaps unfounded.
The scheme in Ireland was specifically brought in with collars and a floor, which meant that there was protection—that was at the point of introduction rather than through secondary legislation, which I think is important. It was introduced in a very different market with very different interest rates, corporation tax and other factors that drive corporate rents. The challenge with the way the legislation is written at the moment is that it has unintended—
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 28th October 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 October 2025 - (28 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 376 to 381, 384 to 386 and 391.
Amendment 303, in clause 78, page 78, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Section 71 will not come into force until the Secretary of State has—
(a) completed a consultation about the impact of section 71 on businesses, and
(b) laid a report summarising the consultation before both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would prevent section 71 from coming into force until a consultation on its impact on businesses has been completed and a report summarising the consultation has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
As the Committee will remember, I had just covered Ireland. I will now take Committee members across the world to Australia, where a ban on upward-only rent reviews was relatively successfully deployed, as the Minister rightly said. As with Ireland, it is a very different model to what the Government are proposing. In Australia, the responsibility for setting how the model works lies with districts, so there is no Australian model that the UK can copy. In some states, the measure applies by size and sector, and the legislation is very specific to require an upward-only rent review on a size of property and a sector. In others, it applies to sectors. In at least one state, the legislation applies it to the type of business: it applies to landlords that are multinationals but small businesses can be exempt, as I understand it.
The Minister rightly says that the schemes have been applied around the world, but the scheme the Government are proposing has not. It is important that we avoid the unintended consequences of a broad, cover-all scheme. Investment in warehousing logistics, which employs one in five people in my constituency, or in the development of schemes at the Northampton Gateway, at the Daventry international rail freight terminal and right up the M1 corridor, could be hindered by an unintended consequence of our trying to deal with the issue that the Minister talked about—the unfair management of rent on the high street, particularly for small businesses.
I encourage the Minister to go further than the amendment that has been tabled to stop those unintended consequences. The measure could be applied by class of use or by rental value. In evidence, the British Property Federation suggested a £50,000 rental value cap, which would protect small businesses. That could also be specifically allocated in other ways. There are further things we can do if we want to fulfil the aim in the White Paper, which is to protect high streets, while ensuring that we do not impact the future development of health, data centres, logistics, commercial offices and all the other things we need to deliver growth in our country.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We have some concerns, which are reflected in the amendments I have tabled. As we just heard, countries approach this issue in different ways. Broadly speaking, it sounds like one of the reasons why Ireland did not see an impact on the market was that what was implemented was the end of upward-only rent reviews almost in name only; there were still many other mechanisms that achieved the same outcome, even if that specific one ceased to exist.
Our concern is that we risk creating a number of complex structures for rental agreements that in practice have the same consequence, but without the benefit of upward-only rent reviews, which is that landlords’ certainty about their position in turn encourages investment in our high streets, the availability of the units we want to see, and those units not being turned into residences or repurposed for things other than business. The loss of upward-only rent reviews as part of the toolkit of available options undermines the confidence to invest in our high streets, and in turn undermines the objective, which we all share, of ensuring that they remain vibrant and successful. That is the purpose of the amendments, which I am sure we will come on to in due course. The Minister may have something to say about that, but that is the Opposition’s clear position.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South for his thoughtful contribution. He is well versed, and has both reached out to business in his constituency and advocated his case persuasively.
We are very mindful of unintended consequences. We are also very mindful of designing this system in a way that strikes the balance between the investment that we absolutely want to unlock on our high streets and in our local communities, and the protections that we want to provide for tenants and to ensure that our high streets continue to thrive. I will take away my hon. Friend’s thoughts and challenges, and reflect on them as we go into the details of how we design this system in the best possible way.
I know that we will go into Opposition amendments in greater detail. However, the key point I want to emphasise at the start of this debate is that this is not a new debate and this issue is not a new one. We have known that we need to do something about this issue for well over a decade now. Huge amounts of work have gone into considering how we reform the system and there have been huge amounts of consultation over the years. So, we are very clear that something must be done, because the status quo is not fair and is not working for tenants, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises on our high streets.
We need to respond and to reform, but we will make sure that we do so in a way that strikes the right balance between the protections that we must provide for tenants and the investment that we obviously want to see in our commercial premises.
Amendment 375 agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 31
BUSINESS TENANCIES: PROHIBITED TERMS RELATING TO RENT
Amendments made: 376, in schedule 31, page 322, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 323 and insert—
“Part 1
Key terms
“Business tenancy”
1 (1) A tenancy is a “business tenancy” at a particular time if, at that time, Part 2 of this Act—
(a) applies to the tenancy, or
(b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy.
(2) For that purpose, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the tenancy at a particular time if, at that time—
(a) Part 2 cannot apply to the tenancy because—
(i) none of the property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant, or
(ii) property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes,
(b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the “permitted business use terms”) which would permit the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and
(c) if the tenant were to occupy the premises in accordance with the permitted business use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b), terms of the tenancy which—
(a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying the premises for some purposes, but
(b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying the premises for other purposes,
are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes which are not prohibited.
(4) Sub-paragraph (2) must be construed as one with section 23(1).
“Business tenancy with a rent review”
2 (1) A tenancy is a “business tenancy with a rent review” at a particular time if, at that time—
(a) it is a business tenancy, and
(b) it is subject to rent review terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not).
(2) In this Schedule “rent review terms” means terms under which an amount of rent payable under the tenancy will or may change during the terms of the tenancy (“rent under review”).
Part 2
Triggering and operation of rent reviews
Application of this Part
3 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy at a particular time if, at that time, it is a business tenancy with a rent review.
(2) But this Part applies to such a tenancy only if—
(a) the tenancy is—
(i) granted, or
(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms,
after this Schedule comes into force, and
(b) the grant or variation is not made under a contract entered into before this Schedule comes into force.
Tenant to have power to trigger a rent review
4 (1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) an action is necessary for a particular rent review to be initiated (a “trigger action”), and
(b) the rent review terms, or any other terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not), do not allow the tenant to take the trigger action.
(2) The tenant may initiate the particular rent review by giving the landlord notice in writing.
(3) Notice under sub-paragraph (2) may not be given after the time when trigger action may be taken.
Tenant to have power to take action to enable rent review to operate effectively
5 (1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) an action is necessary for a particular rent review to operate effectively (an “operational action”), and
(b) the rent review terms, or any other terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not), do not allow the tenant to take the operational action.
(2) The tenant may take the operational action.
(3) If the tenant takes the operational action, the tenant must give the landlord notice in writing of the action within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the action was taken.
Part 3
Rent review terms that are of no effect
Application of this Part
5A (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy at a particular time if, at that time—
(a) it is a business tenancy with a rent review, and
(b) the rent review terms—
(i) do not specify new passing rent, and
(ii) include elements 1 and 2.
(2) But this Part applies to such a tenancy only if—
(a) the tenancy is—
(i) granted, or
(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,
after this Schedule comes into force, and
(b) the grant or variation is not made under a contract entered into before this Schedule comes into force.
Rent review terms that “do not specify new passing rent”
5B Rent review terms “do not specify new passing rent” if they are such that an amount of rent under review that will be payable at a time during the term of the tenancy (the “new passing rent”)—
(a) is not known, and
(b) cannot be determined,
at the time when the tenancy is granted or varied so that it includes the terms.
Elements 1 and 2
5C (1) This paragraph sets out elements 1 and 2.”
This would provide for various definitions; for application of provisions to tenancies that are varied; and for the provision about the triggering and operation of rent reviews to apply to any business tenancy with a rent review (regardless of the particular terms of the rent review).
Amendment 377, in schedule 31, page 323, line 38, leave out “relevant”.
This is consequential on Amendment 376.
Amendment 378, in schedule 31, page 324, line 3, leave out “relevant”.
Amendment 379, in schedule 31, page 324, line 13, leave out “relevant”.
This is consequential on Amendment 376.
Amendment 380, in schedule 31, page 324, line 19, leave out “relevant”.
This is consequential on Amendment 376.
Amendment 381, in schedule 31, page 324, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 325.
This is consequential on Amendment 376, by which the new paragraphs 4 and 5 would replace the existing paragraphs 8 and 9.
Amendment 382, in schedule 31, page 325, line 19, at end insert—
“Part 4
Sub-tenancy required to include rent review terms that would be of no effect
Application of this Part
7A (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy (the “superior tenancy”) at a particular time if, at that time—
(a) the superior tenancy is a business tenancy,
(b) the superior tenancy requires or permits the grant of a sub-tenancy (the “authorised sub-tenancy”),
(c) the authorised sub-tenancy would, at the time of its grant, be a business tenancy with a rent review, and
(d) either—
(i) the superior tenancy requires the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms, and that requirement can only be complied with by the inclusion of rent review terms which (on one or more particular rent reviews) would produce, or would be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3), or
(ii) the superior tenancy permits the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms, but rent review terms can only be within that permission if (on one or more particular rent reviews) they would produce, or would be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3).
(2) But this Part applies to the superior tenancy only—
(a) if the superior tenancy was—
(i) granted, or
(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,
before this Schedule comes into force, or
(b) if the superior tenancy is—
(i) granted, or
(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,
after this Schedule comes into force and the grant or variation is made under a contract entered into before then.
Modification of terms of superior tenancy
7B (1) The superior tenancy has effect after this Schedule comes into force as if it requires, or as the case may be permits, the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms of any kind which (on each particular rent review) would not produce, and would not be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3).
(2) The actual rent review terms that are to be included in a particular authorised sub-tenancy are to be—
(a) agreed by the persons who are to be the landlord and tenant under that sub-tenancy, or
(b) determined in such other manner as they may agree.
(3) Accordingly, the landlord under the superior tenancy may not require the inclusion of particular rent review terms in the authorised sub-tenancy (unless that is what is agreed by the persons who are to be the landlord and tenant under the sub-tenancy).
(4) This paragraph does not prevent a superior tenancy from being varied or modified by the parties to it (and accordingly sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are subject to any such variation or modification).
Interpretation
7C (1) The following provision applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) The superior tenancy permits the grant of a sub-tenancy, or the inclusion of particular rent review terms in a sub-tenancy, if granting the sub-tenancy, or including those terms, would not breach the terms of the superior tenancy.
(3) References to the superior tenancy, and references to the terms of the superior tenancy, include references to—
(a) the terms of any agreement relating to the superior tenancy, and
(b) any document or communication from a party to the superior tenancy which gives or refuses consent for the grant of a category or description of sub-tenancy.
(4) “Superior tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 7A(1).
(5) “Sub-tenancy” means a tenancy that is inferior to the superior tenancy (whether or not it is immediately inferior to that tenancy).
(6) The “result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3)” means the result that the new passing rent is larger than the reference amount.
Part 5
General provision”
This would apply to pre-commencement tenancies that require any sub-tenancy to include terms that would be of no effect by virtue of paragraph 6(3) (as they could result in the new passing rent being larger than the reference amount). It would enable a sub-tenancy to be granted without including such terms.
Amendment 383, in schedule 31, page 325, line 24, leave out “new passing”.
This is consequential on Amendment 382.
Amendment 384, in schedule 31, page 325, line 27, leave out “, in relation to a tenancy” and insert—
““business tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 1;
“business tenancy with a rent review” has the meaning given in paragraph 2.
(2) In this Schedule, in relation to a business tenancy with a rent review—
“elements 1 and 2” means element 1 and element 2 set out in paragraph 5C;”.
This is consequential on Amendment 376.
Amendment 385, in schedule 31, page 325, line 33, leave out “4(2)(b)” and insert “5B”.
This is consequential on Amendment 376.
Amendment 386, in schedule 31, page 325, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 326 and insert—
““rent review terms” has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2);
“rent under review” has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2).
(3) A reference in this Schedule to rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent has the meaning given in paragraph 5B.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This is consequential on Amendment 376.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 387, in schedule 31, page 326, line 4, leave out “Put options:” and insert—
“Arrangements for renewal of tenancies:”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 388, 390, 389, and 392 to 404.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This group of amendments expands the scope of schedule 7B so that arrangements such as options and rights of first refusal are also within the scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type may allow the tenant to enter into a new lease on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used to avoid the ban’s effect. As a result, we cannot permit new leases such as those to be excluded from scope, as this would likely encourage gaming of the system and prevent businesses from being protected in the way that the Bill intends.
Government amendment 389 makes a minor change to clarify that the application of schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances, therefore allowing for arrangements to move in and out of scope. By doing so, this amendment ensures that different types of arrangements, such as options and rights of first refusal, are caught by the ban if they meet the stated criteria at the relevant point. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I want to make the same point again, but I will not go back and repeat it. We remain very concerned about the loss of freedom of contract that this represents. Clearly, this is consistent with the Government’s direction of travel. The Minister refers to protecting businesses, some businesses will benefit from this and others will lose out, including property investors who are critical to the success of our high streets and commercial sectors. They are facing rapidly rising business rates and increases in national insurance, all of which are hammering our commercial sector and resulting in a very large number of job losses. We see this as part of that picture. We encourage the Minister to think again, reflect and perhaps change direction on this matter.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My summing up will be very short. There is clearly a problem. That problem has been around for decades. Upwards-only rent reviews are an outlier internationally, and it is putting huge pressure on our high street. I absolutely recognise that we have to strike a balance between the investment that we want to see in our local economies and commercial property sector, but we also need to protect tenants. It cannot make sense to have a system whereby rents can only go up, irrespective of what is happening in the market, and cannot go down if the market goes down. That is an illogical system and one that is putting huge pressures on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones. There is a reason why all other advanced countries do not apply this system. Those countries all function well and have vibrant property markets. Critically, there are specifics around individual places and the reforms that they have been through, but the lesson across the piece—whether in Ireland or Australia—is that reforms are possible, and in the end we can still have both a vibrant sector and a property market that is far more rational from the perspective of tenants. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 387 agreed to.
Amendments made: 388, in schedule 31, page 326, leave out line 5 and insert “Application of this Schedule”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 390, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “to an arrangement”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 389, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “if” and insert—
“at a particular time if, at that time,”.
This would make clear that the application of Schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances.
Amendment 391, in schedule 31, page 326, line 9, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
“2 (1) Condition A is met if Part 2 of this Act—
(a) applies to the tenancy, or
(b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy.
(2) In the following paragraphs of this Schedule—
(a) the tenancy to which Part 2 applies, or has the potential to apply, is referred to as the ‘existing tenancy’;
(b) the premises let under the existing tenancy are referred to as the ‘relevant premises’.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the existing tenancy if—
(a) Part 2 cannot apply to the existing tenancy because—
(i) none of the relevant premises are occupied by the tenant, or
(ii) the relevant premises are or include premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes,
(b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the ‘permitted use terms’) which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and
(c) if the tenant were to occupy relevant premises in accordance with the permitted use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy.
(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b), terms of the existing tenancy which—
(a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for some purposes, but
(b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for other purposes,
are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes which are not prohibited.
(5) Sub-paragraph (3) must be construed as one with section 23(1).”
This would replicate the new paragraph 1 of new Schedule 7A that is contained in Amendment 376.
Amendment 392, in schedule 31, page 326, line 17, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 393, in schedule 31, page 326, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 25 and insert—
“a tenancy renewal arrangement.
(2) In this Schedule—
‘new tenancy’ means a new tenancy of the whole or a part of the relevant premises;
‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ means an arrangement under which the tenant under the existing tenancy—
(a) can require the landlord or another person to grant a new tenancy, or
(b) can be required by the landlord or another person to take a new tenancy.”
This expands the scope of new Schedule 7B to cover any arrangement under which the grant of a new tenancy can be required, whether it is the landlord or tenant that can impose the requirement.
Amendment 394, in schedule 31, page 326, line 26, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 395, in schedule 31, page 326, line 27, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 396, in schedule 31, page 326, line 31, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”.
This would ensure the defined term “new tenancy” is used.
Amendment 397, in schedule 31, page 327, line 1, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 398, in schedule 31, page 327, line 3, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 399, in schedule 31, page 327, line 6, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 400, in schedule 31, page 327, line 14, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”.
This would ensure the defined term “existing tenancy” is used.
Amendment 401, in schedule 31, page 328, line 22, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 402, in schedule 31, page 328, line 35, leave out “(2)” and insert “(2)”.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 403, in schedule 31, page 328, leave out line 36.
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Amendment 404, in schedule 31, page 329, line 2, at end insert—
“‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ has the meaning given in paragraph 3(2);”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This is consequential on Amendment 393.
Schedule 31, as amended, agreed to.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Independent review of the adequacy of scrutiny and accountability of combined authorities and proposed strategic authorities—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must appoint an independent panel to review the adequacy of scrutiny and accountability of—
(a) mayoral combined authorities designated under section 106B of LDEDCA 2009,
(b) mayoral combined county authorities designated under section 25A of LURA 2023, and
(c) the Greater London Authority.
(2) The independent panel may request information from existing combined authorities and the Greater London Authority on the operation of their scrutiny and accountability arrangements.
(3) The independent panel must make a report to the Secretary of State on—
(a) the independence and effectiveness of scrutiny arrangements of combined authorities and the Greater London Authority;
(b) best and worst practice in scrutiny and accountability in combined authorities and the Greater London Authority;
(c) lessons for the future development of scrutiny and accountability for those bodies designated as strategic authorities; and
(d) lessons for the future development of strategic authorities under this Act.
(4) A Report under subsection (3) must be made within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would provide for a review on the adequacy of strategic authorities’ scrutiny and accountability arrangements and to report within one year of Royal Assent.
Manuela Perteghella
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The new clause would place a legal duty on mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities to be transparent about how public money is spent. It is a simple but powerful measure designed to build public trust in the devolved government that the Bill creates. The mayor would have a legal duty to ensure that their financial information is not just published, but accessible, clear and understandable to the public. The new clause would also require mayors to publish a policy explaining how their authority will engage with local communities on spending priorities and major financial decisions, and to review the policy regularly. That engagement could include citizens budget forums, public consultations, participatory budgeting sessions or even budget roadshows travelling around the authority area.
Lack of transparency in local finance can erode public trust and allow serious problems to build up unnoticed. In recent years, several councils and combined authorities have faced financial distress or even bankruptcy. Across the country, there is a sense that combined authorities are powerful but distant. They make big spending decisions, yet few people understand how the decisions are made. Transparency is the foundation of public confidence in local leadership. The new clause also aligns with the wider principle of good public finance management by supporting the work of all the committees and local auditors who depend on accessible financial information, while enforcing public sector accountability and ensuring that mayors and chief executives know that they must communicate clearly.
Some may argue that the new clause would place another duty on already busy mayors and combined authorities, but this is not about extra bureaucracy; it is about basic democratic accountability. Frankly, if a mayor’s office can manage hundreds of millions of pounds in its budgets, it can surely manage to explain where the money goes. Devolution should bring power closer to the people, and that must include the power to see, question and understand how public money is being used.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I will speak to my new clause 15, which proposes an independent review of the adequacy of scrutiny and accountability arrangements within six months of commencement. We have had plenty of debate in Committee about scrutiny and accountability of new strategic authorities and the larger new unitary authorities, but new clause 15 is solely about the mayoral combined authorities.
Given the scale of the powers on offer, the Bill is relatively light on scrutiny and consultation requirements. There are duties carried over from existing legislation relating to strategic authorities taking on the functions of, for example, fire and rescue authorities, and to the appointment of commissioners to whom strategic mayors would delegate functions, but quite honestly, only one new measure in the Bill adds to scrutiny over the carried over measures. That is clause 9 and schedule 3, about the termination of the commissioner role and a role for the overview and scrutiny committee to recommend dismissal. In the rest of the Bill, the underpinning of the scrutiny arrangements for these powerful new combined authorities will be derived from local councils, as established by the Local Government Act 2000, but I am yet to be convinced that such an underpinning will provide enough scrutiny and challenge of these powerful new bodies.
Paul Holmes
I want to drill down into the perceived lack of scrutiny of the new combined authorities. The hon. Lady just said that they would essentially follow the current arrangements in local authorities. Is she saying that she is unhappy with the existing level of scrutiny in local authorities, or does she just want the added safety her new clause offers?
Siân Berry
I will cover some of those issues, but yes, I am not completely happy with how many local councils work. Some carry out the bare minimum. I think we need more minimum guarantees built into this new process, and the Bill is the right place to introduce them.
As I said, the current model is basically an expanded local authority model, based on the idea, I think, that a combined authority is a collection of local authorities so the underlying scrutiny arrangements are sufficient. However, that has already been stretched by the more powerful mayors, and it will be stretched further when the new authorities are set up.
The new powers in particular need more scrutiny. For example, public bodies in every area will need to have regard to the growth plan. Growth plan objectives will be decided by the central authority, but how will they be developed and scrutinised? A strategic authority will be the local transport authority for its region, so it will gain a key route network of roads and can instruct the traffic authorities in its area on the management of the network. These are additional powers, so there is a role for additional scrutiny. Local plans and planning decisions will need to conform to the strategic authority’s plan—that is set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—but how the powers are used deserves scrutiny, challenge, questions and accountability. These authorities are also taking on land assembly and housing powers. They can make mayoral development orders, and set up many huge budgets within mayoral development corporations. I do not think the local authority scrutiny model can cover the questions that might need to be asked in those circumstances.
There is a process for giving the new strategic authorities even greater powers in the future, but there is no associated process in the Bill for reviewing the scrutiny arrangements as those powers increase. New clause 15 would require a review of the scrutiny arrangements to match the new powers given to strategic authorities, which they may request as the Government devolve further. A safety net for scrutiny is needed somewhere in the Bill. I am aiming to fix a genuine problem.
Many existing strategic authorities have struggled to establish a truly collaborative approach between the local authorities and the members of the committees that exist to scrutinise those authorities. Quite often, the members feel that they should represent their own local authority and do not necessarily take a collective approach to scrutiny in the committee. I believe that problem will increase, particularly where we establish authorities that may lack a strong collective identity like that Greater London or Greater Manchester, where people automatically feel that they will be standing up for that area. In these new invented areas, we need legislation to ensure that scrutiny will reflect a common identity and collective approach.
This issue is a reflection of quite a lot of existing problems with scrutiny in councils. I will cite some of the conclusions in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s 2017 report. It looked at the effectiveness of local authority scrutiny committees and concluded that scrutiny was marginalised in too many authorities, which could contribute to service failures. The Committee also found evidence that scrutiny committee chairs often did not challenge their leaders, picking instead safe, less controversial topics, and that the fact that the committee chairs are appointed meant that they were more likely to keep quiet and use their role as a way to prepare for a future cabinet position. In the local authority model, the leaders can choose their cabinet, and we have already discussed many times in this Committee how the new mayors will be able to choose their commissioners. I am sure that Members can see how the same dynamic might occur.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I acknowledge the intent behind new clauses 3 and 15. We all agree that transparency, accountability and greater scrutiny are needed, and that there is room for improvement in our system.
On the specifics of new clause 3, all local authorities must publish annual accounts along with an annual governance statement. The local government transparency code 2015 requires local authorities and combined authorities to publish regularly on their websites information about spending and assets, including, as a minimum, all spending over £500, which must be published quarterly, and all land and building assets held.
All mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes described in the English devolution accountability framework. That sets out how mayors will be held to account by central Government, at local level, and by the public. As part of the local assurance framework, mayoral strategic authorities must describe their arrangements for enabling effective and meaningful engagement with local partners and the public. My argument is that we have the legislative framework, and that this is now a question of practice.
Everyone wants information about public spending and Government accounts to be as accessible as possible. It is as much a problem for central Government as it is for local government and lots of bodies and institutions. I would argue it is a question of practice and of improving the way we do things. Through digital technology and the ability to use different methods, we can make this information far more accessible. I do not think we need further legislation. We need to improve our practice and innovate and modernise so the public can better hold all of us to account. That is an endeavour across all levels of government and all public institutions, so the new clauses duplicate existing arrangements and do not really get to the heart of the issue that we all recognise we need to resolve.
I absolutely agree with the intent behind new clause 15. We have stated on the record that we understand the need to strengthen the accountability and the scrutiny mechanism for strategic authorities. We said this in the English devolution White Paper, my colleague said it in the House, and we are committed to that. I assure the Cttee we will consider how to strengthen the scrutiny of strategic authorities, because I completely agree that as they acquire more powers, it is right we have accountability and scrutiny frameworks that are robust and fit for purpose, to ensure they are held to account for how they use the powers we confer on them.
The challenge I have with the new clause from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is that the independent panel she is recommending would mean we have to wait over a year after Royal Assent to respond to this critical issue, because we would not want to pre-empt the recommendations of the panel. In some respects, the very thing that the hon. Lady is trying to force us to do may well end up slowing our ability to do.
Siân Berry
Is the Minister honestly saying that if there was a call from Parliament to review scrutiny within one year of Royal Assent, she would not be telling us that was too soon? The reason one year is written into the new clause is that is a very reasonable deadline.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We acknowledge this is an area we want to strengthen. As I said in the last debate, we are working to make sure that we are taking in view the scrutiny models that we apply, including local public accounts committees and the models proposed by think-tanks and other organisations, in the context of the big reforms to the local audit and assurance framework we are driving through. I ask the Committee to give us time to do the work properly, so that we design something that is fit for purpose and aligned with the big reforms we are driving through. There is no resiling from the belief that we need to strengthen the arrangements. I put that on record and am happy to give those reassurances. Let us get on with the work of figuring out how we do that in the best possible way, by engaging with strategic authorities and critical stakeholders, rather than put in the Bill a requirement that may, in fact, slow the pace at which we are able to develop proposals. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her new clause.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Funding for Local Authority governance reorganisation
“The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.”—(Vikki Slade.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 requests funding for local authority governance reorganisation in situations where the Government are dictating that local authorities should change their governance model from a committee system to a cabinet system. I am sure that Members are tired of hearing my colleagues and me talk about the problems of funding in local government.
Funding is the fundamental challenge of local government, and I recognise that the Bill is trying to improve that by simplifying the system, but I put on record our absolute opposition to the requirement that all councils must be run on a leader and cabinet model. There is no evidence that local councils such as Sutton and Three Rivers are doing a bad job. There is no fundamental reason why they cannot carry on doing their job in the way that they are doing it, just as there is no requirement for our mayoral models to all be the same. We have already heard that the mayoralty of London is run differently from the Greater Manchester model, and that the upcoming strategic authorities will also be run differently. We are not creating a one-size-fits-all model, so why is there a need to control the committee system? It is seen to be fundamentally not working, but there is no evidence that that is the case.
We are also interested to know whether the Minister has looked into the issue—I believe she agreed to do so last week—of legacy committee systems such as those in Sheffield and Bristol, where a referendum has taken place to specifically choose that model. How will the Bill affect the decision making of people who have actively chosen that model?
The new clause relates to the situation where the Minister is going to prescribe the leader and cabinet model, yet those organisations do not have the funding to make the changes that they need to make for something that they have not selected to do and when they are not otherwise undergoing local government reorganisation. If local governments have no choice in how they administer themselves, and they are going to be required to amend to a new Government standard, it does not seem reasonable that they should shoulder the costs of a change that they have not asked for.
Some councils might also have been left off the devolution priority programme— Sutton and Richmond are not going to be involved in that—so they will not be getting the £1 million funding for capacity building that the Government promised to every local authority going through that devolution. The new clause makes a very simple request: for those areas to be funded.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We absolutely recognise the funding pressures that local government is under, and we have been clear and transparent about them. They are a function, obviously, of the legacy that we inherited and that we are working incredibly hard to rectify. The long-established new burdens doctrine sets out that all new burdens on local authorities must be properly assessed by the relevant Department. That includes the overall cost to local government, including any one-off implementation or transition costs.
Suffice to say, but to reassure the hon. Member, my Department is working in the usual way to assess the cost to local government of any mandated changes to local governance models. We will go through the standard process to take a judgment on that. The principle that local authorities should be adequately compensated if there are new requirements or burdens on them runs through what we will do. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member will withdraw her new clause.
Vikki Slade
On the basis that we now have it on record that new burdens funding has the potential to apply in this case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act
“(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.
(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.”—(Vikki Slade.)
This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 43—Duty to provide professional planning support—
“(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to provide appropriate professional planning support to town and parish councils in accordance with this section.
(2) Support provided under subsection (1) is for the purposes of enabling a town or parish council to—
(a) involve communities within the authority area with development of a neighbourhood plan, and
(b) engage communities with the content and delivery of the plan following its development.
(3) For the purposes of this section ‘communities’ means—
(a) any person or group of persons who live in the town or parish council area;
(b) any group who in the opinion of the town or parish council can reasonably demonstrate a connection to the area.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to provide professional planning support to town and parish councils for the purposes of developing, and involving communities in, neighbourhood plans.
Vikki Slade
New clause 5 is designed to ensure that local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of the legislation, with specific regard to preventing any further delays in future local elections. New clause 43 is about the duty to provide professional planning support for neighbourhood plans in areas that do not yet have them or where they are due for re-establishment.
We are desperately concerned about local elections being delayed. In fact, one of my colleagues asked about that in Prime Minister’s questions last week and did not get a direct answer. There remains a real concern that the whole process has the potential to create more delays. As we say, an election delayed is democracy denied, so it is hugely important.
Paul Holmes
I hope that the hon. Lady will take a reasonable and responsible tone on this new clause. Will she tell her colleagues around the country, including those from Hampshire, to stop standing outside Parliament for mock photographs saying that the Conservatives want local elections delayed? Will she take my word and the shadow Minister’s word that, as I said last week and he will no doubt say this afternoon, the Conservatives are not calling for the delay of local elections? Will she stop putting out misleading leaflets across the country saying that we are?
Vikki Slade
I would like to thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I am not sure I should—I did not expect that coming from the Opposition Benches. I am glad that the Conservatives do not want to see elections delayed either. I hope that the Government will not delay any further elections, particularly in places that experienced a delay this year. The purpose of this new clause is to guarantee that elections are not delayed because councils are overstretched and under-resourced while trying to do neighbourhood plans at the same time. We do not believe that elections should be postponed because the Government have not given councils the means to do their job.
On new clause 43, I am sure that every member of this Committee has heard from their town and parish councils—because they have not yet been mentioned this afternoon—and from communities that do not have town or parish councils yet but may wish to, that the ability to fund a neighbourhood plan relies heavily on grant money. One of the first neighbourhood plans was set up in my constituency—in fact, in my ward of Broadstone—where we set up a neighbourhood forum that allowed us to create a neighbourhood plan. I believe there was £10,000. We would not have been able to secure a neighbourhood plan in any other way because we did not have a town council at the time, although we will have one by next year.
Without a town council, where does the money come from to do that? Even with a town or parish council, £10,000 would be a significant proportion of a precept, particularly for some of the small councils. It does not seem like a very fair thing to do to local authorities.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Lady; we can now resume our laughs together. We entirely agree with her on this issue. Will she comment on our debates during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill where it was clear that the Government were resisting allocating funding for drawing up neighbourhood plans? Does she agree that the protections of many of our rural village communities that are adequately and perfectly served by their parish councils will be reduced just because they want to put forward a sustainable plan about how they build in their area, meaning that fewer houses will be delivered in the long run if this funding is not reinstated?
Vikki Slade
There is a village in my constituency called Shapwick, which, for some reason I cannot quite understand, did not take the opportunity to do a neighbourhood plan a couple of years ago, and now has lost that opportunity. It is surrounded by green fields. There are four or five sites within this small National Trust village where there are gaps, cottages either having fallen down or burnt down over the years. We could recreate a beautiful chocolate box village that would really boost our local tourism and enable local services such as the nursery and the pub to maintain themselves in the long term by having a slightly increased population.
As Shapwick does not have a neighbourhood plan, however, it is reliant on Dorset council, which, through the Government’s desire to build 1.5 million new homes, is now expected to find 55,000 homes in the county of Dorset—not the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole element, just the Dorset council element. That will ruin small villages with 50 or 60 homes, as they now run the risk of having 300 or 400 homes that will change their nature forever. A neighbourhood plan would allow those villages to go, “Do you know what? We could probably get to 75 or 80 houses and still maintain everything that we love about our village.” That cannot happen now, because there is no capacity with such a small village to raise the funding required to produce a meaningful neighbourhood plan.
New clause 43 simply says that if neighbourhood plan funding is not directly restored, local authorities should be able to provide professional planning support to councils for the purposes of developing their neighbourhood plans. My preference is for the Minister to commit to restoring the independent funding, so that our town and parish councils and communities do not have to go to the local authority, but failing that, our only option is to push this approach and say, “If we can’t have our money back directly, let’s do it through this method.”
David Simmonds
I will try to deal with the two main issues raised by the new clauses, in reverse order.
We all recognise that last year’s Budget was a disaster for local government. The rise in national insurance alone was a £1.5 billion net cut, but the loss of funding to support neighbourhood plans, although small in the grand scheme of things, was one of the most challenging elements. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, it is at that neighbourhood level—in the locality—that the buy-in of our constituents for new homes is often first secured.
The inability to support that work any longer is particularly challenging for very small local authorities. Although they do not employ many people, so they were not as hit by the national insurance rise as the big local authorities that do social care, the town and parish councils that support those neighbourhood plans—and the district councils that support such work in the local areas—have been particularly hit by the loss of funding. Ensuring that funding is there to deliver the vision that we set out when we were in government for neighbourhood planning is really important.
New clause 5 is about the ability to deliver local elections. The Government are in a bit of a mess on this issue: the messaging on devolution is that there is no point in having elections to councils that are about to be abolished, which I think we would all agree with, but the legislation simply defers the elections for one year. That is what the laws that we have passed actually do, so as far as the law stands, all the councils set to be abolished are due to have elections on their current footprint next year unless the Government return with further legislation to cancel elections under different provisions or to defer them again. The risk highlighted by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole remains a live one.
Multiple Ministers and two different Secretaries of State have assured us at the Dispatch Box that there will be elections, but without giving any specific commitments. In many places, in the normal cycle of events, there will be district elections. If the new mayoral authorities come into being, there may be mayoral elections. If there are not, under the current legislation, those existing counties will go to the polls next year. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide a clear assurance that the existing provisions that guarantee an additional separate grant to fund elections to take place will continue to apply, as has been established practice for a long time.
Will the Minister also tell us—or at least give us a steer—whether the Government intend to introduce further legislation to defer elections again, so they will not take place as scheduled next May in councils that are set to be abolished, or do the Government have a different intention? That may well affect how we vote on these new clauses; we oppose the deferral, delay or cancellation of elections, but we need to know the Government’s intentions so that we understand what we are voting for or against.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me address the question directly, and then I will turn to new clause 5, on the cost of local elections, and new clause 43, on support for neighbourhood planning.
We like elections, and we think it is absolutely right that voters have the opportunity to exercise their democratic mandate. We have therefore proceeded with elections. It is important to clarify that we opted to delay them where there were specific requests from the local authorities involved, because they were going through the process not only of local government reorganisation but of creating mayoral strategic authorities. The concern was that the capacity, resource and transitional arrangements would be jeopardised by early elections. All reasonable Members will understand that it is right that the Government listen to constituent authorities that are going through what we all acknowledge is a difficult reform and transition process, and that we get that balance right.
Our principle will always remain that we want elections to go ahead, because it is critical that voters have the chance to exercise their democratic rights. We are balancing that with being fair minded, rational and reasonable. When constituent authorities, including authorities of both parties, tell us that there is a genuine transitional and delivery risk that we need to take into account, we are sensible and reasonable, and take that into account. That is the balance that we will continue to hold to.
David Simmonds
On a point of clarification, when the process of reorganisation was embarked on, local authorities were told quite clearly, in accordance with long-established practice, “If you are due to have elections but we are going to abolish your council as a result of this process, we will not hold elections to that council again, because it is not going to exist.” However, the legislation introduced to Parliament simply delayed the elections for 12 months. All those authorities, including Surrey, which was today announced as the pathfinder, are, as a matter of law, expecting to have elections next May, but on the undertaking of Government they are not expecting to have any further elections to the existing authority again. Are the elections to the county councils that are about to be abolished going to proceed next year, or are the Government going to introduce legislation to delay them again?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I think I have been very clear. The legislation is very clear, and Members of the House were all involved in agreeing it. We are proceeding with elections. The principle that has guided what we have done is that the preference is always to have elections, but if there is a reasonable, justified case that there is a risk to delivering our reforms, or that the risk to the transitional arrangements is a genuine, material consideration for those authorities, it is right, rational and sensible for the Government to listen to them.
The legislation is that legislation that we have. We are proceeding with elections, and certainly the Labour party is gearing up to speak to its voters and ensure they come out—no doubt parties across the piece are doing that. That is the mode in which most of local government is operating, and certainly we on the Government Benches are.
The cost of local elections is met locally. Again, I refer Members to the new burdens doctrine, which requires that any new responsibilities are assessed. That is how we will approach elections, which are locally funded. Broadly, we are not hearing about issues with constituent authorities that are undergoing this process at the moment, but we will continue to review the new burdens doctrine to ensure that critical elections are held with no detriment to the voters in those particular areas.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
What does the Minister say to parishes such as my own, Hertford Heath, that do not have any more funding to support the delivery of their neighbourhood plan? They are all run by volunteers, they do not have very many houses to collect a precept from and they do not have very many staff. What does she say about that environment? They are trying to be proactive with a plan and choose where they want development, so that they are not at the mercy of developers who want to build all over the green fields. What does she say to parishes that are working really hard to do the right thing by the Government and by their local community, without any funding to go with that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Both the last Government and this Government have invested huge amounts in building the infrastructure. In the end, Governments have to make a judgment about where we put our funding and finances. We know that is difficult for particular communities, but we think there is sufficient infrastructure and sufficient people with expertise in neighbourhood planning. We will continue to work with them on how they innovate to provide a service for particular parishes.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is forcing me to labour the point that, because of the absolute mess that the Conservatives left us with after years of austerity, we are having to make tough judgments about what we can fund and invest in. It is not where we want to be, but that is the reality we have to confront. We had to make choices in the spending review; we are investing more in affordable housing, and in supporting our communities with homelessness. We think that those choices were right, and ultimately we had to make a judgment about prioritisation. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that it can innovate and continue supporting neighbourhoods.
Paul Holmes
Will the Minister give way on that point, as she referred to me?
Vikki Slade
I will withdraw new clause 5 as I think the Minister has made a fair comment about the way in which elections will go. However, I cannot accept her point about the capacity of planning consultants for communities that do not have a neighbourhood plan, and there are many.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Lady makes a point about the importance of neighbourhood plans, and I have had parish councils contact me about this. As the Minister just said, it is about priorities. If the Liberal Democrats are serious about the Government funding local councils to continue with neighbourhood plans, should they not also put forward how that will be paid for, given that they have opposed all the tax measures that this Government have introduced in the last year?
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Gentleman for another fabulous contribution. I thought he was going to criticise my love of town and parish councils for a moment, but he did not. I have made it clear that I would rather see the Government bring this funding back, but the new clause would introduce a duty to provide professional planning support, because we recognise the chances of it not coming back.
Paul Holmes
Before the Minister uncharacteristically turned her guns on me, after remaining largely silent on the Committee this afternoon, I was about to say this. I believe that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole has tabled new clause 43 not because of the funding that has been cut—even though I remember being a lead member during the previous Labour Government, when we experienced cuts—but because there are more town and parish councils being created through this reorganisation. Those new parish and town councils, which will have councillors who are unpaid volunteers, will have no infrastructure at all. The Government seek to expand and create town councils, but have taken away training and the ability to conduct their functions. What the Minister has outlined is not accurate, is it?
Vikki Slade
I completely agree with my hon. Friend—we have worked so hard together on this. I understand the situation with the finances, which is why new clause 43 is designed to impose a duty on local authorities to provide support to smaller organisations, some of which are brand new and will not exist until everyone is on this rush to provide them. I would like to press new clause 43 to a vote later, but on new clause 5, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Councillors: proportional representation vote system
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors.
(2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 would allow the Secretary of State, given parliamentary approval, to introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors, not just mayors and police and crime commissioners. Under first past the post, as the Committee will know all too well, local people are left feeling that it makes no difference who they vote for in local elections. We mentioned this earlier with mayors, but councillors too can be elected on a minority of the overall voting public. We should be able to feel that going to the polling station and casting a vote matters, and that we get to contribute to who makes key decisions about the management of our families’ social care, our children’s schools or keeping our streets clean. That is what the majority of people really care about. We have already discussed how first past the post does not allow for that, and was disastrous when introduced for mayoral elections.
Those of us who have been councillors know that too many local people have been left feeling frustrated and not properly represented by the people elected in their areas. As the Government want to see a fairer voting system for mayors and police and crime commissioners, why not go a step further and introduce a proportional representation voting system for all councillors? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that. If elected councillors are supposed to be elected representatives, we must make it so that they are elected in a representative way. I hope that the Minister can accept the new clause, because I cannot see why we are treating mayors and police and crime commissioners in one way, while forgetting local councillors in changes to the electoral system. If she cannot, we will press it to a vote.
Siân Berry
I very much support the new clause, and put my name to it to demonstrate that. I want to say a few words about why the new clause is so appropriate for the Bill. It would allow the Secretary of State by regulations to introduce proportional representation voting for local authority councillors. Importantly, the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that Parliament would get its say.
This measure has precedent. As we will all recall, the electoral system for mayors was changed from the supplementary vote to first past the post via an amendment tabled by the then Government during Committee stage of the Elections Act 2022—it was not part of the Bill on Second Reading, and there was no wider consultation. There is obviously no recent precedent for changing the local government system for England, but the Scottish Government—at the time a Labour Government in coalition with the Liberal Democrats—changed the local elections to the single transferable vote through the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004. The Welsh Government, at the time a Labour minority Government, legislated to give councils the option of switching to the single transferable vote in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021.
Under the new clause, the Secretary of State might decide to go for different degrees of change, after talking to people about what might be more appropriate. The alternative vote and the supplementary vote are very similar; they are both preferential systems that are very suited to single member positions. I think that that is why the Government have chosen to return to the supplementary vote for mayors. I would argue that the alternative vote is better, gives voters more choices and guarantees a majority through a process of consensus, but that is one of the options. My favourite is the single transferable vote—I am waiting for the interventions—because it is a bigger change.
However, for local government, because the single transferable vote is so suitable for multi-member constituencies, and because it is so simple for voters—people just choose their favourites, and the voting system works out the right consensus and the members who have the broadest support—it is an excellent system and ought to be considered. It may be very suitable for the larger unitaries, where more members per ward could be put together to make it work in a proportional fashion. However, the new clause would not mandate any of that; it would be for the Secretary of State to decide.
In January, in a debate in the House on proportional representation for general elections, I said this about the Bill:
“We have an opportunity, presented by imminent local government reorganisation—the creation of combined authorities and potentially very large councils—to shift to a more proportional system, potentially using multi-member wards and the single transferable vote. That is the system used in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. It is incredibly simple for voters to cast their preferences. The election counts are extremely exciting…It delivers candidates based on consensus, not division…it delivers for many people”.
The real benefit—this has obvious benefits for Northern Ireland—is that it delivers
“not only hardworking representatives in the administration but people whose job it is to listen and represent them from opposition parties.”
For larger councils, that could really help, as I said in that debate, with
“the potential remoteness of the uber councils that are being talked about.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 469-470.]
If there are multi-member wards, ward councillors whose roles in the combined authorities pull them out of local areas could leave local responsibilities to their colleagues. Having a range of people represented at the local ward level would be so beneficial and I believe that needs looking at. We need to urgently consider that change for local government.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I was going to resist the temptation to have another say on voting systems in local government, but I saw this new clause and could not resist it. Smoke would otherwise come out of my ears at how ridiculous a suggestion this is. I will outline briefly why, and I will declare an interest—I am against it, and I have made that clear throughout the Bill Committee.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, speaking for her party as she has done throughout this Committee, very ably suggested, promoted and proposed this new clause. I agree with the hon. Lady that many people in my constituency, the half of my constituency in Eastleigh, do not think they are properly represented in local government. However that is not because of proportional representation. It is because of the dire decisions of the Liberal Democrat administration of Eastleigh borough council. I agree with her about my constituents in the Eastleigh side of the constituency, who just do not feel properly represented.
Vikki Slade
Would the hon. Member like to consider why it is that the Eastleigh side of his constituency keeps on voting Liberal Democrats in year after year, to make it almost a one-party state?
Paul Holmes
In part, because the Liberal Democrats put out six leaflets a year that do not tell the truth about what is actually going on, and make a mockery between the relationship between truth and non-truth. The residents of Eastleigh get those six times a year. Unfortunately the hon. Lady will know that because the Liberal Democrats are so electorally successful in Eastleigh, the association of my local party, though we do our best, are like ducks with little feet under the water trying to compete. However I guarantee to her that when local government reorganisation comes, the reign of Keith House, who is one of the longest serving local government leaders in the country—he has been in power longer than Kim Jong-Un, although I do not argue he goes to the same extremes—will come to an end, and I say thank God for that.
On proportional representation—
Paul Holmes
Dame Siobhan, the answer to that is no and if you Google it you will see the relationship. I have a lot of respect for Councillor House. We just have very big political disagreements on the way in which he runs the council.
When I saw this proposal, I was not surprised when I saw those who had proposed and seconded the new clause. It would be a disastrous action for local government. We can use the arguments about why we should not have proportional representation at a national, general election level in the same way for local government, and particularly for councils. Councils are essentially mini Houses of Commons and mini democratic forums. It is vital that there is a link between a councillor, their ward and their voter. In local government, that is even more important because of the smaller geographical—
Vikki Slade
Can the hon. Member—not my hon. Friend anymore—explain to me why there is not a link? Proportional representation does not remove the link. It just allows people to have a proportional way of voting for somebody. We are not removing the link to a ward, division or constituency.
Paul Holmes
The Liberal Democrats and Greens want to bring in a vast array of different voting systems, in different stages of elections, but residents locally expect to have one vote, one system, to elect three, two or one councillors in a ward—one member, two member, three member ward—in a constituency in a small geographical region, so that they know the people they are electing. Those councillors across the whole of the country, Liberal, Green, Labour, Conservative, are local champions. They have a very small and bespoke role among their electorate.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked why people keep electing Liberals in Eastleigh, and I will be honest with her. In the 2021 local elections, the Liberal Democrats secured 42% of the vote in my Eastleigh borough, and the Conservatives polled 36%. We won one ward in my council, and the Liberal Democrats won 36. The hon. Lady might think I am a bit nuts, but I think that system is right. Everyone knows who they are voting for in their ward, and there are two or three candidates per party. They are electing a councillor who will then make an administration with a leader and a cabinet. My party went without, and I think it is unfair most of the time, but that is the system I back because it is the easiest, clearest and most accountable to the people who we serve.
I will make one last point and then I will let the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole intervene, if she wishes. I promise I am not being facetious, but I am having genuine difficulty understanding the speech made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. It may be my naivety; if she wants to explain it, I am perfectly accepting of that. In previous debates in this Committee, the hon. Lady said that the larger councils proposed by the Government would often mean that the link between a ward councillor and their constituents or ward would be diminished, because of the larger geographical area. If I am not wrong, in her speech on this new clause, she essentially said that would not be the case, as there would now be a diminishing of the link between that geography and the councillor under this voting system. I am not sure whether the two are mutually exclusive.
Siân Berry
There is confusion because I have argued that larger councils could lead to greater remoteness, certainly because the town hall may be many miles away. However, people will still be electing ward councillors, and my argument is simply that, should a person’s local ward councillors be part of the administration, they may see them very rarely. In those circumstances, it might be beneficial to have a range of local councillors from different parties, potentially with an increased number per ward, so that they represent more different points of view and can listen to constituents in different ways.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady explains perfectly; I disagree with her. We absolutely agree on the geographical link for super-councils—I have already said that I do not believe that the Government have a democratic mandate for those. However, the answer to larger councils is not changing to a voting system where we create more councillors, or saying, “Because we want to move to a different system, we will go from a three-member ward to a six-member ward with multiple parties.” I think that actually complicates the situation for many constituents and residents.
Siân Berry
May I add that this is a really interesting debate and one that we should continue to have under my new clause? To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, Conservative Members have argued repeatedly that there will be a loss of representation from the abolition of the lower-tier councils. Does he not agree that this a way to mitigate that?
Paul Holmes
No, I do not; we should keep the current system in place. I believe that, even though we are essentially going from three to two tiers, we are not actually going to one tier in this country, because mayors are being created as well. There is a direct link between the mayor and the local people, and there is a direct link between these new councils and local people. Again, I do not think the answer to simplifying the electoral system and making representation easier is to create more councillors from different parties in a ward. That is expensive and lacks democratic legitimacy, and I think the current system is perfectly acceptable. We are always going to be on the losing side on this one. Smaller parties often want to change the system to ensure that their parties have more victories and more legitimacy in democratic chambers. The Conservative party has a long and proud history of opposing proportional representation.
I remind the Liberal Democrats that they have tried and tested a change in the electoral system, and when they went to the country seeking it, they lost. Therefore, people have been asked whether they want to change the voting system in a national election. I think that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole would find that if there were referendums—we know that the Government are against referendums in the Bill—many people across this country would choose not to change the voting system in local government too. The current local government electoral system works, and it suits its purpose. People know who their councillors are; they are linked to them and know that they often represent an area that they deeply care for and are passionate about—even Liberal Democrat ones in Eastleigh. We oppose the new clause, and will vote against it if it is pressed to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for the lengthy and robust debate on this issue. We all recognise that there is a need to continue evolving, improving and strengthening our democracy, but we do not believe that the new clause and the electoral reform proposal are the right answer. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local councils in England. We believe that first past the post is a clear way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters, and, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, provides a direct link and relationship between the member of the legislature or council and the local constituency. That model works well where we have collective decision making and collective systems of governance—that is quite distinct.
We had a debate on the changes that we are proposing for mayors and police and crime commissioners—the supplementary vote system—where there is a single executive position. We think that strengthening the democratic link in that way is appropriate and right in that context. We think that through the Bill we will have the right mechanism for the right type of representation, as presented through the mayor and the police and crime commissioner on the one hand, and councillors and MPs, which operate within a collective governance model through Parliament or councils. I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the new clause—I am not sure that she will, but I will put the request.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not withdraw the new clause. I wish to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief. A large part of our discussion in Committee has focused on structures and the people who are going to be served but, as with the amendment 336, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, the new clause focuses on the needs of councillors, who will fundamentally make or break strategic authorities in rising to the challenge of being a councillor. As we know, it can be a difficult job and, depending on where in the council they are asked to serve, can involve an awful lot of information and require new skills to be learned.
Mike Reader
May I tell the Committee a story? There is good merit in making sure that councillors are trained, but they can be trained and still not listen. A Reform councillor in Northamptonshire chose to join a training session, forgot to turn off his camera and got into the bath naked. If we are to mandate training, we are going to have to teach councillors how to turn their cameras on and off.
Vikki Slade
I welcome that intervention. During covid, a lovely, very elderly Conservative lady on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council decided to take her laptop into the toilet with her. I think we all have such stories to tell. There are huge merits in online training and training in person.
We talked previously about audit training. There is compulsory training for our quasi-legal systems, including licensing and planning, but what about scrutiny, audit and even, “How on earth does a council work? How do I behave? What is the code of conduct?” Training on all those things is not currently required. It is not unreasonable to ask that when somebody takes on a responsibility—particularly when they receive an allowance so to do—they understand what is required of them. There should be a minimum training standard, across the board, but that is currently absent. Training is very variable from place to place.
My simple request is for the Government to agree to the new clause and produce guidance that allows local authorities to look at the relevant content.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will be brief because the Committee has discussed this question before. We absolutely recognise the importance of training, which is why the Government currently fund the sector support programme, which is delivered by the Local Government Association and open to strategic authorities and local authorities. That will continue and we will build on it.
It should be for strategic authorities and local authorities, as independent bodies that we are trying to empower, to decide the form of training for elected members. The Government will do our part to work alongside them and to give the LGA what is required, but we do not think that a one-size-fits-all requirement on strategic authorities to provide training is proportionate. The best way to do that is to build the infrastructure to enable and support training in an effective and sustainable way. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Vikki Slade
It is not a requirement of all local authorities to be a member of the Local Government Association. I speak as a vice-president and former board member of the Local Government Association. The new clause does not dictate what the training should be; it dictates that there should be a requirement for training. On that basis, I would like to push it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Siân Berry
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to move the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is a well-known enthusiast for allotments. I am a keen gardener in a space similar to an allotment, and my colleague Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the House of Lords is also a huge enthusiast. I hope that this issue and this kind of provision will continue to be discussed in the other place, whatever happens in the Commons. The Bill quite rightly puts health and wellbeing at the heart of a lot of the strategic functions of the new authorities. Sadly, however, it neglects the role that access to allotments and green spaces can play in boosting public health. The new clause would rectify that with some specific proposals for allotments.
Across England, demand for allotments is huge. People have really embraced the health and social benefits that they can provide. There is much more awareness of the environmental benefits that they can deliver, supporting pollinators much better than other kinds of managed land. They can be part of green corridors, linking together nature-rich spaces. The demand has led to long waiting lists, while allotments are being taken away. In 1950, there were 1.5 million allotment plots, but we have only around 250,000 today. The biggest losses have been in urban areas, where people need them the most. There are now 108,000 people on waiting lists. For example, in Portsmouth, one in every 25 adults is waiting. That is one person on every bus sitting waiting for an allotment.
At the moment we do not have many legal tools for councils to fix that. There are no reporting requirements on councils and there are no waiting time limits for councils to drive forward ambition on providing allotments, but the Bill provides an opportunity to fix that.
The new clause would create a duty to increase allotment provision and boost public health, to report on allotment and nature-rich provision in areas, and to fund community organisers to widen public access to those resources. It would also require action if allotment provision falls below a certain threshold. The new clause takes inspiration from Scotland—we have not just invented it for England here. Under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the Scottish Government have mandated a 50% or less waiting-list-to-allotment ratio, a maximum wait of five years or less, as well as annual reports. That has not been an insupportable burden on local authorities there; indeed, they have taken it up with some enthusiasm. It would be brilliant to have that in England. It would provide legal direction, but also practical levers for councils and real imperatives for them to act.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
When I was a council cabinet member, I had responsibility for allotments. We are talking about strategic authorities, and the hon. Lady is talking about powers for them. I can see a duty in the new clause; I cannot see how it would help councillors who have responsibility for allotments to improve the situation, and I fear that having a combined authority stick its nose in could create extra bureaucracy and undermine the hon. Lady’s aims.
Siân Berry
Putting this duty on to individual smaller councils might be burdensome, but at a strategic authority level, collecting this information would seem to be really positive. As we have been discussing throughout the Committee, on many issues—land use, planning and support for community right to buy—there are levers for them to act. At a strategic authority level, it would be great to have some co-ordination—people from different councils getting together to find out how each of them is acting on this issue.
Let us not forget our aim here. We are talking about putting this issue within the health duty somewhat, and we know that time spent on allotments and other green spaces will reduce cardiovascular risk, improve mental health and lower people’s stress. We know that in areas where green space provision is better, men live three years longer and women nearly two years. We need to extend those benefits to the 20 million people who currently lack access to green space within a 15-minute walk, and allotments are some of the healthiest and most rewarding green spaces we can provide. The new clause is a path to more nature, more access to that nature, and improved public health.
Manuela Perteghella
Allotments are also about producing our own food, and developing skills in doing so, which is important. They are also social spaces, so they are good for social cohesion. Because of all those benefits, does the hon. Lady agree that at a strategic level, when there is a land use framework and planning, authorities can put in place spaces for allotments?
Siân Berry
Those are all excellent points that I could have made. Allotments cross many different policy areas and areas of benefit. My experience of allotments and community food growing projects of this kind is that they are social, but they are also multicultural—they are about sharing people’s experiences.
Vikki Slade
Allotments also offer an opportunity for intergenerational activity. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Broxbourne would like to spend some time at an allotment, because it does not look like something he would like to do.
Siân Berry
That is a great point—allotments are intergenerational space. They do have an effect on health for no reason; they are beneficial and great. They are a tradition in this country that we are losing. Let us get this action put into the duties on authorities. I urge the Minister to look favourably on how this extension to the proposed health function could be constructively included in what happens in the new strategic authorities.
David Simmonds
It is tempting to make reference to all sorts of detailed points of local government finance that we could bring up in a debate about allotments. However, I purely want to make a point about where this issue sits, which I think other Members have touched upon. The Opposition are big fans of allotments, just as everybody else is, but the local plan is the mechanism by which that should be delivered. We all know—particularly those of us, like myself, who have lots of allotments in our constituencies—that there are often waiting lists for some of the more desirable sites and also huge numbers of vacancies on others.
When allotments on their current scale were introduced in the 1950s, food was one of the biggest costs that households faced. Today, the UK has some of the cheapest food in the world, relative to household budgets. The UK and the US spend the lowest proportion of household expenditure on food in the developed world. Indeed, the proportions have reversed since the 1950s, and housing costs are now the highest factor.
One of the Opposition’s concerns about the purposes of this Bill, and about where the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was going, is that the focus on units and achieving targets will mean losing green spaces, particularly gardens and spaces outside people’s homes. When we pass this legislation, it is through the local plan that we will be able to ensure that we are not using allotments to plug a massive gap that has arisen because of those housing targets, but are instead building the types of homes that people want to live in, particularly those that include outside space. That is why, although we agree with the sentiment behind the new clause, we are not minded to support it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We understand the intention behind this provision on allotments, and we are big fans of allotments and nature-rich spaces. However, I would point out that a duty to provide allotments already exists and sits with local authorities, which is the appropriate level. In addition, the provision of nature-rich spaces is already being tackled through multiple Government initiatives, whether that is the access to nature programme or the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which places a duty on all public authorities operating in England to consider, from time to time, what action they can take to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.
We recognise the need for green spaces and allotments for communities. We think that there is already sufficient provision in legislation, so the new clause is unnecessary. Actually, putting the duty at the strategic authority level is not appropriate; it should be at the local authority level. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the motion.
Siân Berry
I take those points constructively, as they were intended. I hope that this issue can be looked at during future stages in a cross-party manner, so that we can put something together. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets
“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—
(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;
(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and
(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).
(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).
(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siân Berry
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is my pleasure to make the case for new clause 16, which would introduce a climate and nature duty into the Bill. I have been working with a tremendous group of campaigners who, like me, cannot see why the duties are not currently in the Bill. Those campaigners include the Climate Emergency Group, the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition and Friends of the Earth. As I have previously argued, the Bill lacks strong safeguards to ensure that the new authorities embed climate action and nature recovery, and action on deadly air pollution in their work. There is a growth duty, but not yet any equivalent duty for climate mitigation, adaptation or nature recovery.
Subsection (1) of the new clause sets out the different targets that ought to be passed down from national Government to strategic authorities. Subsection (2) would compel local authorities and strategic authorities not to make decisions incompatible with the duties—in other words, not to make things worse. Subsection (3) is a really important part of the new clause and would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance describing the fair contribution that each area must make toward meeting the national targets. That is what we currently lack. There is nothing in the Bill that helps to achieve the national targets through the actions of the strategic authorities that we are creating, and that is an important gap. I am not idly making this point; reaching our national targets requires a contribution from the authorities with these important powers, areas of competence and actions. Leaving out how we will share out the contribution to the national target—leaving it out altogether—just does not wash.
The evidence from the allies I have been working with, and from monitoring of what goes on at council level, shows that every council scoring 20% or below in the climate action scorecards that get produced is in England or Northern Ireland. That is because we have had the duties passed down by the Governments in Wales and Scotland. It is our duty to ensure that this Bill fills the gap.
Precedents exist not only in Scotland and Wales, as I have mentioned, but in London, because this is done effectively under sections 42 to 44 of the Greater London Authority Act 2007. Each of them systematically passes on a duty for the GLA—the Mayor and Assembly combined—to act to address climate change. This has led to more action in London. It has meant that the Mayor has produced results. The legislation mandates the creation of a climate change mitigation and energy strategy. The strategy, the law says, will contain proposals for the contribution to be made in Greater London towards the mitigation of climate change. These are not hard clauses to write. These are not hard things to pass down, and yet these things are missing from the Bill. That is why we have put together new clause 16, which should be adopted. It could be adopted today, and I intend to divide the Committee on this issue.
We have had discussions about these issues before. We talked about clause 2 and the different ways in which air pollution might be included in the legislation governing the new strategic authorities, and the Minister responded in a similar way each time. For example, this was a typical response:
“The principle and the intention are that we are baking our climate and environmental obligations into the way that we are thinking about how we drive the economy.” ––[Official Report, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2025; c. 327.]
It is no good giving these assurances—setting up a baker in a back room behind a curtain—for climate, pollution and nature action, when for so much else, the targets, accountability and duties, is clearly stated in the Bill. As I mentioned before, there is an issue of fairness. Talking to each local area about what contribution each of them will make cannot be done behind closed doors. It requires a transparent process, which the new clause provides for.
The measure has massive and wide support not only from the kinds of campaigners that I associate with on a daily basis, but from more than 100 hundred businesses, which have twice signed open letters in support of such a duty. For them, it would provide the certainty needed to unlock support and drive green investment. The Local Government Association has made it clear that councils require further statutory duties, powers and resources to lead on climate action, while 150 councils responded to a climate consultation, with the vast majority in favour of these duties in England. The District Councils’ Network in its general election prospectus, London Councils, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, and 88% of UK100 members all called for a climate statutory duty.
The Minister also said this in Committee:
“National Government and local government at all levels, along with business and individuals, must continue to make a contribution to tackling climate change and improving the quality of the environment around us.” ––[Official Report, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2025; c. 327.]
Those words need to be reflected in the Bill, and the new clause would do that very effectively. We have the opportunity right now to embed climate, clean air and nature duties for all local authorities and strategic authorities, and to make sure that they hit the ground running for our national environment targets. That would mean no delay for them to take action on clean power, warm homes, clean air and making space for nature. We know very well that there is willingness on the part of local authorities to act, so why would the Labour Government not use the Bill to codify that, and help, inspire and support them in further action?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member, who has consistently talked about the challenge of tackling climate change and the important role that local government has to play in that. We absolutely recognise the imperative of climate change and nature recovery, and the vital role that all levels of government, including our strategic and local authorities, can and must play in that endeavour.
Local authorities already have a statutory duty to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local authorities—for example, the Mayor of London—we have seen huge improvements. That is testimony to the fact that, when all tiers of government work together, we can tackle these big structural issues. My key point is that the existing tools and duties already support the things that the hon. Member is trying to achieve through her new clause. For example, we have talked before in the Committee about the local nature recovery strategies, the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and the Environment Act 2021. All of that requires public authorities to consider, take account and take action to conserve and enhance nature and biodiversity.
On the point about climate adaptation, I recognise that there is both an urgency and an imperative for us to take action, and Local authorities are at the vanguard of wanting to push this already. The Government are working with a number of local authorities that have come forward with climate risk assessments, and that is something we hope and expect to see at authorities across the country. In October we launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts to enable local authorities to do their assessments and think about adaptation strategies. We also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.
That is all to say that this Government recognise the importance of this issue, and we are taking action. Acting and working in collaboration with all tiers of government to respond to the climate change and the nature recovery challenges is the way we do that. Further duties at this stage would not add to that; what we need is action and collaboration, and that is what this Government are cracking on with.
Siân Berry
I hear the Minister’s words, which are very similar to previous words, but I do not believe she has really dealt with the key things this new clause does that others do not: subsection (1) specifies that local authorities and strategic authorities must contribute, and not just consider; subsection (2) requires authorities not to make things worse; and subsection (3), in particular, sets out the importance of defining fair contributions. The mirror of what happens at an international level needs to happen fairly at a local and strategic level in this country. Those points were not answered to my satisfaction, so I must push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
David Simmonds
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The need for this new clause has become greater as the Committee’s consideration of the Bill has continued. The original legislation and amendments from the Government have set out that new mayors will have precepting powers that will apply to non-mayoral functions. That gives rise to a suspicion, particularly in the context of the Government’s frankly dire financial situation, that such powers will be used as a means of levying, through a mayoral precept, additional resources that will be funnelled not into the priorities of local government but—the Government having set out that they see these new authorities as the local delivery agents of central Government—into the priorities of Government.
It is a long-established principle—it has been implemented for a good, long time now—that there should be some degree of constraint, and that consent should be required before a local authority seeks to proceed with a council tax rise above a certain level: 5% is the current figure. It seems to us a reasonable principle that the new mayoral authorities should be subject to the same constraint to ensure that the tax rises, which would of course be inflationary, notwithstanding the impact they would have on household budgets, would be subject to a similar process of democratic consent, rather than being something that a mayor can simply proceed with without needing to go down that route. That is the objective of the new clause, and it will be interesting to hear what the Government have to say about it.
Our key concern is that these new authorities do not become a means of addressing shortfalls in other areas of Government spending or simply backfilling some of those costs. The Minister likes to talk about a financial mess, and it is noteworthy that the Government have borrowed over £80 billion in this financial year alone already. We heard the Chancellor talking about a £22 billion black hole, which she alleged existed after 14 years of Conservative Government. I use the term “alleged” advisedly, because the Office for Budget Responsibility, which did the calculations, swiftly came back and said that it did not stand by the figure used by the Chancellor. That is £22 billion after 14 years versus £80 billion since the start of this financial year alone.
It is clear that the country’s finances are facing an exceptionally challenging time and have deteriorated exceptionally fast. Local government, in particular, has a £1.5 billion black hole that has been created purely by last year’s Budget, as a result of the national insurance rise, notwithstanding any previous challenges that may have existed. There will naturally be a temptation to see an unlimited, uncapped and unrestricted mayoral levy as a means of tapping taxpayers’ pockets further. We need to make sure that that is constrained in a proper democratic manner.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me respond directly to the inference by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that, through the Bill and the devolution of power, we are essentially imposing the Government’s own agenda and requirements on strategic authorities, mayors or local authorities. Let me be very clear: that is not the intent. The intent is to enable mayors and local and strategic authorities to define and drive their own priorities. If the hon. Member spends any time with any of our brilliant mayors or our emerging strategic authorities, it will be incredibly clear that they have their own agenda, which is driven by the priorities of their local people. The idea that we can impose on them a set of things and use them essentially as a new revenue-raising mechanism is for the birds.
We do not think that the desire expressed in the new clause to impose restrictions on the ability of the mayor to raise a precept is right or proportionate. We are clear that the precept must be both proportionate and fair. Ultimately—I said this before, and I will say it again—mayors are democratically elected. They are no less immune to the requirements and the political pressure from their voters than I am or the hon. Member is. The process of democracy—of people having to account for both revenue-raising and, critically, for what they are investing in—is absolutely right. I trust our mayors to do that. Ultimately, if they do not raise revenue and, critically, invest it in things that improve the lives of their constituents, they will pay the price at the ballot box. They do not need the hon. Member to impose his requirements on them.
David Simmonds
Given the significance of this issue, we will push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
David Simmonds
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have spent a good deal of time debating the importance of housing and the delivery of housing targets. If we reflect on the construction industry news that came out yesterday, it is clear that there has been an absolute collapse in confidence in house building. Here in London, around 4% of the mayor’s housing target is being delivered, despite his having been allocated billions of pounds for that purpose.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Can the hon. Member remind the Committee when housing stocks plummeted? Was it not in 2023, on his watch?
David Simmonds
I think the Minister will probably be aware that the net additional new homes target that we set ourselves in the last Parliament was 1 million new homes. While we were, frustratingly, slightly below that target, we none the less delivered, in round terms, 1 million net additional new homes in this country. The collapse, as the Minister well knows, has taken place since the change of Government. That is an unfortunate reality. We know that the Budget in prospect later in the year is a significant issue of a conspicuous lack of confidence and a desperate need to get construction activity going again.
Paul Holmes
It is even worse than that: in the previous debate, the Minister said that she did not want the Government to be able to impose their ideals on mayors, but now they have reduced the affordable housing target for the mayor, to try to fiddle the figures and make it look as though more houses are built. That is poorer people suffering in our capital city.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is desperation in action, and we can see that happening, as can the whole world. We would like to see the Government succeed—we would like to see the country succeed in developing the new homes that it needs. However, it has been a continuous theme in our contributions to debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we must ensure that the 1.5 million homes that already have planning permission in England get built, rather than focusing on tearing up the green belt and on more permissions that also do not get built.
We know that in our capital city there are more than 300,000 new homes that already have planning permission, but on which work has not started. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure, just as we have sought to in the past in respect of private sector developers where there is a failure, that where a local authority or a mayor is in charge of a development, they are required to build it out in good time. That is so that we do not see a repeat of the situation where well-intentioned changes to the planning system simply result in more unbuilt permissions, while people who need homes do not have access to them, because that is not what is being delivered.
The focus of the new clause is to ensure that the system does what it is intended to and actually builds the homes, as opposed to churning out more planning permissions. Given the Government’s desperate need to move somewhere in the direction of achieving their 1.5 million target, I am sure the Minister will welcome the new clause and ensure that the Government support it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand the intent behind the new clause, and the Government are absolutely committed to building the homes that people across the country need. But I cannot let it pass without setting the record straight: housing delivery plummeted because of action taken by the previous Government, including the scrapping of housing targets across the country, the under-investment in social and affordable housing and, dare I mention, Liz Truss—remember her?—who saw mortgage rates skyrocket. Those are the factors that have driven down housing stock, and we, again, are having to fix the mess left by the previous Government. I will take no lectures from them on house building, given their record.
We are determined to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we know the country needs, and we will work with strategic authorities and local authorities to do that. There are already provisions that will enable mayors to accelerate housing development and drive economic growth, and we are providing further tools through the Bill, whether that is the strategic planning powers, the ability to raise the community infrastructure levy, the extension of the ability to form mayoral development corporations to all mayors outside London or, importantly, the land assembly powers given to strategic authorities to unlock development. We are very clear-sighted about what needs to be done, and we are already equipping and empowering mayors to do that.
We already have examples of where this is working, such as the Olympic legacy in Stratford and the huge progress delivered in London through that. There are provisions in the Bill. Our challenge is that we have to fix the mess that we inherited, but we are absolutely determined to do that, and we will do it in partnership with mayors.
David Simmonds
Many interpretations can be placed on the facts, but it is very clear if we look at the numbers that Government borrowing costs are now significantly higher even than under Liz Truss. It has been a pretty disastrous period for Government finances. If we are to see the measures to which the Minister has just referred succeed, there must be some imperative around building. We cannot simply see a tranche of mayors granting permissions, assembling sites and failing to deliver in the way that Mayor Khan has in London.
Mike Reader
The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex, said at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to cut regulation on building, but she was silent on the Government’s consultation on speeding up building. Is this a change of policy? Are the Conservatives now supporting the Government on build-out programmes? Can we look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining us in the Lobby when the proposal comes forward?
David Simmonds
It is a nice try by the hon. Member, but I think we know that there have been areas of deregulation where there is a high degree of consensus. In particular, we know that one of the reasons why some of those 1.5 million homes have not been developed is that, after local authorities have granted consent, delays are created by, for example, waiting for permission from the Environment Agency to proceed. There are elements of deregulation that I think we all support, and we can see how they would be of benefit, but where we have mayors such as the Mayor of London who are just abjectly failing, we need to make sure that there is a degree of compulsion so that the homes that our capital city and our country need are delivered.
Just as we would like to see that level of compulsion apply to private sector developers, who can be as guilty of this as Government—they might be land banking or looking at those permissions not as an opportunity to create homes, but simply as a means of creating a tradeable asset—we need a degree of imperative to hold the feet of those mayors to the fire to ensure that the new homes are delivered. I hope the spirit of the Government’s response signals their support for this amendment, which I will press to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
David Simmonds
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The intent of the new clause is very much in line with the recommendations that Mr Speaker has recently made in respect of Members of Parliament. There has been a degree of concern about the intimidation and victimisation of politicians and the impact that has had on wider public debate. It has been a long-standing principle that a person needs to declare their eligibility to stand in a particular place, and in a local authority there are specific requirements connected to the local area that person is seeking to serve.
However, it has been a widespread view for some time that there needs to be a degree of confidentiality so that members who are concerned that they will be victimised are able not to have that data, that information, placed in the public domain. Once they have satisfied the local authority’s returning officer that they meet the requirements—with evidence, as is currently the case—their home address does not need to be placed in the public domain, creating risk.
We think the precedent that Mr Speaker set out in respect to Members of Parliament is absolutely right. The intent of the new clause is to achieve the same for our locally elected brethren. I am sure that to achieve that objective, the Government will be pleased to support the new clause.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for this new clause. We wholeheartedly agree with its intent. In the English devolution White Paper, the Government committed to removing altogether the requirements for local government members’ home addresses to be published. The new clause would not achieve that aim because it relies on a member requesting non-publication. We believe that the default position should be non-publication, and we intend to legislate with more robust provisions when parliamentary time allows.
In light of the reassurance that we will be legislating on this important issue, which we agree on, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
David Simmonds
I am afraid that I am not reassured. I am particularly concerned, because we know that “when parliamentary time allows” means this could be kicked into the long grass for a very long time. Given some of the incidents we have seen, which have affected both Members of this House and our locally elected peers, we know this has become a more pressing issue.
Some locally elected members see it—as some Members of Parliament do—as an advantage to have their home address published, and we, as Members of Parliament, are free to make that choice. At the moment, we can say, “I wish it to be known that I live at this address,” or, “I wish it to be known that I live, anonymised, in a constituency”, which is how it is listed for Members of Parliament. Broadly, the same provisions should apply, so those councillors and candidates who prefer to keep their address confidential should be able to do that, as we can. Those who choose to take advantage of that additional degree of confidentiality—perhaps because they have a young family or caring responsibilities, or whatever it may be—should be able to take advantage of that.
If we fail to include this measure in the Bill, I suspect we will see a number of local election cycles in which local council candidates will not have the same opportunity as we do. I will therefore be pressing the new clause to a vote. I encourage the Government, if they are not minded to accept it now, to consider implementing it when the Bill gets to the Lords, because we have a duty of care to our local councillors. Giving them the same opportunity that we have as Members of Parliament seems an entirely reasonable and minimal measure of protection to offer.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Siân Berry
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will, as briefly as I can, because this is an interesting concept, outline the proposals in new clause 30 for the establishment of a public engagement commission. I have been part of some rocky debates in Committee, and I commend the new clause as a less fraught way to consider deep public participation, to come to terms with the benefits of participatory processes in appropriate situations and to look at democratic innovation in other ways.
The key issue here is that, as additional powers are gained, the choices and challenges facing public authorities in general—particularly these new ones—are becoming harder, along with the issues they are considering and the world situation. The need for citizen participation grows with that if we are to maintain trust and confidence in our public institutions. We need these new institutions to build trust and public confidence from the start.
The new clause closely relates to our legal obligations under the Aarhus convention, of which I am quite a big fan, as conventions go. It was adopted in 1998, when the Rio process really started to bed in, in the period when I started to become very involved in politics. I am certain that some of the processes taking place within central and local government as a result of our signing up to the convention encouraged my interest in politics, and led to some of the people who I work with now becoming my colleagues, so I am a big fan. The Aarhus convention links environmental rights and human rights. It establishes that
“sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders”
and it focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context. It is absolutely wonderful, but we are miles behind other countries in how we do that.
There are some really good examples of engagement in Britain. However, I see Ministers in the current Government not acting in the spirit of the convention, who are not keen to hear from the public, or who are certainly not keen to engage with them in new ways. I hear a lot about how engagement with the public slows down building—they put it less politely than that. We need to think more about how we undertake this kind of democratic innovation, not just in planning applications but in the wide range of powers and services that we are devolving. It should be part of the Bill’s DNA, and the new clause would do just that.
The new clause would set up a national body to guide and spread best practice, and it would take on the task of engaging and involving the public in innovative ways on very big and difficult questions—it would be a really positive addition to the Bill. The proposed public engagement commission is modelled on the French National Commission for Public Debate, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary—we can feel the vintage this comes from. The French commission started out by looking at big schemes such as TGV lines, and it has organised consultations on 130 schemes and projects. Some of the projects have been modified, some have been significantly redesigned, and some have actually been abandoned as a result of the public engagement. It is a success story in France, and we could make use of it here.
We had the National Infrastructure Commission, which governed planning applications, and that has recently been widened to the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, so it is intended to look at services as well. I think that a similar commission looking at strategic and national-level engagement would be a positive addition in helping us to fulfil some of our rights. Obviously, the commission would not intervene on every scheme, but it might intervene on schemes at a range of levels to establish best practice. It would be an ideal place to look at some of the knottier issues that we have come across.
I will finish with a few examples. I can see that Members do not want to debate this and they are feeling a little confused about what it might actually do. We have talked about proportional representation and voting systems today. For subjects that can be difficult to discuss, such as planning issues, which can descend into name calling, we could try different methods of engagement. We could listen to how to modify projects—that is an obvious one. We could also look at local growth plans and think about how they could be scrutinised to involve the public more. There is also the neighbourhoods work that the Government are still proposing. All would benefit from the involvement of this commission.
The commission could also try out and report back on new digital approaches. It could make sure that consultations work for younger people, while also ensuring that the digitally excluded can also join engagement exercises. Getting that kind of balance right is very hard, and establishing a commission to make sure that it works well would be a good thing. On things such as community infrastructure and mayoral levies, which are raised and spent in the local area, the commission should look at participatory budgeting and establish best practice. We know that mayoral development corporations are not really designed to be directly accountable or involve the public, but the commission could look at how those bodies could engage more effectively in local areas.
It is interesting that in engagement connected with new towns, it is people in the local area who are consulted when new towns are intended mainly to attract new people to an area. How should people who might come to live in an area be consulted? Those are interesting challenges and I think that the commission would be a positive addition.
More seriously, I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a participation gap in relation to the Aarhus convention in this Bill. I hope that she will go away and look again at how that affects environmental rights and compliance and about how that might work at a national level. She should also think about how this challenge today might affect a wide range of different participation processes at the Government level.
Apologies for again making a very long case for a new clause. I do not table them idly.
Paul Holmes
I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion does not develop a complex because I speak on all of her new clauses. She is a doughty parliamentarian who has deeply held views, and I do not want her to think that I oppose them because of any personal vendetta. However, as I am sure many expected, I rise to speak against the new clause because it lets politicians off the hook. It also does what I suggested many of the hon. Lady’s previous new clauses do.
The politicians, mayors and combined authorities we are talking about must have democratic legitimacy. They are accountable to their electorate in the traditional ways, which is an election at the current engagement levels that many mayors have. It is inherent within our system that if a mayor wants to be re-elected and build up incumbency so that people in the region say they are doing a good job, they will go out and show that they are working hard for those people.
The hon. Lady mentioned that we should follow France on this. These are not usually words that come out of my mouth, but I remind her that we are nearly at the end of the collapse of the Fifth Republic. I am not sure how much the commission helped, given how they have conducted their affairs over the last few months.
Much of the new clause adds a burden to an already overstretched and inadequately funded model. This is not to knock the Government, but establishing these authorities will be an incredibly long and complicated process, and there is going to be some disruption. The new clause would add a burden to many authorities for something that I do not think will deliver the outcomes that the hon. Lady expects.
I am a fan of Parliament and of the British Government, and I want them to do well—not that the Committee could see that from today—but I also believe in the position of the Secretary of State, and I think that asking the Secretary of State from “time to time” to lay a report before Parliament on the work of the public engagement commission during the period, and progress towards improving public engagement, is both setting up the Secretary of State for a fall—I am not sure how to measure public engagement—and letting the Secretary of State off the hook. The last Conservative Government and the Labour Government before them were in office for between 12 and 14 years. I could do it twice if I managed to survive as Secretary of State for 12 years—it may happen one day.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We all agree that we need stronger community engagement, and a big strand of what we are trying to do through the Bill is to ensure that our communities across the country have greater powers and voice. A new commission is not the answer. The answer is in the doing—us doing the job of enabling all levels of Government, including our national Government, to engage the public and our communities better.
There is a role for the LGA, supported with funding, in building local authorities’ capability to do community engagement effectively. We have discussed the neighbourhood governance structure that we are trying to build, and creating an effective locus for communities to exercise their voice and power, and to be interlocutors with local government. We are building the network for neighbourhoods, which will bring together communities and partners to share best practice, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is suggesting, and strengthen the capability of communities to exercise their voice and power.
Critically, we are already putting this into practice through pride in place. We are putting investment into communities, organising community leaders on to neighbourhood boards to make decisions about the things that matter. While I appreciate the need for greater community engagement, I think that rather than set up a long-winded commission, we should crack on with the doing. That is what the Government are committed to.
Siân Berry
A standing commission that offers regular advice to all the groups that are trying to innovate would be a boon to them, not a burden as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said. I believe that reporting back from “time to time” is completely normal language in Bills that set up an independent agency or organisation and we want to receive reports back; it definitely does not mean anything in particular.
I remind the Minister that there are risks if we do not do something to ensure that we stand by the important rights that people expect to be upheld. It is not just full of opportunity and excitement, as my previous speech implied; there is genuinely a risk that the new bodies—these unfamiliar, geographically drawn strategic authorities—will rejected by the public if the Government do not get this right. Trust is a crucial metric that we cannot measure ourselves—it just happens or not in other people. We need people to genuinely trust the new bodies. We cannot tell someone to trust them—they do or they do not. The Government must ensure that they are doing that right.
I do not want the reforms to fall flat any more than Ministers do. I think this provision is an important thing that could be done to ensure that they succeed better than they otherwise would. However, I am not going to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Siân Berry
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I have been working on the new clause with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies. The new clause would require strategic authorities to prepare community wealth-building action plans and makes provision for partnerships with anchor organisations such as hospitals, colleges and employers, to support them. That would create the opportunity for organisations to come together to build collective action on things such as procurement, employment and the better use of owned assets in the local area. It would also grant mayors a right to request levies on private equity in local public services to limit extraction. The new clause is tailor-made for Labour Members, whose party outside government has long championed community wealth building.
In brief, community wealth building is the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. It puts people before private equity profits, and champions the kind of economic development activity that is overlooked by industrial strategies, focusing instead on the everyday economy, where most people—our carers, our cleaners, our builders—work. Community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of everyone, everywhere. Scotland has a Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill passing through its Parliament. England must not be left behind.
We have all heard about Preston’s remarkable success in this field. Analysis of Preston’s programme in The Lancet Public Health found fewer mental health problems than expected during the community wealth building programme compared with similar areas, as life satisfaction and economic measures improved. The analysis found that the approach can provide an effective model for economic regeneration, potentially leading to substantial health benefits. Community wealth building is also part of the economic strategy of my city of Brighton and Hove, with a consensus to work on it over successive administrations.
To further the case, I will quote comments on the London borough of Islington’s programme made in November 2024 by its director of inclusive economy. She said:
“As I say very clearly to our team, this is not about levelling the playing field. This is about tilting the table. In an economy like Islington, we have to focus our limited resources on those who are least served by this economy…It’s about sustainability, it’s about justice, and that idea of creating prosperity for everyone. The core focus is on being locally rooted—trying to make sure that the money we spend and the efforts we make are all rooted within Islington and our wider regional economy”,
and that such programmes
“make sure that the big businesses who are in our local economies are able to engage with a local supply chain and local employment practices so that we can create that virtuous circle at a local level.”
The Islington programme director also commented on how equality is helped, saying in the interview,
“Similarly, lots of investment money typically goes to male-owned businesses. We’ve set up a series of programmes aimed at supporting underrepresented entrepreneurs.”
They reduce rents in their affordable workplaces if the operators support local people’s employment and local businesses and work on the supply chain. She also gives the example of dedicated incubation programmes
“to make sure that we ‘tilt the table’ in the favour of people who are least served by this economy.”
She says that, in short,
“It is about trying to make prosperity local”.
Who in this room could disagree with that?
I hope that the new clause is taken in the constructive spirit in which it is intended and receives a positive response from the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this amendment. As a proud Co-operative MP and as part of a Government who are driving through changes to the economy that put people at the heart, I support the intent behind this amendment. I know of the good work CLES does to drive this agenda across local and regional government. As I have said before, for us, the purpose of devolution is to equip and enable our mayors, local authorities and communities to rewire the economy so that it works for local people and fundamentally builds the wealth of communities. That is clear.
However, a duty to create a separate community wealth building plan will not achieve the intent of the new clause. These approaches should be embedded in the local growth plans that mayors are developing. We see that in practice if we look across the country at what our Labour mayors are doing, whether that is in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region or the West of England combined authority. Their approach builds in the principles of building community wealth, of co-operatives and mutuals and of community power, with a strong emphasis on the everyday economy.
We can legislate as much as we like, but what is important is the doing and the practice. We are clear that our job is to empower and equip our local leaders to do this. Many of them are already at the vanguard and well ahead of national Government because of the legacy of the previous Government. We will work with our mayors and strategic authorities to embed this in their local plans.
Critically, we are making sure that there are clear levers at the community level to drive this approach, for example, through the community right to buy. We agree with the intent, but a separate plan is not the way to deliver it. It needs to be fundamentally baked into the way that mayors drive local economic growth—a way that will put their communities at the heart and not just improve living standards, but build the wealth of those communities.
Siân Berry
I thank the Minister for her response. I am not entirely convinced that these measures are as baked in as she said. All these issues are vulnerable to election cycles. Something more specific along these lines, potentially within the requirements of the local economic plans, would help to ensure that people consistently see this approach taken across the country. The Minister talked about Labour mayors, but is she convinced? I am not sure that other mayors will take this on board, despite the proven benefits. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 34
Local government data
“(1) LURA 2023 is amended in as follows.
(2) In Section 84, in subsection (2)(b), after “planning and development” insert “including in relation to economic conditions, transport, tourism and nature”.
(3) In Section 91 (Interpretation)—
(a) after “(g) Part 8 of GLAA 1999,” insert “(ga) Parts 2 and 3 of the Transport Act 2000”;
(b) after “(k) this Part or Part 4 or 6 of this Act” insert “ the Environment Act 2021, Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, Part 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026”.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause extends data standardisation powers contained in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 to encompass Local Growth Plans, Local Nature Recovery Strategies and Local Transport Plans. Currently, proposals in these other plans may not constitute “development”, so would be outside the scope of existing powers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siân Berry
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 34 is about something that I do not think Ministers have yet considered, but it would be of real benefit to the efficiency and transparency of these new authorities. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created a number of new powers to standardise planning data, including local plans, planning software and the ways in which we can get information about planning applications and policies. The new clause would make sure that other activities of the strategic authorities were, from the start, set up to provide a similar level of data. We are talking about spatial data, spending data, data for inward investments, and data for the jobs created in association with different parts of economic plans. It would be marvellous to put that level of digitalisation of public data into the Bill, for the same Department mandated the planning data reforms that are being taken up extremely well.
We must do something about this either now or at the next stage of the Bill. We have seen provisions in the Bill—I have tabled other amendments on this—say things like, “Mayors must publish in such a manner as the mayor thinks appropriate.” That kind of wording is a recipe for PDFs inaccessible to organisations such as Natural England seeking to scrutinise or interact with these different strategic authorities around the country. Ministers themselves may want to know some data about what is going on in these local authorities, as well as the public at large—civil society. If we do not make things standardised, we will end up having to go through multiple inaccessible PDFs. Sometimes, those are Excel documents that have been turned into PDFs, and yet the Excel documents are not released. It would be tremendous for standardised, accessible data in API formats—searchable, integratable and comparable—to be produced as a matter of course through the Bill.
The measure would also help to support the goals of the Aarhus convention, which is all about transparency and being able to find out information. It would also be a gift to people who want to create things like accessible apps, websites and maps for pamphlets about the services in a local area. Those are the kinds of benefits that the Government talked about at the time of introducing the requirements on planning. They need to look again at whether they want things published in multiple different ways that become hard to integrate later, or whether they want things to be organised a little better from the start. The new clause is tabled in a constructive way. I hope that Ministers will ask their teams to explore the idea and talk to the people working on planning. It would be of huge benefit not to have to unpick a mess of data for these new authorities later on.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Lady has set out the Government’s ambition to move away from a document-led planning system to a data-driven one, where planning data is openly available and more easily accessible. I recognise the intention to expand the data standards provision to ensure that it covers other types of plans produced by strategic authorities, such as the local growth plan or the local transport plan.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards. Given that data standards can evolve, the Secretary of State also has the power to define those standards. The definition of planning and development is already broad enough to capture the types of data that would be used for the plans sought to be covered by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion.
The Government are confident that existing powers in the 2023 Act are broad enough to make the new clause unnecessary. I come back to the consistent theme of many of my responses to the hon. Lady: it is now in the doing and the acting. We have the powers in statute to respond; it is about how we put those into practice. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
Siân Berry
I implore the Minister to go away and look at this again. The courts have confirmed that transport schemes, such as the cycleway running along the Embankment, do not count as development. Therefore, the wider applicability that I think the Minister was asserting may not be in place without some kind of amendment to make sure that things such as the local economic plans, local growth plans, nature recovery strategies and local transport plans are fully covered by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It may need some changes that I think the Minister is unaware of at the moment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to new clause 41, which was debated with amendment 358 and is in the name of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who is not a Committee member. Does anyone wish to press the new clause to a Division?
Vikki Slade
We will not push new clause 41 to a Division, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bath may wish to table it again on Report.
New Clause 42
Power of mayors to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘17C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a CCA must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(2) After section 103B of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(3) After section 40B of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘40C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The Mayor must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) Meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require mayors of combined authorities, mayors of CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I am sure that in doing so I will also speak on behalf of other Members, in areas such as Cornwall and Yorkshire—my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) in particular, but I suspect there may be others, even in this room, who support the intent of the new clause. In short, the new clause would push devolution a step further.
David Simmonds
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that during the passage of the Bill we have heard from some Members that they have been given assurances from the Government? Ministers have clarified that no such assurances have been given. Indeed, in response to a written parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the Minister set out that there are no provisions in the Bill that would provide such identity protections. Does the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole feel that this is something to which we need to return? Despite an impression that assurances have been given, it is clear that they are not present.
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I did a little research on the national minority status introduced by the former Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, back in 2014. This is fundamental. Cornwall has national minority status and it is critical that no Bill, including this one, should undermine that position. Other areas with strong regional identities and commonalities could potentially benefit from the new clause, which would allow for a degree of regional governance, across a number of mayoral regions, through the creation of regional assemblies. The clause includes protections: the Secretary of State would be required to assess the local appetite and need for a body, and Parliament would have to approve the creation of such an assembly. We hope that those will be effective in securing the support of the Minister.
This new clause is hugely important in relation to the people living in these areas. It would introduce greater protections and rights for local populations in those areas, devolving more decision-making powers and granting more freedoms from decisions made in Westminster, which are less applicable to these distinct areas. It would advance on the Bill’s power for collaboration across areas by providing an assembly structure through which multiple councils and mayors—although I recognise that if it was Cornwall, it would be a single council, probably with no mayor—could work together at scale to drive coherent change for a given region.
Clearly, the measure would need to be developed through the regulations listed in the new clause. The provision is embryonic, so that it allows for a lot of work and consultation to be done in the areas where it would apply. This is an opportunity to signal a direction of travel towards genuine devolution for places with special characteristics—I would argue that the Isle of Wight might have such special characteristics—or national minority status. We hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to embrace this change.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Here we are, two weeks on, and it feels a bit like groundhog day. Listening to this Committee, it is interesting to hear people who come a long way from Cornwall trying to suggest what is good for Cornwall and the Cornish people.
Vikki Slade
Unfortunately, the two Liberal Democrats who represent Cornwall—my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall and for St Ives (Andrew George)—are not on this Bill Committee, but they have put their names to the new clause, as has a Yorkshire Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.
Perran Moon
I thank the hon. Lady, but I note that according to the amendment paper, one of the two Cornwall Members has not put their name to the new clause. The hon. Member for St Ives is not on the list.
I will make some progress. We are two weeks on, and we have come full circle on the Cornish question. I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned national minority status, which is the crux. I have said it before and I will say it again: the Cornish people have a unique place on this island, as we are the only people with national minority status who do not currently have access to the highest level of devolution, even though the people of Cornwall want it. That can be seen very clearly across the political spectrum. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Green, independents and Mebyon Kernow are all in favour of greater devolution for Cornwall without the requirement of a mayor, which is the highest level of devolution. Only one party supports joining a mayoral combined authority: Reform. It would be a dereliction of duty on my part not to raise those concerns.
David Simmonds
It falls to me, as the shadow Minister, to be the voice for Conservatives in Cornwall, who would absolutely agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. There is strong cross-party consensus. The reason we tabled our amendments, which were very similar in spirit to the hon. Gentleman’s, was to seek an assurance that because of Cornwall’s unique situation, there would be provisions in the legislation that would protect it.
The hon. Gentleman said very clearly that he had received assurances on the basis of which he had decided to withdraw his amendments. Since then, the Minister has clarified, in response to a written question, that there are no provisions in the Bill that would provide that protected status. Can the hon. Gentleman share with the Committee whether he has had any further assurances since that date to give us all comfort that the unique identity of Cornwall will be protected in the changes envisaged in this legislation?
Perran Moon
I think that there is scope within the Bill to find a path forward that would be acceptable to the people of Cornwall and would adhere to the Government’s devolution plan, particularly around a single strategic authority. I implore the Minister to keep working with Cornish MPs to find a solution that allows the Cornish people access to the highest level of devolution, but without a requirement to join a mayoral combined authority. On that basis, I will not support the new clause.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The new clause conflates two issues, and I will try to unpack them. On the one hand, there is the question of recognition of national minority status, which is particularly pertinent in the case of Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth has been a steadfast, impassioned and persistent champion and advocate for it.
My departmental colleagues and I have put it on the record that we absolutely recognise the unique status of Cornwall. We are looking for ways both to enhance the protections that are already there and, critically, to support the Cornish local authority in responding to the challenges that it faces and unlock the potential of the area. That is all on the record. We will continue to work, not just with members of the Committee but with MPs across Cornwall and the local authority, to take that forward. However, that is distinct from the ambition to create a regional tier of government. I remind colleagues that that was roundly rejected in a referendum. I know it was a couple of decades ago, but the question was tested.
There is a fundamental question here: if we are trying to drive the economic prosperity of places, where is it best to locate that? One model proposes that the best place is large regional blocs, while another model says that functional geographies around city and county regions are better placed to drive that. The large regional blocs model was tested with the regional development agencies, and we found that the connection to the local economy was weaker. Critically, the democratic link to people in those places was weaker. That is why the model did not endure, and why, unfortunately, the Conservatives undid all the good work that we did when we were last in power. Our strong view is that strategic, functional geography—city and county regions—is the best place to make decisions around transport, housing and planning, skills and travel-to-work areas. That is why we are conferring powers at that level.
If we seek to create another regional tier that is not about the collaboration that we are seeing, for example, with Northern Powerhouse Rail or our authorities in the midlands to deal with issues, predominantly to do with rail, that cut across functional areas, I worry that we will denude the very institutions that we are trying to strengthen, confuse the system, create more complexity and bureaucracy, and undermine the one thing we all want to achieve: stronger, functional economic geographies that can drive prosperity in places.
There are two issues here. I understand what the hon. Lady’s new clause is trying to do, but it is fundamentally wrong. We have tested that model, and we believe that functional geographies at the strategic authority level are where we can make progress. I point her to the evidence of the past decade, in which we have had mayors in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region driving growth and prosperity. That is the right geography. We need to build the power there. We should not confuse the matter. I ask the her to withdraw the new clause.
Vikki Slade
No, I am not going to withdraw the new clause. If the Minister reads it, she will see that I am not conflating the issues at all. I simply gave Cornwall as an example of where it might work. The new clause does not mention the word “Cornwall”. It allows for
“a regional governance body in any part of England, where in the opinion of the Secretary of State there is demonstrable local support for such a body”,
so it does not undermine the role of the strategic authority.
Let me give the Minister another example. Whether Cornwall is or is not included is up to the people of Cornwall, but Wessex, we presume, will come forward in the next wave of devolution deals. Wessex may be a functional geography in terms of our connectivity, but the south-west of England is the place that most of us identify with far more.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Lady talks about regional assemblies in the context of Cornwall. Can she explain the purpose of the local authority and the elected council in the model that she is proposing?
Vikki Slade
I refer the Minister to the fact that I gave Cornwall as an example of a place where people may want to set up a regional governance body. The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), initially in reference to Yorkshire, which has a number of mayoral authorities that want to work together. The people of Yorkshire feel that they have an identity as Yorkshire, and they want a regional assembly.
If the Minister would like me to withdraw my comment about the fact that that may work for Cornwall, she should feel free to ask, but I know for a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) believes that the new clause would benefit him in Cornwall, so I will not withdraw it. It is important to give people the opportunity to have something that they feel works for them.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am sorry to tempt the Committee with the prospect of a nice pint in the Strangers Bar, but I will not speak to this new clause for very long. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). We have spent the afternoon talking about unique circumstances elsewhere in the country, but there are unique circumstances on the Isle of Wight, because of the nature of its geography.
Before I say any more on that, Dame Siobhain, may I, as one of the shadow Ministers, thank you and the other Chairs for your chairing, because this is probably the last time that I will speak in this Bill Committee? I also thank the Minister and the Government Whip, who has been so courteous during our negotiations through the usual channels; hopefully, she will do us some more favours going forward.
Even though we are not in government, I also thank the officials, because I have seen the churn of officials coming in and going out of the Committee Room in the last couple of weeks. Without them, politics would not be able to function, so I thank them for their work on the Bill. We mostly disagree with the Bill, but they are doing a great job for all of us.
The Isle of Wight is geographically unique, because it is only really accessible by boat, including ferries. Over the last 20 years or so, the two main ferry companies for the Isle of Wight, Red Funnel and Wightlink, have been passed between and traded by private equity groups. Just last week, Red Funnel changed hands in what was believed to be a distressed sale, with banks being owed tens of millions of pounds.
The people of the Isle of Wight absolutely rely on access to the mainland, and the island relies on mainland access to it, in order to supply it and to ensure that the people of that great place are well and are looked after. Under the pricing model of the last 20 years, however, peak car return fares have skyrocketed to as much as £400 a car, just for crossing a five-mile stretch of water. Timetables have diminished, so what was once a 30-minute service is now hourly or worse, and under-investment by Red Funnel’s owners means that its car ferry fleet is so old that it entered service before the maritime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), was born. Breakdowns are increasingly frequent, with some parts now so obsolete that boats are having to be withdrawn from service.
The Isle of Wight ferry service is a lifeline. There is no other way for the island’s 140,000 residents to cross the five-mile stretch of water to get on and off the island, including for key activities such as work, health appointments, education, visiting sick relatives, or being visited by relatives on whom they rely.
In the last debate on new clause 44, the Minister said that she believed that transport management structures should be run on a county basis. We agree with her; the efficiencies of scale mean that the mayor of Hampshire and the Solent should be able to run transport locally. The Government have a record of policies whereby we are seeing greater Government and regional involvement in the commissioning and running of our transport services, particularly through the bus Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I would argue that ferries should not be treated differently, especially when they are the sole mode of transport that people must rely on.
When my hon. Friend met the previous maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), however, the Government showed a distinct lack of action in this regard. My hon. Friend was promised that there would be a number of meetings—there have been meetings with the previous Minister—and that a body would be convened to discuss the matter, but that simply has not happened.
My hon. Friend therefore tabled new clause 49, which would give mayors the authority to regulate ferry services. It would apply not only to the Isle of Wight but to any regional structure that has ferries acting within its geographical boundaries. The functions exercisable by the mayor would include
“making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services”.
Labour Members should look at me with encouragement—perhaps I have had a conversion to the centre-left of British politics—because the new clause would also provide for the regulation of fares and a fare cap. I think that is acceptable in a situation where a single provider is flagrantly breaching the good faith of the people of the Isle of Wight.
I know that the Minister will resist this new clause—that does not surprise me; she has a job to do, as do I—but there is clearly a problem. I live just up the road from the Isle of Wight and the prices are crazy. The people living on the island rely on those ferries—they are used to supply medical services, to supply businesses and shops, and for family situations on the Isle of Wight—so the Government must step up.
The new clause makes a reasonable suggestion to the Government to give a mayor the power to control transport services within their region. I am delighted that the Conservative candidate for mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, Donna Jones, has said that she is actively pushing the Government for those regulatory powers. We support her in that so that she can come down very hard on the ferry services that are taking advantage of people who live on the Isle of Wight.
If the Government genuinely believe in devolution and in the control of transport—we have seen over the last 14 months that they believe in mayors being able to commission and manage transport services—that should include all transport services. I commend the new clause to the Committee, and hope that the Minister will give some encouraging words to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and to me. I have not spoken to my hon. Friend about this, and I am sure he will want to move the new clause on Report, but I wish to press it to a Division in Committee.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me start by saying that we absolutely recognise the issue that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and hon. Members representing the Isle of Wight have raised. That is why the Department for Transport has engaged with MPs and stakeholders on the Isle of Wight to identify their local solutions to the concerns that we understand and appreciate need to be addressed.
That engagement has included a ministerial roundtable on this issue and a commitment to create a cross-Solent group. An independent chair has been appointed to take that group forward. We will continue to engage with partners locally to address the genuine issues that have been raised about the ferry service in the area. The power of a democratically elected mayor is that they can make this a core issue and use the levers that they have and the seat that they will have at the table with Government to keep making the case and delivering for their community.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for those encouraging words. She is absolutely correct, and I hope she does not see this intervention as unfair, but can she use her good offices to speed that group along? When the then maritime Minister visited the Isle of Wight in April, he said that a DFT working group would be created, but that has not happened—there has been no meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) have been involved in that working group on a cross-party basis but it has not met yet. Could the Minister use her good offices to push for that meeting?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will write to my counterparts in the DFT. The commitment to create the group came in recognition of a problem. We are committed to working with local stakeholders and Members representing the area to respond to that, so I am happy to write to my DFT colleagues to chivvy that along.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has gone further than I was expecting her to. I think it is now up to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East to table the new clause again on Report, alongside, if necessary, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Pending conversations with my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Community ownership fund
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—
(a) voluntary and community organisation, or
(b) parish or town council,
to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.”—(Vikki Slade.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Siân Berry
I do not wish to move the new clause, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) may bring it back on Report.
New Clause 56
Authority involvement in local skills improvement plans
“(1) Section 1 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7), after ‘relevant authority’ insert ‘and, where the specified area covers any of the area of a Strategic Authority, the Strategic Authority’.
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(7A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a Strategic Authority within the meaning of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that—
(a) the Strategic Authority and the employer representative body for the area have exercised joint leadership in developing the plan,
(b) the plan has been agreed by both the Strategic Authority and the employer representative body, and
(c) the boundaries of the plan align with the strategic authority boundaries.
(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), “joint leadership” means that—
(a) strategic priorities for skills development in the area are agreed by both the Strategic Authority and the employer representative body, and
(b) spending priorities relating to devolved adult education funding are jointly determined.
(7C) A local skills improvement plan may only be altered if both the Strategic Authority and the employer representative body agree to any proposed alterations.
(7D) Where there is disagreement between a Strategic Authority and an employer representative body exercising joint leadership under subsection (7A), either party may refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who may—
(a) issue guidance to resolve the disagreement;
(b) give directions to either or both parties to ensure effective coordination;
(c) require the parties to adopt alternative arrangements for decision-making;
(d) approve and publish a plan that addresses the disagreement.
(7E) In exercising functions under subsection (7D), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the effective delivery of post-16 technical education and training in the area,
(b) employer engagement in identifying local skills needs,
(c) value for money in delivery of services by Strategic Authorities, and
(d) democratic accountability of Strategic Authorities in delivering such services.’
(4) Section 4 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(5) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—
‘“Strategic Authority” has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;’”.—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to exercise joint leadership with employer representative bodies in developing Local Skills Improvement Plans. The amendment also requires Local Skills Improvement Plan boundaries to align with Strategic Authority boundaries to enable effective coordination and provides dispute resolution mechanisms where joint leadership arrangements encounter difficulties.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 57—Consideration of existing adult skills provision—
“(1) A strategic authority has a duty to consider—
(a) existing education and training provision for persons aged 16 to 19 in its area, and
(b) existing higher education provision in its area
when carrying out any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 to this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about how a strategic authority may comply with the duty under this section.”
This new clause would require strategic authorities to consider existing provision for 16 to 19 education and higher education in their area when exercising adult education functions.
New clause 58—Annual reporting on adult education funding—
“(1) A strategic authority exercising any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 of this Act must publish an annual report on its exercise of such functions.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) how a strategic authority has applied adult education funding to meet local skills needs;
(b) a summary of coordination arrangements with employer representative bodies and other skills providers within the authority;
(c) a summary of outcomes for adult learners and local employers regarding—
(i) learner achievement of qualifications and progression to employment or further learning,
(ii) employer satisfaction with the skills and capabilities of adult learners, and
(iii) the alignment between skills provision and identified local labour market needs.
(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about—
(a) any further content of, and
(b) publication of
reports under this section.”
This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to publish annual reports on their exercise of adult education functions, demonstrating how public funding has been deployed, coordination arrangements with local skills providers, and outcomes achieved for adult learners and employers.
Manuela Perteghella
These new clauses were tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for universities and skills, my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). As hon. Members might expect, therefore, they relate to the Bill’s provision for skills and adult education, which we debated when we were discussing clause 30 and schedule 10.
To set out the framework for this trio of new clauses about skills, it is important to stress that the Liberal Democrats support the devolution of skills, and we seek to refine the process to make sure that the provision works effectively. When I speak to my businesses, they tell me that skills are one of the major challenges, so we need local skills improvement plans to be as effective as possible. In combination, the new clauses will ensure that, when skills policy is devolved, there is proper governance, accountability and co-ordination mechanisms among the various bodies.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The English devolution White Paper set out clearly our proposals to strengthen the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans and highlights the intention to use legislation and statutory guidance as appropriate to achieve that. As a Government, we remain completely committed to that position, and we intend to bring forward legislation to do precisely that.
We are not, however, just waiting for legislation; ahead of that, updated statutory guidance will set out how we expect strategic authorities and employer representative bodies to work together on the next round of local skills improvement plans. That will include a requirement for both parties to confirm whether they are content with the plan before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Where they do not agree, Skills England, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will help to resolve any issues. In that context, and given the direction of travel, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw new clause 56, because it is not necessary.
On new clause 57, I point the hon. Member to schedule 10 of the Bill, in which strategic authorities will be under a duty to secure appropriate adult education provision in their area. That will include considering existing provision and provision of different types in the area; but, crucially, it also allows them to consider a broader range of factors than the new clause allows for. We know that in practice strategic authorities are already considering a wide range of local factors—including where the labour market is, and where current and future demand is—as they design, develop and drive forward their adult skills strategy.
Manuela Perteghella
I know they are already doing it, but making it statutory ensures that it actually happens and can be scrutinised—that is why we want to do that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The current devolution framework creates the basis by which effective execution of the powers that authorities have on adult skills will be driven forward. The legislative provisions exist; it is now in the doing. As a Department, we will both enable that working between strategic authorities and employers on the ground that I have talked about and, critically, make sure that we provide the tools that they need to strengthen their capability to do that well. It matters to us because effective skills, and developing the pipeline and the workforce to drive the economic change we want, are critical to delivering on housing and our warm homes plan. We are vested in ensuring that our strategic authorities have the tools that they require to do that and to do it incredibly well.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72
Interpretation
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 243, in clause 72, page 73, line 15, at end insert—
“‘FRSA 2004’ means the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.
This would define the abbreviation “FRSA 2004” which is used in the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 244.
Clauses 73 to 77 stand part.
Government amendment 245.
Clauses 78 and 79 stand part.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As this is, I hope, the last time that I will be standing, I thank you, Dame Siobhain, and our other Chairs for your fantastic chairing of this Committee. The pace, tone and quality of the debate are testimony to how effectively it is been chaired. I put on record my thanks to the Clerks, who have done a fantastic job facilitating the proceedings of this Committee and ensuring that we all know what we are doing.
I offer huge thanks to my hon. Friends, who have been fantastic colleagues in driving through this line-by-line process. It is the first time that I have ever taken a Bill through Committee, and I thank them for all their support. I also thank Opposition Members. The way we have conducted the Committee is a testament to the very best of Parliament. It has been done with much gusto, with spirit and with great insights, but in a very collegiate manner, and I thank all hon. Members for that.
Finally, I put on record my thanks to my fantastic officials. This is a mammoth Bill, with a huge amount of work done before my time and up to this point. We would not be here with this genuinely transformative piece of legislation, which begins to rewire the state to put power in the hands of our communities, without the fantastic work of my officials in the Department who drove it forward.
With huge thanks, great relief and slight exhaustion, I turn to part 6 of the Bill. The clauses in part 6 are standard Bill clauses, which ensure that the provisions in other parts of the Bill work as intended when it comes into force. The amendments are consequential clarifying amendments. They mean that the Bill as a whole is coherent and operates the way that we intend it to in policy. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 79, in particular, which provides that the short title of this Bill, once enacted, will be the “English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act”. I think we will all be proud of our role in bringing it into force.
Amendment 243 agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Saving of orders and regulations relating to combined authorities and CCAs
Amendment made: 244, in clause 73, page 74, line 27, leave out from “which” to end of line 29 and insert
“is to continue to apply instead of the primary legislation by virtue of subsection (2), or
(b) makes modifications or other contrary provision to which the primary legislation is to continue to be subject by virtue of subsection (2).”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would clarify the relationship between subsection (4) and subsection (2); and clarify that paragraphs (a) and (b) are alternatives.
Clause 73, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 74 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Commencement
Amendment made: 245, in clause 78, page 76, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—
“(c) any other provision of this Act comes into force (including provision modifying other legislation) so far as it confers power to make secondary legislation or is otherwise necessary for enabling the exercise of such a power on or after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This ensures that the powers to make secondary legislation inserted by the Bill, and any provisions necessary for enabling the exercise of such powers, come into force on the day on which the Act is passed.
Amendment proposed: 303, in clause 78, page 78, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Section 71 will not come into force until the Secretary of State has—
(a) completed a consultation about the impact of section 71 on businesses, and
(b) laid a report summarising the consultation before both Houses of Parliament.”—(David Simmonds.)
This amendment would prevent section 71 from coming into force until a consultation on its impact on businesses has been completed and a report summarising the consultation has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I would like to thank all the Committee staff, yourself, Dame Siobhain, and all of the other Chairs, and all the Members on the Committee. I also thank the staff in our offices, who have had to work really hard and stay quite late into the evening to ensure that everything gets put into the Public Bill Office for the next stage. I pay tribute to all of them.
David Simmonds
I echo those comments, Dame Siobhain. The Bill may be poor, but the organisation and support have been flawless—[Interruption.] And the quality of the heckling is without parallel. I know we will be returning to many of the topics of debate later on in the parliamentary process, so we will have the opportunity to relitigate and seek to deliver the necessary improvements to the legislation. I thank all the officials, all those who contributed to the Bill, and the witnesses, whose evidence has been so helpful.
Siân Berry
To what everyone else has said, I want to add that, while I have spent a lot of time in the Committee complaining that scrutiny is not done well, we have done a really good job of scrutinising this Bill. My team has had the most amazing support from the Public Bill Office and the Clerks, and the Chairs have been fantastic, so thank you very much, everyone.
The Chair
I extend my thanks to all the Members, who made it very easy to Chair, and to all the staff for their support. I am just grateful that the microphones continued working after the first day.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Monday 24th November 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 November 2025 - large print - (24 Nov 2025)
21:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 99 / Noes: 367 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 44—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London.
New clause 2—Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils—
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’).
(4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’”
This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.
New clause 4—Application of CIL to householders—
“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 205 (The levy) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.
(2B) The Secretary of State must amend the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 so that they are in accordance with the requirements of subsection (2A).’”
This new clause disapplies CIL from householders extending property for their own use.
New clause 5—Power of mayors to convene meetings with local public service providers and government—
“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘17C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a CCA must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(2) After section 103B of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(3) After section 40B of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘40C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The Mayor must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’”
This new clause would require mayors of combined authorities, mayors of CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.
New clause 7—Consideration of existing adult skills provision—
“(1) A strategic authority has a duty to consider—
(a) existing education and training provision for persons aged 16 to 19 in its area, and
(b) existing higher education provision in its area
when carrying out any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 to this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about how a strategic authority may comply with the duty under this section.”
This new clause would require strategic authorities to consider existing provision for 16 to 19 education and higher education in their area when exercising adult education functions.
New clause 8—Annual reporting on adult education funding—
“(1) A strategic authority exercising any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 of this Act must publish an annual report on its exercise of such functions.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) how a strategic authority has applied adult education funding to meet local skills needs;
(b) a summary of coordination arrangements with employer representative bodies and other skills providers within the authority;
(c) a summary of outcomes for adult learners and local employers regarding—
(i) learner achievement of qualifications and progression to employment or further learning,
(ii) employer satisfaction with the skills and capabilities of adult learners, and
(iii) the alignment between skills provision and identified local labour market needs.
(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about—
(a) any further content of, and
(b) publication of reports under this section.”
This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to publish annual reports on their exercise of adult education functions, demonstrating how public funding has been deployed, coordination arrangements with local skills providers, and outcomes achieved for adult learners and employers.
New clause 9—Authority involvement in local skills improvement plans—
“(1) Section 1 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7), after ‘relevant authority’ insert ‘and, where the specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the strategic authority’.
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(7A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that—
(a) the strategic authority and the employer representative body for the area have exercised joint leadership in developing the plan,
(b) the plan has been agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and
(c) the boundaries of the plan align with the strategic authority boundaries.
(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), ‘joint leadership’ means that—
(a) strategic priorities for skills development in the area are agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and
(b) spending priorities relating to devolved adult education funding are jointly determined.
(7C) A local skills improvement plan may only be altered if both the strategic authority and the employer representative body agree to any proposed alterations.
(7D) Where there is disagreement between a Strategic Authority and an employer representative body exercising joint leadership under subsection (7A), either party may refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who may—
(a) issue guidance to resolve the disagreement;
(b) give directions to either or both parties to ensure effective coordination;
(c) require the parties to adopt alternative arrangements for decision-making;
(d) approve and publish a plan that addresses the disagreement.
(7E) In exercising functions under subsection (7D), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the effective delivery of post-16 technical education and training in the area,
(b) employer engagement in identifying local skills needs,
(c) value for money in delivery of services by Strategic Authorities, and
(d) democratic accountability of Strategic Authorities in delivering such services.’
(4) Section 4 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(5) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—
‘“strategic authority” has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;’”.
This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to exercise joint leadership with employer representative bodies in developing Local Skills Improvement Plans. The amendment also requires Local Skills Improvement Plan boundaries to align with Strategic Authority boundaries to enable effective coordination and provides dispute resolution mechanisms where joint leadership arrangements encounter difficulties.
New clause 14—Policy delivery in areas of competence—
“(1) Any function of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority which—
(a) relates to an area of competence, and
(b) is not a mayoral function exercisable solely by the mayor
must be exercised by or under the direct authority of the constituent members of that authority.
(2) No person may be appointed to exercise any function that relates to making or delivering policy relating to an area of competence unless that person is an elected member of—
(a) the relevant strategic authority, or
(b) a constituent council within the relevant strategic authority.
(3) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the appointment of staff by the strategic authority or its elected members for the purposes of administrative, advisory or technical support for the exercise of its functions.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “a constituent member” means any elected representative who is—
(a) appointed by a constituent council to be a member of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority;
(b) acting in the place of a person appointed under paragraph (a).”
This new clause provides that any policy delivery or development relating to an area of competence in a strategic authority is carried out by an elected representative.
New clause 15—Duty to ensure public trust and financial transparency—
“(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or combined county authority must take reasonable steps to ensure that information regarding the authority’s financial affairs, including its annual budget, significant expenditure, and financial performance, is made accessible to local communities in a clear and understandable manner.
(2) The mayor must publish a policy setting out how the combined authority or combined county authority will engage with local communities on its financial priorities and major spending decisions, and review this policy periodically.”
This new clause requires mayors of CAs and CCAs to ensure that financial information is accessible and understandable to local communities.
New clause 23—Transport authority functions: funding and support—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that relevant authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of those authorities in relation to their transport functions, taking into account the scale and complexity of those functions.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act’ means—
(a) functions of a local transport authority as described in Schedule 9, and
(b) any other functions reasonably connected with the transport.”
This new clause creates a requirement for regular reviews of the financial and administrative needs of authorities to carry out their transport functions.
New clause 24—Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a forward devolution strategy (‘the strategy’).
(2) The purpose of the strategy is to set out the proposed timeline for the establishment of new strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities, in areas of England that are not currently within the area of an established mayoral strategic authority.
(3) The timeline set out in the strategy must include a period within which the Secretary of State intends to issue invitations or directions for proposals for the establishment or expansion of such new strategic authorities for those identified areas.
(4) Any annual report required under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) must include a statement on the progress made in implementing the strategy, including information on any revision of or replacement for the strategy.
(5) Before preparing, publishing, or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the mayors for the areas of established mayoral strategic authorities; and
(b) the constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities.”
This new clause would introduce a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution.
New clause 25—Community infrastructure levy charges: guidance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance for charging authorities on—
(a) the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) appropriate procedures for handling technical errors in the calculation, notification, or collection of community infrastructure levy charges; and
(c) best practice for resolving disputes relating to community infrastructure levy charges where technical errors have occurred.
(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include—
(a) guidance on what constitutes a technical error in the context of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) recommended procedures for reviewing and, where appropriate, waiving or reducing community infrastructure levy charges where a technical error has occurred;
(c) principles to guide the proportionate collection of community infrastructure levy payments when technical errors have been identified; and
(d) time limits for the rectification of technical errors.
(3) In this section—
‘charging authority’ has the meaning given in section 106 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Schedule 14 of this Act;
‘technical error’ means an error in the calculation, notification, or administration of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge that is not related to a material change in the development to which the charge applies.”
New clause 28—Regional governance—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment of a regional governance body in any part of England, where in the opinion of the Secretary of State there is demonstrable local support for such a body.
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide that—
(i) a regional governance body is a body corporate,
(ii) the name of any such body is determined locally, and
(iii) the structure and membership of any such body is determined following consultation with people who live in the relevant part of England;
(b) confer functions upon a regional governance body in relation to—
(i) education and skills,
(ii) transport,
(iii) health and social care,
(iv) housing and planning, and
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) in making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the promotion of effective and accountable regional governance,
(b) the identity and aspirations of the region concerned, and
(c) the principle of subsidiarity.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would enable the establishment of regional governance bodies in parts of England, such as a Yorkshire Parliament or Cornish Assembly, with locally determined names and structures, and allow them to be conferred with responsibilities in areas including education, transport, health and housing, where there is local support.
New clause 29—Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets—
“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—
(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;
(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and
(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).
(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).
(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”
This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.
New clause 30—Visitor levies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area.
(2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”
New clause 31—Overnight accommodation levy—
“(1) An EMSA may impose a levy on any overnight accommodation provided within the EMSA’s area (‘the OAL’).
(2) The levy is payable by persons staying for one or more night in exchange for payment in any—
(a) hotel;
(b) guest house, or bed and breakfast;
(c) self-catering accommodation;
(d) short-term let;
(e) campsite or caravan park;
(f) any other premises that the mayor of an EMSA may designate.
(3) Before introducing or modifying an OAL the mayor of an EMSA must consult such as persons as they consider necessary, which must include communities, business and organisations working in or affected by the tourism industry.
(4) The mayor of an EMSA may determine the rate and structure of an OAL, including concessionary rates and exemptions where they consider it appropriate.
(5) The mayor of than EMSA may specify arrangement relating to—
(a) the collection of the OAL,
(b) the administration of the OAL, and
(c) arrangements for circumstances in which the OAL is not complied with.
(6) Receipts from the OAL are to be paid into the general fund of the EMSA.
(7) Monies received under subsection (6) may be used by the mayor of the EMSA for the purposes of—
(a) promoting, developing and managing tourism within the EMSA area;
(b) enhancing infrastructure for the purposes of benefiting tourism in the area;
(c) supporting cultural, sporting and business activity;
(d) preserving or improving heritage assets;
(e) supporting economic growth in the EMSA area
provided that, in the view of the mayor of the EMSA, such use is consistent with the EMSA’s local growth plan.”
New clause 32—Greater London Authority: decision-making—
“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.
(3) In schedule 4A (Confirmation hearings etc)—
(a) in paragraph 10(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’;
(b) in paragraph 11(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.
(4) In schedule 6 (Procedure for determining the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement)—
(a) in paragraph 8(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’;
(b) In paragraph 8C(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.
(5) In schedule 7 (Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the authority), in paragraph 7(4), leave out ‘at least two thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.”
New clause 33—Joint planning committees—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for local authorities which share a border to establish a joint planning committee.
(2) Joint planning committees under subsection (1) may only consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of the adjacent authorities’ border.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish joint planning committees for adjacent authorities to jointly consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of their adjoining border.
New clause 39—Regulation of waterborne transport services by regional mayors—
“(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to waterborne transport services operating wholly within the authority’s area.
(2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include—
(a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of waterborne transport services;
(b) requiring operators of waterborne transport services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a);
(c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section;
(d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c);
(e) regulation of fares and fare structures for waterborne transport services, including imposing a fare cap;
(f) functions relating to accountability of waterborne transport services providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries;
(g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of waterborne transport services within an authority’s area.
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult—
(a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities),
(b) any local transport authorities affected,
(c) operators of waterborne transport services within the area, and
(d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor.
(5) In this section ‘waterborne transport services’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that such specification must include—
(a) ferry services, and
(b) water taxi and private hire transport services,
which carry passengers by water between two or more places within the area of the authority.”
This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate waterborne transport services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares.
New clause 41—Mayoral CAs and CCAs: any increase in council tax to be subject to referendum—
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 52ZC, before subsection (1) insert—
‘(A1) A mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA’s relevant basic amount of council tax for a financial year must be determined to be excessive if the financial year is the first financial year in which the authority has charged a relevant basic amount of council tax.’
(3) At the beginning of subsection (1), for ‘The’ substitute ‘In any other case, the’.”
New clause 48—Regulation of ferry services by regional mayors—
“(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to ferry services operating wholly within the authority’s area.
(2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include—
(a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services;
(b) requiring operators of ferry services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a);
(c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section;
(d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c);
(e) regulation of fares and fare structures for ferry services, including imposing a fare cap;
(f) functions relating to accountability of ferry service providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries;
(g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of ferry services within an authority’s area.
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult—
(a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities),
(b) any local transport authorities affected,
(c) operators of ferry services within the area, and
(d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor.
(5) In this section ‘ferry services’ means services for the carriage of passengers or vehicles by water between two or more places, all of which are within the area of the authority.”
This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate ferry services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares.
New clause 58—Obligation to align decision-making with nature, air quality, and climate targets—
“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority shall refrain from taking any action or decision that would contradict—
(a) the fulfilment of the carbon budgets and targets established under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) the achievement of the environmental targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;
(c) compliance with the limit values provided for in Schedule 2 to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and
(d) implementation of the programme for adapting to climate change prepared under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the requirements in subsection (1).
(3) Guidance under subsection (2) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”
This new clause places a duty on strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to operate consistently with the targets and requirements in the Climate Change Act, the Environment Act, the Air Quality Standards Regulations, and the statutory climate adaptation programme. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.
New clause 60—Power to provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor—
“(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107C) is amended as follows:
(2) In subsection (1), leave out “one of the members of the authority to be the mayor's deputy” and substitute ‘a deputy mayor’.
(3) In subsection (3)(c), leave out ‘the person ceases to be a member of the combined authority’ and insert ‘the person ceases to be a councillor of a constituent council of the authority’
(4) In subsection (4), leave out ‘another member of the combined authority’ and substitute ‘another councillor of a constituent council’.”
This new clause would amend section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority members of the Combined Authority.
New clause 61—Mayoral special advisers—
“(1) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (section 15) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 15 (Definition of ‘special adviser’) insert—
‘15A Mayoral special advisers
(1) A mayor may appoint one mayoral special adviser
(2) A ‘mayoral special adviser’ is a person (‘P’) who holds a position within a mayoral strategic authority and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements in subsection (3).
(3) The requirements are—
(a) P is appointed to assist the Mayor after being selected by the Mayor personally;
(b) the appointment will end not later than—
(i) the day on which the Mayor ceases to hold office, or
(ii) if earlier, the end of the day after the day of the poll at the election following the appointment.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish a code of conduct for mayoral special advisers (‘the code’).
(5) Before publishing the code (or any revision of it) the Secretary of State must consult the Council of Nations and Regions.
(6) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may not—
(a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; or
(b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the mayoral or strategic authority.
(7) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may—
(a) engage in political activity; and
(b) provide party-political advice to the Mayor.
(8) The code must form part of the terms and conditions of service of any mayoral special adviser.
(9) A person appointed under this section is not to be regarded, for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political restriction of officers and staff), as holding a politically restricted post under a local authority.’”
This new clause would insert a new section into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to establish a statutory framework for the appointment of “mayoral special advisers”. It makes provision about appointment, function, code of conduct, and exemption from political restrictions.
New clause 62—Business Rates Supplement: mayoral authority—
“(1) The Business Rate Supplements Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1) (levying authorities), for the definition substitute—
‘In this Act, ‘levying authority’ means—
(a) the Greater London Authority;
(b) an established mayoral authority in England;
(c) a county council or county borough council in Wales.
(3) Omit section 4(c).
(4) Omit section 7.
(5) Omit section 8.
(6) Omit section 9.
(7) In section 10, omit paragraph (2)(c) and subsections (10) and (11).
(8) In Schedule 1, omit paragraphs 19 and 20.”
This new clause would allow an established mayoral authority in England to levy a Business Rates Supplement. It would remove the ability of county and district councils in England to do so, and would remove the existing requirement for such a supplement to be approved by referendum.
New clause 64—Decisions on GLA strategy and budget: simple majority requirement—
“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b) for ‘at least two thirds’ substitute ‘a simple majority’.
(3) In Schedule 6—
(a) in paragraph 8(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority; and
(b) in paragraph 8C(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority.’”
This new clause would require certain decisions of the London Assembly in relation to the mayor’s strategy and GLA budget to be taken by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority.
New clause 65—Power of the London Assembly in relation to mayoral decisions—
“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 59 (review and investigation) insert—
‘59A Power of the Assembly in relation to proposed mayoral decisions
(1) The powers of the assembly under this Act include—
(a) power to direct that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take is not to be taken while it is under review and scrutiny by the Assembly, and
(b) power to recommend that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take be reconsidered.
(2) The Assembly must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of proposed decisions and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers.
(3) Before complying subsection (2), the Assembly must obtain the consent of the Mayor to the proposals and arrangements.
(4) In the proposals and arrangements published under subsection (2), the Assembly may make provision to require the Mayor to submit to the Assembly details of any decision the Mayor proposes to take.
(5) Provision under subsection (4) may include provision for deadlines by which any such details should be submitted to the Assembly.’”
This new clause would give the London Assembly the power to direct that proposed decisions of the Mayor are not taken while under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly power to recommend that the Mayor reconsider a proposed decision.
New clause 66—Consultation on GLA reform—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, carry out a consultation on potential reforms to the Greater London Authority.
(2) The report must examine as a potential reform the scope for greater direct engagement with elected representatives of the London Borough Councils in decisions made by the Greater London Authority.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within nine months of this Act being passed, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London Borough representatives in GLA decisions.
New clause 70—Duty to confer ESMA powers on Cornwall Council—
“(1) This section applies where Cornwall Council has applied to the Secretary of State for a power available to an established mayoral strategic authority in or under any Act of Parliament (a “relevant power”) to be conferred upon it.
(2) On receipt of an application, the Secretary of State must make regulations to confer the relevant power upon Cornwall Council.
(3) Where a relevant power has been conferred, any reference in or under any Act of Parliament to the exercise of the power by the mayor of an established strategic authority should be read to allow the exercise of the power by the leader of Cornwall Council.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”
This new clause would allow Cornwall Council to apply to the Secretary of State to be conferred ESMA powers and requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to that end upon receipt of such an application.
New clause 71—Requirement to establish and consult neighbourhood area committees—
“(1) The Secretary of State may not make an order or regulations under any Act of Parliament to establish, expand or confer functions on any strategic authority until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the strategic authority will, at the moment of establishment, expansion or conferral of functions, have in place—
(a) neighbourhood area committees which collectively cover the whole area of the strategic authority,
(b) mechanisms to ensure that the neighbourhood area committees are consulted on any decision the strategic authority may take that might affect the area covered by the neighbourhood area committee.
(2) A neighbourhood area committee must ensure that, when consulted by a strategic authority under subsection (1)(b), it responds to the consultation in accordance with any reasonable deadline set by the strategic authority.”
New clause 72—Visitor levies (No. 2)—
“(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a levy charged on the purchase of overnight accommodation.
(2) Following consultation, regulations under this section must—
(a) define the basis on which the levy is to be calculated;
(b) specify the process and consultation requirements for an area seeking to impose a scheme;
(c) set out reporting requirements for relevant businesses and mayoral strategic authorities; and
(d) specify the investigatory powers and penalties available to mayoral strategic authorities for the enforcement of a scheme.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on, and subsequently make, regulations enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a tourism levy on overnight accommodation.
New clause 74—Power of mayors and local authorities to regulate advertising—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable mayors and local authorities to carry out functions relating to the display of advertising.
(2) Such regulations must—
(a) transfer or otherwise provide for the exercise of powers under section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to mayors and local authorities; and
(b) provide that such functions include—
(i) a duty to consider the impact of advertisements on public health, and
(ii) the regulation of content of advertisements deemed to have an adverse impact on local health or likely to exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes.
(3) Regulations under this section may amend provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would provide mayors and local authorities with the power to regulate advertising, and include duties on their use of that power in relation to public health and health inequalities.
New clause 76—Duty to establish a London Combined Board—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a London Combined Board (“the Board”).
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) specify the Membership of the Board as—
(i) the Mayor of London, and
(ii) the membership of the Executive Committee of London Councils;
(b) make provision about joint decision-making between the GLA and the Board, including in relation to—
(i) powers exercised by the GLA on behalf of any London borough;
(ii) funding devolved to the GLA;
(iii) governance of any integrated settlement for London.
(3) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consider—
(a) existing best practice cooperation within other combined authorities in England, and
(b) existing cooperation between the GLA and London boroughs.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a London Combined Board to ensure cooperation and joint decision-making between the GLA and representatives from London borough councils.
New clause 77—Proposals for alternative models for devolution—
“(1) One or more leaders of any strategic authority may notify the Secretary of State of—
(a) any changes to the boundaries and structures of a strategic authority;
(b) any changes to the governance of strategic authorities, including the relationship between a strategic authority and any local authority within its area; and
(c) any other changes to the structure of local devolution in its area
which the leaders believe would contribute to securing the effective exercise of functions either by the strategic authority, or by any local authority within its area.
(2) Before making any notification under subsection (1), the relevant strategic authority must consult—
(a) local authorities within its area;
(b) representatives of the community within its area, including businesses, education providers, health providers, and civil society, and
(c) any other persons that the strategic authority considers expedient.
(3) The Secretary of State must respond to a notification given under this section within three months beginning on the day on which it is submitted to the Secretary of State.
(4) A strategic authority may publish a notification made under this section, and the Secretary of State may publish a response to any such published notification.”
New clause 78—Abolition of PCCs—
“(1) In any mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to transfer all PCC functions to the mayor and abolish the PCC.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to abolish the PCC and transfer their functions to the mayor in authorities which already have a mayor.
Amendment 175, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) Cornwall Council.”
Amendment 176, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(d) Cornwall Council, notwithstanding any requirement for the authority to have a mayor.”
Amendment 91, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “economic development” insert “, poverty and socio-economic inequality,”.
This amendment would make poverty and socio-economic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas.
Amendment 37, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) A unitary district council or a county council may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as a single foundation strategic authority.
(2) A proposal under subsection (1) must be prepared in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a unitary district council as a single foundation strategic authority if—
(a) a proposal has been submitted in accordance with subsection (1), and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power to designate a single foundation Strategic Authority. Instead, a local authority would initiate the request by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 104, page 2, line 31, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 32 and insert
“a referendum has been held in which residents of the council have consented to the designation.”
This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State designating a council as a strategic authority.
Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) Before making a designation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the area of the proposed single foundation strategic authority.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to the unitary district council or county council within which they are situated being designated as a single foundation strategic authority.
Amendment 61, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receives adequate funding to facilitate their transition.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive funding to facilitate their transition.
Amendment 165, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not designate a council if the council’s area is within, or is, the area of a National Park unless the Secretary of State has consulted with the authority for that National Park.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the area of a council which the Secretary of State is designating is within, or is, the area of that National Park.
Amendment 85, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 9.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision to grant mayors of CAs and CCAs the power to appoint commissioners to deliver policy.
Amendment 161, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “not more than 7”.
This amendment would remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by a mayoral authority.
Amendment 162, page 11, line 29, leave out “not more than 7”.
See explanatory statement for 161.
Amendment 77, in clause 19, page 23, line 6, at end insert—
“(f) funding which has been allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.”
This amendment would require the annual report on devolution to include an account of funding provided to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.
Amendment 79, page 23, line 6, at end insert—
“(f) progress with the implementation of the strategy provided for in section [Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy].”
This amendment is consequential on NC24.
Amendment 39, in clause 21, page 24, line 4, leave out subsection (b) and insert—
“(b) one or more of the following—
(i) health and social care;
(ii) planning;
(iii) environmental concerns;
(iv) funding;
(v) sustainability measures;
(vi) education;
(vii) transport provision and
(viii) green and community spaces.”
This amendment ensures that mayors must consider specific community matters when consulting with local partners.
Amendment 27, in clause 40, page 41, line 11 , at end insert—
“(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area.
(1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include—
(a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and
(b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes—
(a) form of engagement used;
(b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and
(c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’”
This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.
Amendment 75, in clause 43, page 44, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
Government amendment 116.
Amendment 92, in clause 43, page 44, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 93 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
Amendment 72, page 44, line 36 , at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 87, page 44, line 36, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Amendment 88, page 45, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature,
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Amendment 172, page 45, line 11, at end insert—
“107ZBA health inequalities strategy
(1) Each strategic authority must prepare and publish a health inequalities strategy setting out how it will operationalise the duty under section 107ZB.
(2) The strategy may be a standalone document or incorporated within another statutory or strategic plan of the authority.
(3) The strategy must promote health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities between persons living in the strategic authority area.
(4) In preparing the strategy, an authority must have regard to relevant national and local strategies relating to health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities.
(5) The strategy must set locally appropriate targets and policies designed to meet them, set for the end of a 10- year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published.
(6) The metrics may include, but need not be limited to metrics relating to—
(a) healthy life expectancy,
(b) infant mortality rate, and
(c) poverty (including the child poverty rate).
(7) The strategic authority must, once every five years, alongside its local growth plan, produce and make publicly available a report on progress against the strategy.”
Amendment 76, page 45, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a CCA has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to have regard to the needs described in subsection (1).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a CCA insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of CCAs with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
Government amendment 117.
Amendment 93, page 45, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 92 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
Amendment 73, page 45, line 36, at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 89, page 45, line 36, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Amendment 90, page 45, line 39, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature,
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Government amendment 118.
Amendment 47, in clause 45, page 50, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) a draft of any such order is subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State to alter the size of PCC areas when transferring powers of PCCs to strategic authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 48, in clause 46, page 53, line 43, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 40, in clause 49, page 55, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Where a notification under subsection (1) is given, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the notification is given, give effect to the change or changes proposed by the mayor or mayors.
(4) Effect may be given under subsection (3) by means of regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument made under subsection (4) is —
(a) subject to the affirmative procedure if it—
(i) amends an Act of Parliament, or
(ii) confers or modifies a function which relates to an area of competence;
(b) where neither of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment creates a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval before implementing mayoral requests for greater powers over funding or legal changes.
Amendment 36, page 55, line 21, at end insert—
“(4) No decision under subsection (3) may be implemented unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has made regulations giving effect to the decision,
(b) a statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and
(c) save as where provided for otherwise, regulations giving effect to any decision made under section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would require any decision of the Secretary of State following a request from a local authority to be implemented by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
Government new schedule 1—Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways.
Government new schedule 2—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London.
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 81, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 9 to 15, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.
Amendment 9, page 81, line 33, leave out subparagraph (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 10, page 82, line 18, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsection (3)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 11, page 83, line 6, leave out paragraph 8.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 12, page 83, line 8, leave out paragraph 9.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 13, page 84, line 36, leave out paragraph 16.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 169, page 85, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.
Amendment 54, page 85, line 27, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the proposed new combined authority area.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to proposing a new combined authority in the area in which they are situated.
Amendment 166, page 85, line 27, at end insert—
“(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a new combined authority is within, or is, the area of that National Park.
Amendment 170, page 85, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) The order does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.
Amendment 105, page 86, line 28, at end insert—
“(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed combined authority have consented to the area being established as a combined authority.”
This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making an order to establish a combined authority.
Amendment 62, page 86, line 37, at end insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure the combined authority receives adequate funding to facilitate its establishment.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment.
Amendment 14, page 88, line 14, leave out paragraph 19.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 50, page 88, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State has obtained consent for the proposal from any affected local government area.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from all affected areas in preparing a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined county authority.
Amendment 171, page 88, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if the area in the proposal includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.
Amendment 167, page 88, line 41, at end insert—
“(5A) If the proposed local government area or existing area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the local government area or existing area the Secretary of State proposes to merge is within, or is, the area of that National Park.
Amendment 55, page 89, line 2, after “to” insert “and thereafter consult with”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with any of the relevant councils and persons given notice that an area is being proposed to be added to an existing combined authority.
Amendment 56, page 89, line 9, at end insert—
“(da) any town and parish councils whose area would be added to the area of the combined authority, and”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority.
Amendment 51, page 89, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of line 12 on page 90.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor for the area of an existing combined authority.
Amendment 15, page 90, line 13, leave out paragraph 20.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 16, page 94, line 36, leave out subparagraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 16 to 21, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Amendment 17, page 95, line 21, leave out subparagraph (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 18, page 97, line 10, leave out paragraph 33.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 19, page 97, line 12, leave out paragraph 34.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 52, page 98, line 22, leave out paragraphs 37 and 38.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA without a public consultation.
Amendment 20, page 98, line 34, leave out paragraph 38.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 164, page 99, line 27, at end insert—
“(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a CCA is within, or is, the area of that National Park.
Amendment 106, page 100, line 26, at end insert—
“(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed CCA have consented to the area being established as a CCA.”
This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making regulations to establish a CCA.
Amendment 21, page 102, line 16, leave out paragraph 41.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 22, page 104, line 13, leave out paragraph 42.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 86, page 112, line 1, leave out Schedule 3.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 163, in schedule 3, page 113, leave out lines 1 to 32.
This amendment removes restrictions limiting appointments by mayors to one commissioner per competence.
Government amendments 122 to 124.
Amendment 24, page 117, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) The relevant remuneration panel may not recommend allowances which exceed the amount paid in salary to a person employed at director level within the relevant authority.”
This amendment ensures that Commissioners cannot be paid more than Directors working for the authority.
Amendment 151, page 120, line 32, at end insert
“or,—
(c) prevent the commissioner from operating collaboratively with other commissioners across different areas of competence, recognising that the work of commissioners will often intersect and benefit from integrated working with a spatial lens to meet the needs of, and drive positive outcomes for specific places as a whole.”
This amendment broadens the scope of paragraph 4 of this Schedule to ensure that commissioners appointed by the mayor for the area of a combined authority are not only permitted to work incidentally across areas of competence but are also encouraged to do so collaboratively and with a spatial, place-based perspective.
Government amendments 125 to 134.
Amendment 23, in schedule 5, page 136, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the license holder to maintain sufficient docking space for the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license.
(4) The regulations must include requirements for license holders which would require them to ensure that the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license do not obstruct any highway, cycling path, footpath, bridlepath, or subway.
(5) The regulations must stipulate that failure of license holders to comply with subsections (3) and (4) will warrant a loss of license.”
This amendment would require that regulations ensure that license holders for micromobility vehicles are responsible for maintaining sufficient docking space for their vehicle and ensuring their vehicle does not obstruct any highways or public paths, or else lose their license.
Government amendment 137.
Amendment 35, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, at end insert—
‘3 “(1) Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (4) insert—
4A “(1) There is a parking contravention in England if a person causes an obstruction which, without lawful authority or excuse, causes or permits a motor vehicle to stand on a pavement in such a manner as to wilfully obstruct free passage along the pavement.
(2) A parking contravention under subparagraph (1) is a civil offence which may be enforced by the local authority in which the contravention has occurred.
(3) The relevant local authority under subparagraph (2) may issue penalty charges for a civil offence under subsection (2).
(4) The amount for a penalty charge under subparagraph (3) shall be determined by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subparagraph (4) may specify different penalty charge amounts based on—
(a) the obstructing vehicle class,
(b) the area of the local authority in which the obstruction has occurred, or
(c) any other relevant circumstantial consideration.
(6) In this paragraph—
(a) “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and
(b) “pavement” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.
4B (1) Penalty charge amounts for parking contraventions under this Part may be set by the relevant local authority.
(2) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must align with provisions under section 77 of this Act.
(3) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must have regard to any regulations made under section 87 of this Act.
(4) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must be published by the local authority and may be revised from time to time.”’
This amendment would allow local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking within their areas as a civil offence and devolves the power to set parking penalty charge amounts for all parking penalty charge offences to local authorities.
Amendment 74, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, insert—
‘3 “(1) After Paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, insert—
“Exercise of functions relating to civil enforcement
11 Any functions related to civil enforcement described by this schedule must be exercised directly by—
(a) the elected mayor for the area of an authority, or
(b) a member of an authority who is an elected member of a constituent council.”’
This amendment ensures civil enforcement powers, when exercised by CAs and CCAs, must be under the direction of elected officials.
Government amendments 138 to 144.
Amendment 25, in schedule 12, page 174, line 24, at end insert—
“61DCB Density requirement
(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—
(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,
(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or
(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.
(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation.
(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”
This amendment would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.
Government amendments 145 and 146.
Amendment 71, page 175, line 22 at end insert—
“(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert—
“(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure—
(a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and
(b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area”.’
This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.
Government amendments 147 to 149.
Amendment 26, in schedule 17, page 207, line 27, at end insert—
“7A After section 202, insert—
‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land
Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”
Amendment 69, page 210, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 13 and insert
“the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”.
This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils.
Amendment 65, in schedule 19, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.
(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
Amendment 80, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
Amendment 159, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”
Amendment 173, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and
(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”
Amendment 174, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”
This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.
Amendment 83, page 215, line 19, at end insert—
“107MA Funding and support relating for local growth plans
‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.’.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans.
Amendment 66, page 216, line 29, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area covered by the authority, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.”
“(2A) The Secretary of State must make provision to support a mayoral CCA in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral CCAs to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
Amendment 81, page 216, line 29, at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
Amendment 160, page 216, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) The mayoral CCA must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”
Amendment 84, page 217, line 15, at end insert—
“32BA Funding and support relating to local growth plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral CCAs have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral CCAs in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral CCAs with regard to local growth plans.
Amendment 49, in schedule 21, page 224, leave out lines 6 to 12.
This amendment would remove the provision to allow mayors to appoint a person to manage policing and crime for their area.
Government amendments 112, 135, 136 and 113.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am delighted to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House on Report. Before I go any further, I would like to place on the record my gratitude to Members from across the House for their continued engagement on this Bill, and in particular to the Chairs and members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent and thoughtful contributions to line-by-line scrutiny.
This Bill will secure the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. At its heart is the principle that if we take power out of Westminster and Whitehall and place it in the hands of local leaders and communities who know their patch, we can unlock the economic potential of places, revive communities that have been held back for too long, and deliver for people in the places where they live, raise a family and work.
We will provide mayors and their strategic authorities with new powers over planning, housing, transport and regeneration so that they can get Britain building and unleash the economic potential of their areas. We will reform and rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on, and we will empower local communities to shape their places so that they can drive the change they want to see on their doorstep.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Can the Minister assure me that the devolution of powers to our mayors—the west midlands is a really good example, because we have had a mayor for a number of years—will be accompanied by a devolution of accountability and scrutiny to local councillors and, importantly, to local communities? I fear that that is exactly what is missing and continues to be missing in this piece of legislation.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely. We are very clear that with powers come responsibility and accountability. We are strengthening scrutiny powers for local government, and we will continue to look at ways in which we can strengthen scrutiny and accountability powers for mayors. We are absolutely clear that we have got to devolve power, but alongside that it is really important that local people can hold to account the institutions we are creating and building.
Since the Bill left this Chamber after Second Reading, the Government have made a modest number of amendments to ensure that it will operate as intended. To be clear, we have not introduced significant new policy; rather, we have responded to concerns raised by Members in the best traditions of parliamentary scrutiny. I am therefore confident that we are bringing a better Bill back on Report.
Today’s debate is concerned with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, on strategic authorities and their powers, duties and functions. Many of our amendments are minor and technical, and I will therefore focus on explaining the more substantive changes we made in Committee and the further amendments we have brought forward on Report that relate to these parts of the Bill.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is the Government’s clear intention to devolve powers, but in the reorganisation of local government, the Government are taking sweeping powers to determine the outcome of any reorganisation—in Essex, for example. Will the Minister undertake to listen to the consultation and to reflect the consultation responses in the decision that the Government take? Currently in the Bill, there is no obligation on them to do so.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that the process of local government reorganisation should be driven by local areas. That is why we are going through a process in which local areas are coming up with proposals, and consulting constituent authorities and their communities. We will then make a decision based on those proposals.
It is very clear that this Bill is about devolution. Yes, there is a backstop power, but it is not one that we intend to use; it will be used only in extreme cases. The process of local government reorganisation is proceeding at the moment, and all areas in that process are engaging. Proposals are coming forward, and we will make decisions based on those proposals.
At the heart of the reorganisation is an objective: to have local authorities that are more sustainable and that can deliver for their local people. That is the central purpose of reorganisation, and it is something that we are absolutely committed to delivering.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). In Committee, the Minister outlined that she wants this process to be a happy one, but may I ask her to confirm one point on the Floor of the House? If local authorities do not wish to go through local government reorganisation, this Government will force them to do so, won’t they?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Opposition have some cheek to raise that point, because on their watch, local government was put under a huge amount of pressure. Reorganisation should have happened on their watch, but they ducked it; we are now gripping this issue and driving the change. We are not doing this for the fun of it, but because we are very clear that we need to deliver for local people. We need services that make sense and geographies that make sense—that can deliver the outcomes we want in places. We are going through a process, and all areas are engaging with that process in good faith. We will see their proposals, and my colleague in the Department will make a decision based on the criteria we have explicitly and transparently set out.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make some progress on the things we will be debating today. In Committee, we amended schedules 1 and 9 to the Bill to state that combined foundation strategic authorities’ decisions on adopting local transport plans and agreeing their budgets will require the unanimous agreement of all constituent councils. This recognises that budget setting and the local transport plan are key strategic decisions that all councils should agree to in the absence of a mayor with a clear democratic mandate. Further amendments to schedule 1 will also require the consent of relevant constituent councils in matters that could result in a financial liability on that council.
Moreover, we believe that strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the demands for education and training places in their areas. We have therefore widened duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18 and those aged over 19 with an education, health and care plan are met. We have also ensured that at least one full academic year will pass between the establishment or designation of a new strategic authority and that authority being able to exercise the six adult education functions. This approach is in line with that taken for strategic authorities that already exercise those functions.
Turning to local growth plans, we have expanded the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities that the Government agree with mayors. This reflects our original intentions as set out in the White Paper. It is essential that mayors know that their agreed priorities will be acted on, and that all parts of Government are pulling in the same direction to grow the economy.
I now turn to the more substantive amendments that the Government are making on Report to these parts of the Bill. The Bill already provides mayoral strategic authorities with the general power of competence. As currently drafted, schedule 4 allows non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to exercise the general power of competence only for the purposes of economic development and regeneration. Our amendments remove that restriction, ensuring that all combined authorities and combined county authorities can make full use in the same way as local authorities of the general power of competence.
Jim Shannon
I will not be the only MP who has received correspondence from the Country Land and Business Association. That organisation is quite clear that it fears that rural regions will be left behind, and is worried about mayors taking unprecedented control over transport, housing, planning, skills and economic development. How can the Minister assure all of us in this House that mayors will understand what uses of those powers will genuinely support rural businesses, which must not be left behind?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of rural areas. As we see mayors in more rural areas, it will be incumbent on them to respond to the priorities and needs of their local people. That is the beauty of the democracy we are putting in place—it is the beauty of the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. In areas where mayors cover rural areas, we are seeing that those mayors are absolutely clear about the challenges in the rural economy and are working to ensure that their economic and investment plans address those challenges. That is what I expect, because at the end of this process is a democratic lock, and if a mayor does not respond to the challenges in their local area, local people can vote them out.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
During the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Government would use the devolution Bill to strengthen the status of assets of community value. Will the Minister confirm that this Bill will indeed strengthen that status, so that we do not see such assets being demolished in pursuit of new housing?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will be moving on to talk about community right to buy and assets of community value. We are clear that communities should be able to identify assets of community value and ensure that they are protected. We are looking to give communities greater power to take on those assets. We are clear that every community will have those assets that they value. This Bill will ensure that we give them the power and the tools to protect those assets.
I will move on to another key amendment that we are making on Report. I am sure that Members across the House would agree that London’s pubs and restaurants are the beating heart of our cultural life. They contribute to our capital’s world-class status and the growth of our economy, yet for too long hospitality businesses have been held back by a licensing regime that lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. That is why we are bringing forward amendments to pilot a new licensing regime in London. It will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London’s night-time economy to thrive.
The amendments will give the Mayor of London the power to publish a strategic licensing policy for hospitality venues within London’s night-time economy, which licensing authorities in Greater London will have a duty to “have regard to” when carrying out their licensing function. The Mayor of London will also be made a statutory consultee on licensing authority policies, and the Greater London Authority will become a responsible authority in the licensing process.
The amendments will also introduce a call-in power for the Mayor of London for borough licensing applications of strategic importance.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for outlining the new power that the Government are looking at. I had a meeting this morning with two of my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). In some areas, we are seeing licensing policies that are having a detrimental impact on local communities. Does the Minister agree that in the proposals she is outlining there is still a crucial role for local licensing authorities, where our hard-working councillors are working with the community to determine which licensing applications come forward?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue. We are clear that the local licensing authority will continue to be the key authority, and such things as licensing fees will flow to those local authorities. This measure creates the ability for the Mayor of London to call things in, in particular instances where we think that the licensing will work for areas of strategic importance. In so doing, the mayor will invariably have to work with the local licensing authority and the community, because whatever is done—the mayor is elected—must be done with the support of the local community.
I will turn to planning and empowering our mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way. The Bill provides mayors of strategic authorities with the ability to intervene in planning applications of potential strategic importance and to make mayoral development orders to better support growth in their area. Those powers are currently only available to the Mayor of London. When a mayor decides that they will become a local planning authority for an application of potential strategic importance, our amendment will enable them to choose between either a written representation procedure or an oral hearing, so that applicants, local planning authorities and other parties can make representations before a final decision is made.
To be clear, we want oral hearings to continue to be an important part of mayoral decision making. Applications of potential strategic importance that a mayor is dealing with will often be significant developments with wider ramifications for the area, so it is crucial that there is an opportunity to make direct representation to the mayor. However, an oral hearing may not be necessary for certain applications where planning matters may be less substantial, such as where an application deals with a variation to an earlier permission and the planning matter has already been established. We believe that this provision, which creates options and gives flexibility to the mayor, could save up to several months, such as by avoiding an unnecessary repeated oral hearing period.
Wendy Morton
I am concerned that this measure will result in a railroading of planning applications, which will impact on constituencies such as mine, on the periphery of the west midlands. What specific safeguards will the Minister be putting in place to ensure that ward councillors, local planning committees and local Members of Parliament continue to have a voice? At the moment, the Mayor of the West Midlands does not even reply to my letters.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear that where a mayoral development order is being put in place, there will be processes and procedures that the mayor will have to set out so that people can make direct representation. Ultimately, I come back to the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. Therefore, the need to consult will be critical, whether that is with their constituent authorities in order to deliver or, importantly, with their community, who can vote them in or out. We have set out and designed this measure to allow that representation and that consultation. Ultimately, there is a democratic lock if a mayor does not abide with that engagement.
Amendments to schedule 12 remove the need for the mayor to secure the local planning authority’s approval before making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. I reiterate, however—this is important—that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring those authorities along, as they will be crucial for delivering these orders. If mayors cannot build the consent and support of the local planning authority, it will be much more difficult to deliver the development and ensure that consents and approvals go through. The Bill is about empowering mayors, because we believe that they have a democratic mandate to provide that strategic leadership. Critically, they must and will do that in lockstep with their constituent authorities.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Can the Minister say a word or two about her expectations for this new arrangement that she is creating—it will have some plus points and some minus points, because no system is perfect—and the timeliness of decision making? Investors and others want timely decisions so that they can move things forward, and not get lost in the weeds of officialdom, strategies, papers, consultations and so on. If we are to power growth, time is of the essence.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree with the hon. Member. We want pace in planning and pace in development. One of the frustrations for us on the Government Benches is that we inherited a system where the development and the house building that should have happened did not happen under the last Government. We are trying to grip that, and through these mayoral development orders, we think we can deliver pace and strategic clarity so that our mayors can designate strategically important sites that are critical for investment in infrastructure and ensure that they happen, working alongside their constituent authorities.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister mentioned the hospitality sector earlier, and I briefly want to come back to that. Bath council and I are seeking the power for local authorities to introduce a modest visitor levy, alongside our proposed 5% cut in VAT for hospitality. Does she agree that a visitor levy on overnight stays would generate a new ringfenced revenue stream for the hospitality sector, which would be beneficial?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Mayors across the country have been strong advocates for a visitor levy, but the hon. Lady will forgive me, because that is within the Chancellor’s remit, and I would not dare to pre-empt anything that the Chancellor may or may not say in the Budget, which is only 48 hours away. Suffice it to say, our mayors have been making the case vociferously for the benefits of such a levy and what it could do for their visitor economy while critically enabling them to unlock some of the investment that they want in their areas.
I have been clear throughout this process that the devolution framework is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition. Where there are sensible opportunities for us to go further and devolve more powers to mayors, we should take them. We have therefore brought forward an amendment to devolve the approval of lane rental schemes from the Secretary of State for Transport to mayors of strategic authorities, putting the decision in the hands of those with knowledge of their area.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I urge hon. Members to make short interventions?
Ruth Cadbury
Yes, I will do. I welcome the lane rental measure, which the Government put in the White Paper and is now in the Bill. However, why do the Secretary of State and the Minister not trust other authorities? Why does it apply only to elected mayoral authorities? Would it not be fair for all authorities to be able to use lane rental, which is so important in improving roadworks?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Lane rentals are there for all highways authorities. This is about the approval of lane rentals, which currently sits with the Secretary of State for Transport. We think that if we can devolve that to another democratic person, namely the mayor, that will be a good and quick way to do lane rental—and it will, critically, ensure that we are responsive to what is required locally. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for his efforts in pushing an eminently sensible amendment.
Paul Holmes
May I begin by welcoming the Minister to her place? We spent a long time together on the Bill Committee, working cross-party, along with many other Members on both sides of the House. They included the Statler and Waldorf of the Committee, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), whose heckling of me throughout the sittings was very welcome. [Hon. Members: “More!”] A number of Members are saying “More!” from a sedentary position.
The Minister was bombarded with what I would argue are excellent amendments tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but I think she has been taking a leaf from the book of her colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning. Much of her response to amendments tabled by me—and by the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, some of her own colleagues who wanted to see movement from the Government—was that she would “reflect”. She would reflect in order to make the Bill better, and she would reflect on whether she could make it better by accepting amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House. Instead, she has reflected on nothing. Instead, she has brought us a Bill to which she has tabled a small number of amendments that the Government want, but any other amendments tabled by other parties have been completely ignored.
Just to show how unprepared the Government were today, let me point out that most of the Committee stage was taken up with discussion of Government amendments, because this Bill from a Government who wanted to govern in the interests of the people was so riddled with holes that they spent most of the time discussing their own proposals, rather than those of the Opposition.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Today the Government put forward 23 of their own amendments, which meant that the Minister allowed less than a minute for each one in her speech. That includes two new schedules. Moreover, we have still not seen a great deal of the regulation that will flow from the Bill, even in draft form. Is this Bill ready, in any way?
Paul Holmes
The answer is clearly no, because otherwise it would not have had as many holes as it had in Committee, and it would not have as many holes as it has today. If it were a Bill from a Government who genuinely sought cross-party co-operation on what could be a very exciting programme of devolution for local authorities and people throughout the country, the Minister and the Government would have looked more seriously at some of the excellent amendments and new clauses tabled by Members from all parts of the House, although not by the Minister’s own Back Benchers.
I am a big fan of the Minister, but when I intervened on her earlier, she showed some anger, which is not typical of her. She tried to object when I said that as a result of her local government reorganisation programme, councils across the country will be forced to reorganise, even if they do not want to. There is a backstop that the Minister said she did not want to use, but when she winds up the debate, I ask her to confirm what she refused to confirm in Committee—that if local authorities do not want to reorganise, she will force them to do so. It is about time the Government came clean about that, so that local authority leaders throughout the country know what they will have to deal with, and know that they will have a gun against their head and will be forced to reorganise, rather than getting on with delivering efficient services, as they try to daily.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I add my support for my hon. Friend’s opposition to compulsory reorganisation, which local authorities simply do not want? The people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be in a greater Stoke-on-Trent; they want to have their own say.
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend absolutely knows her constituency. We have tried to ensure, both today and in Committee, that local authority leaders can choose who they work with. They should not be forced to do things by a Minister behind a desk in Whitehall, but that is what this Minister and this Department are doing. It is shameful. It is not what Members on both sides of the House want, and it is not what local authority leaders want—and they know best. I ask the Minister to look at that compulsion again.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful; my hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous.
I commend the Minister for being on top of her brief, but I did not have a chance to raise this question, which is directly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making. The regulations have not been written to show how the neighbourhood panels, or whatever they are called, will be created, but the Bill contains sweeping powers to direct how those neighbourhoods should be constructed. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we believe in devolution, this should be left to the local authorities to determine, rather than its being determined by Ministers?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and, indeed, in the Bill, there are plenty of other examples—which we discussed in Committee—of the Government not genuinely devolving to mayors, local authorities and combined authorities powers that they would actually quite like, but giving them the powers that they want them to have, while taking other powers away. That is not true devolution, and the Government should look again at delivering true devolution throughout the United Kingdom.
Wendy Morton
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more of an English centralisation and community disempowerment Bill?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend tempts me; I agree with her wholeheartedly. It is crazy that the Government are embarked on one of the largest sets of planning reforms in the country at this time. Fair funding formulas are being announced, and many planning reforms have been announced over the past few months, but the authorities concerned are being abolished and, essentially, reorganised. The way that the Government have approached their reforming agenda is topsy-turvy, and they need to go back to the drawing board.
Far from creating clarity, the Bill piles new combined authorities, new mayoralties and new boards on top of already overlapping local councils. The Government are introducing complexity at a moment when the public want simplicity—clear lines of responsibility, not an ever-changing maze of institutions—and they are doing all this while fundamentally changing planning laws. Residents should be able to know, without needing a flowchart, who is responsible for transport, planning, regeneration or housing, but the Bill fails that basic test of good governance. As I have said, there is a plethora of reforms at different stages and in different bits of legislation.
Many—I would argue—very good amendments and new clauses have been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and new clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which I moved in Committee, and which would allow a mayor to benefit from the true devolution that the Government have spoken about by being allowed regulatory responsibility for ferries. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) have signed that new clause. I brought the matter up in Committee, and, to her credit, the Minister committed to ensuring that the Department for Transport would have another look at establishing the body that my hon. Friend was promised; that, I believe, has not happened yet. New clause 48 would allow mayors to ensure that they were acting, in respect of transport connectivity, on behalf of the people who elected them. I do not see why the Government are resisting the new clause, because they have allowed mayors regulatory responsibility for many areas across the United Kingdom, and not only geographically.
The Isle of Wight, which is just to the side of my Hamble Valley constituency, is a special case because of the desperate access needs of those living there. They have relied on a service that is basically being run into the ground. It charges extortionately high fares, it often has cancellations, its equipment has not been updated for a very long time, and the company has just been sold. I ask the Minister to look at giving true powers of devolution to mayors once again. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East will speak to his excellent new clause; I hope that the Minister will look at giving mayors true powers, on my hon. Friend’s behalf and on behalf of her hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West. I hope that the Minister will also consider new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, which would allow water taxi services to be regulated by a mayor.
The official Opposition tabled amendments 8, 16 and related amendments. They speak to a principle that should be absolutely fundamental to our system: changes to local governance should not be imposed from Whitehall without the consent of the councils and communities they affect. The amendments would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create a combined authority or alter its composition without the agreement of the local authorities involved.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of when a Conservative Government gave a veto to a local authority?
Paul Holmes
The last Conservative Government worked with local authorities to devolve responsibilities to them, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an example of when a Labour Government gave local people a veto on devolution: the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, asked people whether they wanted devolution. When they said no in the north of England, the Government dropped their plans. This Government are going forward with forcing devolution on local people, and are not even bothering to ask them. That is the difference between this Labour Government and the great Labour Governments of the past, which is why the hon. Gentleman should speak to his Minister. The last Labour Government was a very principled Government, led by principled politicians. Where are they? This Government certainly do not bother to ask local people about the devolution that they seek to impose on them.
Combined authorities are voluntary partnerships; they function effectively only when the constituent councils trust one another and have confidence in the structures in which they operate. If we grant the Secretary of State the unilateral power to reshape those structures, redraw governance arrangements or impose new members or functions without consent, we risk undermining that trust at its very foundation. Devolution cannot be delivered by coercion, and genuine partnership cannot be created by ministerial order.
It is worth remembering that combined authorities, unlike ordinary local authorities, do not arise organically; they exist because councils choose to work together, on terms they negotiate and agree among themselves. They are built on consent. If that consent is overridden or taken for granted, we risk destabilising the very institutions that we are trying to strengthen. That is not acceptable. This Bill, despite its lofty title, does remarkably little to empower the truly local level—the parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions that understand their communities best. Instead, the Bill concentrates mayoral authority in the hands of regional leaders, who may be many miles away, both geographically and democratically, from the people affected by their decisions.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the District Councils’ Network has been briefing Members on both sides of the House that if the Government go ahead and force these changes through, the very least they can do is to have district councils represented on the strategic authorities until all the changes have come to completion. Does he think that he might be able to persuade the Government to have that more limited aim?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend and county neighbour is probably putting a bit too much faith in me. I have never been able to convince a Minister to change their mind and improve legislation, but he is absolutely right. [Interruption.] That time may come, says the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue: while district councils are in action and represent their local communities, they should have a place, because they know their areas best.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the shadow Minister for discussing the issue of council tax, which I am sure he will agree is one of the most regressive forms of taxation. If he is honest, he will recognise that successive Governments have dodged this issue by placing it in the “too difficult” box, including during the last 14 years. Does he agree that maybe this is something that the previous Government should have looked at?
Paul Holmes
If I am proposing a new clause to limit the increases that mayors can bring forward, then yes, I am happy to look at that. That is why I have tabled new clause 2, and why I argue that the Government should look at it. I agree with the hon. Lady that council tax has for a very long time been used as a natural model to try to raise more money. I have been honest with her before in saying that Governments of different stripes have not put in a long-term, sustainable funding model that does not just rely on council tax increases, but I say to her gently—she does an excellent job as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—that the Government are making it worse. Allowing central mayors to have no limit on the amount by which they can increase council tax will just encourage them to put more of their responsibilities on to the balance sheet by increasing people’s taxes, and that is not a good thing. That is why we argue that this new clause is proportionate and principled, and offers the certainty that residents deserve.
New clause 4 seeks to ensure that ordinary householders who wish to extend their own homes for their own use are not unfairly burdened with the community infrastructure levy. The purpose of this new clause is clear and sensible. It would insert into the Planning Act 2008 a straightforward principle that CIL is not charged on householder extensions where the property remains the family’s own residence and the development is for personal use, not commercial gain. The Minister knows that we have brought this up before, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has long been campaigning for it. Too many local authorities across the UK are taking people for granted in charging CIL if people are just creating extensions. The Government, to their credit, and the Minister, to her credit, have said that they would do something about this, but there is no reason why she cannot back this new clause to enable what she has said she wishes to come true. If she cannot back it, I look to her to say in her winding-up speech, for certainty for the people affected by this, when the Government will bring forward measures to tackle what this new clause would do.
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the last two amendments. Amendment 25 seeks to place clear, sensible and strategic priorities at the heart of the framework for mayoral development orders. It would ensure a rational, evidence-based approach, and does so by ensuring that development under MDOs is focused where it delivers the greatest public benefit—in areas of higher density, stronger transport accessibility and previously developed land.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way, especially as I missed the first few words of his speech—he can only imagine my disappointment. While promoting higher-density development near transport nodes makes a lot of sense, can he explain why subsection (3) of the proposed new section would require mayors to issue blanket planning permission for the development of all previously developed land, which includes all residential areas and, in some places, residential gardens? He has spent a lot of time talking about the rights of local councils, but this would take away their planning permission powers and mean issuing blanket planning permission by the mayor on all previously developed land.
Paul Holmes
Dare I say it, but I think the hon. Gentleman is probably being slightly naughty. We are trying to put into the legislation that we want to counter what this Government have been doing, which is to make it easier to build on rural areas where infrastructure is not deliverable, when we should be building first in town centres and high-density areas where most people in this country want to live, and that is why we will be supporting amendment 25.
Amendment 26 would place a simple, but vital restriction on mayoral development corporations: when they are designating land for development, they must not designate greenfield land unless there is no suitable previously developed land available. This principle has long commanded support across this House. Members on all sides, except for the Government, recognise that we must make the best possible use of brownfield land before contemplating the loss of undeveloped countryside.
Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Holmes, before you flick through any more pages, it is obviously very interesting to hear you speak, but over 25 Members are hoping to contribute.
Paul Holmes
The official Opposition have tabled other amendments, and I could speak about them all evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to reassure you, the officials in the Box and Members across this House, I will draw my remarks to a close.
We should not confuse amendments with progress, and we should not confuse this Bill with something that delivers true devolution. True devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, and this Bill offers none of those things. It is a patchwork of half-formed ideas, untested assumptions and powers handed out without the democratic scaffolding needed to hold them up. I believe in devolution done properly, but this does not do that. England deserves a coherent settlement, not a constitutional patchwork. Communities deserve real empowerment, not distant regional authorities replacing national ones. Taxpayers deserve accountability, not new structures that spend their money with little scrutiny. We urge the Government to look at this again and to accept the amendments I have outlined.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill back. On a happier note than that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), I think this Bill does outline some of the powers going down to local communities. My understanding is that this is the first Bill to have “community empowerment” in its title, which shows the Government’s commitment to push on it. The Minister and I are fellow Labour and Co-operative MPs, and I am very excited about the community right to buy. I pay tribute to the many across the co-op movement who have been fighting for this for many years. I am mindful of the time, so I want to reflect on three specific areas.
First, new clause 25, tabled by my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on community infrastructure levy charges on homeowners, including on how local councils will respond to technical errors. Our Committee heard representations from the CIL Injustice group, which represents dozens of homeowners who have been unfairly charged CIL for home extensions, self-build and other small projects, even though CIL is intended as a levy for large-scale developments. Councils have seemingly issued the charges due to technical administrative errors such as paperwork being completed incorrectly, but the impact of these charges are life changing for some residents. We heard evidence of homeowners facing unexpected bills ranging from £40,000 to £200,000. We heard that some councils are applying a zero-tolerance approach, with the threat of imprisonment if these bills are not paid. Ultimately, we are seeing homeowners suffering real distress as a result. Some of them have been forced to sell their homes because they have been charged for something they should not have been charged.
To the credit of the Minister for Housing and Planning, he told our Select Committee that the CIL regulations are
“not intended to operate in this way”,
and that the Government are
“giving very serious consideration to amending them”
to ensure no one is unfairly charged. However, that was back in July, and in a letter to the Committee earlier this month, he was unable to provide an update on the plans to amend the regulations. He told us that the Department
“has not issued any formal or informal communications”
to councils about charging CIL. New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury, would require the Government to take the steps urgently needed to address the unfair CIL charges. It would be helpful if the Minister, when winding up, gave the House an update on when the review of CIL guidance is coming, or if we can expect any secondary legislation to address this. We understand that Ministers cannot intervene on individual cases, but a clear direction should be issued to councils that they cannot treat applicants in this way and that they should clear up the paperwork to stop more homeowners being pursued for thousands of pounds of charges.
Secondly, new clause 31, on the tourism levy, has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). This new clause would give established mayoral strategic authorities the power to impose a levy on overnight accommodation in their area. Importantly, subsection (6) would require that money received from this levy is paid into the general fund of the authority, so it would be going directly to local councils. Our Select Committee has pressed the Government to go further with fiscal devolution. We welcome the empowerment of local councils in many areas, but we are very clear that the one omission from the Bill is fiscal devolution down to our local colleagues. Our report on the funding and sustainability of local government finance, which we published in July this year, included a recommendation to the Treasury to devolve tax-setting powers to local authorities, allowing them to set their own forms of local taxation, such as the tourism levy. I understand that, as the Minister outlined, anything to do with taxation is down to the Treasury and is not something for HCLG Ministers to look at, but I hope they are actively having such conversations with Treasury Ministers.
We acknowledge that visitor levies have pros and cons. Their benefits would not be equal right across the country, and the right approach must be taken in each local area. However, our Select Committee heard that, where it does work, it would be helpful as a new form of fundraising at the regional level. For example, Mayor Tracy Brabin, the mayor of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, told us that a visitor levy would give the authority an opportunity to become more self-sufficient. Councillor Louise Gittins, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us that some form of the tourist levy would be really helpful to deal with the pressures that tourists can put on local economies. The Government’s explanatory notes state that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Westminster, but, as I mentioned, the fiscal devolution element has been very quiet. I hope the Minister will recognise that until Westminster is willing to let go of its tight grip on tax setting and revenue raising down to local authorities, we will not see the kind of independence, community empowerment and local accountability we all want. New clause 31 would grant local authorities the power to impose visitor levies. It would be a positive first step in that direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices.
Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution.
As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there.
As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform.
Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale.
Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards.
That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services.
Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today.
We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced.
I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment.
Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments.
Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done.
If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to Government new clause 44 and new schedule 2. These provisions give powers to the Mayor of London to establish a pilot to set up a strategic licensing policy statement, which would cover sections 4 and 5 of the Licensing Act 2003. In summary, that is the sale by retail of alcohol, a licence for the “provision of regulated entertainment” under schedule 1 of the 2003 Act, and
“The provision of late night refreshment licences”—
within the meaning of schedule 2 of the 2003 Act.
I am proud to represent a borough that has some of the best licensed premises in the country. In Shoreditch, Dalston and elsewhere, we have some of the best restaurants in the world. I visited Counter 71 in Shoreditch a little while ago, and they told me how they had hit social media in Japan, which had led to a lot of visitors. If the Minister ever wants to do any outreach on licensing, she is welcome to come to my borough, where she will get the best of the best. But there are also people who chance it and try it on, so it is important that we have licensing rules that local authorities can enforce properly—and that they have the money to do so.
In Hackney, the hospitality industry is a growth area, boosting the economy in the way that the Chancellor wants to see. It is also facing pressures, as all Members will know from their own constituencies. There is a well-worn route on licensing in Hackney that is well understood. We need to support the licensing process, and ensure that there are fees available to cover the costs, while also supporting businesses and ensuring that they can do this with relative ease when they play by the rules—and if they do not play by the rules, ensure that enforcement kicks in.
It is important to lie this Bill alongside the joint industry and Government taskforce, which reported to the Department for Business and Trade on, I think, 6 November. That taskforce and its report plays into some of the proposals that are outlined in the Bill. Some of the concerns that we have in Hackney—I know other inner-London MPs share some of these—are around the potential impacts on pavement licences, which are important to support businesses that want to grow.
In covid, when there was a proposal to rapidly increase pavement licences—later solidified by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—we learnt that there could be real issues without the proper involvement of the community, police and licensing authorities. In that case, it was a rushed process—28 days—to change the rules in the Highways Act 1980 to allow licences to the same level as were provided for internal spaces. It was an unholy alliance of inner-London MPs that managed to eventually get that ameliorated in the Lords. That legislation was done at pace during covid; we have more time to think about it now. But new clause 22 and new schedule 2 have both been tabled at quite late notice.
The length of licences is also an issue, because if licences are allowed to run on too long it can be very complicated to rescind them—it can take 12 months. Although a licence that needs a regular fee, which can be rolled over relatively easily, is a cost on the business, overall, it can be a low fee if the business behaves well. There are measures that many boroughs have introduced to ensure that those that play by the rules are treated fairly.
Although not directly related to the Bill, fees could be part of the wider debate on licensing. Some fees are very low. Temporary events notices, for example, are still £21 each; that would be £37 if they had been uprated. That is still low—barely an hour of an officer’s time. There are examples in Hackney of some licensed premises regularly putting in for temporary events notices.
Florence Eshalomi
On the losses to the council, does my hon. Friend recognise that for many councils the costs of additional street cleaning, refuse collection, signage and lighting all add up when an event is granted a temporary licence, and for many councils there is no compensation for that?
Dame Meg Hillier
I absolutely understand and support the Government’s approach to supporting businesses, but good businesses are not supported if the fees for temporary events notices and other licences do not keep up with inflation. Where there is a flood of temporary events notices for extended hours by some businesses, it causes a huge burden on the local authority, for which it is not funded. In fact, in Hackney there is an annual deficit of around £16,000 on temporary events notices alone.
We need enough fees for enforcement while not overburdening business—we have to get that balance right. The best businesses will understand the costs of enforcement, refuse collection and the other issues related to areas with large numbers of licensed premises, and will see the importance of that balance being in place.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I will speak today in support of new clauses 64, 65 and 66, all tabled in my name.
As I said on Second Reading, my concern is that the Bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard. The London Assembly will retain its two-thirds majority requirement. A two-thirds majority has proved impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.
New clause 64 would abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies. By allowing a simple majority, it would give Assembly members the opportunity to debate changes realistically, bringing mayors back to the table and ensuring proper accountability. Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions, and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making; as a result, the mayor does not need to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, that effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people, leading to disengagement and distrust of London-wide government.
Florence Eshalomi
We should declare an interest, as the hon. Gentleman and I both served as London Assembly members for south London—the best boroughs. He speaks about there not being accountability of the mayor. Would he recognise that even after the voting changes, our current mayor won an overall majority and was re-elected for the third time?
Peter Fortune
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have tried hard to ensure that my new clauses are objective and would apply to anybody serving as mayor. If I could be cheeky, I can completely understand why she might not want to limit mayoral powers, being mindful of future ambitions that she might have.
New clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that the mayor not take proposed decisions while they are under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly the power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority, and would ensure that the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them.
New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London borough representatives in GLA decisions. I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only my borough of Bromley but all London boroughs are able to contribute to and challenge decisions that impact them directly.
It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability of those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about the success of devolution in London will see that my new clauses are sensible first steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature. At this point, I note the excellent new clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which also seeks to equalise that democratic deficit. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), this is not political—indeed, the very make-up of the GLA means that these new clauses would return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do.
I urge the Government to embrace these new clauses, listen to London’s council leaders—the majority of whom are from the Labour party—and ensure that we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less accountability.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I really welcome devolution and look forward to a time when every local area really wants a mayor. I have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses, which I will go through in turn.
First, on the question of commissioners, I have to say that I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) in her amendment 85 to clause 9. I really welcome commissioners being brought in; I think that if we want our mayors to do a good job, we need to give them tools that enable them to do that. I think of the commissioners coming in as the Magnificent Seven.
However, I have tabled amendments 161 and 162 on this matter, because my concern is how we got to the number seven. I have a gut feeling that we just went down the list and counted all the responsibilities that there were and came up with the number seven. As it stands, an individual commissioner can work in only one specific area, which I think gets rid of any sense of bringing in people with cross-cutting responsibilities. The Government talk a lot about governing in missions—what if mayors want to do the same kind of thing? We could get rid of the cap of seven or that list of responsibilities in order to enable people to look at different things. Of the responsibilities that mayors have at the moment, transport and infrastructure tend to be where they have the most. If we wanted to stick with the number seven, and a mayor wanted to look at somebody who was doing more of transport—an active travel commissioner, or anything like that—we should let the mayor decide.
New clause 60 is on the question of deputy mayors. This is, I think, a bit of an oddity. At the moment, the pool of people from which a mayor can choose their deputy is really limited, as it is made up of the people in their cabinet from each of the constituent authorities. That means that we could have a situation—as we already do in one part of the country—where a democratically elected mayor who stands on a political ticket is forced into choosing a deputy mayor who is not of their own political party. My new clause would open this process up so that they could choose a councillor who is also democratically elected, but from any of the different authorities that they represent. This would not solve the problem entirely—it would not help if an independent were elected, for example—but for the vast majority of people, whether the mayor is from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the Greens, or Reform, probably, it would solve that problem.
New clause 61, which brings in the concept of mayoral special advisers, is not going to be particularly popular, but I do think it would be useful. I just think this process needs to be more transparent; it happens at the moment, but it happens with a wink and a nod. I would like to bring out into the open the people who are providing political advice to democratically elected mayors.
On a more general level, it continues to concern me to some extent that all this devolution is based on the Greater Manchester model, and I think we need to look more widely than that. The Greater Manchester model is very different from other parts of the country, not least because it has a lot of councils that are all of the same political persuasion, and so the mayor ends up with a cabinet of people of the same political persuasion. That is not going to be the case as we roll out devolution further, and I think we need to think about that carefully. Also, as local government reorganisation goes forward, we will have fewer councils from which cabinet members can be drawn, so it will be much easier for one individual to block something. Mayors need to be able to get on with decisive and responsive governance.
I turn to transport and clause 27. I often bore Transport Ministers because I really do think that bus stops, bus lanes and buses should all be looked after by the same individual. They are not at the moment, and that is down to the long-standing issue of a split between transport and highways. My area has a unitary authority, so those responsibilities are together, but they would be split up as soon as we got a mayor, as I hope we will, eventually. I very much welcome the power of direction on key route networks and—looking at that split—we could take that further.
I have some sympathy with amendment 23, tabled by the Conservatives, on micro-mobility. It seeks to ensure that there is enough parking for e-scooters. That, again, is a reason for looking at the highways and transport split. I welcome the Bill. It presents a real opportunity, and it could well be the most consequential Bill of this Parliament. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we get devolution right by considering a few tweaks.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Let me begin with the title of the Bill; it claims, perhaps optimistically, to empower communities. By the end of this debate, we will see whether the Government truly intend to empower them. Community empowerment matters. I believe that my constituents and the councillors who represent them are far better placed to make informed decisions about their area than bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall. Every amendment I have tabled seeks to do one thing: empower communities. If Labour Members truly believe the Government’s rhetoric and intentions, I hope that they will support those amendments today.
I will focus primarily on my amendment to introduce a statutory requirement for referendums ahead of local government reorganisation, but before I do, let me briefly highlight my proposal on cross-boundary planning. New clause 33 seeks to fix a flaw in the planning system. My constituency straddles three local planning authorities. Too often, councils place the housing that they are required to allocate right on their boundary, knowing full well that the impact on services and infrastructure will fall primarily on a neighbouring authority that has little power to do anything about it.
Now, I am not a nimby. I recognise the need for better, affordable homes, but the system encourages siloed thinking. It enables councils to tick off the list their obligation to deliver housing stock, while residents living on the boundaries bear the brunt. Introducing joint planning committees for developments within specific distances of neighbouring authorities would at least bring about a dialogue that is currently absent. I ask the Minister to look at this anomaly in the planning system, so that local communities are better empowered over decisions in their area.
Amendments 104 to 106 offer the greatest opportunity to empower communities. We know that the Government will press ahead with local government reorganisation, and I understand the motives behind that; there is too much waste, and often there is duplication, and this would be one way of reducing it. But if the Government want to take people with them, including my constituents, residents must have the final say on their preferred reorganised boundaries through local referendums.
This is of real importance to the villages that I represent in Mid Leicestershire, where there is immense concern about being absorbed into the greater Leicester city council area. Residents in Birstall and Anstey have told me of their concerns that if reorganisation takes place and they are placed within Leicester city, they will face higher council tax. I thought that we in this place believed in the principle of no taxation without representation. Meanwhile, residents in Braunstone Town and Leicester Forest East are visibly and immensely concerned about the sad decline of Leicester city over the last few decades. After years of mismanagement, they have no desire whatsoever to see the Leicester city mayor have influence in their communities.
My constituents in Glenfield and Kirby Muxloe know exactly why the mayor wishes to extend his boundaries. After declaring a housing crisis, it is obvious that he would look at sites such as the old Weston Park golf course in Glenfield to meet the city’s housing stock requirements. The city mayor knows full well that this would place the burden squarely on the villages, not the city.
In conclusion, I commend the Government’s stated intention of empowering communities and reducing waste in local government. However, they should accept the amendments that I have tabled.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically excellent speech. Does he find strange, as I do, the disjointed attitude that the Government have on referendums? The Government are happy to keep referendums for local authorities that want to change their internal structures, but when it comes to their forced local government reorganisation, they will not allow local authorities to have referendums—despite previous Labour Governments committing to them. What does my hon. Friend think about that?
Mr Bedford
My constituents are very concerned about that. It is a strange anomaly. In addition, under the current legislation, councils are required to hold referendums when they wish to increase council tax beyond a certain level, so it seems very strange that the Government will not empower local communities to hold a referendum when local boundaries are to be redrawn. In conclusion, let us empower our communities to decide their own destinies.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I have to say, I had a great time on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill’s 400 pages were expertly navigated by the Minister, and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), did an absolutely brilliant job. She unfortunately is not here today, but I should put on record how well she kept us in check as the Conservatives goaded us.
I must be cross-party in my thanks and say that I was very impressed with the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Their ability to string out the 10 seconds of what they needed say into about 10 minutes to keep the Bill going was exemplary, and we saw some of that today; the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was cut short by Madam Deputy Speaker.
Paul Holmes
May I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that if he carries on congratulating Whips like that, he will go far?
Mike Reader
Fantastic advice from a very experienced politician.
To continue with my cross-party support, I very much thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), with whom I served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was fascinating: no matter what the issue was, she always brought it back to local authorities. She wants to give a lot of power to these poor parish councils, and she spoke up so much for district and parish councils that we were told to stop intervening on her. I have 14 parish councils in my constituency, and I did ask them what they thought of the many Lib Dem proposals inviting them to engage in every single thing that a mayor may do, and overwhelmingly their view was, “Please leave us alone, and let us get on with doing what we are doing.” But I like the intention none the less.
I also want to mention the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). Before the Bill Committee, I did not know that she was a London Assembly member, but boy, do I know now. The experience she brought from being on the London Assembly went a long way. It was a really good Committee, so I do not accept what the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said about there being no constructive engagement. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion tabled amendments that sought to change how the mayoralties that have been brought forward by the Government think about the environment. I see the intention behind new clause 29, and with a bit more refinement of the Bill in the Lords, we may get to something really strong that ensures there is an environmental responsibility on our new mayors.
I thank the Minister for acknowledging the work that I and others have done on lane rental schemes, covered by new clause 43. They are a great way to control roadworks and make sure that they are delivered efficiently. The schemes are not a penalty; they are an incentive to make sure that utilities companies work in a way that minimises disruption. Where the companies do not perform, the money goes towards fixing more potholes and sorting out more roads. I particularly thank two of the big industry bodies, Clive Bairsto from Street Works UK and David Capon from the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee UK. They supported me in my work on this.
I also pay tribute to our brilliant Transport Committee. The Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), is no longer in her place, but she did fantastic work on the Bill. It really goes to show that when we work collaboratively across the House, through Committees and through Government, we can make changes to legislation that make people’s lives better. If we can say nothing else about this Bill than that we have made sure that there are less roadworks and more potholes filled, I am sure all of our constituents will be quite happy.
The Minister and I have engaged quite heavily on upward-only rent reviews. I thank her for being constructive in her consideration of my challenge on how the Government have approached this. I repeat what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: the intention of the Bill is to protect the high streets. Even after amendment, the way the Bill is written means that it potentially impacts the whole of the commercial sector.
The UK is really fortunate to have a buoyant commercial property market, with double the investment seen in France and 50% more than in Germany. However, there is a real risk that the uncertainty caused by not putting a ringfence around how the upward-only rent review ban is to be brought forward will stifle investment. It could stop investment in data centres—a big data centre was announced for my constituency by the Government just last week—warehousing, which is critical to my constituents, as about one in five of them work in warehousing and logistics, new hospitals, healthcare and commercial offices—you name it. As we heard in evidence to the Bill Committee, we need to see more from the Government. Will the Minister confirm that before any ban is brought in, we will see a full consultation on the proposals? Off the back of that consultation, will restrictions be put in place, so that we do not see unintended consequences that stop the growth that our country desperately needs?
I said that I would talk to new clause 29. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for her tenacity. We met, and she explained that the Greens have to be selective about which Committees they join, owing to their small level of representation. She argued well for mayors to have more responsibility for air quality, environment and the like. It is really positive that the Government have already brought forward changes to that effect, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that she will work with Members in the other place to bring forward further amendments to the Bill in due course, so that that is really well cemented and mayors do have the responsibility to protect our environment.
On some days, Northampton has worse air quality than London, Birmingham and many other towns and cities across the UK. Where I live in Northampton town centre, the effect of poor air quality is equivalent to that of smoking 80 cigarettes a year, so anything we can do to improve air quality in my town and across the country is critical.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I support my hon. Friend in his advocacy of new clause 29. The Minister mentioned that the Bill should be a floor on ambition, not a ceiling, and I am keen to seek reassurance on the climate duty, as I am sure my hon. Friend is. In particular, it is vital that local authorities can shape it locally, partly because they are responsible for a third of emissions, but also, interestingly, because organisations such as the Local Government Association, which is not known for wanting to increase obligations on local authorities, and UK100—I must declare my interest as its founder director—support giving duties to those local authorities. I am keen, as I am sure he is, for the Government to reassure us that they will seek such obligations in the future.
Mike Reader
I agree. I recognise that this is quite a challenge, because cross-Department working—in these first 16 months of government we have been exploring how siloed the previous Government left Whitehall—will be critical to getting the legislation right. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavillion for tabling the new clause, but it could be refined. Hopefully that will happen in the other place.
As a general observation, I listened to Conservative Members’ extensive contributions in Committee but could never quite get their position. At one point, it was that there should be more bureaucracy, more measures and more restrictions on mayors, but at the same time, they were arguing against powers, and wanted more freedom for mayors to choose. We even see that in the amendments before us. Some put restrictions on mayors and combined authorities, and others open up the stocks. Perhaps it is difficult to provide effective opposition in a party without real policy. I particularly appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) trying to bring in changes that would ensure support for oppositions that were ineffective in holding mayors to account.
I will finish my observations where I came in. I will talk about the south midlands and how my constituency is impacted. I have written about this publicly, so hopefully I am not overstepping the line. The south midlands region, which is critical to the Oxford to Cambridge arc, has been slightly forgotten in the devolution argument. We had a deal, but it fell apart, partly owing to political wrangling between my party, the Conservatives and a party that is barely here in the House. We need strategic leadership in the south midlands region to drive growth. The Government have centred much of the focus on clean tech, advanced manufacturing and the OxCam corridor. We see a lot of focus on Oxford and a lot of focus on Cambridge, but not a lot of focus on the middle.
While we may not be getting a mayor in the early devolution pilot, perhaps the Minister will consider whether an economic development area or something similar could be brought forward, as backed by the South Midlands Business Board and called for by those who want to invest in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire. While I recognise there may not be political consensus on how a mayoral area should be formed—perhaps we will see gerrymandering from both sides—we need direction from the Government to ensure that we are not losing out on billions of pounds of investment that could come into the south midlands region and the OxCam corridor.
Overall, I am pleased to speak in support of the Government. The Bill is a great step forward. There have been many observations on the brilliant things buried in the Bill that will help our constituents. I look forward to seeing it further improved in the other place and coming back in due course, so that we can deliver devolution, simplify government and get the best bang for our buck in all our regions.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I will speak to the amendments tabled by me and Liberal Democrat colleagues, particularly new clause 5 and amendment 27. If the Bill is to deliver meaningful and real devolution, it must involve the people who live with the decisions made by mayors and combined authorities. However, too much of the Bill as drafted keeps power in the hands of the Secretary of State or a small group around the mayor, with little scrutiny. Amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, such as amendment 85, seek to put that right.
New clause 5, which I tabled, would place a clear duty on mayors to meet regularly with local councils, public service partners and, importantly, town and parish councils. In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, those councils are the closest form of local government. Rooted in their communities, they play a vital role in delivering services and supporting communities, and they have a depth of local knowledge that no regional authority could replicate. Requiring structured engagement would ensure that decisions are shaped by those who understand their communities best. What is currently a discretionary power to convene would become a mandatory obligation, ensuring that parish and town councils were explicitly recognised as part of the framework. Those councils, which will inherit assets from district councils when they are abolished, are indispensable partners for combined authorities and mayors, offering direct insight into local issues. New clause 5 would establish a structured forum for dialogue between mayors, councils and public service providers, ensuring co-ordination on shared priorities and improving co-operation across the region.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady made a number of excellent contributions in Committee. She will know that my party supported some of her amendments, and she has our support for what she has been doing. Is she concerned, as I am, that as the Government are pushing forward with local government reorganisation, while many more town and parish councils will be taking on assets from district councils and having a greater role in communities, they are being completely sidelined by the Government’s actions? Will she elaborate on what she thinks that might mean?
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the hon. Member for his support in Committee. We know that two-tier governments —district councils in the shires in particular—will be abolished, and town and parish councils will have to take on more assets and deliver even more services. However, as I said in Committee, the voice of town and parish councils is completely absent from the Bill. At present, decision making at regional level often feels remote from the communities it serves. Given the significant powers that mayors hold over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, it is imperative that local councils and community representatives are consistently engaged rather than consulted only at a mayor’s discretion.
Fundamentally, this measure reflects the very purpose of devolution: to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected. It is a simple, practical step that would not require additional funding or alter existing powers but would deliver better communication, co-ordination and community engagement.
This also links to wider concerns about governance and geography. In Warwickshire, there is a strong case for two new unitaries for the north and south of the county, rather than one large super-unitary. Analysis has shown that the two-unitary model performs better in Warwickshire than a single county-wide authority, and public support is clear, with 73% of residents of south Warwickshire favouring two councils. Several Liberal Democrat amendments on today’s paper, including those I have tabled, would work to safeguard proper local engagement in any future devolution arrangements.
The Bill empowers local and strategic authorities to encourage visitors, yet it contains no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in this process. My amendment 27 goes to the heart of the need for our strategic authorities to work with places they represent. Tourism is not a side issue for Stratford-on-Avon; it is central to our local economy, our cultural life and our international reputation. Stratford town council plays a leading role in major events such as the Shakespeare birthday celebrations, which bring visitors from across the world, demonstrating the vital contribution of town councils to cultural exchange and soft power, yet the Bill includes no duty for any new strategic authority to engage town and parish councils when shaping tourism plans. That is a real risk for a place such as Stratford, which has so much to offer but depends on constructive partnership to keep thriving.
Amendment 27 would put that duty in law and require a published record of engagement, so that towns in my constituency are not overlooked in regional strategies. Taken together, these measures give local communities a genuine voice in tourism planning. Town and parish councils know their areas best: the attractions, the infrastructure needs and the opportunities for growth. This amendment also promotes inclusive planning. Too often, small towns, villages and rural areas are overlooked in broader strategies despite their vital contribution to the economy. By embedding their perspectives, we will support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. In short, these amendments are practical, transparent and community focused. They would strengthen devolution by ensuring that local voices were heard, respected and reflected in tourism policy, thereby delivering strategies that are both effective and rooted in the communities they serve.
Briefly, new clause 74, submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), would be an important addition to the Bill to give local areas the ability to limit and regulate junk food advertising in their communities. The new clause would make a positive impact on health, especially that of our young people. If the Government truly want devolution to succeed, they should accept these proposals, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
One of the advantages of this Government’s plan for devolution is that it offers the opportunity to address the country’s many regional inequalities. Indeed, strategic authorities, particularly those with mayoralties, have the ability to address inequalities within individual regions. The Bill’s original clause 43 addresses health, wellbeing and public services reform, and it is Government amendments 116 and 118 and amendment 172 that I wish to discuss.
This section of the Bill confers a new duty on all combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to improving the health of persons in their area and reducing health inequalities between persons in their area. Amendment 172 outlines the requirements for a health inequalities strategy, which may include the metrics for healthy life expectancy, infant mortality rates and poverty, including child poverty. My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and the villages has the interesting profile of sitting across a number of councils: the two unitaries—Stoke-on-Trent city council and Staffordshire county council—as well as Stafford borough council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council. I was also a councillor in neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme for several years, so I have the advantage of a broad view across the long-recognised area of north Staffordshire. I should add that there is a road in my constituency, Uttoxeter Road, that has five lots of bins from five different councils, which is quite an achievement.
There are clear inequalities across all areas, and of course there are pockets of wealth and deprivation in all. However, the health statistics outline a harsh reality. When we compare Staffordshire county council and Stoke-on-Trent city council’s female healthy life expectancy, we see that in Staffordshire it is 63, compared with the national average of 61.5, but in Stoke it is just 55. Men in Stoke can expect a healthy life until they are 56, compared with 63 in Staffordshire, with the national average being 61. We see the same for overall life expectancy, with Staffordshire above average and Stoke below average. I have on many occasions raised the shocking fact that Stoke-on-Trent routinely scores highest for infant mortality rates, and the shocking statistic that a baby born in Stoke-on-Trent will have half the chance of surviving to their fifth birthday than the national average.
Mike Reader
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this, because we have a similar issue between in Northamptonshire. We have a 15-year difference in life expectancy between Northampton town centre and rural areas such as Brackley. We are talking about an area of 20 or 30 miles. Does she agree that, although it is positive to see changes already in the Bill to address this, more could be done in the other place to improve the Bill further?
Dr Gardner
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is with great sadness that I see this fight between cities and rural areas that demonises the city areas. Around Stoke-on-Trent we have a doughnut economy. Stoke generates wealth for north Staffordshire and it filters out to the rural areas, yet we hear people saying, “No to Stoke, no to Stoke.” People need to understand that we are all one in north Staffordshire.
I offer a new fact: the under-75 mortality rate from all causes for Staffordshire, as of the 2023 statistics, was 319.5, compared with an England national average rate of 341.6. However, in Stoke the under-75 mortality rate from all causes was a whopping 474. It is understandable that any devolution has to address this disparity, and I look at this broadening to help us to do that. I stress that this does not mean that improving Stoke’s outcomes means we are going to take away or reduce Staffordshire’s. This is often a knee-jerk fear reaction for some, and a tool for the Conservative and Reform parties to use for political scaremongering. I am saddened to hear the views on this of the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who I greatly respect and personally like. I wish that there could be some understanding and cross-conversation on this issue.
I also wish to speak in support of Government amendments 116 and 118, which address health improvements, health inequality duties and health determinants. The Government are right to add environmental factors including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water. We have talked about boundaries. In my own constituency, the Meir tunnel has high levels of poor air quality in an area with high levels of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but fixing that issue is extremely difficult as it is on a boundary with neighbouring councils.
The value of green space is also an issue close to my heart. When Meir park, a much-loved green space, had all its trees knocked down, out of the blue, it caused some residents genuine fear, upset and hurt. Also, Trentham gardens are in the border area covered by Staffordshire county council, Stafford borough council and Stoke-on-Trent city council, with ensuing traffic problems. It has the most beautiful lake, and I one day I hope to find the time to go paddle boarding on it again. The quality of our environment is vital to mental and physical health, and I hope that the value of green space, good air quality and access to the advantage of bodies of water will always be central to any policy.
In Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, we are looking to achieve an enhanced north Staffordshire unitary authority under local government reorganisation, and I am particularly supportive of the broader proposal submitted by Staffordshire Moorlands district council, which sensibly outlines travel-to-work areas, economic functional areas, cultural links and transport links. We sit at the beginning of a north midlands growth corridor to Derby and Nottingham that offers this country a huge opportunity to create a strategic centre for growth across the middle of England. While we have still to decide a devolution model for North Staffordshire, southern Staffordshire and Staffordshire as a whole, I ask that we think radically and consider our east-west links to the east midlands and the potential of a north midlands strategic authority. Whatever we end up with, I ask the Minister for more details for Stoke and Staffordshire as to the plans and timelines for devolution.
Paul Holmes
I am slightly disappointed with the tone the hon. Lady is taking. If we are talking about devolution in a devolution debate, she should respect the right of an hon. Member elected by their constituents, and of councillors elected by local people, to say they do not want local government reorganisation. Why is she supporting a gun-to-the-head mentality when local authority leaders do not want to go through with it?
Dr Gardner
I reject the emotive use of terms like “gun to the head”. The Stoke-on-Trent city council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council proposals on LGR have been approved, and they are the democratically elected councils for those areas. The wider Staffordshire county council, which is now under Reform, had one proposal out of the blue, and now does not want reorganisation either; it is chaotic.
We cannot keep having this. This is something that will happen, and I say to my constituents, “This is going to happen, so we need to make it work for us.” I need people to start saying yes to the opportunity, yes to growth and yes to the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members to address their comments to the business in front of the House, which is the remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I support several new clauses and amendments to the Bill, but, frankly, I am fundamentally opposed to the changes it would impose on our constituents. That is why amendments 104 to 106 are so important, as well as new clause 1, which is due to be discussed tomorrow.
Before strategic authorities or any other new bodies are created, the amendments would ensure that local people have the power to decide the future in their area. In Committee, the Minister for Devolution used some very creative language to ensure that councils were not being forced into reorganisation. The Minister spoke of “inviting councils” and “having a conversation” with residents, but that is doublespeak. If the Government really wanted to give councils and local people a proper say, they would pass these amendments, but I fear they will not. That refusal strikes at the heart of the contradiction of devolution.
There have been lots of warm words from the Government about giving people a stake in the place where they live and in their life and transferring power out of Westminster. But this Bill, and what we are already seeing in the priority areas, keeps real decisions with Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall. In Surrey, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), we have seen the Secretary of State decree at the stroke of a pen that there will be two new unitary authorities, probably with a strategic authority on top of that, rather than three unitaries, which most councils have supported.
For all the talk from this Labour Government about a bottom-up process, it is clear that no matter what existing councils decide following extensive public consultations such as we have had in Hertfordshire, new local government structures will be whatever best suits the Minister and civil servants in Whitehall.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend made a number of excellent contributions in Bill Committee. Is he concerned, as I am, that the Minister consistently said that there would be consultation and that this would be up to local people and councillors, but at every stage the backstop was mentioned and the Minister said that this would go ahead anyway? There is no choice in this reorganisation. Does he agree that the Government need to look again and listen to local people who disagree with what is happening to their councils, and who know their areas best?
Lewis Cocking
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on the Floor of the House putting forward our case on where the Government have got it wrong on devolution. He raised an important point about the Government having instructed local councils to come up with proposals for devolution and unitarisation. There has been no choice in that, as I know from speaking to my fantastic councillors at Broxbourne council, which is Conservative led under Councillor Corina Gander. She does not want to reorganise, does not want devolution and does not want it forced on the areas that she and I represent. When I go out on the doorstep, no one has ever said to me, “You know what, Lewis? This is what we need to do in our area—we need to reorganise. We need to have an elected mayor, a strategic authority and a new massive unitary council representing up to half a million people.” No one has ever raised that with me on the doorstep, and it just goes to show that this Government are not listening to the priorities of the British people.
Paul Holmes
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once more; I hope he forgives me. Has the council leader he mentioned given that feedback to Government on the fact that they do not want reorganisation, and what answers were given to them?
Lewis Cocking
The council leader has fed that back to Government and the answer has been, “Tough—get on with it. This is what we are doing, and this is what we propose to happen. You have to come up with a proposal that you think works in your area, regardless of whether you want to do it.” I have spoken to many councils and council leaders across the country, and that is the message they have given us loud and clear, and that is the message I have received locally from my local council leader.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The hon. Member talks about people in his community not wanting the measures in the Bill. I do not know about his constituents, but my constituents often talk to me about the many abandoned shops on the high street, and there are measures to tackle that in this Bill through the community powers, right to buy and the rent review powers. My constituents are frustrated about the lack of economic growth over the last 14 years and the lack of house building over a number of years. Again, there are a number of measures in the Bill to tackle those issues. Is it not true that the issues that people care about are directly addressed by the additional powers that local areas will have from the Bill?
Lewis Cocking
I can take the hon. Member to my constituency if he wants to see a pro-growth local council that has delivered a local plan and delivered housing. What has held us back is the fact that we do not have the infrastructure in place because of that. We have been punished; we have been a good local council and met our housing targets, yet this Labour Government are forcing more housing on us with no powers to get the infrastructure that people need.
My constituency borders London, and when the Bill came out, my constituents said to me on the doorstep, “I do not want to be part of the Greater London area and to be under the Mayor of London”. We have seen the disastrous effect that devolution has had on London, and my constituents definitely do not want to be a part of that. I gently push back on the hon. Member that I do not agree with his analogy of the current state of play. If the Government really wanted to empower councils—I stray a tiny bit away from the topic—to help them improve town centres and create economic growth, they could give powers to the councils we already have. They could get on and do that tomorrow, rather than waiting for this Bill to go through the House, with all the amendments the Government put down, because this Bill is clearly not ready to receive Royal Assent. We tabled a number of amendments in Committee. It just shows that the Government have got this wrong and should go back to the drawing board.
Danny Beales
I thank the hon. Member for his generosity and am happy to take him up on his offer to visit his constituency, have a drink and discuss local issues. He is welcome to come to my constituency, too.
I listened carefully to the 20-minute speech of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), but did not hear many proposals for the functions of devolution—the powers that could be given and the extra devolution empowerment that could take place. I heard a lot about the form of devolution—whether the county or regional mayor structures are right, for example. It is no wonder that we failed to grasp the issue of devolution and community empowerment in the previous 14 years, given that the Conservative party is still so obsessed by the form of devolution rather than by its function, which is to give away power and empower communities.
Lewis Cocking
I do not think that the Bill does that. It enables Ministers to force councils to reorganise. It keeps power in Whitehall. It does not devolve powers to councils. I have mentioned a number of times in questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that my council is crying out for more powers over the houses in multiple occupation that are affecting our town centre. As I said in Committee, a tiny part of the Bill is good and deals with the licensing of e-scooters. We all know what a scourge e-scooters represent across our constituencies up and down the country. That is the tiny good thing in the Bill, but the Government do not need a Bill to do that; they could legislate very quickly to give councils the powers to deal with that issue. Instead, we have to wait for months on end to solve a small issue through this Bill.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend understand why my Isle of Wight constituents reject the idea of a new mayor being imposed upon them under the name of “Hampshire and Solent”, with the Isle of Wight name disappearing? My constituents do not live in the Solent. Indeed, nobody lives in the Solent other than fish.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituents. We had a long discussion about that issue in Committee. I completely agree that “Isle of Wight” should be in the name of that combined mayoral authority. The Isle of Wight has a good local identity. It is important, when we create these new strategic authorities, that we take local people with us. We will not take the people of the Isle of Wight with us if we do not include such a significant community in the name of that combined authority.
Lewis Cocking
As he is a Hampshire MP, I will give way to the shadow Minister.
Paul Holmes
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) will be pleased to note that we raised that matter in Committee, but our arguments were resisted by the Government.
In relation to the assertion of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) that we are not concerned about the functions of devolution, does my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) recall that we pressed a number of amendments, including on the devolution of transport regulations—powers that the Bill does not hand down to mayors—but they were resisted by the Government? That assertion is just not correct, is it?
Lewis Cocking
I agree. We tabled a number of constructive amendments in Committee, and we worked across parties, with Members of all stripes, to improve the Bill and get these powers out into the community, where they can best be used. As my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, the Government would not even listen to logical arguments about how the Bill could empower local communities. As I have said, “community empowerment” might be in the Bill’s name, but it is not what is in the Bill.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Member, who is making some interesting points. On his point about a referendum, the balance of numbers in a villages-versus-conurbation vote means that there might well be an obvious outcome to such a referendum. We have seen really good work in devolution in Greater Manchester. Previously disconnected towns and villages—terrible for young people trying to get to education and for people trying to get to work—have benefited from improved transport, thanks to a desire to see the region as part of an overall whole without damaging the character of those towns and villages.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point with which I have great sympathy. We have to try to take different communities together, but we should not compare the rural county of Hertfordshire with a significant number of large towns that are not interlinked naturally by roads and railways or by people’s jobs. Lots of my constituents work in London and would never, or hardly ever, make the journey of about an hour along the A414 to Watford or Hemel Hempstead. The situation is very different. I can understand how devolution works when there is a single city centre and why in some respects it works in our towns and city regions where there is a single space, but I do not understand how it will work in practice when there are a number of towns all of the same size.
Dr Gardner
In Staffordshire, which is quite rural—I have Stoke-on-Trent city centre in my constituency—we have that shared interlinking, and it is very important to the development of north Staffordshire. Staffordshire Moorlands council has shared services with High Peak in Derbyshire. Much of Stoke-on-Trent city council service provision is in the neighbouring town of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and likewise with Stafford borough, which uses Cannock Chase services. Shared and interlinked services exist in rural areas and can work together.
Lewis Cocking
I was talking about the physical aspects of the transport currently in place, and the transport in Hertfordshire makes it very difficult for such interlinking services. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point around shared services of councils. The Government have said on a number of occasions that they have brought forward this community empowerment Bill and devolution in order to make councils more efficient and save loads of money. I do not believe it will save lots of money, for the reasons the hon. Lady has rightly pointed out: many councils already have those shared services. There are lots of councils with shared planning departments or shared audit, and indeed combined authorities also have shared back-office functions.
Paul Holmes
One of the other issues we were concerned about on the Bill Committee was the fact that the Government have not given any indication of what will be happening with debt in the context of local government reform. Does my hon. Friend agree that that adds to uncertainty in the progress of this Bill and does not give any certainty to local government leaders?
Lewis Cocking
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government must come forward on that, as we are yet to hear solutions for councils with large amounts of debt. Councils are being forced into reorganisation and to have conversations about who they want to be joined with, but some of them have no choice, because it is a matter of geography, and sometimes they might not be able to join with the partners with which they have strategic and shared services.
In summary—
Lewis Cocking
I will not take any more interventions, as I have been more than generous—
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend is very kind to give way, perhaps with a little pressure from more senior Members sitting just in front of him. He poses the question of whether there is a combined area where all the unified communities link well together. Sadly, I can give an example of a forthcoming area where they do not: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The only link between the Isle of Wight and Hampshire is through the ferry companies which are entirely privatised, unregulated and controlled by private equity groups. This was the perfect opportunity for the Government to ensure that fare regulation was given to the mayor, so the mayor had that strategic transport authority across the whole area, but the Government have so far failed to do that, which is why I brought forward an amendment that I will speak to later. Does my hon. Friend have a view on this missed opportunity to bring ferry companies within the regulatory framework of, say, rail and buses, which is perfectly consensual among parties in this country?
Lewis Cocking
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I signed his amendment, as that issue is important. It goes back to what I said at the beginning of this debate: the Bill is not ready to go any further. The Government should have thought about this. The amendment is logical and seeks to achieve what the Government want to achieve on, for example, buses; it seeks to achieve lots of the same things around other strategic transport and other active travel routes, so it should be in the Bill. It has cross-party support from both Members representing the Isle of Wight, and goes back to the cross-party working on the Bill Committee, where we put forward logical amendments that seek to benefit the strategic authority that the Government want to create in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The new mayor who is elected for that authority is going to have one hand tied behind their back, because he or she will not have the powers to join those communities together and really create the economic growth.
I am against the principle of what the Government are trying to do in this Bill; just because they have “community empowerment” written at the top of the Bill does not mean that it will empower local communities, and I urge the Government to think again.
Danny Beales
I welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that the House is considering again this evening. I must make a confession: I was not on the Bill Committee. It sounds like I missed out, according to some of the descriptions of the fun that was had. It is not the first time I have heard that a Bill Committee was such an enjoyable cross-party affair.
Many of us across the House had extensive experience in local government prior to entering this place—I had 10 years’ experience of local government in a London borough—and will all have seen the fantastic role that local government can play, connecting communities, responding to concerns, and understanding, often before national Government, emerging economic and social issues that require action and a response. However, as well as seeing that potential, those of us who served in local government will often have seen it held back and felt frustration at communities lacking powers and often funding to respond to social and economic challenges.
Our country differs greatly: local areas and communities are not all the same and they face different challenges. My Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency in Hillingdon in west London is very different from the constituencies of and challenges faced by many other hon. Members. It is right that cities, areas and regions of our country have the ability and the powers, and the funding when necessary, to respond to those issues.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend highlights the challenge. London is often described as a series of villages, yet we have one elected Mayor of London, whose post was created 25 years ago with the London Assembly. Does he agree that, being strategic, the mayor can serve both an inner-city London borough such as mine in Hackney and one such as his in outer London, through measures such as the Superloop? I am sure my hon. Friend has other examples of how a mayor can serve all communities while having a strategic view of the whole.
Danny Beales
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and wholeheartedly agree. We should be guided by the principle of subsidiarity. Power should be given and exercised as locally as possible. Clearly, some powers have to be exercised in this place, at national level, and also at regional level it makes sense to act, and the mayor rightly has the ability to co-ordinate our transport system in London. We do not want multiple decisions about transport infrastructure such as our tube network.
Dr Gardner
I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), but he had on his feet for over 20 minutes and I decided to give him a break. However, I want to raise that issue now. Much has been made about the conflict of planning—local planning going right to the boundaries, creating issues for infrastructure planning, which often sits at the wider unitary level. Devolution and wider strategic authority oversight, including greater planning oversight, will help to address some of the challenges and stresses we can face. Is that something my hon. Friend sees in the London boroughs?
Danny Beales
That is almost certainly true. There are strategic issues that need to be considered, and whether they are strategic powers for planning or licensing, as we are discussing in some of the amendments, there is the need for a greater role for regional mayors and authorities. It is right that local communities can respond to local issues, but there is a need for guiding infrastructure decisions on things such as heating networks, energy networks and data centre networks, and co-ordinating them at regional level makes a great deal of sense. Despite the need for greater decision making at a local and regional level, we still live in one of the most centralised political systems in the western world. Our communities must be able to meet the challenges that they face, and that is why I welcome the raft of new powers in the Bill and the Government amendments. They will drive growth and provide opportunities to respond to new local challenges, now and in the future.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Many of us agree with the concept of genuine devolution and bringing power to communities, but is the real problem not that the measures in the Bill will mean a power grab away from communities, and that Whitehall will be giving directions to local government? That basic contradiction at the heart of the Bill causes so much trouble.
Danny Beales
I respectfully disagree. One of the challenges of having one of the most centralised decision-making systems in the world is that we have to decide, in this House, how we give power away and devolve it. To be frank, while hopefully being respectful, we hear a lot from the Conservatives about the desire to empower communities, but their record speaks for itself. The last Labour Government set up the first mayoral authorities, including the Mayor of London and the London Assembly, and devolution to our nations, which has been built on over the years. With this Bill, we are taking another step forward on devolution. The Conservatives talk a good game on this issue, but they had 14 years to act.
Lewis Cocking
The last Labour Government, which was elected in 1997, established devolution and moved powers away from Westminster under the premise of a referendum result. However, this Labour Government are choosing not to undertake such a referendum. Which does the hon. Gentleman support: having a referendum or not having a referendum?
Danny Beales
The hon. Gentleman did not respond to my offer to come to his constituency for a drink, but he would be welcome in Uxbridge and South Ruislip at any time. It is a lovely place, with many fantastic options for drinks. I do not agree with the Conservatives that every structural change to local government requires a full referendum of current or potential constituents. As far as I am aware, no one voted for the establishment of the current London borough arrangements, or the county council arrangement. Apart from some less positive ones at a national level, I do not remember many referendums undertaken or proposed by the Conservatives about devolution or structural changes to our political system, so I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are different ways of consulting residents and engaging with communities.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives did not have referendums on structural political changes, but we did have a referendum to change the voting system; I voted against a change. That is a prime example of the Conservatives seeking the consent of the British people for a political change.
Danny Beales
I also voted against, in the alternative vote referendum, so we are united in our agreement on that.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am a member of a new combined authority in the east midlands and there was no referendum on that. I do not believe that there was a referendum on the North Yorkshire combined authority either. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are different ways of engaging on this issue, and that putting councils with local representatives at the heart of that process is a good thing?
Danny Beales
I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s comment speaks for itself. We can look at the Conservatives’ record, and at what they now preach in opposition.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman referred to the powers that are being devolved to mayors, but does he accept that the mayors referred to in clause 38 and schedule 19 have different powers from the London Mayor? In effect, those mayors will become puppets of central Government, because their local growth plans will have to be signed off by the Secretary of State, whereas the London Mayor is not answerable to the Government. Is that a matter of great concern to him?
Danny Beales
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend from the Health and Social Care Committee, on which we have had many good and fruitful discussions, but I disagree with him on this point. There are significant steps forward in the Bill in devolving powers to communities at different levels—at individual and community level, as well as at regional and mayoral level. I would say that if we look at devolved regional arrangements, we see that the Mayor of London’s powers have not kept up. Arguably, greater progress has been made with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, given his range of powers and the number of areas in which he operates. There are different arrangements in different parts of the country, so I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation.
I speak in support of a number of amendments that will give local government, particularly in London and my constituency, new tools. These will improve the lives of residents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), to which I am a co-signatory, will allow mayors to implement a tourist levy on overnight stays. For many years, many councils have been calling for this change; during my time in local government, I remember calling for an overnight stay levy. There is a range of reasons why one might want such a levy, and I note the welcome support from Labour Mayors Sir Sadiq Khan and Steve Rotheram. Clearly, tourism has huge benefits for our communities, including jobs, the cultural enrichment of visitors coming to our cities, support for existing and new businesses, and the revenue that tourism brings to our country.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the overnight stay levy, but I would like it to go further. Cornwall relies a lot on our tourism trade, but it brings with it a whole series of costs that are not recognised in any local government settlement. Cornwall is very long and thin, but by geography, it is the largest unitary authority in the country, and it is a very stable unitary authority, having been established for 15 years or so. A lot of visitors come for not one night, but a few days. Does he agree that by restricting the levy to an overnight stay, we would lose the opportunity to build revenue from those tourists who are coming for longer?
Danny Beales
Communities in Cornwall, Dorset and Devon, in common with many in London, have experience of the overnight stay and tourist economy, and of the impact on local communities. They know about the powers, budgets and fiscal freedoms that councils and mayors have to respond to the issues. I agree that the levy should be charged per night of travel. One challenge that I have often heard is that if the levy were to apply to the hotel sector or formal visitor stay sector only, and not to the informal sector or the short-term let sector, that might disadvantage important businesses, jobs and institutions, and not tackle that more informal visitor economy that can pose challenges in London, and in places like that represented by my hon. Friend.
Dame Meg Hillier
Talking of the informal economy, Airbnb is a big issue in London. The old-style Airbnb, in which you simply stayed with somebody, has been overtaken, and people are now purchasing flats just to let them out through Airbnb. I believe Airbnb is within the scope of the Bill, but does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about how this issue should be captured? There are whole developments near my constituency that have been bought just to be let through Airbnb, but we desperately need that housing. We want the levy, which could increase income for councils, but we also need the homes. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on that?
Danny Beales
I wholeheartedly agree that that is an issue. As my hon. Friend points out, the short-term let sector is included in the amendment, although I do not think that the amendment will be enough to regulate the short-term let sector more generally; that is a slightly separate matter. The previous Government’s deregulation in this area, with the 90-day rule, has not worked in practice. We all know that, and it has impacted our communities. Lots of data and evidence has been gathered by councils to show the loss of thousands of homes in our country, which were used by families and are now used as professional tourism accommodation. While that is good for the tourist economy, it is bad for our local housing system.
Dame Meg Hillier
In my constituency, as well as in Camden, Islington, Southwark and other inner-London boroughs, schools are closing, apparently partly because of short-term lets. This does not apply so much in my constituency, but in some areas, the homes are there, but people do not live in them full time, or sometimes at all. Families do not stay there. That has a detrimental impact on the ability of our schools to stay open.
Danny Beales
My hon. Friend describes perfectly the impacts that we see. Even in outer London and Hillingdon, we see the impact of the short-term let sector. We see it near Heathrow, which is very proximate to my constituency.
New clause 31 would enable differential charging. It does not mandate what the charges would be, or that one charge would apply to all sectors, so there would be the potential to charge the informal short-term let sector more per night or day than the formal stay sector.
Dr Gardner
I am quite interested in what my hon. Friend says about the differential approach. As a councillor, I know that Stoke-on-Trent is not necessarily known for its tourism industry, although that is absolutely a failure on the part of the country and of everybody, because we have great tourism attractions in Stoke. I have seen that when we have Airbnbs on family estates, and different people come and go, it creates an awful lot of unrest, antisocial behaviour and real concern about the revolving door of different people, which upsets local residents. [Interruption.] My apologies. Does he agree that the proposed approach would be of benefit?
Danny Beales
I certainly agree. The costs that result from the visitor economy are not adequately met by the tax revenue for local authorities or mayoral authorities.
Joe Robertson
My constituency is popular with tourists. In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), I invite him to visit my constituency; I think he missed our Health and Social Care Committee visit last year. Airbnbs are a big challenge, and are detrimental to the business of some small hoteliers, who are really struggling to keep their businesses going. Can the hon. Gentleman offer a small thought on that?
Danny Beales
I thank the hon. Gentleman, another colleague from the Health and Social Care Committee, for his offer to come to the Isle of Wight; I would be very happy to do so. I could experience the ferry issue, which I am sure he will talk about. I agree with his comments.
Revenue derived from tourism often goes directly to the Treasury, rather than funding the local services needed to create and respond to the tourism economy. The tourism levy proposed in new clause 31 would be a relatively small charge on visitors to our cities, and would create a new source of revenue for local growth initiatives.
A tourist levy would not be unique to London; British tourists regularly pay a tourism levy when we visit other high-profile cities across the world, including Paris, Rome and Berlin, to name just a few. Many will not even have noticed the charge of a couple of euros a night on their bill, but this funding source makes a positive difference to those cities, so why not have one in our cities in the UK? The creation of a tourism levy in those places has had no significant impact on visitor numbers, and none of us would be put off from our trip to Paris, Barcelona or Rome because of it.
A tourist levy would also be fairer to the residents of London. We all know that mass tourism brings disadvantage and pressures, as well as many benefits and advantages. A tourism levy would ensure that visitors paid their fair share for the upkeep of our city, just as British tourists do when travelling abroad. With 38 million visits to the UK every year, half of which are to London, there is a clear opportunity to raise a substantial pot of revenue to improve the experience of residents and visitors alike in London. It could fund and support cultural activities, such as the Christmas and other light displays that we want to see around our city, but that have become more difficult to afford. It could pay for additional security for our town centres and high streets, whether it is Oxford Street or major town centres in our boroughs. It could pay for the much better public realm investment that we often clearly need, but that has not been delivered for many years.
Through this measure, which has been long discussed but which we have failed to deliver or grasp time and again, we could let areas decide whether to levy such a charge and enjoy the proceeds of that revenue.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Member cannot speak from where she is seated.
Danny Beales
If the Minister feels unable to accept new clause 31, I hope that they can provide a route that allows us to consider such a measure later in the Bill’s progress, at the Budget, or through future legislation.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the length of time people have been lobbying for this power. I felt that when I was a councillor. Does he agree that the right to request in this Bill will help mayors to identify these issues, and provide a pathway for them to request such powers much more quickly?
Danny Beales
That is an excellent point well put. Far too often, we see these trends emerging at a local level. We see a new industry using new technology, and we will be tearing our hair out trying to respond with our limited and restricted powers. We try to come up with creative ways around the system to do that and traditionally bang on the door of Government to try to make changes to legislation—as we all know, that can take a long time—while communities struggle with the impacts. This right is an excellent provision in the Bill that will enable Government to work smarter, quicker and more collaboratively with local communities.
Let me turn to the issue of licensing reform, which is also proposed in the amendments before us. London’s hospitality and cultural life is at the very heart of our economy. It is a huge industry and has driven a great deal of creativity and growth throughout our history. Our hospitality, culture and nightlife sectors are critical to the capital’s success and national economic growth, with London’s hospitality industry alone generating £46 billion annually and accounting for one in 10 jobs in the city. Those jobs are right across all our constituencies, in London and the UK too. I have had offers to visit great pubs in the Isle of Wight and in other places, which I look forward to doing.
However, these vital industries are under increasing pressure from rising costs and outdated systems, including our licensing system, which can be inconsistent, lack transparency and be overly weighted towards objections. That is why I welcome Government new clause 44 and Government new schedule 2, which will allow the Mayor of London to set strategic licensing policy that local licensing authorities must take into account when making licensing decisions and setting their own policies.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member support my proposal that councils, particularly local district councils that currently have planning powers, need more powers over the licensing of houses in multiple occupation? They cause terrible antisocial behaviour issues and parking issues right across the country, and we need more powers to stop HMOs where they are not wanted. What are his views on giving local powers to councils to stop HMOs?
Danny Beales
HMOs are an increasing challenge in all our constituencies—certainly in my own—and they are a symptom of the broken housing market. The fact that people can make so much money from subdividing family homes and selling out rooms—they are even subdividing rooms and making thousands of pounds—is a symptom of 14 years of failure to deliver the homes we need.
I welcome the Government’s measures to address the root cause of the problem, but in immediately responding to those concerns I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that we must take more steps to regulate the HMO sector. Councils have some powers—my own council is reluctantly and eventually getting around to consulting on those proposals after many months—but we need to enable councils to go further and act faster and not have to consult as quickly, or at least to speed things up by allowing shadow licensing conditions before or while consulting.
Dame Meg Hillier
I cannot help but note that earlier the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) was concerned about 21,000 new homes being built in Enfield, which is not in his constituency, but on the edge of it. He made some sensible points about infrastructure, but does my hon. Friend agree that we need new homes because individuals in houses in multiple occupation need their own homes? Does he also agree that there may be a contradiction in what the hon. Member for Broxbourne has just said?
Danny Beales
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I do not want to get in the middle of a disagreement across the Chamber, but she has made her point expertly.
Greater strategic oversight of the licensing system is vital, and authorities must take strategic policies into account when making decisions. These amendments will not get rid of licensing decisions and powers at local level, but they will provide a better strategic framework. They will help to unlock the full potential of London’s hospitality, nightlife, culture and events economy, helping venues to stay open longer, expand and succeed where they are well managed. That is often the case, but they are held back by restrictive or outdated policies that have not been kept up to date. This approach will be good for business, good for the taxpayer and good for Londoners, helping to maintain London’s global reputation as a leading city for arts and culture. We also have to recognise that certain areas and sectors are often of strategic and cultural importance for our city and our nation, whether it is the music scene in certain parts of our cities, the live performance areas that have developed over many years, or areas such as Soho that are particularly important for the LGBTQ population. It is right that those areas have strategic oversight and protection, and that there are strategic policies to guide their futures.
I will also speak in support of the reforms on lane rental schemes, and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who is now not in his place, for his contributions on this in Committee. Londoners, including my constituents, often express frustration—I am sure many of us hear it—about seemingly endless roadworks, with roadworks left unfinished while teams move on to the next place down the road and dig up another road before finishing what they have started. It often feels like there is a real lack of co-ordination and a lack of incentives in the system to work together, move quickly and resolve these issues. Lane rental schemes are a proven way of reducing such inconveniences to the bare minimum. Such schemes allow a highway authority to charge utility companies per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. They work because they reduce the amount of time that roadworks occupy the network and encourage companies to carry works out collaboratively, minimising disruption to road users.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member is speaking about an important issue—that of utility companies seemingly closing roads without due consideration. Indeed, Southern Water tried to close the main road into Bembridge in my constituency from 1 December to 21 December; it did not consult with the local community, and only backed down after I intervened in my role as a Member of Parliament. It is the same for Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, so the hon. Member is speaking about a very important issue that probably affects every constituency, or nearly every constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I remind Members again to keep within the scope of the Bill and the amendments.
Danny Beales
I agree with the hon. Member, and recognise those examples. I hear many similar comments in my own constituency.
I welcome the Government’s new clause 43 and new schedule 1, which seek to devolve the power to approve lane rental schemes to mayors of strategic authorities. Locally, we have far too many examples of endless delays to works, such as the recent major road closure scheme on Cowley Road in my constituency, caused by Cadent gas works. That closure caused chaos for weeks on end—a work site left with no works taking place on evenings and weekends while a crucial part of the network was left closed, causing huge disruption. Companies must be held to account, and must be encouraged to carry out works as quickly as possible. Lane rental schemes would make it economically essential for them to conduct out-of-hours works and reduce delays. Armed with new powers, mayors will also be able to incentivise highway authorities to bring in additional lane rental schemes targeting high-priority areas. Crucially, revenue from lane rental schemes can be reinvested to benefit local road users—for instance, by improving the condition of roads and pavements, improvements that are much needed after more than a decade of decline under the Conservatives.
Lastly, as hon. Members will be pleased to hear, I support the new powers to issue mayoral development orders to boost house building. These measures are another step forward in enabling areas to get on, unblocking house building and sites, and to take a more strategic approach to fast-tracking development. In my own constituency, a number of key potential growth areas have stalled in recent years, whether in Uxbridge town centre, near Hillingdon station or in West Drayton. Hundreds if not thousands of homes are stalled at various stages of development, so a more strategic approach to development, enabled at mayoral and regional level, is vital.
I welcome this Bill. I hope the House will agree to the amendments I have spoken to, which will begin giving powers back to communities that will empower them to act and tackle the challenges we all face, now and in the future.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I am sure my hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I will be making a very focused speech.
My new clauses 7, 8 and 9 address missed opportunities in the skills devolution elements of this Bill. Skills are the foundation of economic growth, which is supposedly this Government’s overriding mission. We have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, with too many others trapped in poverty, and we face a future that will require training and retraining throughout working life. Critically in the context of this Bill, local areas understand their skills needs better than Whitehall does. That is why skills devolution matters, and it is why the amendments I have tabled are essential to making it work.
In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that the Government “remain completely committed” to strengthening the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans. After all, the White Paper promised “joint ownership”, but it is not in the Bill. Not to worry, the Minister said; new statutory guidance would deliver it. That guidance was published last Tuesday. I have read it carefully, as has the Local Government Association, and guess what? It does not deliver joint ownership. The guidance actually says that employer representative bodies retain “overall responsibility”, while strategic authorities merely set out
“sector skills priorities at the outset.”
That is not joint ownership—it is just a consultation. New clause 9, which is endorsed by the LGA, fixes this. It would require both the strategic authority and the employer representative body to agree before the Secretary of State can approve a local skills improvement plan. Elected mayors are accountable to constituents and responsible for delivering adult skills fund spending. Surely, democratic accountability should not be controversial when devolving substantial public funding.
New clause 7 would require strategic authorities to consider existing 16-to-19 and higher education provision when exercising adult skills functions. Again, the Minister said in Committee that schedule 10 already “allows” this, but allowing is not requiring. Without a statutory duty, we risk exactly the same fragmentation that this Bill should prevent: three parts of the education pipeline potentially working to three different plans, with no co-ordination mechanism. Employers need coherent pathways, and young people need clear progression routes from school through college to work. Making that happen should not be controversial, either.
Finally, new clause 8 would require strategic authorities to publish annual reports on their adult education functions—how funding is deployed, co-ordination with providers, and outcomes for learners and employers. Again, I emphasise that we are talking about substantial public funding with a significant local impact. Without reporting requirements, how will we know if skills devolution is working? How will we know if employer needs are being met? How will we identify problems before they become failures? Unfortunately, the Minister offered zero response in Committee to such an amendment, so I remain somewhat in the dark about why the Government think that basic transparency and accountability are unnecessary.
The three amendments are precision fixes. They do not reorganise institutions, create bureaucracy or move funding; they would just ensure that elected officials have genuine joint leadership and not simply consultation rights, that the skills pipeline is co-ordinated, not fragmented, and that public funding is transparently accounted for. If we believe in effective devolution, we must give devolved institutions the frameworks to succeed. Warm words and non-statutory guidance are not sufficient when devolving substantial powers and public funding. The new clauses would deliver on key parts of what the Government promised in the White Paper. They would provide an accountability framework that any effective public policy requires, and I urge the Government to accept them.
Perran Moon
I rise to speak to new clause 70 in my name. The case for this new clause is clear, because Cornish national minority status must be respected and upheld. Article 16 of the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities states:
“The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.”
It is perfectly evident that unless new clause 70 is accepted, this Bill is in direct contravention of the convention.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I tabled new clause 28, which would make provision for a new form of regional governance. The explanatory statement specifically mentions that it would make provision for a Cornish assembly. I understand that when the hon. Member was on the Bill Committee, he might have abstained on such a measure. Can he elaborate on his thoughts about what he would like to see at a Cornish level?
Perran Moon
What we are looking for is not necessarily the creation of a Cornish assembly, but to ensure—I will come on to this a little later in my speech—that the established, mature unitary authority has the powers of a mayoral combined authority. If we look at what we have done at Cornwall council over the past few years, we have managed tens of millions of pounds of economic development funding incredibly effectively, first through objective 1 funding and then through shared prosperity funding. We have created our own housing development company that manages and creates housing across Cornwall. We have been successful in recent years in creating housing across Cornwall. The council manages the cultural identity and the promotion of the Cornish language across Cornwall. I am not necessarily looking for an assembly—frankly, I do not care what the body is called—but for the powers to come back to our primary body, which is Cornwall council.
Cornwall is a large and stable unitary authority. It is the largest in geography, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), and the third largest by population. Cornwall must be treated as a single strategic authority with the powers of a mayoral combined authority. In 2022, the advisory committee of the Council of Europe called on the Government to
“devolve the appropriate powers to Cornwall Council to ensure effective implementation of the Framework Convention at local level”.
It also called on the Government of the time
“to work with Cornwall Council to address the housing crisis affecting persons belonging to the Cornish national minority, and to collaborate with devolved administrations to tackle this problem in areas of concern.”
Our Government’s support for Cornish national minority status was made clear by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on 5 March, when he said:
“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]
Similarly, on 19 November he said:
“We will ensure that Cornwall’s national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 776.]
However, the Bill does the opposite.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on behalf of his constituents. He will remember that, in Committee, members of my party tabled amendments to try to protect the integrity of Cornwall. He said then that a Minister had given him assurances on the place of Cornwall, but his tone has changed distinctly. Can he tell us whether he was satisfied with those assurances, or, indeed, whether he received them at all?
Perran Moon
I was given assurances that conversations with Ministers would continue, and they have continued. I will say more about that a little later. Now, though, I have to say that I find it disappointing that a party I love could produce a Bill that ignores the wishes of Cornwall and what national minority status actually means. To those who mock, disparage and denigrate Cornwall’s constitutional position on this island, I say, “If you try to ensnare us in an unholy alliance with a part of England, that will rebound negatively.” The impact and consequences of an unamended Bill would be felt across Cornwall for decades—perhaps for 50 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) suggested earlier. The relationship with Westminster would decline, and the current simmering resentment and disillusion would be baked in. Regrettably, it will not surprise me if the calls for full fifth-nation status for Cornwall simply grow if the Bill is passed unamended.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member speaks very eloquently, and many of the issues that he is raising resonate with me and with my constituents on the Isle of Wight. We are being forced into a union with Hampshire, where 93% of the new electorate in the new combined authority will live and where some powers currently exercised by our unitary council, Isle of Wight council, will instead be exercised by someone whose largest responsibility rests with the 93% of the population who do not live on the Island. If the hon. Member cannot achieve what he seeks to achieve on the Government Benches I worry about what I might be able to achieve, but it is good to hear another voice speaking about those same issues.
Perran Moon
There is a fundamental difference between the position of the Isle of Wight in relation to the mainland and the position in Cornwall. It is the difference between identity and legally binding national minority status. One can identify with a football team, a pop band or a place, but that does not give it legally binding provision as does national minority status. That is the basis of my argument.
Andrew George
Meur ras! I just wanted to address the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. All six Cornish Members are clear about the fact that, for us, this is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity. It is a positive, forward-looking proposal on behalf of Cornwall, based on our unique cultural and historic past, and it is not born out of anger and resentment: it is important for that to be understood.
Perran Moon
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we, as a Chamber, do enough to celebrate the diversity of the islands in which we live, and we do not do enough to celebrate the different nations within those islands. It is wonderful to share our cultural identity, our language and our national minority status with people who move to Cornwall and embed themselves in our culture and language. I would encourage them—when, hopefully, they are given the opportunity in 2030-31, if we get that magical tick-box on the census—to tick “Cornish” to denote who they are.
It does not have to be this way. We just have to consider the consequences of a mayoral combined authority shared between—God forbid, although I love them dearly—Devon and Cornwall. How will the taxpayers of Devon feel about funding Cornish language lessons in Cornish schools, Cornish language road signs or Cornish cultural events? I doubt that they will be doing cartwheels.
We stand at a crossroads. I urge Ministers to be bold, be flexible and empower our communities. They should not impose their ideological governance template on us. If the Bill is unamended, its impact will be that Cornwall will be the only part of the United Kingdom locked out of access to the highest levels of devolution, based solely on who we are. That is rank, blatant discrimination, and I cannot and will not accept it. Ministers know all this, because we have had several discussions and meetings to look at the risks. To that end, and with a heavy heart, I have to say to Ministers that I will not support the Bill in its current unamended state.
This should, and I believe still could be, a historic moment for the relationship between Westminster and Cornwall. I urge Ministers to listen to us. Let us make this a historically positive arrangement.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I was fortunate to be part of the Bill Committee for this monstrous Bill—monstrous in size, I should clarify—so my summer was spent digesting each and every clause, and seeking to understand whether it does fulfil its ambitious title and move powers closer to communities. I must be clear that the last Government started the process of creating regional mayors and limiting the ability to access funding through this mechanism. I recall visiting the former Secretary of State in his office in Marsham Street, alongside my then council chief executive Graham Farrant and the former Member for Bournemouth West, to seek the zoning of Bournemouth town centre as the first retail-led investment zone, only to be told that unless I presented it as a devolution programme, there would be no money. We have been here before.
Devolution was expected in this Parliament, though perhaps not in this form, and it does have the potential to improve lives. A problem arises with this Bill, because for many people in England, it gives with one hand and takes with the other. Yes, it shifts some power and money from Westminster to the regions, but it abolishes the very councils that deliver vital services and completely ignores the hyper-local councils that residents know best: their town and parish councils. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), loves hearing my references to towns and parishes.
This Bill could and should be so much stronger. As noted by the shadow Minister, the Bill Committee tabled many sensible amendments, and it is disappointing that so few have been accepted. Let me highlight just a few that sit in today’s grouping. I welcome new clause 29, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which would require mayors and strategic authorities to act in accordance with the Climate Change Act 2008 and other environmental laws.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
May I invite the hon. Member to move new clause 29? I do not know if that is possible at this stage.
Vikki Slade
I am very happy to move new clause 29, should the hon. Member not have the opportunity to—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Ms Berry, if you need some information on how to process procedure, please ask the Clerks or the Chair—you can come to me in a minute. We are speaking to all the amendments. Ms Slade, continue.
Vikki Slade
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Without new clause 29, my concern is that a mayor who does not honour the net zero commitments of the councils that sit within their area may undermine those councils’ principles and hard work, which will have been done over many years.
New clause 4, in the name of the shadow Minister, and new clause 25, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), relate to the community infrastructure levy, which is an important measure that councils rightly need to mitigate the impact of new homes. When residents come to me worried about developments, they are always asking about what will happen with new roads, schools and services, which is why CIL matters so much. However, in Dorset and elsewhere, homeowners have been wrongly charged CIL for extensions and self-builds, with £1.6 million taken in error. Ministers say that the system works, but if so, what do they say to homeowners out of pocket by tens of thousands of pounds? Accepting these two simple amendments or introducing clear and robust regulation would reassure homeowners that they will not be facing unfair bills.
Siân Berry
I, too, was pleased to sit on the Public Bill Committee, but sadly I cannot spare the time to review everyone’s performance, so I will get straight to the point.
My amendments for new combined authorities in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill include amendments 91 to 93, which add action on poverty and socioeconomic inequality to the areas of competence of new mayors in clause 2. The Government have promised again and again to enact part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of a socioeconomic duty for England. If that were done, these duties would need to be created in the Bill. To leave them out for brand new authorities is such a gap, and I find it hard to understand why the Government are resisting. I hope that either this will be taken up in the other place and debated again or the section will be enacted for England imminently, such that it has to be done through Government amendments there. I would like to hear that promised by Ministers today.
I mainly want to focus on and propose my new clause 29. This would help every new mayor support the principles in the Climate Change Act 2008 in a fair way. The Climate Change Committee has noted the yawning gap between national ambition and local action, and the Local Government Association has called for that gap to be closed through the Bill. We need every mayor agreeing on the action they will take—their fair contribution to national targets—and being empowered to deliver for our crucial carbon budgets and lifesaving climate resilience.
My new clause would also help every new mayor to support the principles in the Environment Act 2021 for nature protection and restoration, and action on pollution, wildlife and the ecosystem that is our only home. It would also help every new mayor to support the principles in Ella’s law, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill. The Bill awaits Second Reading and comes from cross-party work with campaigners from the Healthy Air Coalition and Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, the mother of Ella, whose death from asthma was the first to be recorded as due to air pollution.
New clause 29 is supported by the UK100 group of local authorities, the Climate Emergency campaign, the Better Planning Coalition, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition, Friends of the Earth and a host of others. An open letter has been signed by over 450 local councillors from all parties and by council leaders. Hundreds of businesses have written in more than once to Ministers and many of our constituents have been contacting MPs, too. I am very grateful to every hon. Member, cross party, who has signed it. The case is clear. I intend to press new clause 29 to a Division, so that we can, on all sides of the House, vote for the climate, nature and clean air duties that are so vital. I hope that the Government will pledge clearly today to introduce them all as full duties at the next stage in the other place.
In Committee, I also worked with campaigners to fill a big gap in health determinants set out in the Bill, to which new mayors would have to plan action under clause 43, the health improvement and health inequalities duty. The Government left out of the Bill any environmental impacts on health. I argued strongly for that in Committee and have again tabled amendments 87 to 90 to fix that. I am pleased and grateful to see that Ministers have listened to the evidence and added their own Government amendments 116 to 118 naming environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water as the health determinants they are.
However, my original amendments have not been withdrawn, as they spelled out that environmental factors should also specifically include water pollution and land pollution. This would have brought the goals of Zane’s law into the work done by new mayors to document and plan strategically to avoid horrific problems with contaminated land of the kind that led to the sudden death of Zane Gbangbola, when floods brought poisoned gas from contaminated landfill into his home in Chertsey in Surrey. I would like to hear explicitly from the Minister today that the phrase “environmental factors” in the new Government amendments includes that kind of contamination, and that the amendments therefore bring parts of Zane’s law into the Bill.
Finally, I want the Minister—and the Lords in the other place—to look seriously at the need for amendments 159 and 160, which aim to ensure that the local growth plans from new mayors will help protect culture in a strategic way. I have worked with the Music Venue Trust on the amendments, and its annual report each year makes awful reading, as our grassroots music venues suffer and close due to business pressures, unfair business rates valuations and planning and licensing issues. Those issues could be tackled effectively using the new strategies and powers of combined authorities and mayors.
The amendments cover not just music but cultural and community spaces of all kinds, including theatres and other performance venues. I believe that all areas of the country will benefit from the amendments being added at a future stage of the Bill.
Joe Robertson
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor. I want to speak to new clause 48 in my name and new clause 39 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The two new clauses seek to do similar things.
I thank Members across the House who have signed new clause 48, not only Opposition Members but those on the Government Benches, as well as from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. It is my position that this support shows that new clause 48 is an objectively reasonable amendment to seek. It is about the principle of fairness: it ensures that the ferry services that connect communities all over this country of islands connect those islands, and the communities that live close to bodies of water, including rivers, under the same fare framework that trains and buses operate under.
New clause 48 sits in the following context: for generations, for decades, there has been a political consensus that train operators, whether they be state providers or private businesses, operate under a framework of regulation and licensing, and that Government have a say in how train fares and timetables are structured. The same goes for bus services. Indeed, even trains and buses in the private sector have, to a greater or lesser extent, been subsidised by the public purse.
Ferry providers in this country sit outside that consensus of regulation and licensing in public transport, so there is no comprehensive regulation that sets down how ferry operators may work. That has led to my constituents on the Isle of Wight relying on privatised, unregulated, unlicensed, foreign-owned, debt-laden companies for essential travel. Those companies are so profitable that they are regularly exchanged from private equity group to private equity group, including the Canadian pension fund. That is because private equity understands that it is a predictable form of income generation, as the service users—Isle of Wight residents—have no alternative but to use the ferry companies they control. There is no effective market, as the private sector operates properly only when there is competition. However, the bar to entry into the ferry services market is so high—a company would need to buy land and ferries, and ensure compliance with all maritime law—that there is no alternative to the existing providers. I use my constituency as an example. One provider, now called Wightlink, used to be part of British Rail, when British Rail was a public service; the provider was unfortunately sold off without any obligation on it, and it is private equity investment that has benefited from that.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically modest speech, given how much he has campaigned on this matter for his constituents, and is being very moderate about the aims and ambitions of the Government. It is a clear stated aim of this Government that local people should be able to demand local regulation and services, and powers for use by mayors. My hon. Friend will know that the local Conservative mayoral candidate, Donna Jones, has actually asked for these powers; if she is elected mayor, she would like to use them. Does that not provide a greater incentive for us to work together to ensure that the Government can give those powers to the new mayoralty?
Joe Robertson
It absolutely does provide that incentive. I thank the shadow Minister for remarking on my tone; I have always tried to work with the Government on this matter. I acknowledge again that this is more than a campaign—it is a core issue for my constituents, and for constituents on the other side of the island that I share with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Indeed, we are working jointly on it.
The measure would achieve unity around the idea of a mayor having responsibility for integrated transport locally. After all, local transport powers are a key plank of the Government’s plans for devolution. However, when the Government consulted my constituents—among the wider residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—on transport, the consultation document that they put out to spark debate and consultation returns devoted 1,000 words to transport for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight on trains, buses, taxis, pavements, cycling and walking, but it did not include ferries or any mention of crossing the Solent, which every single one of my constituents needs to do at some point to access health services and educational opportunities that are not provided on the island, and to access employment and see friends and family, as everyone on the UK mainland would expect to do. I remind the House that in order to do those routine daily things, my constituents are reliant on the private equity groups that own and control ferry companies, and that have no obligation whatsoever to the residents of the Isle of Wight. They have no democratic accountability at all, and no responsibility to Government.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about his constituents’ need for joined-up transport. He spoke about the ferries, and about buses and trains. This is not just an economic argument; he talked about the importance of people being able to move around and connect with each other, and that has huge impacts for their mental health. I urge my hon. Friend to talk about the importance of democratic accountability, and getting strategic transport plans for our constituents across the country.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend mentioned two key words: democratic accountability. That is fundamentally what underpins this issue, and it is a principle that we expect to apply to all forms of public transport—except ferries.
I urge the Government to use this opportunity to create regulation and devolve it down. That way, they will not have ongoing responsibility for administering this issue, and the decision making will be made as close as possible to the individuals affected by the decisions. I am speaking for my constituents, but I could also be speaking for those elsewhere in the country. This is also about the economic wellbeing of the area. My constituents are heavily reliant on tourism. Indeed, the benefits of tourism are felt by 38% of our economy, but to visit the Isle of Wight, tourists must pay the price of the ferry. That is on top of everything else that they might want to spend when they are on the island.
Let us remember that the money paid to the ferry companies goes off to private equity investors, many of which are abroad, and some of which are foreign pension funds. Not only does that mean less money to spend in my area on businesses that employ local people, but it will put some people off travelling to the Isle of Wight at all. The Minister may want to see ferry prices as a large tax that people can avoid by simply visiting other places for their holidays. That is the tragedy of this situation. Indeed, tourist footfall has fallen on the Isle of Wight more than it has for anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Before I end, I will back up my argument with facts. Earlier this year, the highest price somebody paid to bring a car back and forth to the Isle of Wight was £400. That is £400 for a sea crossing of 5 miles. The timetables have diminished since private equity took control. Once there were half-hourly services, but it is now more than an hour between services. Ordinarily, a company would not get away with doing this, because the consumer—the passenger—would go elsewhere, but the only “elsewhere” option is another ferry company that is also controlled and owned by private equity. It is no wonder that one of those companies was sold last month from private equity to private equity. The website of the new controlling group does not talk about the uncompromising pursuit of passenger experience. It boasts about the uncompromising pursuit of capital investment. That is capital investment for people who want to invest in that holding company.
I thank again all those who have supported this proposal. It was a particularly significant moment to hear the shadow Minister confirm that His Majesty’s official Opposition backs the regulation of ferry companies through my amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am trying to calculate the time; I hope that we have more than one speaker bobbing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Marvellous. As we have four more speakers and we definitely have to finish business by 10 pm, Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of 10 minutes.
Andrew George
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I also have ferries in my constituency, but I have not tabled amendments to deal with them in a Bill about devolution. I will return to the Cornish question raised by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—I will call him my hon. Friend. I will concentrate on whether it is appropriate to deal with the idiosyncrasies around the country in the way that he proposes in new clause 70, or in the way that I have done in amendments 175 and 176—our amendments would treat Cornwall as an exception—or whether the issue should be treated as a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has done in new clause 28.
I accept that everywhere is special and unique. The question is often asked: why is Cornwall asking for more consideration than other places? The answer is in part, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, that special legislation and regulations apply to us; there is our national minority status, recognition of the Cornish language, the existence of the duchy, and its separate constitutional relationship with the Crown. Of course, all places are the result of the accidents of history and geography, and in Cornwall, there is a confluence of the two. If we are not to go in the direction of breaking down all barriers and having one world government, with no distinction between one place and another, we must recognise the tipping point—the difference between English counties and Cornwall, which is a rather unique place that, as he and I believe, needs to be given special consideration.
Like my hon. Friend, I describe myself as Cornish and not English. That is not being anti-English; I am proud of my relationship with England, as all Cornish people are, but we as a people have a separate history. We start our contributions to these debates by saying “Meur ras”, to introduce the Cornish language. Although not many people in Cornwall speak the Cornish language now, not many people in Scotland speak Scottish Gaelic, but that is not to say that Scots are less Scottish because of that. The fact is, the last person who could not speak English died nearly 200 years ago.
There has recently been a great deal of coming together to recognise the importance of identity and our Celtic past. Indeed, I have spoken about the Cornish language with Breton friends, and found that there is a stronger association between Cornwall and Brittany than between Cornwall and Wales, from which we were separated by the Saxons some 1,500 years ago. Indeed, Athelstan drew the line between Cornwall and England in 936 because he felt that the Cornish were not worth the effort of inevitable annihilation.
All that history is interesting and relevant, and feeds one’s understanding of who one is, but as I said in an intervention, I am not interested in being backward-looking or insular. Rather than cut ourselves off, we need to cut ourselves into the celebration of diversity, and use our identity as a strength that helps us to look forward. Indeed, we had a very welcome statement earlier on the Government’s critical minerals strategy, and Cornwall can and should be looking forward with all our strengths in the space sector, critical minerals and green energy. We have a lot to look forward to, but we need to have a basis of confidence on what to do.
Perran Moon
I totally agree with what the hon. Member is saying. The challenge that I have—he may have found this when he first came to this place—is that I am staggered at how few people here on these Benches understand Cornish national minority status or how important it is to us in Cornwall. I make these references not for him or for people in Cornwall who know this stuff, but more to ensure that the people here get a better understanding of who we are, why we have this separate culture and language and why we are keen for people to come and celebrate it. Does he agree with that approach?
Andrew George
I do indeed. It is the desire of a centralised state to render its dominion homogeneous, and in a nation such as the UK, where the culture has been so centralised for centuries, it is difficult to understand that the process of devolution is about letting go, not about holding on to power. In effect, the purpose of my intervention on the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) was to point out that, within the Bill, there is still that desire to hold on. In other words, directly elected mayors could become puppets of central Government under this Bill. I fear that that may be the case as a result of clause 38. There is a weakness there, including the possibility of the Government still holding on and controlling the way things go.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches and by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and I hope that the Minister will listen. Even if she does not accept these totemic amendments now, I hope that the Government will be listening to Cornwall’s case as the Bill proceeds through the other place.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It has been a long afternoon. I thank my Lib Dem colleagues in Committee who bravely stood up for towns and parishes and would like the role of town and parish councils to continue. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I am still a sitting district councillor. District councils play an interesting role when we have town and parish councils because they form the connection between the towns and parishes, the district and the county. Those three layers work together, and they pull in a similar direction when it is working well. I could regale the House with the achievements of Dawlish town council, Newton Abbot town council or Teignmouth town council, or of the various parish councils. They have done fantastic things for their communities, but they can only do that when they are part of the process and are able to talk and act with the higher councils as well. What is missing from this Bill is anything like a duty to co-operate between the unitary, the town and the parish councils. Were that in place, there would be a much better conversation.
We have no set idea in Devon what the best layout of unitary councils would look like. There are six, or possibly 10, options coming up to the Government for consideration, which is clearly entirely unreasonable. One of the options is a single large unitary replacing the footprint of Devon county council. Something like that would take a localised idea of what was going on in the district councils, for example with five district councillors in Dawlish representing the people in that area, to a far distant control, where there could be two unitary councillors trying to deal with those issues. It would be difficult to persuade residents that that unitary council is working with their best interests at heart. That duty to co-operate is important.
We went through all the process, and the former Secretary of State, or Under-Secretary—I am unsure of the best form of address.
Martin Wrigley
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a long day. The previous Minister was talking about neighbourhood area committees, and yet I was surprised when I looked at the Bill that there is nothing in there about neighbourhood area committees. They are not mentioned in any way, shape or form. Devon is very big at saying, “We’re going to make these neighbourhood area committees, and it is going to really work for you,” but it is not. This is why I have tabled new clause 71, which sets forth the need and requirement for neighbourhood area committees and to make them a statutory consultee within unitary councils because they currently are not.
Sam Carling
I used to be a councillor in an authority that had area committees, and we ended up scrapping them because they were not really doing a good job. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that mandating particular governance arrangements of that sort and at that level within councils in legislation undermines the principle of devolution and that actually we need to let councils do what is best for their areas?
Martin Wrigley
I agree that we should not be mandating those details. However, we were promised that these committees would perform that function. I say again that a simple duty to co-operate with towns and councils would actually take the place far better.
The other issue in the Bill, again, relates to the larger unitaries not having that localism built in. Should we end up with, say, a single large unitary within Devon, we will end up with Dartmoor national park entirely surrounded by a single unitary council. People might say, “So what?” At the moment, the local authorities surrounding Dartmoor national park appoint 10 people to the authority board, and central Government appoints nine. Consequently, if it is surrounded by a single unitary council, that council will appoint a majority to that board, losing the distinct identity of that agency for managing the national park, with the danger of the unitary’s desires overturning those of the national park with nothing to stop them. Amendments 164 to 167 would address that issue and require attention to the national park governance in the process of creating the new unitaries.
Sam Carling
I am glad that those governance arrangements work, but they sound like a nightmare based on hearing that information. Would the hon. Member not agree again that under one unitary council, there can be much more strategic oversight of such a situation? If local residents are not happy with the way that is being managed, they can elect different councillors. It should be a simplification, not causing problems like that.
Martin Wrigley
No, the park authority looks after the park with the park’s interests at its heart, and it is not tied to any other overriding interest. For example, if the new unitary needs another road, it might think, “The easiest thing is just to go through the edge of the park,” or “We need some new housing. We’ll just put it in the park.” At the moment, the park is responsible for its own planning; it is responsible for its own destiny. That identity is so important, and that was supposed to be maintained in this local devolution Bill.
I would have loved to have seen the new unitaries have a statutory duty to provide adequate public toilets, but that one was just too far out the way to even try to get it in. At this point, having taken up enough of your time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and having sat through a lot of interesting conversations—I will leave it at that—I will call it a day.
Tom Gordon
I rise to speak to new clause 28. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues who tabled a similar amendment in Committee.
New clause 28 would effectively allow a new form of regional governance. One thing that frustrates me at the moment—it is quite bonkers from a fairness perspective—is that Yorkshire has almost the population of Scotland, the economy of Wales, and a strong sense of identity, but unlike those countries, we do not have anywhere near the level of power. For too long, Westminster has handed Yorkshire crumbs and called it a settlement. There has been lots of talk this evening about regional mayors and powers, but Yorkshire was technically chopped into four different constituent components. Westminster has taken our ability to build across the region and be the real powerhouse that we could be.
My new clause would allow the creation of a Yorkshire regional body, on a par with Scotland and Wales, and empower it with provision of health, education and transport. That would stop holding Yorkshire back and give us Yorkshire folk the tools to do what we know we need to do for our areas. Put simply, it would give Yorkshire solutions to Yorkshire problems.
Currently, the mayoral arrangements across the area are disparate and vary wildly. The Labour Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, has been elected twice on the promise of delivering a franchising of buses, which is yet to happen. We recently got a new mayor for York and North Yorkshire, but we are yet to see any meaningful investment on the ground for local people. I do not want mayors who are empowered to be glorified lobbyists in Westminster and Whitehall; I want to see real regional forms of government that empower people on the ground. Compared with other European countries that have meaningful forms of devolution and regional governance, we have a democratic deficit, so why not think big?
On transport, we need to integrate across the entirety of Yorkshire—a transport for Yorkshire that does not simply stop at the borders of West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. Investment in mass transit for Leeds, for example, involves the West Yorkshire area. People who live in my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency commute, work and learn there, so giving a new regional body that power over transport would make sense. If Yorkshire had those powers and funding already, and people on the ground were in the driving seat and had a stake in the project, a Leeds mass transit system might have actually happened, rather than being endlessly promised, kiboshed, re-promised and then knocked on the head again.
Devolving health powers to a local region such as Yorkshire makes massive sense. Yorkshire Cancer Research, which is based in my constituency, talks endlessly about the poor life outcomes of our region compared with places in the south of England. Why not have people who know best make the key decisions about what health interventions would make sense for our area?
All those points about transport and health seek to fix something that has gone wrong in our system: Whitehall brings us to this place when we would be better off empowering people in our communities to take them forward. The naysayers will say, “It’s just a new form. There’d be more elections and more people involved.” We have seen that in the creation of combined authorities and mayoral authorities. What worries me is the fact that we have ended up with endless strategic directives and chief executives of new organisations. They often kowtow to diktats from Whitehall anyway, so where is the devolution?
I want Yorkshire answers to Yorkshire problems. I hope that other people support that too.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I will focus my attention on my amendment 174, which would ensure that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered when preparing a local growth plan. As it stands, rurality is not mentioned once in the Bill, and the concerns that I raised on Second Reading remain.
The Bill’s overly centralised approach to devolution will once again neglect rural communities. It remains unclear how the specific needs of rural communities will be highlighted and addressed. Eighty-five per cent of England’s land area is classified as rural, but only 17% of the country’s population lives in those areas, and unfortunately that often means that rural areas can sometimes be ignored and left behind. But these areas have specific needs and challenges, and they require strategic support and investment to ensure that they thrive. Rural areas are the grassroots drivers of economic growth, the home of farming, food and drink production and tourism. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton is home to over 800 family farms, and much of the wider local industry is intertwined with food production. Therefore, there needs to be a strategic focus on rural growth to identify what enabling infrastructure is needed to support rural communities with the recent and incoming planning reforms. But this Bill will fail to capture the huge growth opportunity these areas offer unless the Government change track and pay them due regard.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
In Somerset, we were set back enormously by six years of council tax freeze during the early 2010s, under the Conservative-led council—[Interruption.] Council tax was frozen for six years, way in excess of what the Government had anticipated, leaving council finances in Somerset in dire straits.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend will know that Somerset county council was near bankrupt in 2018. Indeed, we suffered a lot under the previous Conservative-led county council’s tenure because of its financial neglect. The rising costs and demand for essential services have put budgets under severe pressure, despite the significant transformation and savings now being delivered by the Liberal Democrat-led unitary council.
The lack of funding for local government is not unique to Somerset. It is a national problem that requires a national solution, with councils still waiting for the delayed details of the local government finance settlement. The current funding model is broken and it needs fundamental change. That has not been achieved in this Bill, but amendments 61 and 62, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, would ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive appropriate funding to facilitate their transition, and combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support such amendments to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful, robust and, at times, rather lengthy contributions to the debate.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) asked if the Bill is ready—absolutely, the Bill is ready. What we are doing is exactly what he accuses us of not doing: we are listening, responding to the scrutiny we received in Committee in interventions on the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and making amendments where we think they make sense. That is the way in which we think that we should drive through legislation, but we are clear about the core premise of the Bill.
The hon. Members for Hamble Valley, for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) all played around the theme that this is a centralising Bill that is looking to impose on places. I categorically reject that. The Bill will implement the biggest transfer of power that we have seen for a generation, which is something that the Conservatives did not do in 14 years. Let us take the example of local government reorganisation, which was raised by Members from across the House. This is a bottom-up, local-led process, where places have come up with proposals—[Interruption.] The proposals have come from places where there has been consultation with constituent authorities and local people. We are then judging the proposals that have been submitted against clear, transparent criteria that we have published.
Candidly, Conservative Members have some cheek asking us to retain the status quo—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamble Valley says that he has two cheeks, but this is a serious matter. Frankly, we are not doing this reorganisation for fun, but because the Conservatives failed to grip the situation for 14 years. They under-invested in local government and stripped out capacity, so we now need to do the job of reforming local government so that it is fit for purpose and can deliver the local services that people across our country want to see.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
No, I will make a little more progress.
We are clear that this work has to be done with consultation and engagement, and that is what we are doing. To the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on a proposed referendum, let me say that we think that is disproportionate. The approach we are taking to consultation and engagement is the right one.
On the point about a referendum, let me turn to new clause 2, on a referendum on mayoral precepts at the same time. We are really clear that the democratic lock sits at the heart of this matter. Mayors who are democratically elected by their people are no more immune to the impacts of raising taxes than we are as national politicians, so the democratic process will ensure that mayors are balancing the need to raise a precept and invest in their community against the need to protect their people from tax rises.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that devolution works best when it is predicated on strong local partnerships. The strongest mayoral combined authorities are the ones in which the constituent authorities work in lockstep with the mayor; that is the model we have seen in Greater Manchester. We are very clear that partnership must sit at the heart of this matter, and that is the approach we are looking to support and enable through this Bill.
Paul Holmes
This honestly feels like groundhog day. Once again, the Minister has come here and said that this Bill is doing local government reform and devolution from the ground up. Will she therefore answer my question once again? She has heard many Members tonight say that local authorities do not want to reorganise. If they do not want to go ahead with it, will this Government force them to do it? The answer is yes, isn’t it?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clear thing for authorities across the country is that they recognise the status quo is not working. Conservative Members are criticising, yet they have no alternative. The status quo is not sustainable, because we had 14 years in which the Conservatives stripped local authorities of investment and denuded their capacity, so local authorities across the piece recognise that reform is necessary. I come back to the fact that we are reforming for a purpose; we are reforming to deliver stronger services at the appropriate level so that local authorities can deliver the outcomes that their people want.
Let me take the point around devolution and resources, which the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Guildford raised. We recognise that if devolution is going to be successful, our mayors and strategic authorities absolutely need the resources to do it well. That is why a new burdens assessment will always come in place where new responsibilities are placed on devolved authorities.
Critically, where we are devolving power—for example, to our priority areas—we are providing capacity funding. The principle that we will always ensure that places have the resources they need to do the job is absolutely right, because we care as much as our mayors and the Opposition parties care that we get devolution right and that it is delivering for people across the piece.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
The hon. Member for Guildford pushed back on commissioners, and I disagree with her amendments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) that mayors need to be able to bring in additional expertise to do the very hard job that we and their voters ask them to do. Commissioners will be appointed by and accountable to mayors, and they will be subject to scrutiny. They are there to bolster the capacity and expertise of the mayor. All we are doing through the Bill is allowing the flexibility for the mayor to build the right team with the right skills and expertise in order to deliver the priorities for local people.
Let me turn to the strong advocacy by my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for the tourism levy. Our mayors are advocating strongly for this measure. They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.
Let me pick up on the issue of CIL, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and other Members spoke very powerfully about. We recognise that there is an issue here, one that needs to be addressed. We are committed to finding a solution; we will move quickly to do so, and we will set it out in due course. A number of Members also raised the question of the GLA powers, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the GLA already has an explicit power to acquire land for housing and regeneration. Existing safeguards remain in place, and the Bill does not change the current framework.
Peter Fortune
Again, the Minister is giving an example of an area in which the Mayor of London’s powers are expanding. The point I tried to make earlier—in an objective, non-political way—was that as the powers of the mayor expand, the power of the scrutiny body needs to expand to match that. Can the Minister reassure me that she heard what I suggested earlier and will take it forward?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I heard both the point that the hon. Member has just made and the point he made during the debate. The model we have in London has been a successful one for 25 years. We will continue to work with the mayor and the constituent councils to build that partnership, and to look at ways in which we can strengthen not only the powers and responsibilities of the mayor, but their accountability.
Moving beyond London, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for highlighting the opportunities of devolution. It was great to hear that from Government Members—what we heard from Opposition Members on this topic was pretty disappointing—because we recognise the need to create strong institutions within a functional geography. We understand the opportunities in the south midlands and Staffordshire, and we want to see devolution across the country, whether through foundation strategic authorities or through mayors.
Let me directly address the point that was made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who has been a consistent and powerful champion for town and parish councils. We are very clear in the Bill that the objective is to take power out of Whitehall and Westminster and push it to the appropriate level, and there is absolutely a role for town and parish councils in that—I said that in Committee, and I will say it again. We are clear that certain powers must sit at the functional geography layer, where the mayor of the strategic authority is the right level. There are also powers that absolutely must sit with our local authorities, and there are powers that will sit with our neighbourhoods.
Members have mentioned that neighbourhood governance provision is unspecified in the Bill. That is deliberate, because we think that neighbourhood governance should be driven locally. We will set a series of principles in statutory guidance, but ultimately we want places to come up with the neighbourhood governance structure that works for them. In some places, that will mean building on the strength of town and parish councils; in other places, it will mean building on neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. It is right that we allow that process to be led locally.
I will now turn to new clause 33, which the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire spoke to, and the subject of joint planning committees. We do not think that the new clause is necessary, because provisions already exist to ensure joint working across authorities, including the creation of joint committees for the purpose of planning.
Finally, I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) about the importance of skills. Skills have a critical role in driving economic development, and our strategic authorities and our mayors should grip that. We want to ensure that they are planning adult education provision. They are already working with employers and others to develop skills improvement plans, and we will look to build on that. I come back to the fact that we are creating provision for a right to request. I already know from conversations with our mayors that they are clear that they want more purchase and agency over adult skills. I anticipate that we will build on this area.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I heard the word “finally”, and that moved me to intervene. I offer my support and thank the Government for amendments 116, 117 and 118 on air pollution, which render redundant the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the expansion of Heathrow. Before the Minister moves on, what is the Government’s attitude to new clause 29? It seems to embody many of the Government’s policies. If she will not accept that new clause tonight, will she work on some of the issues within it for the Bill’s next stage of consideration?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising new clause 29, which I was just coming to, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) and other hon. Friends for championing the issue. We are clear that mayors and strategic authorities have an important role to play in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. That is why climate and environment are included in the competences that will sit with strategic authorities under the Bill. We already have mayoral strategic authorities that are subject to the biodiversity duty. They are required to work with their constituent authorities to deliver air quality action plans. We are already seeing on the ground that our mayors and our strategic authorities are in the vanguard and are pushing, and I imagine they will continue to build on this area as they accumulate powers and more levers over this area.
We support the intention behind the poverty and equality duty, as I said in Committee. We think it is a thread that runs through the Bill. Any mayor and any strategic authority will fundamentally care about poverty and reducing inequality, and the functions within the Bill are the enablers of that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will not give way, because I think Members are getting rather irate and everyone wants to go home. I will finish with Cornwall and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). He has been a passionate and consistent advocate for Cornwall. We recognise Cornwall’s minority status and we will continue to safeguard that. We cannot accept the amendment, because it cuts across the powers that we want to put with mayors. I reassure him and other Members from Cornwall that we are committed to working to strengthen the devolution deal that we have already done with Cornwall to ensure that we are unlocking opportunity in the area.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will conclude. We are clear, despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches, that this Bill is a fundamental step forward. It is the biggest transfer of power to our mayors, our local authorities and our communities. The driver behind the Bill is the principle that if we push power out and locate it in local people, we can drive the change that people want.
I end by saying this: the Bill is a floor, not the ceiling. We are determined to continue building on the devolution journey that we have started, putting power, agency and resources in the hands of local leaders and communities, because that is how we drive local change that can drive national change. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments to this Bill to ensure that we can unlock the potential of devolution.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 43 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Licensing functions of the Mayor of London
“Schedule (licensing functions of the Mayor of London) amends the Licensing Act 2003 to confer licensing functions on the Mayor of London.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This inserts new Schedule NS2 into the Bill conferring licensing functions on the Mayor of London.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’).
(4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’”—(Paul Holmes.)
This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Tuesday 25th November 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 November 2025 - large print - (25 Nov 2025)
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 87 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:25 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 322 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Rutland Rutland
Government new clause 46—Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.
Government new clause 49—“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”.
Government new clause 50—Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence.
Government new clause 51—Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence.
Government new clause 52—Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence.
Government new clause 53—Further provision about standards.
Government new clause 54—Guidance.
Government new clause 55—Relationship with existing licensing legislation.
Government new clause 56—Regulations.
Government new clause 57—Interpretation.
New clause 1—Consent for local government restructuring—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all 6 constituent councils.
(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.’
This new clause would mean local government restructuring could not take place without the consent of the constituent councils.
New clause 6—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value—
‘(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area.
(2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may—
(a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or
(b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.’
This new clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement.
New clause 10—Community ownership fund—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—
(a) voluntary and community organisation, or
(b) parish or town council,
to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.
Amendment (a) to new clause 10, at end insert—
‘(4) On the day on which regulations are first made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) how a strategic authority can apply to the community ownership fund;
(b) how the community ownership fund is governed and administered;
(c) any other information which in the opinion of the Secretary of State assists strategic authorities and other persons in understanding the purposes of and application process for the community ownership fund; and
(d) a timetable for when applications to the fund may be submitted, and by when they should be responded to.’
New clause 11—Local public accounts committees—
‘(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment of a public accounts committee in each mayoral strategic authority area (“a local public accounts committee”).
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) make provision relating to the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment; tenure; and arrangements for chairing of committees;
(b) make provision about support for local public accounts committees by the relevant local audit services;
(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services in the mayoral strategic authority area;
(d) make provision about the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power of the committees to report on—
(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;
(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the strategic mayoral authority.
(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).”’
This new clause would require the introduction of Local Public Accounts Committees within one year of this Act coming into force. LPACs would ensure scrutiny and accountability across the whole of the local public service spending and activity.
New clause 12—Assets of negative community value—
‘In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert—
“92A Assets of negative community value
(1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset—
(a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality,
(b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or
(c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use.
(2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area.
(3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may—
(a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset;
(b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship;
(c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value;
(b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets;
(c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets;
(d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups.
(5) For the purposes of this paragraph “community group” has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”’
This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation.
New clause 13—Duty relating to community empowerment—
‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment).
(2) The report must—
(a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and
(b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision.
(3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England—
(a) access to a clean and healthy environment;
(b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim;
(c) access to land for food growing;
(d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level;
(e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value.
(4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report.
(5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.’
This new clause would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. It requires that Ministers assess how well communities can access land, green space, and local decision-making mechanisms. The report must include plans to strengthen these rights, including potential new legislation.
New clause 16—Funding for local authority governance reorganisation—
‘The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.
New clause 17—Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act—
‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.
(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.’
This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.
New clause 18—Councillors: proportional representation vote system—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors.
(2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.’
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors.
New clause 19—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system—
‘(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months.
New clause 20—Training for councillors—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require a strategic authority to provide training for councillors following the designation, creation, or merger of any class of strategic authority.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) make provision for training within six months of any designation, creation or merger, and every four years thereafter.
(b) make provision for training to apply to all levels of local government within the area of the newly designated strategic authority,
(c) provide that training under addresses any changes to the strategic authority’s governance practice, and
(d) specify a period during which councillors must complete the training under subsection (2)(a).
(3) The Secretary of State may create guidance for strategic authorities regarding the content of the training in subsection (2)(a).’
This new clause would create a requirement for councillors to receive training following the designation, creation or merging of any class of strategic authority. It allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the content of this training.
New clause 26—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.
(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—
(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously,
(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),
(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and
(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).
(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.
New clause 27—Community right to challenge: duty to undertake joint reviews—
‘(1) In Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011, omit Chapter 2 and insert—
“80A Duty to undertake joint reviews
(1) A relevant authority must conduct a joint review if a request is submitted by a relevant body.
(2) A joint review under subsection (1) must—
(a) enable the relevant body to shape the provision, commissioning, or design of the service through a set period of consultation with the relevant authority;
(b) be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, as prescribed in statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with community organisations and public bodies;
(c) produce outcomes that, following the conclusion of the review, should be enacted by the relevant authority through any necessary changes to the provision, commissioning or design of the service.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the form and conduct of consultation under paragraph (2)(a), which must include measures to ensure that a relevant body can participate meaningfully in the decision-making process.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“relevant authority” means any public body responsible for delivering a local service;
“relevant body” means—
(a) a voluntary or community body;
(b) a body, person, or trust which is established solely for a charitable purpose;
(c) a parish council;
(d) a group of at least ten users of a local service;
(e) two or more persons who are employed by a relevant authority;
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause replaces the duty to consider an expression of interest in the Localism Act 2011 with a duty triggering a joint review and requiring local authorities to work collaboratively with communities and service users to shape local services.
New clause 34—Councillor standards—
‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a recall process for Councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.
New clause 35—Consideration of impact on local elections—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure a relevant activity does not—
(a) delay,
(b) postpone, or
(c) lead to the cancellation of,
any election of members to any local authority affected by the relevant activity.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant activity” means the making of an order or regulations, or any other exercise of power, relating to the reorganisation or restructuring of one or more local authorities under this Act.’
New clause 38—Land quality assessments—
‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable a local authority to facilitate an assessment of the quality of an area of land within its area where the conditions in subsection (2) apply.
(2) The conditions are that—
(a) an application has been made to a local planning authority for planning permission for development on the area of land,
(b) the area of land has not been allocated for development in a local plan or any Land Use Framework,
(c) the area of land has been used for agricultural purposes,
(d) two or more Agricultural Land Classification assessments have been undertaken in the last 10 years, and
(e) the planning applicant and the current owner of the area of land are in disagreement regarding the quality of the area of land.
(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must—
(a) be conducted by an independent surveying organisation, and
(b) determine the area of land’s suitability for development.
(4) The costs of an assessment under subsection (1) must be divided equally between the planning applicant and current owner of the area of land.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
New clause 42—Procedure relating to postponement of elections—
‘(1) Section 105 (Orders and regulations) of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6), after “9N” insert “87”.’.
This new clause would require any order postponing a local election to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
New clause 47—Rutland: status as ceremonial county—
(1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row—
This new clause will preserve Rutland's lord lieutenancy and ceremonial county status.
New clause 59—Disclosure of members’/co-opted members’ addresses—
‘(1) In section 100G of LGA 1972, for subsection (5) substitute—
“(5) But the information open to inspection under subsection (4) must not include a member’s address included in the register maintained under subsection (1) unless, in relation to a principal council in England, that member gives their consent.”
(2) In section 29 of the Localism Act 2011, after subsection (8), insert—
“(8A) But the information open to inspection or published on the principal authority or parish council website under subsections (5) to (7) must not include the residential address of the member or co-opted member (“M”), or that of M’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom M is living as if they were a married couple or civil partners, where the address is the same as M’s, unless M requests that the address be published.
(8B) If an address is entered into the authority’s register which is being withheld under subsection (8A) from public versions of the register, the public register should state that the member or co-opted member has an interest, the details of which are withheld under subsection (8A).
(8C) If section 31(2) applies in relation to the interest, the provision is to be read as requiring the member or co-opted member to disclose not the interest but merely the fact that the member or co-opted member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter concerned.”’
This new clause requires local authorities not to publish the address of member or coopted member or that of their spouse, civil partner or person with home they are living as partners on the registers of members and interests unless the member or coopted member requests that it be published.
New clause 63—Parishing of all areas of England—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to achieve the objective in subsection (2).
(2) The objective is that, within five years of the passage of this Act, there must be no part of England for which there is not a parish or town council.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision that is consequential on this section.
(4) In pursuance of subsection (3), the regulations may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.’
New clause 67—Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing national standards—
‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations set national minimum standards for the licensing by strategic authorities of operators of private hire vehicles and taxis whose operating address is located within the area of a strategic authority.
(2) The national minimum standards must include, but not be limited to, vetting, training and safety standards.
(3) The regulations must include provision for strategic authorities to deny licensing permissions to operators of private hire vehicles and taxis within their strategic authority who do not meet the national minimum standards.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause ensures that locally licensed operators are subject to national minimum standards.
New clause 68—Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing regulations—
‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations meet the objective set out in subsection (2).
(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that a person licensed to operate a private hire vehicle or taxi whose operating address is located within the area of a strategic authority must only accept and fulfil bookings for journeys that either start or end within that area, with specific exceptions for NHS patient transport, school transport, and chauffeur services.
(3) The regulations must include provision for a regime by which strategic authorities can enforce the requirement set out in subsection (2).
(4) The regime must include provision for strategic authorities to impose sanctions on any licensed operator of a private hire vehicle or taxi who breaches this requirement.
(5) The regime must ensure that sanctions exercisable by a strategic authority include—
(a) financial penalties,
(b) suspension of licensing permissions, and
(c) revocation of licensing permissions.
(6) The regime must provide that money recouped by strategic authorities from any financial penalties is used by strategic authorities to fund future enforcement of this requirement.
(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause ensures that locally licensed operators only fulfil journeys that either start or end within their strategic authority area. It makes provision for sanctions for breaching this requirement.
New clause 69—Limitation on delay to elections resulting from local government reorganisation—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order or regulations to delay the ordinary elections of councillors of any specified authority if—
(a) the order or regulations result from any change to local government organisation under or by virtue of this Act,
(b) the effect of the order or regulations is to delay any such election by a period exceeding 53 weeks from the date on which it was originally scheduled to be held.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “any order or regulations” includes—
(a) an order under section 87 (Power to change years in which elections held) of the Local Government Act 2000;
(b) an order under sections 7 (Implementation of proposals by order), 10 (Implementation of recommendations by order of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; or
(c) any other delegated power exercisable by order or by regulations in relation to the scheduling of ordinary elections of councillors.’
This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying by more than one year any local government election, if the delay results from local government reorganisation under this Act.
New clause 73—Duty of local public service partners to co-operate—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate certain persons or bodies as “local public service partners” for the purposes of this section.
(2) These regulations must include, at a minimum—
(a) NHS bodies;
(b) police and fire authorities; and
(c) any other public service providers exercising functions in the area of a Strategic Authority, in addition to the principal councils in that area.
(3) A local public service partner operating (in whole or in part) in the area of a Strategic Authority must, in exercising its functions so far as they affect that area, co-operate with—
(a) the Strategic Authority; and
(b) the principal councils for that area.
(4) The duty to co-operate under subsection (3) includes, in particular—
(a) a duty to attend any meeting reasonably convened by the mayor of the Strategic Authority under section 21 (or by the Strategic Authority acting collectively), when given due notice;
(b) a duty to provide information and assistance to the Strategic Authority and to principal councils, insofar as reasonably required to facilitate the exercise of their functions or any joint planning of services for that area; and
(c) a duty to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with the Strategic Authority and principal councils when formulating or implementing policies, plans and services that affect the area.
(5) In performing the duty in subsection (3), a local public service partner must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the implementation of whole-area public service collaboration.
(6) In this section, “principal councils” means the county, district or London borough councils (including the Common Council of the City of London) whose territories lie within the area of the Strategic Authority.’
This new clause introduces a statutory duty on local public service partners—such as NHS bodies, police, and fire authorities—to co-operate with Strategic Authorities and principal councils.
New clause 75—Duty to provide professional planning support—
‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to provide appropriate professional planning support to town and parish councils in accordance with this section.
(2) Support provided under subsection (1) is for the purposes of enabling a town or parish council to—
(a) involve communities within the authority area with development of a neighbourhood plan, and
(b) engage communities with the content and delivery of the plan following its development.
(3) For the purposes of this section “communities” means—
(a) any person or group of persons who live in the town or parish council area;
(b) any group who in the opinion of the town or parish council can reasonably demonstrate a connection to the area.’
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to provide professional planning support to town and parish councils for the purposes of developing, and involving communities in, neighbourhood plans.
New clause 79—Local accounting officers and local public accounts committees—
‘(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, in each mayoral strategic authority area, of—
(a) a local accounting officer; and
(b) a local public accounts committee.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) make provision about the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment, tenure and arrangements for chairing of committees;
(b) make provision for local public accounts committees to be supported by the relevant local audit services;
(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services operating in the mayoral strategic authority area;
(d) specify the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power to report on—
(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;
(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the mayoral strategic authority; and
(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.
(e) provide that the Head of Paid Service of a mayoral strategic authority is the local accounting officer, responsible to the local public accounts committee for the value for money of the authority’s expenditure, including any monies provided by the Secretary of State.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within one year, to establish Local Public Accounts Committees in every mayoral strategic authority area. The clause also designates the Head of Paid Service in each mayoral strategic authority as the local accounting officer.
New clause 80—Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000—
(a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and
(b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority).
(2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters—
(a) the economic viability of local newspapers,
(b) access to information for local authority residents, and
(c) local democracy and accountability.
(3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.’
New clause 81—Consideration of the cancellation of local elections—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to achieve the objective in subsection (2).
(2) The objective is that any local elections scheduled for 2025 which subsequently did not take place, are held no later than 53 weeks from the date for which they were originally scheduled.
(3) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would ensure that the local elections scheduled for May 2025 take place no later than May 2026.
New clause 82—Public consultation on the provisions of this Act—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the provisions of this Act.
(2) The consultation must seek the public’s view on the measures set out in each Part of the Act.
(3) The consultation must seek views on the impact on—
(a) combined authorities;
(b) combined county authorities;
(c) local authorities; and
(d) town and parish councils.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.’
New clause 83—Private hire vehicle licensing—
‘(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 55A (sub-contracting by operators), in subsection (1)(b), after “in that district” insert “except where section 55AB applies”.
(3) After section 55A (sub-contracting by operators), insert—
“55AB Restrictions on licensing under section 55
(1) A person (“A”) licensed under section 55 who has accepted a booking for a private hire vehicle in a controlled district may only arrange for a person licensed outside of the same controlled district (“B”) to provide a vehicle to carry out the booking where the following conditions apply.
(2) The first condition is that B is licenced in a controlled district within the same strategic authority area.
(3) The second condition is that the booking is for a journey that—
(a) starts, or
(b) ends,
within the strategic authority area.
(4) The third condition is that an order under section 55C is in effect.”
(4) After section 55B (Sub-contracting by operators: criminal liability), insert—
“55C Mayoral strategic authority power to regulate bookings
(1) A mayoral strategic authority may make an order to provide that only a person licenced under section 55 whose operating address is located within its area may accept and fulfil bookings for journeys that both start and end within that same area.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may only be made if the relevant mayoral strategic authority —
(a) has consulted—
(i) any district council—
(A) within the mayoral strategic authority area, or
(B) that shares a border with the mayoral strategic authority area,
which grants licences under section 55;
(ii) such persons licenced under—
(A) section 55, or
(B) section 51,
as the mayoral strategic authority considers appropriate;
(iii) people living or working within the mayoral strategic authority area; and
(b) has had regard to any response received to consultation under paragraph (a).
(3) An order under this section must include such transitional arrangements and conditions about licensing as the mayoral strategic authority considers are appropriate.
(4) When an order is made under this section, the relevant mayoral strategic authority must—
(a) publish the order,
(b) publish such information relating to the content and application of the order as the mayoral strategic authority considers appropriate;
(c) notify the Secretary of State that the order has been made.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of an order under this section.
(6) In this section, an “operating address” is the address at which a person licensed under section 55 is registered with the district council for the purposes of that licence.”
(5) In section 80 (Interpretation of Part II), after the definition of “London cab”, insert—
““mayoral strategic authority” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025.’
This new clause would provide an optional “license where you operate” model, by giving strategic authorities power to require that journeys that start and end within their strategic authority area are fulfilled by locally licensed operators.
New clause 84—Information sharing for health improvement and reduction in health inequalities purposes—
‘(1) A local authority must share information where it considers that the sharing of the information will contribute to the improvement of health and a reduction in health inequalities within the local authority area.
(2) Information which the authority must share includes information about the stability of healthcare providers within the area.
(3) The duty under subsection (1) does not apply to any sharing of personal data.’
New clause 85—Alignment of Essex county borders—
‘(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex correspond with the boundaries of the historic county of Essex.
(2) Regulations made under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made—
(a) in or by virtue of the Lieutenancies Act 1997, and
(b) in or by virtue of any other Act passed before this Act,
where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of this section.
(3) In this section—
“ceremonial county of Essex” has the meaning given in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Lieutenancies Act 1997;
“historic county of Essex” means an area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State was commonly understood to be Essex, prior to the enactment of the Local Government Act 1888.’
This new clause would require that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex align with the historical boundaries of Essex.
New clause 86—London Borough of Havering: Referendum on joining Greater Essex—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a referendum for residents of the London Borough of Havering to opt to—
(a) cease to be an area under any jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority, and
(b) form part of the area of a Greater Essex Combined County Authority.
(2) Arrangements made under this section must include provision—
(a) for any referendum to be held in sufficient time to enable the London Borough of Havering to form part of the area of a Greater Essex Combined County Authority at the moment of its establishment;
(b) about the administration of the referendum;
(c) for the London Borough of Havering to form part of the area of the authority only where a simple majority of participants in the referendum have voted accordingly.
(3) Arrangements under this section may be made by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to enable residents of Havering to participate in a referendum on joining the Greater Essex Combined County Authority Area.
New clause 87—Alignment with boundaries of historic counties—
‘(1) The area of a strategic authority must be coterminous with the area of a historic county, save as where provided for by exceptions in subsection (2).
(2) Exceptions from subsection (1) are where—
(a) the Secretary of State intends to create a strategic authority for a metropolitan area which would otherwise—
(i) be located wholly within a historic county, or
(ii) be located across the boundary of two or more historic counties;
(b) there is no existing equivalent local authority for the area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may be reasonably identified with a historic county.
(3) A single strategic authority may not cover the area of more than one historic county, save as provided for by subsection (2)(a).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) define—
“equivalent existing local authority”,
”historic county”, and
”metropolitan area”,
for the purposes of this section, and
(b) make further provision about exceptions to this section.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause requires that strategic authorities should correspond with historic counties. It provides exceptions for cities and other built-up areas, and for historic counties for which no equivalent current local authority exists.
Amendment 1, page 60, line 6, leave out clause 55
Amendment 3, page 60, line 27, leave out clause 57
Amendment 42, in clause 58, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
‘(1A) It is a duty of a local authority to specify the description of a neighbourhood area that will apply within the local authority’s area for the purposes of subsection (1).’
This amendment assigns the power to define “neighbourhood area” to the affected local authority.
Amendment 150, in clause 58, page 61, line 2, at end insert—
‘(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must include provision to ensure that appropriate governance arrangements for a neighbourhood area are related to the preparation and implementation of—
(a) local plans, and
(b) spatial development strategies and other strategic planning frameworks.’
This amendment would require regulations made under subsection (2) to include provision for a clear link between neighbourhood governance structures and the preparation and implementation of local plans, spatial development strategies and other relevant strategic planning frameworks.
Amendment 70, page 61, line 14 , at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure local authorities receive adequate funding to implement the “appropriate arrangements” in subsection (1) which relate to neighbourhood planning functions.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to deliver neighbourhood planning functions.
Amendment 41, page 61, line 18, at end insert—
‘(4A) But regulations may not—
(a) alter—
(i) any function exercised by, or
(ii) any power available by or under any Act of Parliament to,
a parish or town council, or
(b) make provision for the abolition of any parish or town council.’
This amendment would ensure that the Bill’s provision for effective neighbourhood governance does not alter any functions performed by a parish or town council or lead to the abolition of a parish or town council.
Amendment 43, in clause 58, page 61, line 18, at end insert—
‘(4A) Regulations under this section may not include power for the Secretary of State to specify the description of any neighbourhood area.’
This amendment precludes the Secretary of State from exercising any power to define a neighbourhood area.
Amendment 5, page 61, line 27, leave out clause 59
Amendment 44, in clause 62, page 66, line 17, leave out from “acting” to end, and insert
“who—
“(a) are wholly independent of the Local Audit Office, and
(b) possess appropriate expertise.”
(2) The Secretary of State must approve any appointment made for the purposes of subsection (2), and may only do so when they are satisfied that the person to be appointed satisfies the criteria specified in that subsection.”
This amendment makes provision about the independence of persons appointed to scrutinise local authority audits.
Amendment 46, in clause 66, page 71, line 28, after line 28 insert—
‘(4A) A Local Audit Office may make arrangements about—
(a) the membership of an audit committee;
(b) the appointment of the members; and
(c) the conduct and practices of the committee.’
This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in appointing audit committees and provides LAOs with the ability to oversee the membership and work of audit committees.
Amendment 45, page 71, leave out from beginning of line 29 to end of line 7 on page 72.
This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in overseeing the membership of audit committees.
Government amendment 119.
Amendment 78, page 71, line 31, at end insert—
‘(c) the training of members newly appointed to an audit committee.’
This amendment would require the provision of training for all new members of an audit committee.
Government amendment 120.
Amendment 103, page 71, line 38, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the establishment of audit committees for parish councils.
(7B) Regulations under subsection (9A) are subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which make provision for the establishment of audit committees for parish councils.
Government amendment 121.
Amendment 7, page 74, line 18, leave out clause 72.
This amendment removes the ban on upward only rent review clauses.
Government amendment 158.
Amendment 182, in clause 79, page 78, line 15, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
‘(2) The provisions that come into force in accordance with subsection (1)(b) are the provisions set out in section [Public consultation on the provisions of this Act].
(3) This Act comes into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint (if, and to the extent that, it does not come into force in accordance with subsection (1) or (2)).
(4) The Secretary of State may not appoint regulations under subsection (3) until the Secretary of State has laid before each House of Parliament a report under section [Public consultation on the provisions of this Act].’
Government amendments 114 and 115.
Amendment 168, in clause 79, page 79, line 12, at end insert—
‘(z2) Section (Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing national standards);
(z3) Section (Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing regulations).’
This amendment provides for the coming into force of NC67 and NC68 as soon as the Act is passed.
Government amendment 157.
Government new schedule 3—Extension of the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.
Amendment 2, page 261, line 14, leave out schedule 24
This amendment removes the direction powers on unitarisation.
Amendment 38, in schedule 24, page 262, line 14, after “government” insert—
‘having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to—
(a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to—
(i) economic zones,
(ii) physical geography,
(iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and
(b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.’
This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations.
Amendment 4, page 265, line 33, leave out schedule 25.
This amendment removes the power to allow the Secretary of State to abolish the committee system.
Government amendment 152.
Amendment 94, in schedule 25, page 266, line 24, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 95 to 102, makes the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems match the provisions for legacy mayor and cabinet executive systems, while maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive.
Government amendment 153.
Amendment 96, page 266, leave out from line 33 to line 4 on page 267.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 95, page 266, line 33, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 97, page 267, leave out lines 12 and 13.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Government amendment 154.
Amendment 98, page 267, leave out lines 18 to 32.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Government amendment 155.
Amendment 99, page 267, line 33, at end insert “or committee systems”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 100, page 267, line 37, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 101, page 267, line 39, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 102, page 268, line 3, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 28, page 269, leave out lines 26 to 35.
This amendment retains the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.
Amendment 29, page 269, line 29, at end insert—
‘(aa) after subsection (2)(b), insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), at least one of the newspapers must—
(a) have paid-for of free distribution in the relevant local area, and
(b) be published at regular intervals.”’
This amendment ensures that at least one of the newspapers in which a public notice is printed is a local newspaper.
Government amendment 156.
Amendment 6, page 271, line 19, leave out schedule 26.
Amendment 109, in schedule 26, page 275, line 18, at beginning insert
‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in local authorities.
Amendment 110, page 277, line 10, at beginning insert
‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined authorities.
Amendment 111, page 278, line 28, at beginning insert
‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined county authorities.
Amendment 30, in schedule 27, page 280, leave out lines 21 to 28.
This amendment would remove the provision for assets of community value to be removed from the list of assets of community value after five years.
Amendment 32, page 280, leave out lines 29 to 32.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Amendment 31, page 280, leave out from “value” in line 30 to “the” in line 31.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Amendment 57, page 281, line 26, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
This amendment would require environmental interests to be considered as a criterion for establishing a local authority’s area as land of community value.
Amendment 107, page 281, line 26, leave out “, and” and insert
“or furthers the environmental wellbeing of the local communities, as long as the land is not allocated in the local development plan, and”.
This amendment and Amendment 108 extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits; provided that the land is not allocated local development plan.
Amendment 108, page 281, line 29, leave out “or social” and insert “, social or environmental”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 107.
Amendment 58, page 281, line 30, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.
Amendment 59, page 281, line 38, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.
Amendment 60, page 282, line 2, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.
Amendment 82, page 283, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) Where a local authority is responsible for assessing whether land in its area is a sporting asset of community value, the Secretary of State must ensure the authority receives adequate funding to make the assessment.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to assess whether land in their area is a sporting asset of community value.
Amendment 34, page 295, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A) The local authority must also arrange with the owner of the land for the preferred community buyer to have had the opportunity to view the land prior to a meeting under subsection (2).’
This amendment would ensure that there is an early opportunity for a preferred community buyer to undertake a proper viewing of an asset of community value that has been listed for disposal, prior to committing to make a purchase of the land.
Amendment 64, page 295, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A) The relevant local authority must as far as reasonably practicable support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase land of community value.’
This amendment would require local authorities to provide support for the preferred community buyer in agreeing and meeting an offer to buy land of community value.
Amendment 63, in schedule 27, page 296, line 20, at end insert—
‘(9A) The Secretary of State must ensure local authorities are adequately funded to meet the expenses of a valuation under this section.’.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to meet the expense of land valuations in their area.
Amendment 33, page 299, line 12, at end insert—
‘(f) matters relating to requirements about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.’
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is my pleasure to open the debate on day two of Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Today we are concerned with parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill, which cover provisions relating to local government, community right to buy, local audit and the ending of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. As with yesterday’s debate, I will focus on the substantive changes made in Committee and those we have brought forward on Report.
Before I turn to the amendments, I would like to address some of the comments made in yesterday’s debate. Opposition Members suggested that this Government have not taken on board any of their suggestions. Today I am delighted to demonstrate that the Government have been listening to the points raised by Members in the House and by our mayors. We have today announced the next big step in our path to devolution. Mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy. We are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.
Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver, from the Mayor of London using business rate supplements to deliver the Elizabeth line to the Mayor of Greater Manchester using his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services. Making places more attractive to visit, live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience, so I am proposing that constituent authorities within a strategic authority that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of the revenue raised for growth-related spending. Tomorrow, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will publish a consultation with the details of the proposed levy. We recognise that businesses and potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and we will take those concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear those concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I am interested in this proposal, but I wonder whether it will be applicable to council areas that do not yet have a mayor and may not have a mayor for some time. Will they still have the power to impose an overnight visitor levy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will consult on whether that power should be extended to foundational strategic authorities that do not have a mayor, and we will see the responses to that consultation.
I said yesterday that the Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of this Government’s ambition. Today’s announcement shows just how seriously we take the mayor’s right to request new powers, and our commitment to give them the tools they need to drive growth for the area. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for raising that issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his contribution to yesterday’s debate.
I turn now to the changes made in Committee. The Government recognise how much communities value their local sports grounds as spaces that foster local pride, belonging and identity. The Bill will automatically designate grounds across England as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that those essential local spaces are protected. We have introduced a new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. That amendment is about putting processes in place to safeguard the long-term sustainability of larger sports grounds, ensuring communities have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively.
The Bill delivers fully on our commitment to fix the broken local audit system that we inherited, and will set local government on a firmer financial footing. In Committee, we inserted new provisions relating to financial penalties, sanctions and criminal offences. They will ensure that the local audit system has the right levers in place to deter and sanction improper behaviour. The new local audit office will be established as the regulatory authority for that system, and will be given further powers to conduct assurance reviews.
The Bill will ban upwards-only rent review clauses in new and renewed commercial leases. Such reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties, from high street shops to empty office floors. Our amendment will close loopholes in the ban, ensuring that tenants who vacate or have not occupied properties are still caught by the ban. It will allow tenants to trigger a rent review in all leases, preventing landlords from avoiding rent reviews during times of rental decline
I turn now to the amendments tabled on Report. New clause 46 will confer the general power of competence on England’s national park authorities and the Broads Authority. The legislation underpinning our national parks currently limits their powers to activities directly related to their statutory functions, creating uncertainty and stifling their ability to innovate. Providing them with the general power of competence will enable them to be more innovative and agile in delivering their statutory functions, and to contribute towards the Government’s wider agenda.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In addition to that very welcome general power of competence for the national park authorities, will the Minister consider tabling amendments to ensure that the new unitary authorities surrounding those park authorities do not dominate the membership of the board with a majority?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and for advocating for our national park authorities. We are clear that, as we go through the process of reforming local government, we want strong and effective collaboration between all the institutions that need to drive services for local people. We will look to ensure that we are strengthening those partnerships and collaborations as local government reforms and the general power of competence for those authorities bed in.
I turn to taxi and private hire vehicles. Let me be clear: the current legislative framework for regulating the taxi and private hire vehicle trades across England is complex, fragmented and archaic; some legislation dates back to Victorian times. The Government recognise the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, including the inconsistency of licensing standards throughout the country and the practice of out-of-area working, where drivers choose to license in one authority area but work wholly or predominantly in a different authority area.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
My constituency covers two local authorities: the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames and the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. For a number of years, they have both operated a committee system that works extremely well; it is well accepted by the local community and both local authorities function extremely well. Why are the Government proposing to put in place additional hurdles for both my local authorities to continue to operate effectively and efficiently in this way?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear that our strong preference remains for executive models of government, because we believe that that model provides clearer and more easily understood governance structures, and leads to more efficient decision making. However, we recognise the genuine concerns held in particular constituencies where committee systems have been adopted recently, particularly where public referendums have been held. That is why we are moving forward with this amendment.
We believe that we are striking the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England that will ensure better decision making, while also respecting recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations, as well as reducing disruptions where councils are operating a committee system and are within their moratorium periods. If a council is within its moratorium period, we will allow the transition, but our strong preference is to move towards the cabinet system.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make some progress.
Finally, we have built on the amendments made in Committee to the local audit provisions. Our further amendments contain technical provisions that broaden the existing regulation-making powers relating to the payment of allowances to audit committee members to include expenses, gratuities or pensions to members of audit committees across all local bodies within the audit framework. Broadening this power will give clarity to the sector that remuneration can apply to all audit committee members, whether they are independent or not, across all relevant authorities, including the Greater London Authority.
The Bill originally required that the Mayor of London and the Assembly jointly appointed an audit committee. However, following discussions on its particular governance arrangements, it has become clear that it would be more appropriate for this power to rest solely with the Mayor of London, consistent with other audit provisions in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. This change will enable the mayor to appoint an audit committee that includes at least one independent member, in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. I thank the GLA for its constructive engagement with my officials on these important audit measures in the Bill. It is vital that our reforms work in practice for all authorities within the local audit framework.
The Bill will help to build and rebuild local government, fix our broken local audit system and truly empower communities. Our amendments build on these ambitions and ensure that the Bill works as we intended. I commend them to the House.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I know that this issue has been exercising Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at topical questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about a tourism tax, we were told by the Secretary of State:
“My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 19.]
During debate on the Bill yesterday, when asked the same question by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), replied:
“They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 155.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you and Mr Speaker have been very exercised by the number of leaks, which the former chief economist at the Bank of England described as
“the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined”.
You will therefore be concerned, as the Conservatives are, that a short while ago the Government put out a press release on their website saying that mayors will be given these new powers, before that was briefed to the House and after repeated comments to the House that Ministers would not answer that question. What further measures are open to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker to ensure that these kinds of damaging leaks, which are undermining our economy and particularly hitting our tourism and hospitality businesses hard, can stop?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am inclined to the view that there are two separate issues here. He will have heard my earlier comments about statements being made to this House first and how deeply regrettable it is when statements are made to the media ahead of being announced to the House. However, with specific reference to the Minister’s comments yesterday, I believe they would far better be addressed as a point of debate. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to raise that later on in this afternoon’s debate.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Today I will continue to highlight our concerns on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Labour Government spend a great deal of time telling the country that they are putting power back into the hands of communities and say they are on the side of local leaders and delivering locally led renewal, but when we examine the powers that the Bill actually grants, it is clear very quickly that they risk doing the opposite.
Through this Bill, power is being snatched upwards and away from local voices. It strengthens combined authorities and concentrates power with a statutory authority mayor at the expense of constituent, unitary, parish and town councils. It enables key planning decisions to bypass local authorities and gives Ministers sweeping powers to redraw governance arrangements without genuine local engagement. Local leaders, parish councillors and residents see that, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly see that.
If we are to empower our communities, as this Government promise, this legislation needs to be improved. That is what we seek to do with the amendments we bring forward today, just as we did yesterday. Let me begin with our primary measure, new clause 17. The Government really cannot keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that they want locally led delivery while creating legislation that puts responsibilities on councils without giving them money or support to do the job. That just does not add up. The truth is that without even considering devolution, councils are currently not funded properly. Every single one, regardless of political leadership, is under unprecedented strain, and many are on the brink of effective bankruptcy. Some have declared section 114 notices, and others are warning that they may not last the financial year. Even more are raiding reserves, cutting services to the bone and desperately firefighting rising demand in social care, temporary accommodation and children’s services.
Instead of addressing this crisis with the urgent, national level of investment for which local government was calling out for years under the Conservatives and now this Government, the Government seem committed to perpetuating this problem, albeit now with a different approach of giving to one council by taking from another. We see that clearly in the rather inaptly named fair funding review, which does not increase funding from central Government, but simply redistributes an already insufficient pot. It is a winless exercise dressed up as equality.
Council leaders from across the political spectrum are all deeply worried that this Bill is a continuation of that same approach. It asks councils to do more, take on more and deliver more, all without serious new funding models, and nowhere is that clearer than in west Surrey. This Government have imposed a new local governance model that local leaders have warned will be financially unstable and structurally incoherent. Instead of listening to local authority leaders and residents, the Government pressed ahead with a structure that groups multiple councils facing extreme financial pressure—the legacy of current and former Conservative Administrations—leaving the new West Surrey council with roughly five times the debt of neighbouring East Surrey council.
What is the Government’s answer to the question of how West Surrey council is to manage its significant debt and financial instability? Their answer is that West Surrey should pool its budgets, sell its assets and harmonise council tax. They may as well have suggested tackling the debt with hopes and prayers. We simply cannot redistribute a crisis. We cannot create a strong structure on foundations that are already breaking under debt, demand and chronic underfunding, and that is exactly why our new clause 17 is so vital. If we ignore local leaders and refuse to fund local government properly, we do not empower councils; we set them up to fail. I call on MPs from across this House to back new clause 17 and back our local councils.
Funding alone is not enough; devolution relies on democratic legitimacy. That brings me to new clause 35, which would safeguard the integrity of local democracy by ensuring that residents could hold their leaders to account at the ballot box. Our new clause would ensure that when Government restructure local governance, shift power or redraw boundaries, they must explicitly consider the impact on local elections.
In Surrey this year, as in many places, we have seen clearly what happens when elections are cancelled or postponed. The failing Conservative Administration has been allowed to remain in office not because residents have endorsed them, but because the Government and the local Conservative leadership came together to deny residents their chance to remove them. Based on local by-election results, it is clear that the Administration would have been removed, had the elections taken place in May.
Martin Wrigley
There is another aspect in which this Bill is lacking. In Devon, where we have a county and district system, the city of Exeter is ruled by a district council, which will be absorbed into the unitary council, leaving Exeter—unlike the rest of Devon—without a town or parish council. The same thing would happen in Torbay, should Torbay unitary be changed and moved to cover a wider area. That would leave Torquay and Paignton without town councils, while Brixham has one. Does my hon. Friend agree that my new clause 63, which would require re-parishing or the introduction of town or parish councils in those areas that lose them in this way, is a good thing that would prevent far-off unitary councils being overwhelmed by the minutiae and issues of an individual city?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We have a lot of speakers this afternoon. If Members make long interventions, we will simply not get through everybody.
Zöe Franklin
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause.
We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard.
Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex?
Zöe Franklin
The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which returns us to the theme that we need to allow local communities a say in their own destinies. I will leave it to my wonderful colleagues in local government to continue that thought.
We Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the many gaps that we see in the Bill, and they are what our new clauses attempt to plug. Every single one is designed to strengthen the democratic, localist, community-led principles that Ministers say they support. With our new clauses, this English devolution Bill might finally seem to provide the devolution that the Government keep promising us. I urge Members across the House to support these vital amendments, and to give local democracy the respect, the voice and the power that it deserves.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 83, which stands in my name. I thank colleagues for their support for the new clause. I also sincerely thank the Minister and her team for their consistent engagement with me on this landmark piece of legislation—a Bill that will be game-changing for my constituents.
Before I speak to my new clause, which would forge a fairer, safer and better regulated private hire vehicle sector, I want to express my full support for the steps that the Government are taking by introducing national minimum standards. We need to rebuild confidence in a system that so many view as broken. This is about giving local leaders power to decide which drivers operate in their areas, and, most crucially, it is about the safety and wellbeing of passengers and drivers.
Let me deal first with the problem we face. Many Members will have heard from constituents who have raised legitimate concerns that the taxis or private hire vehicles that they see operating in their local areas are actually licensed hundreds of miles away. That is because since 2015 operators have been permitted to contract bookings to another vehicle that could be licensed in a different area. It has coincided with the meteoric rise of national operators such as Uber and Bolt, which are permitted to be licensed in multiple areas. The stark absence of any regulation has led to certain local authorities becoming, as the GMB union has put it,
“a licence factory…creaking at the seams”.
No example underscores that more vividly than the activities of City of Wolverhampton Council. In the first five months of last year alone, the council granted more than 8,500 new taxi licences, which is 30 times more than any other licensing authority in the midlands. This has a real and tangible impact across the whole country. Indeed, in Greater Manchester nearly half of all private hire vehicles are now licensed by local authorities outside its 10 councils, and the city region’s “out of area” figure of more than 12,000 has risen sharply from just under 7,000 in 2023. In my own borough of Rochdale, about 40% of private hire vehicles and taxis are licensed out of area.
This is not just an issue of public perception; it is also about safety and enforcement. For as long as the status quo persists and scores of vehicles are operating out of area, far from the authority that licensed them in the first instance, there will remain a deficit in terms of accountability when incidents take place.
Let me add a caveat by saying, unequivocally, that the vast majority of drivers are law-abiding people. They are integral to our economy and to our society as a whole, and I have been delighted to engage with a great number of them since being elected to this place. However, situations arise in which enforcement becomes necessary, and at present licensing authorities such as my own are unable to take action because of the proliferation of out-of-area operation.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is good news that the Government have now proposed national minimum standards, her new clause represents the other part of the Casey review’s recommendations, without which the House would have failed to act on the licensing requirements specified in the review?
Mrs Blundell
I truly support and welcome the Government’s commitment to national minimum standards, but I believe that they must be complemented by a restriction on out-of-area operations so that they can be enforced locally where necessary.
At a recent meeting of the Transport Committee, which is currently holding an inquiry on the private hire vehicle sector, we heard from a licensing officer from Blackpool council. When I asked whether his authority was able to keep track of the drivers operating within it, he stated:
“We are now at a stage where provisions on where an operator can operate vehicles do not seem to matter. We are not even in a position where an operator has to have a licence everywhere it operates; it does not.”
He went on to say:
“I know the limitations of my operational enforcement resource…chasing vehicles all over the country is not something we could deal or cope with.”
I know from conversations with Rochdale borough council’s licensing department that those sentiments are shared there, too. Standards are one thing, but without proper means of enforcement, they will not have the maximum impact on public safety.
I will now move to the substance of my new clause 83. Under the new clause, strategic authorities would have the power to require that journeys that start and end there are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. It would give local leaders power and the choice to adopt that as a solution. Considered together, new clause 83 and the Government amendments would encourage drivers to license locally and would ensure that if things go wrong, both drivers and passengers have the confidence that enforcement measures will be swift, considered and legitimate in the eyes of local authorities and local people. If reinforced by implementing national minimum standards, these two changes could revitalise the sector, and give both drivers and passengers the confidence and certainty they deserve.
I believe that there are no Members present today, no corner of society and, indeed, no drivers out there in the sector who believe the system as it stands is working well. It is oversaturated, with a lack of local accountability and an erosion of the ties between drivers and the communities they serve. The private hire and taxi sector is critical to our economy and for filling gaps in the local transport network, but for too long the safety of passengers and the ability of licensing authorities to do their job have been undermined for the sake of a model that is unfit for purpose. We must bring an end to out-of-area licensing and offer the sector the change for which it has been calling out for decades.
The Bill is about granting power to local people to make their own decisions that will change their communities for the better. This is one such a decision—one that we can no longer afford to avoid.
Andrew Rosindell
I rise to speak in support of my new clauses 85 and 86. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for supporting both new clauses.
New clause 85 seeks to ensure that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex are once again aligned with the historic county, as they were for many hundreds of years—in fact, for well over a millennium. It was only in 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, that that changed. The entire history of the constituency that I represent has, except for in the past few decades, been a part of the historic county of Essex. New clause 85 would combine the historic Essex with the ceremonial Essex, which I believe would end the confusion and allow the people of my fine county to once again fully celebrate the rich heritage of the county in its entirety.
Let me explain a little further. Across the entire country, the identity of each county is very important to all our constituents. People are proud of their historic county identity, and it is reflected in so many ways—whether it is through sport, social activities, church or the local regiment. Whatever it may be, we are proud of our county identity, and it should not be muddled up with administrative councils, which chop and change, as we are now seeing again today. Historic and ceremonial counties are for cultural celebration and for historic purposes, so the lord lieutenants of the different historic counties and ceremonial counties really should be as one. That would end the confusion.
In my borough, which is the so-called London borough of Havering—everyone who comes to Havering knows that it is really Essex, not London at all—we are constantly confused about where we are. The people of my borough are tired of this, and they want the muddle and confusion, which was caused by bureaucrats in the 1960s, to end. It is a very simple thing to resolve. I say to the Minister that it would not affect any of the local government changes the Government are proposing. It is nothing to do with local government; this is purely ceremonial and historical.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
My constituency is on the outskirts of London—we are not in London; we are very much in Surrey—but we suffer from the fact that many decisions that affect my constituents on a daily basis are made in London, often to our detriment, and we have absolutely no control over them. I recognise the strong point my hon. Friend is making, but even if he is able to withdraw from the administrative unit of London, he will not escape negative decision making by the current Mayor of London.
Andrew Rosindell
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am interested in how far the hon. Gentleman would propose to go. Would he advocate the abolition for the Mayor of London?
Andrew Rosindell
Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible.
The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I think some of those points might have been stretching my patience on scope somewhat. I do not intend to put on a fixed time limit. However, Members might like to consider whether they can stay within the bounds of about six minutes, so that I can get everyone in.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to argue the case for Wessex. [Laughter.] No, I don’t.
I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject.
Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment.
I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.
Peter Lamb
I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to move these provisions forward. I will relay the key points of our agreement on this issue. The key challenge is that since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have a system in which councils no longer know who is operating in their area, on what basis they are operating, and what standards they are operating on. I am directly familiar with how the system has shifted as I was a member of the licensing committee from 2010 onwards. Most significantly, councils have no power to enforce or investigate when things go wrong. City of Wolverhampton council really needs to go and investigate the entire country because of the way in which the systems are operating.
If we are not going to have a national system, the only way we can get back to a system where someone has the confidence that if their daughter gets into an Uber tonight, the council will know who she is, can intervene if she is in danger and will investigate if something goes wrong, is by returning to national standards, and by having a situation where local licensing authorities can once again control who is starting or ending in their patch—not having people coasting in from out of area.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns.
My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century.
The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency. Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty.
New clause 13, which some of my hon. Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked.
I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I rise primarily to speak to new clause 26 and amendment 82, tabled in my name, which are related to the changes the Government propose to the assets of community value system.
Members across the House will know from their own communities that playing field space is at a premium, and my constituency is no different. We have fantastic local grassroots sports clubs run by dedicated local volunteers, including our local football clubs, the Cygnets—which has more than 300 girls on its books regularly playing football, and now adult women, too—the Twickenham Tigers and the Hearts of Teddlothians, as well as Thamesians rugby club, among others, all of which are desperate for pitch space. These groups are struggling to meet growing demand because they simply cannot find the space to train and play matches. At a time when we face the twin public health crises of obesity and poor mental health, we must do everything we can to promote and support young people, in particular, and adults to play sport for the immense physical and mental health benefits that it brings.
Yet sitting in my constituency are the much-loved Udney Park playing fields—a 13-acre war memorial playing field—which have, scandalously, lain derelict for more than a decade. Sadly, I do not have the time to bore the House with the long and sorry tale of how we ended up with prime playing field space, which was donated in 1919 under a covenant for the playing of amateur sport, going to rack and ruin. However, since Imperial College decided to sell the site in 2015, successive developers have purchased it at overinflated prices and have, quite rightly, been unable to develop the site due to the various important protections afforded to it. The site has been designated an asset of community value, and despite huge efforts by the local community to buy the land whenever it has been put up for sale by its owners, the two successive owners have refused to agree a price and sell to the community, meaning that the precious playing fields and pavilion have degraded over time.
I warmly welcome the new community right-to-buy provision in the Bill, but it does not go far enough in actually empowering communities to buy precious sites such as Udney Park. New clause 26 would further strengthen the proposed powers where dormant assets are concerned. While the Bill introduces a mechanism for independent valuation where a price cannot be agreed between the seller and a community group buyer, it remains silent on both how that valuation is achieved and what can be done if the seller repeatedly refuses to sell at what is determined to be market value. On the point of independent valuation, I would like to have seen written into the Bill an explicit clause that removed hope value where an existing playing field has been purchased by a community group to continue using it as playing field space; alas, I was told by the Clerks that this was firmly out of scope, and the Government refused to back a similar amendment that I tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
New clause 26, however, provides a mechanism to enable a local authority to engage the compulsory purchase function in the event of an asset of community value lying dormant for five years or more and a market value offer—as determined through independent valuation as set out in proposed new section 86T to the Localism Act 2011—from a community group being rejected, and if the seller has been unable to agree a sale with an alternative buyer.
Extending the right-to-buy power in this way would prevent developers from land banking in the hope of a change in legislation and prevent precious, desperately needed sites like Udney Park playing fields from lying derelict and unused when hundreds, if not thousands, of local residents, young and old, could benefit from them. It would focus minds and encourage the owner to sell when it gets a fair market value offer from a community group.
Together with amendment 82, new clause 26 would help to boost access to more green spaces and grassroots sports facilities at a time when demand is growing, not least following the amazing successes of the Lionesses and the Red Roses this summer. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been concerned by the Government’s removal of Sport England’s role in national policy. Amendment 82 would support local authorities by ensuring that they have the funding necessary to assess land in their area for eligibility as a sporting asset of community value. As I said at the outset, sport is such an important tool in the fight against the mental and physical health crises facing our young people and adults, and amendment 82 would simply ensure that lack of funding will not be an obstacle to protecting what will be vital sporting assets of community value. I hope that Ministers will take these measures seriously, and I look forward to hearing their response.
Finally, I will touch briefly on amendment 94 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and consequential amendments to it, as well as amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). They both seek to achieve the same objective.
My council in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is run through the committee system, and it has been run extremely effectively in this way since 2019, in line with its commitment to democracy and transparency. I completely refute the Minister’s earlier comments that a committee system means that a council will not be run efficiently or transparently. Not once in the last six years that we have had a Liberal Democrat council running on a committee system have I ever heard a member of the public say to me, “I don’t understand how decisions are made.” We are actually running so efficiently that the Government have decided to punish our council by cutting its core Government funding in a devastating way that will have a massive impact on services. So I completely refute her suggestion that a cabinet executive model is the way to go.
All elected councillors in Richmond are involved in the decision-making process. Our council does not have the cabinet executive and back-bench structure that the Government feel is their prerogative to dictate out from Whitehall, overriding democratically elected councils. It is a blatant misuse of Ministers’ authority to do that. I hope that this Government will think again on this, if not today when the Bill goes to the other place, because it is absolutely outrageous to override local authorities in this way. They should be given the power and freedom necessary to shape and provide local services the way that they choose to. After all, that is what they were elected by our residents to do.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I would like to speak to new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who rightly raises the issue of councillor standards and whose new clause calls for regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who breach their codes of conduct. Although a poignant point, having served as a town councillor and deputy mayor myself before being elected to this House, I believe that we must go further.
I strongly support this Bill’s aim to standardise the structure of local government. In particular, I welcome the reform of our local audit system, as outlined in the provisions. I also commend the Government’s recent announcement regarding new powers to suspend councillors for up to six months for serious misconduct and the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct across all types of local authority in England. These are essential first steps that I wholeheartedly welcome and know from my experience are much needed.
However, I urge us to go further by introducing a dedicated local council standards Bill that addresses the full breadth of the accountability challenges that residents face with town and parish councils—known as very local councils. The Localism Act 2011 created a legislative vacuum by abolishing the standards boards for England and repealing powers to suspend councillors who breach standards. As very local councils are to play an increasingly larger role in the devolution of local services, it is essential that councils are held to the same high standards and that this critical issue receives the detailed parliamentary scrutiny it deserves.
As one of my constituents and a former parish councillor put it, councillors have “little incentive” and “no mandatory training requirements”. Having witnessed at first hand these challenges in local and very local councils, I believe that we must robustly tackle those who bring the reputations of councils into disrepute, undermining the already fragile trust in local politics and doing a profound disservice to the overwhelming majority of councillors who serve their communities with integrity and dedication.
The ongoing recruitment crisis for both town and parish clerks and potential councillors is directly linked to the lack of effective recourse against unacceptable behaviour. There are councils that have gained a local, in some cases national, reputation for dysfunction. The result is that some councils are resorting to offering wildly increased salaries, representing what amounts to danger money for staff for having to deal with toxic behaviours. Experienced, qualified clerks who serve as impartial legal advisers tasked with ensuring that councils operate lawfully are subjected to behaviour that would not be tolerated in any professional environment. The loss of those valuable professionals weakens governance and standards across the entire sector.
To that end, I propose that we should create a dedicated local standards Bill that establishes a comprehensive framework for local council accountability. It should include professional regulation for councillors, with robust oversight mechanisms beyond the mandatory code of conduct. It should establish a properly funded model for monitoring officers through professional regulation fees paid by councils, similar to the current mandatory external audit fees, ensuring that those vital guardians of standards have the capacity to perform their function effectively and consistently across all local authorities.
A compliance scoring system would provide the public with transparent indicators about whether their elected representatives are undertaking best practice and demonstrating financial competence with taxpayers’ money. National internal audit parameters, building on the audit reforms outlined in the Bill, would ensure transparency and consistency of Government standards across all very local councils, regardless of their size or location.
Additionally, the annual governance and accountability statement should include a proper officer declaration confirming where councils have chosen to ignore or disregard professional legal advice, particularly where that represents a breach of their legal obligations. Such accountability made visible and measurable would help to restore public confidence in local governance.
Although the announced reforms begin to address that issue, the complexity and importance of comprehensively rebuilding the standards infrastructure merits dedicated legislation. We cannot allow the minority who tarnish the sector’s reputation to continue creating disparities in community benefit or to drive experienced professionals from their roles.
I emphasise that many local councils across the country and in North Somerset are governed extremely well and genuinely enrich their communities, but as we move forward with devolution we must ensure that town and parish councils are functioning effectively, operating in line with legislation, delivering value for money for their residents and taking heed of legal advice given to them by their proper officers.
We have the opportunity to rebuild trust in local and very local politics, ensuring impeccable standards and levels of accountability. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government on developing such legislation so that the standards in our very local councils mean a better deal for residents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Yesterday, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), asked the Minister whether Surrey will get a mayor. He did not get much of an answer—we can only imagine what has led the Government over the past year to get cold feet on the election of mayors going forwards. I want to talk about new clause 1 and amendment 2, on consent for change, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on behalf of the official Opposition.
Surrey and others have been working with the Government to maximise the opportunities of devolution locally. As part of that, there has been quite a debate over the unitary model and whether there should be two, three or one unitary authorities. On the face of it, ideally, going for one unitary would mean savings, but the Government have decided that is not possible, so, through various processes, the decision has been made to have two unitaries. That has all been done in pursuit of a mayor.
A mayor would make a big difference in ensuring that Surrey can, as the Government put it, unlock devolution. It is frustrating that we have got to this stage—all this work has been done—but there has still been no firm commitment that Surrey will get a mayor, particularly when a unitary model is being adopted purely to seek a mayor when, actually, a better model locally would be a single unitary. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure she can see that conundrum and how there is frustration about the fact that a mayor has not yet been announced.
A mayor would bring huge benefits in leading on strategic projects such as the River Thames scheme that I have been trying to push to be built as soon as possible. It would also bring benefits in health, with accountability for integrated care boards—again, I have been calling for that—and on transport locally. I have been calling for a duty to co-ordinate, which I think a mayor with powers would also be able to deliver for Surrey. In housing, I am calling for the prevention of inappropriate local development, which is blighting areas across Runnymede and Weybridge and which will affect both the east and west unitaries when they are set up. In policing, given that the Government have announced that they will wrap up the police and crime commissioners, we need a mayor to take on the role at the cut-off date of 2028.
I beg the Minister to announce, either in winding up, via a written ministerial statement or otherwise the confirmation of a mayor for Surrey and a guarantee that next year’s elections will go ahead. Will she also explain how my constituents can be shielded from other councils’ debt as part of the unitary reforms that are going ahead?
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I strongly support this Bill and was proud to serve on the Committee. The Bill will deliver an enormous transfer of power out of this place and into our local communities. As a former councillor, I know that trusting local representatives to make decisions about local services and issues leads to much stronger outcomes.
I want to speak strongly in favour of the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57, which provide for the introduction of national minimum standards for taxi licensing. I am delighted to see the Government bringing forward those measures, which I and others, many of whom have spoken today, have proposed to tackle the huge problem with cross-border licensing, which is an issue for both taxi drivers and passengers. Right now, local councils have significant flexibility around taxi licensing policy, without a baseline, which means there is huge variance between councils. Yet drivers can operate anywhere once licensed. Unsurprisingly, that creates huge demand for licensing from councils with laxer standards.
Wolverhampton has become the UK’s taxi licensing hub. In the first five months of last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) mentioned, the council issued over 8,500 licences, which is more than 30 times any other council in the midlands. From April 2023 to March 2024, 96% of licences went to people living elsewhere. Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems.
First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with. There is a real democratic deficit: local authorities cannot regulate their own standards effectively and they lose control, as seen in Peterborough in my area, where plans for CCTV in taxis had to be dropped because locally licensed drivers would pay more while others would avoid the cost by licensing elsewhere.
Secondly, climate and emissions aims are undermined too. Peterborough city council will not license a vehicle that is over nine years old, but Wolverhampton allows cars up to 12 years old. There is a lot of variance on that.
John McDonnell
We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault.
Sam Carling
I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.
Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.
That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.
At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.
Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best.
New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly.
To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked.
Alison Bennett
My amendment 34 is simple but vital. It would strengthen the ability of all our communities not only to bid for assets of community value but to make informed, responsible decisions when doing so. At present, communities have a right to bid, yet, absurdly, no guaranteed right to view. We ask our town and parish councils to act as prudent stewards of public money, to conduct surveys, to secure financing and to follow proper decision-making processes, yet we deny them the basic opportunity to inspect the very asset they may be committing taxpayer funds to purchase. This is impractical, illogical and unreasonable.
A recent case in my constituency of Mid Sussex illustrates the problem well. Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common parish council sought to bid for a former church building listed as an asset of community value. I can attest to the value that this building had for the community, because when my children were tiny, they went there during the week. It served as their pre-school and I must say that Cottis pre-school was and still is a wonderful facility, led by Sam. I am still grateful to the staff there for their support and the best start they gave my children.
Throughout the six-month moratorium, despite repeated requests, the parish council was refused access to the building. Only after the moratorium ended, when the property was placed in an auction, did the auction house permit inspections. This left the council with just two weeks to carry out surveys, complete its internal procedures and secure public works loan board financing. No responsible authority could compress such due diligence into that timeframe. Predictably, the parish council was unable to bid, and the building—an asset that it could have afforded, based on the eventual sale price—has now passed into private ownership and been converted into flats, removing a much-needed community venue from village ownership.
My amendment 34 would correct that oversight. It would simply guarantee that community buyers had an early and fair opportunity to view an asset so that they could undertake proper due diligence. It would impose no unreasonable burden on vendors. It would merely ensure a level playing field. If we believe in empowering communities, and if we believe that assets of community value should genuinely remain available to those communities, we must give them the practical tools to act. A right to bid without a right to view is a hollow promise. I urge the Minister to support this amendment and give our councils and the communities they serve a fair chance to preserve the places that matter most to them.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I very much welcome this devolution Bill, and today I speak in support of Government new clause 45 and amendments 153 and 107 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher).
New clause 45 and amendment 153 relate to the essential role of our local councillors. As a recent councillor and leader of Worthing borough council, I can attest to how hard my fellow councillors work for very little remuneration—contrary to public perception—and how much they contribute to the health and wellbeing of our local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) alluded to, as the temperature has risen in politics in recent years, these local residents who have put themselves forward with the aim of contributing positively to their communities have increasingly found themselves the target of online and in-person abuse. While it is no more acceptable for them than it is for us in national politics, we must do all we can to ensure that they and their families are safe. It is therefore good to see that recognised in new clause 45 proposing that council members’ home addresses will no longer appear in published registers of interests.
Amendment 153 acknowledges the different forms of council structure, and there has already been some debate on this matter today. My constituency of Worthing West houses two councils—Worthing borough council is a leader and cabinet system; Arun district council is a committee system. Again, as a former council leader, my preference and experience tells me that the leader and cabinet system is highly effective, but I acknowledge that the committee system can potentially allow greater involvement in decision making across the councillor groupings. With that in mind, I am supportive of the intent stated in amendment 153 that if the local authority’s committee system is protected, a review should be undertaken to see whether it is in the best interests of that local authority to move to the leader and cabinet system.
For my constituency, which is also undergoing local government reform alongside moving to a devolution model, our councillors in Worthing and Arun will need to consider the best option for the area as part of our new unitary authority when these footprints are agreed.
Amendment 107 asks that environmental interests be considered as criteria for community right to buy, provided that the land is not allocated in the local development plan. It is positive to hear already from the Minister today about the protections for local sports grounds. The environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits, is an area close to my heart as a public health consultant living on the south coast. Worthing has the smallest amount of green land per head of population in the UK—less than a snooker table per person. We have limited green land left in our constituency’s urban areas, and even though we are undoubtedly blessed with the English channel to the south and the south downs to the north, people do not live in the sea and very few of us live in our national park. Our wellbeing is therefore determined by our densely populated urban strip bordering the coastline.
Our remaining green spaces in this area are incredibly precious for our mental and physical health, air quality and climate mitigation measures. Green spaces can help to reduce our ever-increasing flood risk. I therefore would welcome any additional guidance from the Minister in this area for our current and soon-to-be devolved regions, such as my own in Sussex. The health of our population should be our No. 1 priority, and devolved government is ideally placed to help deliver those much-needed protections and improvements for our communities.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I will speak to new clause 10(a) in my name. Devolution may be in the title of the Bill, but not everything in it lives up to that name. In many respects, the Bill actually takes power further away from the people back towards the centre.
When I look at my constituency, which will be affected by both devolution and local government reorganisation, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), I am particularly concerned about the fate of key community assets. Across Horsham district, parish councils run much-loved services including parks, village halls, allotments and sports fields. For the town itself, the jewels in the crown are the council-run Capitol theatre and Horsham park. Why do we still have a theatre when so many others have closed down? It is because Horsham’s theatre is owned and run by the Horsham people and their local council.
The two-tier local government system was never designed as a means of protecting community assets, but in practice, that is how it worked out, because as a side effect it separated and saved at least some local services from the bottomless pit that is the adult social care and special educational needs and disabilities budgets. Upper-tier authorities’ un-ringfenced budgets, such as those for leisure and culture, have been put to the sword over the years. If Horsham had been run entirely out of West Sussex county council for the past decade, with no district council, we would surely have lost our theatre years ago—it would have been sold off to plug ever-growing holes in the county budget. That sacrifice would have been for nothing, because in reality the SEND and social care deficits can never be met by council tax contributions alone. One day soon, the Government will have to recognise that.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will address Government amendments 152 and 153. I thank the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for responding to our concerns at the outset of proceedings on the Bill.
As we reach the end of debate on the Bill, I am struck by how significant this moment is for local democracy and for communities like mine in Sheffield, where residents won a referendum on how the city will be run. They chose to adopt the committee system of governance, and secured a democratic mandate to change the culture of the council. When the Bill was introduced, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), along with the leaders of Sheffield council and grassroots campaigners, made the case for our constituents’ decision to be respected through the inclusion of Sheffield’s example in legislation. As a result, Government amendments 152 and 153 now provide the legal basis for what Sheffield has decided, and will, in turn, protect the democratic process.
Amendment 152 clarifies that the committee system can operate where it already exists, while amendment 153 sets out how a council such as Sheffield can continue that operation through a review and a resolution to confirm that it should remain. Those amendments mean that our system of governance is both recognised and protected. For Sheffield, it means confirming that our referendum result was not just symbolic but an expression of democratic choice. It also means that that choice is honoured, not overwritten, and recognised in law.
I acknowledge the collaborative work that has brought us here. We have spoken constructively for many months with campaigners from It’s Our City Sheffield, which has been instrumental in ensuring that Sheffield’s voice was heard; with local government leaders who have taken on the mantle of embedding a culture of inclusivity and opening up decision making; and with Ministers, to ensure that the Bill protects the system chosen by our residents, and offers the legal clarity needed to support effective local government. For Sheffield, that is the right outcome.
Finally, I would like to express my support for new clauses 67 and 68 and amendment 168, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), and new clause 83 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), on the issue of cross-border taxi licensing. I declare my interest, as a member of two unions—GMB and Unite—that have been actively campaigning on this issue.
Those amendments would strengthen the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57 on setting national minimum standards for private hire, but they go further in explicitly ending out-of-area taxi licensing—an issue that is repeatedly raised by my constituents and has been raised by the Transport Committee, as well as Baroness Casey’s recent review. However, constituents have contacted me to urge slight caution on some of the wording in new clause 83, especially in proposed new section 55C of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to ensure that it does not lead to the prevention of legitimate cross-border journeys such as airport journeys. To echo the words of Sheffield residents, this is a decisive moment with the potential to resolve a problem that has undermined public safety and the integrity of our licence system for far too long.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I am pleased to speak to several amendments, tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, that relate to community assets, planning and local democratic engagement. These are practical proposals designed to strengthen the community empowerment provisions in the Bill and make them work in our communities.
The Bill removes the long-standing duty for councils to publish notices in printed local newspapers. In a constituency like Stratford-on-Avon, that is a serious concern. Not everyone is online, especially in our rural villages, where digital connectivity is still patchy, and many older residents rely on the local newspaper for essential information. Printed notices remain one of the clearest ways that residents hear about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and council decisions that affect their daily lives. They also support a local press sector that has played a vital role in maintaining transparency and scrutiny and informing citizens. I have tabled amendment 28 to keep that requirement in place. It is a simple safeguard to ensure that residents are not excluded from the democratic process because they happen to live in an area with poor broadband or simply prefer print.
Turning to community assets, I have tabled amendments 30 and 32 because the current system contains a glaring flaw. Once listed, an asset of community value drops off the register automatically after five years, regardless of whether it is still important to the community. For many villages and towns, the asset might be the local pub, the village green, the village hall or a community shop. These remain part of the fabric of local life for decades, yet community groups often discover only after the fact that the listing has expired, and they have lost the right to bid.
Amendments 30 and 32 would remove the automatic expiry so that protection does not vanish simply because a bureaucratic deadline has passed. It shifts the burden away from volunteers and neighbourhood groups and ensures continuity for assets that people rely on. It is exactly what the community value regime was meant to achieve.
Linked to that is amendment 33, which concerns planning decisions affecting assets of community value. At present, even if an asset is listed, there is no obligation for planning authorities to give that status special weight. Communities see treasured buildings or spaces demolished or redeveloped despite having taken the trouble to secure recognition. Amendment 33 would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring planning authorities to consider community value properly and give this weight when determining applications.
New clause 6 goes one step further in safeguarding these community assets once listed. It gives local councils a clear duty to oversee how land of community value is managed. If an owner lets the land fall into neglect or deliberately runs it down to justify redevelopment, councils would have the tools to intervene, including compulsory purchase where necessary. It creates real accountability for absentee owners and ensures that assets meant for community benefit remain so in practice.
Taken together, these amendments reflect a simple principle: devolution cannot just be about shifting powers upwards to remote large combined authorities; it must also strengthen the tools available to people and places at the most local level. Communities know best what matters in their area. They should not have to fight to keep their village hall or their community green space because of arbitrary deadlines or loopholes in planning policy.
Local people have the ability to revive and strengthen the places that they call home, but they can only do that if power is shared with them, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few distant mayors. If Ministers are committed to meaningful community empowerment, they should take these proposals seriously and accept them, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Olivia Blake.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I place on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State and Ministers for the constructive, open and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), as well as local leaders from the council in Sheffield, throughout the passage of the Bill, to solve an issue of great importance to my constituents.
More broadly, the Bill and the amendment before us today mark a significant step forward for local democracy in Sheffield and beyond. The Bill strengthens community voice, empowers local leaders and brings decisions closer to the people that they affect. We can all celebrate its commitment to clearer, more responsive pathways for devolution. It also tackles big issues, such as the national standards that we need in taxi licensing. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which has been campaigning on the issue for many years. I am glad that the Minister has grasped the nettle on the tricky issues relating to local government audit, which those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee know has been an issue for many years.
I am especially pleased that the Government have tabled amendments 152 and 153, which will allow Sheffield to retain its committee system, and not just for a protected period but beyond that. The amendments reflect a core principle of effective devolution: to enable local areas to shape the governance structures that best suit their needs and democratic traditions, especially when there has been a referendum, as in Sheffield. I pay tribute to the residents who tirelessly advocated for that and worked alongside us to find the best possible outcome.
For Sheffield, the committee system, agreed to by referendum, is rooted in transparency, co-operation and collective decision making, and embodies the values that our residents strongly support. This is a particularly important moment as it highlights the positive partnership that can be built between central Government and local people. It shows what meaningful devolution can achieve, focusing on shared goals and delivering the best outcomes for communities, and that the Government have listened and Sheffield’s voice has been heard.
The Bill is transformational and I am confident that it will help local leaders to deliver our values and priorities, and the aspirations of the people that they serve. I thank all the campaigners, including those involved in It’s Our City, for campaigning on the issue for many years, including in response to the Bill.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I want to talk first about public engagement. Fellow members of the Bill Committee know that I am not convinced that the Bill delivers the public involvement and community empowerment stated in its title, as that is not properly facilitated by the proposed measures set out in the Bill.
In Committee, I gave the Government many options to consider, including citizens assemblies, community wealth building strategies and a national public engagement commission. France has had its “Commission nationale du débat public” for 30 years, which makes real its citizens’ rights to be involved in decisions that affect their environment. It links together the environment and human rights, as set out in the excellent Aarhus convention. At this stage, I am happy to support the new option put forward by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) in relation to community empowerment. It asks the Government to undertake a review and come up with a better plan of the Government’s own choosing, which is quite reasonable and I support it.
I do not have time to go through the many other amendments that I support, but I feel like consensus around many issues is breaking out in the Chamber, as it sometimes did in Committee. However, I want to single out new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), which proposes a community ownership fund, and new clause 19, which asks for the alternative vote system to be used for mayoral elections, not the supplementary vote. In single member elections, the alternative vote gives real choice: people simply choose their candidate and rank them, so there is no second guessing about who might be in the second round. It means a guaranteed consensus-driven majority for the winning candidate, so the Government should consider that.
More broadly, as some Members have noted, I have talked many times about being a member of the London Assembly and holding the Mayor of London to account with a dedicated, funded scrutiny body. The Government should pay much more attention to scrutiny in this Bill at the next stage.
Siân Berry
I thank my former colleague for his “Hear, hear!”
Let me talk about governance systems and the committee system. My No. 1 goal in all this has been to try to keep the committee systems, as the Conservatives’ amendment 4 would do. My amendments 94 to 102 mirror amendments that I tabled in Committee and seek to protect existing committee systems, particularly those chosen by people in a petition and referendum process, as happened in Sheffield. That was driven by people power.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the Minister, who is not in her place, for taking the time to meet me to discuss my amendments 107 and 108, which concern the community right to buy.
This Bill is one of the most exciting and empowering pieces of legislation to come from this Government. For the first time, communities will be given a genuine first opportunity to buy and own the places that matter most to them. Instead of seeing valued community assets sold off to the highest bidder, residents will be able to step in, organise and take ownership for themselves. That is truly transformative.
In Stroud, community ownership is essential for maintaining services and the environment for rural villages and towns. Community-owned village shops, such as those in Horsley and Coaley—and, indeed, my favourite shop in the world, which is in my village of Uley and is run by fabulous volunteers—keep the villages alive and provide access for older people and those without transport.
Village pubs are dying off. There are campaigns in my area to keep the Rose & Crown in Nympsfield open and, in fact, people have succeeded in making a community pub at the Red Lion in Arlingham. There are also community rooms such as the Trinity Rooms in Stroud, which the community is fundraising to buy, hopefully by Christmas. That is all very exciting. Land in Stroud aptly named the Heavens is being purchased by the community, as is Rodborough fields. This Bill will finally give legal backing to those campaigns, but I believe that we can make one important improvement.
As drafted, the Bill refers to “economic or social interests” when defining assets of community value, but it leaves out environmental interests. That means that wildlife-rich spaces cannot be protected, even when they provide major community benefits, including access to nature and improvements to wellbeing.
My amendments simply would extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, granting them the ability to buy and, importantly, safeguard nature-rich areas if they come up for sale. I am a GP, and I use social prescribing extensively. Walking in nature is a proven way of getting better without using pills, so I very much urge the Minister to listen to what we are saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) quite rightly said that this is about public health.
I know some Members are concerned that these powers could block the house building that we all want so much. That is why my amendments provide a safeguard in restricting the eligibility to land that has not been allocated for development in the local plan.
This Bill represents the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster for a century. It will give communities the right to shape, to buy and to rebuild. In Stroud, we are ready to embrace that opportunity, but we must ensure that the law properly recognises environmental value alongside social and economic wellbeing. That is why I urge the Government to support my amendments to ensure that the Bill delivers the fullest possible benefits for communities up and down the country.
Caroline Voaden
New clause 10, which I tabled, would require the Secretary of State to re-establish the community ownership fund, to which strategic authorities can apply for funding. We have heard from lots of Members in the House today about the value of their local community-owned businesses.
Community-owned spaces are of immense economic and social value to their local area. Businesses across the country under the community ownership model are defying the odds, when small businesses in retail and hospitality in particular are struggling to survive. According to Plunkett UK—I commend its work in this area—business survival rates for community businesses remain exceptional, with a five-year survival rate of 97%. That is radically higher than the 39% survival rate of private small and medium enterprises over the same period. These thriving local enterprises reinvest back into their communities, creating a positive cycle. They also provide exponential benefits to local areas and the people who live there. They tend to source goods and services locally, creating a circular economy in the places where they exist. They support charitable activity, provide fundraising for local causes and improve the aesthetics of our towns and villages through gardening initiatives, improving the quality of our green spaces, encouraging more people to get outdoors and improving arts and culture.
From pubs and shops to community centres and hubs, these spaces are the pillars of their communities, bringing people together and nurturing a shared pride in their town or village. They are the difference between a bunch of houses and a genuine community. At a time when community cohesion is frayed, division is commonplace and we are being pulled apart by dangerous individuals seeking to widen the cracks that are showing in our society, these community spaces offer a way to reunite communities. Through something as simple as providing a place for people to meet and talk to each other, community spaces combat this increase in division with social interaction, enabling communities to come together to celebrate where they live.
Community-owned spaces provide a wide array of volunteering opportunities, employing more than 20,000 volunteers across this country, from young people right through to older people. In a recent survey by Plunkett, 58% of these businesses stated that older people benefit most from their presence. In rural areas such as South Devon, that is especially important. Isolation can happen when people live far from neighbours in rural areas, and in many ways these places help to strengthen the very fabric of rural life for those people.
It is not easy for a community to buy a building or space that is at risk of closure or has been left unused. That is why the community ownership fund is vital, as Government funding is desperately needed to enable a sustained increase in community ownership. A community ownership fund would develop a larger pipeline of start-up groups and build the capacity and confidence of those groups to progress to the trading stage. If it were reopened, it would have a transformational impact by enabling the spread of community spaces and the extensive benefits they bring.
In the three years that the community ownership fund was in place, it saved thousands of cherished community sites at risk of closure. Thanks to the fund, community groups could generate income, build financial sustainability and strengthen community ties. It is the Government’s mission to double the size of the co-operative sector, as set out in their manifesto. It is time, therefore, for them to correct their mistake, to fulfil their promise and to seize the opportunity that this Bill presents by backing my new clause 10 and reopening the community ownership fund.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I come once more to this discussion with a huge passion for devolving power to local areas. The northern powerhouse promise encouraged me to move back home to the north from London in my 20s, and I am so proud to have spent most of my career since then working to grow the local economies in Manchester and Lancashire. The city of Preston, part of which is in my constituency, has the telltale cranes all over the sky and grade-A office space being built at pace. Growth is best when it has local inputs and local impact, and with a two-hour train journey to London, there is no reason that Preston and cities like it should not become a key and critical spoke in our national growth story.
I am hugely grateful for the incredible energy of the Minister and for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who poured himself into this Bill for the past year, ensuring that areas such as Lancashire can get the powers they need to turbocharge their growth in the way that only Lancastrians know how.
Today, I will speak about new clauses 63 and amendments 42 and 150, which pertain to neighbourhood governance. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the Bill Committee, during which I sat through lengthy debates on all these clauses. I have not directly supported the range of amendments concerning neighbourhood governance arrangements and parish and town councils, and on the whole I understand and largely support the Government’s argument against them—namely, that if we are intent on devolving power, we should allow local areas to manage that power as well, rather than dictating from Westminster how it must be managed. However, I wish to mention a number of instances in which I agree with the intent behind the amendments and to say something about the issues that they raise, in the hope that the Government can add helpful secondary legislation or strong guidance to help local areas make these changes a success.
As I observed during the development of plans for devolution in Lancashire, too many residents and organisations told me that their part in the consultation on the process felt tokenistic at best, if it was there at all. I think there is still a broad question for the Government to answer: how will we ensure that the interests of all residents and local groups have been properly fed into local changes, and how will we continue to hold local areas to account for maintaining that engagement?
My constituency contains many parished areas, while in other parts of it local community groups come together ad hoc, so I see the strengths of both formal and informal community leadership. I have been a proud member of my local parish council for many years, and it is often the place where I feel most connected to my community. The Minister has made clear throughout the Bill’s development that town and parish councils will not be affected, and indeed will have every right and opportunity to take on more responsibilities through the Bill. I commend that, and I thank her for protecting this vital part of our democracy.
While I recognise that there is plenty of public sentiment against mandating areas to become parished—which is why I cannot support new clause 63 directly—there is certainly public support for simplified, easily understood structures of government that the public can more clearly hold to account. Indeed, the Government’s own White Paper on the Bill said that its aim was to simplify local government and make it more consistent. We need only look around us to see what happens when people do not understand how our governing structures work and do not feel connected to them. People are increasingly disillusioned, and at a time when our economy is relying on people to come together with new ideas to create growth, despondency is our biggest enemy. While we need to allow flexibility, might the Government be able to show a clear preference for a town or parish council structure in their guidance, and/or ensure or require that any proposed solution involves clear democratic accountability?
I am so grateful to this Labour Government for being brave enough to push this Bill as one of their first priorities. Done is better than perfect for sure, and any devolution is better than none. However, in my decades of working with all types of communities, often hearing things that challenge some of my progressive dreams for and assumptions about this country I love, I have learned that progress and tradition can work hand in hand if we take the best from both. I therefore urge the Government to make the most of the powerful structures we have—town and parish councils, which already run 90% of this great country—part of our future, and to ensure that we truly have accountable democracy at every level so that every person has a voice, as has always been the Labour way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The time limit for speeches is now three minutes.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I will speak in favour of new clause 38, which I tabled. It seeks to introduce measures to prevent developers from using their own surveyors who have a vested interest in downgrading agricultural land in order to secure planning permission—particularly for solar farms—to build all over our countryside, taking farmers’ land and livelihoods.
The new clause was born out of a specific issue that was raised with me in my constituency. In Washford, a farmer called Mr Dibble—no kidding—has a farm in his family’s name. They have been there for generations. Some time ago, developers came to see him with a plan for development on the farm, and he refused. His lease is guaranteed for another generation, but the solar farm developers did not seem to care. He reached out to me because of the unfairness of the situation. I was shocked to find out that the developers had organised a surveyor to visit his property, who had deemed it sub-par agricultural land. Anyone with eyes can see that that is not the case. Farmer Dibble would not have been able to grow the crops that he has on that land had it been of the quality that the developers claimed it was. His land is grade 1 or 2 at the very least, yet surveyors are coming in, paid for by the developers, to say that—surprise, surprise—it is grade 3 at best.
At present, local authorities’ hands are tied. They have no powers to order independent assessments of land quality, nor the ability to pass judgment on the assessments made by others. My new clause seeks to give them that power. It also seeks to enshrine the employment of a land use framework for planning and development decisions. Along with many others in this place, I am sure, I am still waiting to hear the results of the land use framework consultation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I hope that it follows the principles set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). If a development is proposed for agricultural land that falls outside the land use framework and there are competing assessments of the agricultural grade of that land, then new clause 38 would give local authorities the power to demand that a new, independent assessment of land quality be undertaken. That would stop the railroading of farmers and help to preserve good agricultural land, rather than seeing it built over.
Our farmers are our future. I call on hon. Members to back new clause 38 and new clause 17, which has been tabled in the name of my party.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I have tabled new clause 13 to address a slight oversight in this Bill—namely, that despite its title, it does not give communities any substantially new powers. The strengthening of the tools that local people have at their disposal to purchase assets of community value is certainly very welcome—yes, it is progress—but it is not fundamentally new. New clause 13 is intended to fill in this minor, accidental absence with a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards, and set out plans to deliver, a new charter of community rights containing seven key elements: a right to a clean and healthy environment; a right to a healthy home; a right to play; a right to grow food on public sector land; a right to roam and swim; a right to participate in decisions shaping communities; and a right to challenge local decisions.
Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter offers a starting point to restore popular agency in our democracy. Each of the seven rights contained within it is based on clear legal proposals, and each builds on long-standing demands that stretch back into England’s history. I will briefly take them in turn. After years of scandals, with ordinary people powerless to stop sewage being pumped into local rivers or their children being poisoned by the air they breathe, the right to a clean environment would give every community the power to challenge proposals that threaten to impose pollution on them.
Similarly, the right to a healthy home would put an end to an era in which permitted development rights have been used to create the slums of the future by housing the most vulnerable in society without adequate space, security, fire safety or proper ventilation. With this right, communities could require that new housing delivers the basics of a happy, healthy life, with plenty of natural light, access to green space and comfort in all weathers.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that housing is a key determinant of public health, and that we should see a right to decent housing as a crucial part of any civilised society?
Chris Hinchliff
I absolutely agree.
The freedom to go out the front door and play in the street or near home is no longer part of many children’s lives, as it used to be. The right to play would reverse the trend of estates being full of signs shouting, “No” and “Do not”, with more space given to car parking than to playgrounds for kids. It would empower communities to ensure that streets are designed to be safe for children, so that they are no longer stuck indoors.
Ever since landowners in the 18th and 19th centuries privatised 7 million hectares of common land that was once shared by ordinary people, the ability to grow one’s own healthy food has been a distant dream for the millions. The right to grow food on public land would unleash the power of grassroots growers, who are currently held back by bureaucracy, to turn parcels of unloved land across our communities into oases of food and wildlife.
Similarly, while most of England is still owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and corporations, the vast majority of people are prevented from enjoying the glories of vast swathes of England’s countryside. The right to roam and swim would finally recognise that this land is our land, and give everyone the confidence to reconnect with nature by enjoying a responsible ramble or a dip in their local river.
Finally, the right to participate in and challenge decisions would level the playing field between communities, who care deeply about their local area, and the interests of profit-seeking developers. This right would ensure that the voices of ordinary people are properly heard and that they can appeal decisions, just as developers can, so that local councils always listen seriously to both sides, rather than acceding to the whims of overmighty corporations.
I hope the Minister will see that new clause 13 would help ensure that this Bill goes as far as possible in restoring power, hope and optimism to our communities. I look forward to hearing her response.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
When people get in a taxi or a cab, they want to know that they will be safe, that the vehicle is safe, that the driver has had training in a range of different situations, that their specific access needs or disabilities will be recognised and supported, and that they will be treated with respect. Of course, the vast majority of drivers treat their passengers with respect and their vehicles are safe, but passengers want to know that should they have any concerns or complaints, there is a transparent and accountable method for these to be dealt with, and that they know the name and unique number of the taxi operator and the driver, should they need it.
Sam Carling
Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that cross-border licensing is causing huge enforcement problems, because authorities that are miles away cannot properly investigate such issues?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is another issue that has come up in our inquiry, and I do hope that the Government are addressing the cross-border issue. I will come back briefly to that shortly.
Passengers want to know that the same standards apply across the country, but there are no common standards. In fact, in England there are 270 different licensing offices and the more than 300,000 drivers operate under about 230 different sets of conditions and standards. The Transport Committee is in the middle of an inquiry on taxis and private hire vehicles. We have heard from drivers, their unions, operators, licensing officers, the Local Government Association, disability organisations, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and others. The single most common message we have heard in our inquiry is the need for common standards across England, and not basic minimum standards, but high and absolute standards.
That is why I am delighted that the Government have brought forward new clauses 49 to 57 to be added to part 3 of the Bill. This will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards for granting, renewing, suspending and revoking driver and operator licences. It enables actions such as on what is included in driver training, what requires the installation of specific equipment such as CCTV and what level of background checks on drivers is used. By the way, such actions, particularly CCTV, protect drivers as well as passengers.
I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the calls of many, and not least to the issues raised in Baroness Casey’s report. The last Government set up a task and finish group, but they only published guidance on a set of standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, and they ignored the recommendations of the group, saying only that licensing authorities should “have regard to” standards. That Government ignored the calls, but this Government are delivering.
One of the main issues raised during our Committee’s inquiry is that the current variation in standards encourages licence shopping, which refers to drivers or operators choosing to be licensed in local authorities that have the least onerous standards or the cheapest or fastest processes, even if most, if not all, of their work takes place elsewhere. That happens thanks to the 2015 deregulation brought in by the Conservative Government. According to one taxi firm that submitted evidence:
“The lack of a national standard undermines passenger safety, fair competition and public confidence in the industry.”
On the role of councillors in licensing decisions, we have been told that the councillors responsible for individual decisions on who gets, retains or loses their licence may be put under pressure to make a decision contrary to the recommendations of officers.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to lift our eyes to the bigger picture of what a better, fairer country might look like. New clause 13 on the charter for community rights, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), does exactly that, and it represents the sort of change my constituents in Poole are crying out for. It rests on two simple, but transformative principles: first, that communities in England deserve a real say in the places where they live, with a legally enshrined right to challenge local decisions that shape their lives; and, secondly, that people should enjoy basic rights, including the right to a clean, healthy environment and the right to a decent home.
A legal right to a quality home in a healthy environment may not sound like a lot to ask in the sixth richest country in the world, but it is a million miles from the lived reality of so many of our constituents. Poor housing, alongside access to decent healthcare, stable incomes and healthy food, is one of the core social determinants of ill health. Enshrining the rights to a healthy environment and a quality home in law would support the kind of cross-government approach we urgently need to reduce health inequalities. Those rights can be seen in the same vein as the long-awaited socioeconomic duty, which requires public authorities to consider how their policies and decisions can reduce inequalities. Properly implemented, it could help address structured, avoidable disparities in housing and health. I urge the Government to introduce that duty as a matter of urgency.
A Labour Government must raise the bar: not simply building more housing, but building better homes in decent communities at a price that people can afford. That should be our legacy to future generations and it can start now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds
I open by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hold some voluntary roles in local government. I place on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who served with such distinction on the Bill Committee.
Local government is the most efficient part of the public sector. It is uniquely democratically accountable among our public services. It is also uniquely financial constrained by the requirement for council budgets to balance in-year. We know that the average local authority delivers over 800 different services, which range from public health and child protection to housing the most vulnerable, trading standards, markets, parking and road maintenance. Councils empty the bins, recycle the waste, lend books and care for the elderly, but Governments rarely rise or fall based on what happens in the local government sector. It is not the most dramatic or glamorous part of our state, but day to day, as contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber have reflected, it probably has the most important impact in our constituents’ lives.
As we heard in Committee, and as we have heard in the amendments and in this debate, our local government is under unprecedented pressure due to this Government’s poor decisions. On the track record of my party in office, we saw local authorities using their discretion but for the most part seeking to keep council tax low, with the additional revenue from projects such as the new homes bonus, council tax freeze grant and the approach to business rate grant being implemented to support local businesses and local communities.
Today, with few exceptions across the sector, we see local authorities facing the maximum possible council tax rises, the maximum possible business rate increases and the maximum possible increases in fees and charges, against a backdrop where housing delivery, supposedly the Government’s top priority, has collapsed, despite a legacy of 1.5 million new homes—their target for the whole of the Parliament—with planning permission already granted. All this green belt-grey belt nonsense, which has caused such concern and anxiety to Members and our constituents, is entirely irrelevant. They already have an entire Parliament’s supply of homes with planning consent ready to build. The jobs tax has left our local authorities worse off by £1.5 billion net. It has driven up the cost of almost every local government service, from the care of the elderly and vulnerable children to the day-to-day maintenance of our roads and our environment.
Tonight, what we have before us is this Government’s botched and incoherent restructuring, with no clear vision of what local government in England is even for. When we consider the matters that we will press to a Division, new clause 69 on election cancellations and new clause 80 on statutory notices are among a very extensive list of options. We have heard from one or two Members that the retention of the committee system was democratically approved locally. Although measures adopting the Opposition’s proposals on councillors’ addresses make some minor improvements to the Bill, the cancellation of local elections is a clear example of a mess of the Government’s making.We support our local colleagues in making the best of the very difficult set of decisions that they have to take. However, having been told by Ministers—as the Opposition did when in office—that elections to local authorities that were due to be abolished would be cancelled, that was not what the Government then did. They simply deferred those elections for 12 months, making the waste of taxpayers’ money and the concern of local residents even greater, while raising the prospect of a lack of accountability as this important process goes through.
Siân Berry
The Minister failed to tell us how the tourist tax would be brought forward in legislation. With the announcement coming yesterday, and after all the opportunities they had in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House, does the hon. Gentleman think that this was merely a case of failing to get the Chancellor’s attention?
David Simmonds
The hon. Member puts to me whether it was simply a failure to get the Chancellor’s attention, but clearly the Chancellor has been busy at every possible opportunity briefing the press about things that may or may not be in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the impact that that has had: driving up Government borrowing costs; driving down business confidence; and driving unemployment up, every single month since this Government took office. Those political briefings have real-world consequences for our constituents’ livelihoods.
For all of those businessowners in the hospitality and tourism sector who have been seeking to make decisions, relying on what they have heard Minsters tell the House, to discover in a press release that this new tax is due to be imposed on them despite the previous assurances of the Tourism Minister, is just one of the many nails in the coffin of the British economy represented by the Bill and this Government’s actions.
In conclusion, when we look at the Bill, we see legislation that makes a complete mess of local democracy: elections cancelled and then deferred; announcements of new mayors that do not make it through to the final announcements about new structures. The Bill takes powers away from communities and gives them to mayors who, as we heard earlier in the case of Surrey, may not materialise at all. It devolves nothing of any significance closer to our constituents and seeks to make our elected local councillor brethren simply the hosts of talking shops, rather than decision makers for their local community. Worst of all, despite the Government’s occasionally lofty rhetoric, the Bill abolishes 90% of the representation of shire England at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. Where is the voice for our constituents in local government under this centralising Labour Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the thoughtful, constructive and robust interventions from hon. Members across the House.
I will start with a theme that has been raised once again by the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —that this is a centralising Bill that seeks to take power away from communities and impose on them. I completely and utterly reject that idea. I made this point yesterday, and I will labour it again today: this Bill represents the biggest transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to our regions, local authorities and communities. The Government believe that we change the country by putting power in the hands of people who know their patch. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is what we are determined to deliver.
Let me address the point on local election delays, which has been raised head-on in new clause 69. We understand the democratic necessity to hold elections. People have the right to vote—a right that we absolutely support and will absolutely protect. Labour is up for elections as much as any other party, and our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and was not taken lightly when it was made. It is a decision that we will always take with great caution, as it is one that we want to avoid.
However, we cannot accept the new clause, because it is neither rational nor reasonable. It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally that create a challenge for holding elections. While we are keen and determined to press ahead with elections, we are the Government of the day, so we will always take a considered and reasonable approach to this matter.
I turn to the point raised in new clause 17 by the hon. Member for Guildford on the funding of strategic authorities. The hon. Lady was right to highlight the pressure that local government is under. However, I would point out—again, I note the complete cheek of the Opposition here—that that is a consequence of 14 years of austerity and under-investment. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talks about the plight of local government, yet fails to recognise the terrible inheritance that his party left—the huge legacy of denuding and undermining local government that we are now trying to rectify. In 2025-26, the local government finance settlement provided £69 billion for councils—a 6.8% increase in the core spending power for local government. We are moving to multi-year budgets, consolidated funding and a fair funding review, all in order to reverse the decline and under-investment of the previous Government.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress, as we are almost out of time.
On the key question of funding our strategic authorities, we absolutely recognise the vital role that strategic authorities and mayors can play. We are seeing this across the country—that is why we support devolution to mayors and strategic authorities.
On the point about Surrey made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we want to see strategic authorities and mayors across the country, including in Surrey. However, we are also clear that if we want them to drive the change that we believe they can drive, we must equip them with the resources and powers to do the job that is required of them.
I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 17. However, as I said yesterday, there is a new burdens assessment, which will always apply. When new responsibilities are placed on strategic authorities and mayors, the new burdens assessment will be applied to ensure that they are funded appropriately. Indeed, for the priority areas in which we are moving forward with devolution, we are providing capacity funding up front to make sure that they have the capability and resources to do the job at hand. This basic principle will always hold: when we give out responsibility, we will ensure that the resources are there to take on that responsibility well.
Members spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that we are providing strong neighbourhood governance, and we share that ambition. Some Members talked about town and parish councils, and others talked about neighbourhood committees. We are clear that it is down to communities to decide the form and function of neighbourhood governance. We want to see neighbourhood governance in every part of the country, and we will provide regulations that set out the principle of neighbourhood governance and what it should look like. In addition, we will provide non-statutory guidance to support communities as they embark on neighbourhood guidance.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) that we must have strong community engagement is one that we absolutely believe in. We will continue to learn from what we see on the ground and draw on insights as to how we can strengthen community engagement as we move forward.
My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) raised points about assets of community value and the environment. I thank them for speaking so knowledgably and eloquently about the value that environmental assets can provide. I can reassure them that environmental assets will be captured within assets of community value. Green spaces, parks, woodlands and community parks will all be captured within assets of community value. We will set this out in guidance, as we share the determination that environmental assets are captured within the provision.
More broadly, in terms of community right to buy, we have heard the argument that it is an absolute right. There is a huge opportunity with it, and we will continue to learn from insights on the ground about how it is working and how well communities are able to exercise the power. We will look to strengthen it as we move forward.
Let me address the points raised about local media. We completely agree with Opposition parties that we need transparency and public engagement when it comes to local governance changes, and we are committed to the cornerstone role that the local press plays in our democracy. The Bill makes a small, proportionate change to the publication of local authority governance changes, which is to be communicated to give local authorities flexibility and to allow them to use a range of different mechanisms. The change does not apply to wider publications on subjects such as planning. It is a very specific change to bring about greater flexibility.
Finally, I turn to the point that was made over and over again by Members across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), for Crawley (Peter Lamb), for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I recognise their contribution to the debate and their advocacy on the important issue of how we regulate our taxi and private hire vehicle system. I am glad to see that Members welcome the steps we are taking to put in place minimum standards. The minimum standards are an important first step, and we will build on them. We will consult on licensing becoming the responsibility of local transport authorities in order to improve regulation, and we are committed to engaging with our unions, including Unite, and with local authorities and operators to discuss how we can build on this step. We absolutely hear the point that this is urgent and we need to act.
I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments so that we can drive forward the biggest transfer of power in a generation. This is an exciting moment for the Government. We believe that we need to drive change, but in order to do that we must equip every level—from our regions to our local authorities and communities—to drive the change that they want to see in their places. We believe that this Bill is an important first step. We will continue to engage with Members from across the House to ensure that the regulations and provisions in the Bill are matched by tangible change on the ground. I know that hon. Members across the House support our endeavour. We must drive the change that we want to see in our places. [Interruption.] I will keep going. We will continue to engage constructively to ensure that we are playing our part. I hope hon. Members can see that we have engaged with the Bill constructively.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I commend the Minister on her fantastic closing remarks. I emphasise the points made by my hon. Friends—[Interruption.]
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am privileged to be able to open this Third Reading debate following constructive debates on Report. Let me first reiterate my thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions during the Bill’s passage.
The Bill cements the Government’s commitment to powering up our regions, rebuilding local government and empowering our communities, which is fundamental to achieving the changes that our constituents expect and deserve: better living standards, improved public services and politics being done with communities, not to them. This Government’s ambition is to bring power and decision making closer to the people who know their areas best. The Bill will truly empower residents to shape the places where they live and work, and from fixing our broken local audit system to empowering mayors to unlock the economic potential of their places, it will set local government on a firmer footing and enable local leaders to deliver a decade of national renewal. These changes are long overdue, and we are now taking ambitious action where previous Governments have failed.
I extend my thanks to everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for his dedication and commitment to this agenda. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for his leadership, and for the huge amount of work that he put into developing this impressive piece of legislation. I thank the Members on both sides of the House who scrutinised the Bill in such detail in Committee, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his constructive and, for the most part, collaborative approach.
Let me also put on record my thanks to representatives of the wider local government sector, especially those who gave evidence earlier this year. They are critical actors in providing the frontline services that residents need and deserve, and, whether they are councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners or third sector representatives, the House thanks them for their service. I hope that colleagues in the other place continue to take the same collaborative approach that has been taken in this House, and I wish Baroness Taylor of Stevenage the best with moving the Bill forward. I commend it to the House.
David Simmonds
I will speak briefly. There is a high degree of consensus on some of the objectives that the Government have set out. We share the ambition to deliver more homes, and we share the ambition on economic growth and devolution. However, the alternative stimulants that the Government have chosen essentially involve more bureaucracy, more centralisation and new taxes, all of which will stand in the way of the delivery of those ambitions.
We, as an Opposition, are very clear about this. The things that our communities, our constituents and our local businesses want and need are not contained in the Bill. It cancels elections, it reduces local democracy, it centralises power with a swathe of new ministerial diktats, it raises taxes through an unwanted, unbriefed new tourism tax, and it opens the door to new unlimited mayoral levies that can be used at ministerial fiat, not on the say-so of local residents. It is a let-down for those who hoped to support it and a betrayal of the ambition of those who support our local democracy. We will oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister said something that was inaccurate during his statement on the G20 summit and Ukraine, when he wrongly said:
“The Green party…says that we should pull out of NATO”.
That is not correct. Our party policy explicitly says that we recognise that NATO, while imperfect and in need of reform, has an important role in ensuring the ability of member states to respond to threats to their security. We support the principle of international solidarity, whereby nations support one another through mutual defence alliances and multilateral security frameworks. Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you provide on the Prime Minister correcting the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but she has most definitely put her point on the record.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Thursday 27th November 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 November 2025 - large print - (25 Nov 2025)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Monday 8th December 2025
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 November 2025 - large print - (25 Nov 2025)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I first extend my thanks to the many noble Lords with whom I have already spoken about this Bill. I am grateful for their engagement with this very important legislation. I know that a number of noble Lords have been closely engaged in delivering front-line services over the years, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those in this House who have taken part in that. We know that our residents greatly value the services that impact their daily lives. This whole Bill will bring that decision-making closer to the areas and communities that it impacts.
This Government were elected on a manifesto to deliver change. We are determined to transform our economy and our country through a decade of reform that delivers better public services and growth in every community and every corner of our country. Many hard-working communities that are the backbone of our economy have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappearing, their high streets in decline and the dream of a decent home pushed even further out of reach.
Rebuilding these foundations is central to this Government’s mission, but we will not achieve our goals unless we fundamentally change the way our country is run. That means handing power back to local people, who know their areas best, so they can make decisions on what really matters to their communities. This is what the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will do—drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. The Bill will make devolution the default setting. It will give mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration; rebuild local government so that it can, once again, deliver good local services that people can rely on; and empower local communities to have a bigger say in shaping their local area.
Strategic authorities are at the heart of this change. The Bill is creating strategic authorities as a new category of authority in law. They will make it easier for local leaders to work together over larger areas to drive through big, pro-growth projects such as integrated transport networks and housing. Crucially, the Bill will give new strategic authorities powers to pilot and request new functions, with government having a duty to respond to requests by established mayoral strategic authorities. Strategic authorities will operate at three levels: foundation, mayoral and established mayoral, and the Bill will define the powers and responsibilities of each of those levels.
Working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, mayors will drive forward the delivery of people’s priorities, igniting growth and unlocking opportunities for their local area. That is why the Bill will give them wide-ranging new powers in areas such as transport, planning and economic development, which have a real impact on people’s lives. For example, mayors will be able to intervene in strategic planning applications to unlock housing, and there will be powers for all strategic authorities to license shared cycle schemes so that they work for everyone and we do not see bikes strewn across all our pavements.
The Bill will also see more mayors take on police and crime commissioner functions and become responsible for fire and rescue authority functions, allowing them to take a joined-up approach to improving public safety. They will also be able to appoint commissioners to support them as their responsibilities grow, similar to the way this works in London.
The Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition and we have already demonstrated how seriously we take mayors’ rights to request new powers. We announced at the Budget that mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy, and we are consulting on whether to also grant this power to foundation strategic authorities. This is a ground-breaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy. This Government are committed to giving mayors the tools they need to drive growth and deliver for local people.
None of this reform can be achieved without strong local government. Councils are the bedrock of our state. They are critical to delivering local public services that people can rely on, but they have been neglected for too long. The Bill will help rebuild local government as a “fit, legal and decent” foundation of devolution. It will establish the local audit office to help fix the broken, fragmented local audit system—nobody who has been in local government over the last few years will pretend the audit system is working properly.
We will also reform local authority governance by requiring councils with a committee system to move to a leader and cabinet model or, otherwise, undertake and publish a review on the decision, while putting a stop to new local authority mayor roles being created. This change will streamline decision-making across all councils, making it easier for people to understand how their council is run, while also respecting local democratic mandates where the committee system was adopted more recently following either a council resolution or a public referendum. In those cases, we will allow them to continue for the period that was voted for.
The Bill will also give the Government the tools to deliver local government reorganisation across England, resulting in better outcomes for residents and savings which can be reinvested in public services. I know that noble Lords have raised concerns about the powers we are taking in the Bill to incentivise local government reorganisation. To be clear, reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government, creating unitary councils that can deliver the high-quality services that all our residents deserve.
I assure noble Lords that we are fully committed to working in partnership with local areas. Our long-standing position remains: we will always seek to work with local areas on proposals for reorganisation brought forward by local areas. This Bill will enable the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise, but this power will only be used as a last resort when areas have failed to make any progress following an invitation.
As I have previously laid out, we want to give mayors the tools and opportunity to unleash the potential of their area with a more ambitious role and deeper powers. Each mayor will serve millions of people and manage multimillion pound budgets. This role has to be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. The Bill will revert elections for mayors and police and crime commissioners to the supplementary vote system after the May 2026 elections to provide greater accountability and a strong personal mandate. This was the voting system in place when mayors were first established, and it is the best system for electing people to single executive positions. In addition, the Bill will bar mayors from also sitting as MPs, ensuring that local places benefit fully from having dedicated local leaders.
We are not just giving mayors more power; we are also handing more control directly to the communities they serve. This Bill will give local communities a bigger say in shaping their place, with councils required to make sure that effective neighbourhood governance is in place. Communities will also have the tools to transform their high streets and neighbourhoods through a new community right to buy to save much-loved community assets such as pubs and shops from being lost, and to protect sports grounds, which are at the heart of so many communities and a source of great local pride. The Bill will also support our high streets by banning the unfair practice of upwards-only rent reviews, preventing the blight of vacant shopfronts. Every community should have the opportunity to thrive, and these measures are fundamental steps in achieving this.
I will now turn to a few amendments we made to the Bill in the other place. We have listened to parliamentarians and the sector and have introduced a modest number of amendments to ensure that the Bill functions correctly and delivers for local people. First, on London’s strategic licensing, I am sure noble Lords will agree that London’s pubs and restaurants are the beating heart of London’s cultural life. They contribute to our capital’s world-class status and to the growth of the economy. Yet for too long, hospitality businesses have been held back by a licensing regime that lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. That is why we have brought forward amendments to establish a new licensing regime in London that will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London’s night-time economy to thrive.
These amendments will also introduce a call-in power for the Mayor of London to determine borough licensing applications of strategic importance. The policy direction of the call-in amendment is clear. However, to ensure we fully digest any wider changes to the operation of licensing as a result of the call for evidence from the licensing policy taskforce—which closed on 6 November—we will bring forward more detailed amendments at a later stage in the Bill and we will continue to engage with noble Lords on this.
To support this Government’s commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, we have taken steps to cut unnecessary and duplicative bureaucracy. Amendments have been introduced which will allow mayors to adopt a written representation procedure when determining certain planning applications of potential strategic importance and which remove the requirement that the local planning authority must consent to mayors of strategic authorities when making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. However, I assure noble Lords that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring them along as they will be crucial to delivering these orders. It is about empowering mayors so they can provide the strategic leadership that areas deserve.
We have also brought forward an amendment which will devolve the approval of lane rental schemes from the Secretary of State for Transport to mayors of strategic authorities, putting decisions in the hands of those with knowledge of their area.
On taxi and private hire vehicles, the Government recognise the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, including inconsistent standards across the country and the practice of “out-of-area” working, where drivers choose to license in one authority area but work wholly or predominantly in a different authority area. As highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, in her recent National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, out-of-area working creates concerns in some authorities about the safeguarding standards applied to some of the drivers operating in their area. The Bill therefore creates a power for the Secretary of State to set national minimum standards for the licensing of drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. Setting these licensing standards will help bring some consistency across licensing authorities.
Finally, we have taken concrete steps to ensure that local government members are able to perform their duties without fear for their own safety or that of their family. The world has changed a lot since I started being a councillor and this Government are clear that intimidation, harassment and abuse have no place in our democracy. This Bill puts it beyond doubt that a member’s, or co-opted member’s, home address should not be published by default. The amendment we introduced will also prevent the disclosure of home addresses when they are declared as interests at public meetings.
I know we all share a wish to set the sector on a firmer footing, ensure local government is fit, legal and decent, and empower communities to deliver real change and opportunities. We believe this Bill is a fundamental step in achieving this. By enabling the biggest shift of power from Whitehall to local areas in over a generation, this Bill will support the change residents expect and deserve: better joined-up delivery of public services, good jobs and politics being done with communities, not to them. I move the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association, and the National Association of Local Councils.
I hope the House will forgive me if I begin by noting a certain irony in the title of the Bill. It contains the words “community empowerment”, yet the measures before us would appear to do precisely the opposite, empowering the centre rather than the community. As we reflect on that, we cannot ignore the democratic chill cast by the Government’s decision to cancel the forthcoming local mayoral elections. When democratic participation is suspended for administrative convenience, it becomes difficult to sustain the claim that community consent lies at the heart of these reforms. Instead, what emerges is a model of compulsion over consent. These proposals risk leaving communities without a meaningful voice, enabling the Secretary of State to redraw local government boundaries, restructure authorities and compel mergers, against local wishes.
The introduction of sweeping powers under new Section 109B, and others, marks a striking departure from the voluntary, negotiated, deal-by-deal approach that has defined English devolution to date. That approach was rooted in respect for local identity, geography and choice. The Bill before us seems to move away from that principle with unsettling ease. Our discussions with colleagues and stakeholders underline something fundamental: that local consent is not an optional extra. It is the democratic foundation of any credible programme of localism, yet this Bill weakens that foundation at the very moment when it should be reinforced.
The Government claim that reforms empower localities, but too often we see the power devolved in name only, while genuine authority remains firmly centralised. Without clarity on what powers are truly being passed down, how responsibilities differ from those already held and how local leaders will be held to account, there is a real risk of creating an accountability gap at the very centre of the system.
These concerns are sharpened still further by the Bill’s uncertain financial implications. Community empowerment is impossible without financial empowerment. Local authorities cannot reasonably be asked to shoulder the burdens or the liabilities of their neighbours; nor can local taxpayers be expected to underwrite centrally imposed restructuring. Yet the Bill provides no assurance that council tax will not rise, no clarity on whether solvent councils may be required to absorb the debts of failing ones, and no explanation whatever of how these reforms will deliver value for money. Additionally, we are still in the dark as to how these new mayoralties will be paid for.
We hear much about synergies and efficiencies but nothing about what they are, how they will be realised, or what modelling, if any, underpins them. Rhetoric is not a substitute for a costed plan. The Government must commit to publishing a detailed cost-benefit assessment. Information available shows that the creation of more top-tier councils in place of the county councils may increase costs year on year, not reduce them. It reverses the economy of scale and offers no prospect of long-term savings.
Recent freedom of information disclosures reported by ITV Meridian indicate that the councils in Essex, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, and on the Isle of Wight have already set aside £11.22 million for 2025-26 to support this transition, with more than £1 million being spent in the current year alone. In Hampshire, over £500,000 has already been allocated to consultants for local government reorganisation. How can local taxpayers be assured that this represents value for money? Will there be a transparent framework, underpinned by evidence, to demonstrate whether these substantial outlays can genuinely be recovered through future efficiency gains?
This reorganisation will impose real costs on our constituents, at a time when many of them are already paying more in income tax and national insurance, whether through their earnings or their pension contributions, because of this Government’s choice to value welfare over work. We cannot in good conscience simply accept that reform must be expensive without being provided a credible vision for future savings and long-term fiscal stability.
Nowhere is that risk more acute than in social care. Adults’ and children’s social care are among the most vital, sensitive and fragile of all our local services, but the Bill is silent on how these functions will operate across new combined structures, how responsibilities will be shared and how accountability will be maintained. At a time when care systems are already stretched to their limit, reorganisation without clarity is not merely unwise but dangerous. Vulnerable people cannot be left to navigate the fog created by institutional reform.
This is not the only area where ambiguity prevails. The Bill creates new regulatory layers, including a local audit office, the relationship of which with existing bodies is left largely undefined in the Bill. We all agree on the importance of rigorous oversight, but the creation of new regulators must be justified by purpose, rather than just by preference. Likewise, spatial development strategies, critical tools for planning and housing, are referenced in a manner that leaves scope, governance and oversight uncertain. Without clarity, there is a real risk of slowing down the very growth and housebuilding the Government claim the Bill will accelerate.
I will touch on the significant alterations proposed to some of the Local Government Pension Scheme arrangements. When local government reorganisation occurs, and assets and liabilities are carved up, it is essential that independent assessments are undertaken, to allow proper oversight of what funds and actuaries in each region are doing. We must also explore the workability of the new duty requiring combined authorities to assist in identifying or developing LGPS investment opportunities. These are legitimate concerns that such a requirement will place authorities in direct conflict with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities, which must remain independent and focus solely on the interests of the scheme members.
Taken together, these examples illustrate a broad problem: the lack of clarity speaks to a wider issue in the Bill’s design. This is a substantial piece of legislation that is constitutionally significant in both scale and ambition, yet the Government have offered no clear explanation of what it is ultimately for. Is the goal efficiency, local empowerment, public service reform, fiscal consolidation, housebuilding or economic growth? A Bill of this breadth and consequence should be founded on a coherent purpose, yet the rationale before us is diffused, undefined and, at times, contradictory.
The Bill professes to empower communities but many of its consequences appear likely to impose costs on them instead. New mayoral precepts, expanding borrowing powers, increased parking charges and the creation of further layers of local bureaucracy, including mayoral commissioners, will all place additional burdens on our residents. If that is empowerment, it is of a kind that, we believe, comes with a higher council tax bill attached to it.
The House will recall that we have made the point previously that uncertainty, particularly in planning, is the enemy of delivery. If responsibilities for housing, infrastructure and spatial strategy are to shift, the transition must be clear, orderly and transparent. Developers, councils and communities need certainty, not disruption. Local authorities understand their housing needs, their land, their constraints and their potential better than anyone in Whitehall ever could; therefore, reform should strengthen that local knowledge, not sideline it, as the Bill does.
Consistent with that theme, I will address another important issue: local identity. Imposing reorganisation from above, drawing maps in Whitehall and instructing local people to accept new boundaries pose a genuine threat to the character and cohesion of the communities we represent. Local identity is the foundation on which trust, participation and civic pride are built. We must also reflect the role played by our town and parish councils. They should and could be custodians of our children’s parks, our green spaces and the amenities that give neighbourhoods their distinct character. If their powers are to be subsumed into larger unitaries, dominated by broader, macro-level concerns, how can we ensure that the priorities of those towns and parishes across our country will still be recognised and respected? These councils are not peripheral; they are central to the everyday life and well-being of our communities. In fact, we believe that we should be encouraging more towns and parish councils when representation is subsumed by a larger geographic area.
If the Bill is truly to live up to its title, it must move from the rhetoric of empowerment to the practice of it. It must restore local democracy, not dilute it. It must clarify responsibilities, not obscure them, and it must build trust, not central control. Communities do not require permission to have a voice; they require the power to use it. True devolution rests on partnership, consent and clarity, not on imposition or ambiguity.
In Committee, I will challenge the Government on whether the Bill meets that aim, not only in areas where reorganisation is already under way but in areas such as London and Greater Manchester, where devolution exists but we believe it could deliver better. If the Government wish to empower communities, let the Bill begin by listening to them; only then can they claim with any confidence to speak in their name. As drafted, the Bill takes power away, increases costs for working people and, most of all, leaves communities without a voice.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have much sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has said, but I am puzzled, because the Bill is very much in line with the direction in which the last Conservative Government were taking us, and I had thought that she was then a Minister. I have not forgiven the last Conservative Government for the artificial institutions they imposed on Yorkshire in the face of resistance from all the councils in Yorkshire. I have not forgiven the Conservatives either for starving local government of funds, without which it is impossible for local democracy to work.
The White Paper and the Explanatory Notes for the Bill set out the problem it was trying to address, saying that:
“England is one of the most centralised countries in the world”,
that there is a serious and “long-term decline” in public trust in politics, and that three-quarters of our citizens feel powerless to influence decisions affecting their local area. It states that Westminster politics faces a
“wider feeling of disempowerment and distrust at a local level”.
The Liberal Democrats fear that this alienation from democratic engagement feeds into a broader disillusionment with democratic politics and democratic parties as a whole.
The changes the Bill proposes will not meet these challenges. Strategic authorities are not local government, nor are many unitary authorities of 500,000 people or more. Local communities—the word “communities” is thrown around a great deal in the Bill—are found in our towns, villages and urban neighbourhoods. The White Paper promises that the Bill will
“empower communities to take back control from Westminster”.
Instead, it takes power and representation further away from local communities, giving it to mayors, who are responsible for several million people. It promises that the new authorities will cover
“areas that people recognise and work in”.
That may fit England’s metropolitan areas, but it creates unrecognisable and artificial authorities elsewhere. This is decentralisation, not devolution. The Secretary of State retains extensive powers to direct, intervene and alter the new arrangements. These are executive powers, without continuing scrutiny from Parliament—“elective dictatorship” is the charge that the late Lord Hailsham made about an earlier Labour Government.
The 1997 Labour Government, in co-operation with the Liberal Democrats, devolved powers to Scotland and Wales. Labour’s half-hearted plan to devolve some powers to regional authorities collapsed with the defeat in the north-east referendum, in which Dominic Cummings played as negative a role as he later did in Brexit. A Tory-Labour consensus has since emerged that fewer, larger local authorities are cheaper and easier for central government to work with, and that elected mayors are far more to be trusted than elected councillors. It became the conventional wisdom that these bodies should be as uniform as possible in size and functions, with a minimum of 500,000 people for unitary authorities, which is significantly larger than London boroughs—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne—for some unexplained reason, with subregional strategic authorities significantly smaller in population than London.
This does not reflect the complexity and distinctiveness of England’s different regions. What suits London and Manchester will not easily fit Devon and Cornwall. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, again that the last Conservative Government disregarded the overwhelming consensus of Yorkshire’s local leaders that we would prefer a regional framework to take powers back from London and imposed combined authorities and mayors on the moors and dales of North Yorkshire, as well as on the reluctant combination of urban Hull and rural East Yorkshire. The Bill will complete the imposition of the new strategic mayoral model across the country.
Moreover, it will ban the further introduction of mayors in unitary authorities on the spurious grounds that uninformed voters might be confused by the duplication of titles. French and American citizens manage all right with elected mayors at multiple levels, but English voters are clearly not able to understand.
The Bill is constitutionally incoherent and democratically deficient. Labour’s 2024 manifesto said almost nothing about English local democracy, except that:
“As recommended in the Report of the Commission on the UK’s future, we will establish a new Council of the Nations and Regions”,
and that, in the long term,
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.
We already know that serious reform of the Lords has been kicked into the long grass. The new Council of the Nations and Regions is a shadowy body, with the Mayoral Council for England tagged on as almost an afterthought.
We all agree that too much of our Civil Service is based in London. It is in London because that is where too many decisions about local policy and spending are made. The Bill does little to shift policy decisions out of London and nothing to ease the financial crisis of local government, nor to strengthen the ability of mayors or unitary authority leaders to negotiate fiscal priorities with the Treasury and central government. An alternative second chamber might well begin to rebalance UK politics away from overdependence on London, but that is far too radical an idea for Labour to pursue, for all that Gordon Brown recommended it.
The Bill’s answer to the problem of public mistrust and alienation is to offer an elected mayor for a distant strategic authority, accompanied by up to seven commissioners who will be
“independent appointees, made by and accountable to the mayor”,
who will
“act as extensions of the mayor”.
Once in office, strategic authority mayors will be almost as much elective dictators as Prime Ministers. This places excessive trust in mayors and excessive distrust in councillors.
Many of the most effective and useful Members of your Lordships’ House are former councillors. When I first joined the Lords, I rapidly learned to respect their experience and their understanding of how policies are implemented on the ground. Councillors are the elected representatives closest to our alienated and disillusioned citizens. The councillors I know in West Yorkshire, representing wards with 10,000 to 15,000 voters, struggle to get to know the different communities and issues within their enormous wards. This Bill will leave them with even less chance of representing the interests of their voters as it transfers powers upwards from local government to strategic authority mayors.
Clause 60 imposes a duty on local authorities to make
“appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance of any area of a specified description”,
which it calls a “neighbourhood area”. There is no mention of any direct elections here for neighbourhood representation. Presumably, it envisages area committees of councillors for several wards, roughly the size of a parliamentary constituency. Under that, the vast majority of our citizens will not personally know or recognise any elected representative. Repeated reductions in local authority budgets and programmes have left swathes of our cities without any significant contact with democratic institutions or public services. No wonder so many of them are distrustful and suspicious, and inclined to vote for those who tell them that democracy is a conspiracy.
Labour believes that it is delivery that matters, not participation in public life. Liberal Democrats believe in active citizenship as a fundamental part of democracy. We will press for really local councils to be an essential part of this new structure. It should be a matter of concern for Labour that town councils exist most often in prosperous communities and least often in inner city communities where discontent with democratic politics is at its strongest.
There is a glaring contradiction here between this assumption of passive citizens and the weight the strategic defence review places on mobilising all our citizens in their local communities to strengthen national resilience and respond to threats to national security. We discussed the SDR’s call for a whole-of-society approach in this afternoon’s Questions. The concept follows Swedish and Finnish models—two countries with strong local government and much higher levels of public trust in government. We will never manage to build a whole-of-society approach to national resilience and to the response to threats if most of our population feel left outside democratic life.
The proposal to reintroduce the supplementary vote is a classic example of the half-hearted Labour approach to democratic change. This was Jack Straw’s reluctant compromise for London mayoral elections. He intended it to help Labour by capturing Liberal Democrat votes, thus maintaining the two-party competition between Tories and Labour. Now—as I am sure we all know—we have a five-party system in England, as the polls have consistently shown since last year’s election, and we need to move to a system which reflects the diversity of electoral opinion rather than the conservatism of the current Labour Government.
There are of course proposals in the Bill that we welcome: the much-needed restoration of an effective system of local audit, and the powers to take buses into firmer local control, for example. My noble friends will speak further on these and other clauses. I welcome the Government’s willingness in the Commons to accept some reasoned criticisms and incorporate them in government amendments, and I hope we will see a similarly constructive dialogue here. We on these Benches will do our best to improve this ill-thought-through Bill, while maintaining our commitment to a structure for English governance which would be more democratic and more attuned to England’s local and regional diversity.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my contribution today addresses one ingredient in the Bill that is easily overlooked but which could prove of immense significance in achieving the quantity and quality of new homes the nation needs. I am referring to the measures in Part 2 that will facilitate strategic authorities—mayors and combined authorities—establishing mayoral development corporations and development corporations of combined authorities, including combined county authorities. These development corporations can take on planning powers, land acquisition and development powers. They will be single-minded and focused on achieving new housing and all the related infrastructure. This will create an alternative to the nation’s current total reliance on a small number of volume housebuilders who plan, design and provide most of this country’s new housing development but who so often fail us in what they produce.
Development corporations can trace their origins to the establishment of overarching planning and development bodies for the pre-war garden cities, and then for the 32 post-war new towns. The most recent example is the London Legacy Development Corporation, or LLDC, which has been doing such good work in the redevelopment of the Olympic site and its environs. Development corporations are already the chosen vehicle for delivery of the new generation of new towns, as set out in the excellent report from the New Towns Taskforce published in September. New town development corporations will follow the pattern of land acquisition and land value capture, creating a master plan, with private financing, and long-term, overarching control in the hands of a publicly accountable body. Now this Bill enables all strategic authorities to establish their own development corporations and assume the same roles as the new town development corporations.
For some years, I have championed the report by Sir Oliver Letwin which dates back to 2018. The Letwin review pointed out that the oligopoly of volume housebuilders will build only at the speed they can sell, without having to reduce their prices. This has ensured that there is always a gap between supply and demand, leading inexorably to growing housing shortages. Letwin recommended ending our dependency on developers that, entirely predictably, work at their own pace and negotiate down the standards and quotas of affordable housing to maximise their profits. In their place, Letwin advocated the establishment of development corporations that would acquire the land and capture the increase in its value when planning consent was subsequently granted. The development corporations’ master plans can then parcel out the site to different profit-making and non-profit-making bodies, covering the full range of types, tenures and uses: housing for sale but also for shared ownership, market rents and social rents; housing for older people and for students, with specialist and pioneering ingredients; plus the place-making green spaces, mixed uses and amenities needed for all new homes.
As an example of the potential of this approach, the Devon Housing Commission, formed by the local authorities in that county, pointed to the opportunity for a development corporation to develop strategic sites in Devon. This would ease pressure on the county’s 10 planning authorities, with the combined county authority taking a cross-boundary view for exemplary major developments. The danger here is that mayors and combined authorities have other important matters to handle, and this route to more and better housing provision may not lead to the strategic authorities taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the Bill.
I have three questions for the Minister, who has a deep understanding of these issues. First, will the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provide the necessary seed corn as a financial incentive for the strategic authorities to set up their own development corporations?
Secondly, will the MHCLG be drawing up guidance on the governance, funding and delivery of new development corporations? If so, I commend a new report from a distinguished group of architects and planners called Placemaking not Plotting, which provides a helpful basis for the key aspects of urban design to be adopted in place of current poor practice.
Thirdly, are the Government planning to support delivery by these new development corporations with grants or guarantees, perhaps via Homes England, for the initial land purchase on which so much will depend? Any news from the Minister on government support to get these development corporations off the ground would be greatly welcomed. With proper backing from the MHCLG, this component in the Bill, which streamlines the development corporation approach, could revolutionise the quality and quantity of tomorrow’s new homes and communities.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, first I declare an interest as a recipient of a local government pension. I also congratulate my noble friend; having been a Local Government Minister for four years, I know how difficult any local government legislation is, as is anything that talks about devolution of any sort.
I thought it interesting that the Liberal Benches concentrated on the very local—that is important—but there is also a need for bigger and wider authorities to do the really strategic stuff. I am reminded of the reason that we were able to attract inward investment in the north-east, at one time. It was precisely because of the amassing of land by the Tyne and Wear metropolitan authority, which was then demolished and disbanded by the then Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher, when we lost that strategic organisation in the region. I want to dwell on those more strategic things.
First, and very quickly, I really support the attention given to the transfer of community assets. As many Members know, I am chairing an independent commission on neighbourhoods. I have used most Fridays in the past year to have another look at difficult neighbourhoods. Those which have been working on neighbourhood development have really made a difference when they have been able to use community assets and had more control to use them as income generators too, so that they do not have to wait all the time for the public sector to have enough money to fund their youth work and activities with the elderly, the lonely and so on. I really support the Government for pushing this on both sporting facilities and community assets.
But I mainly want to talk about something that is also in the Bill that, again, I have spoken on in this House before: the need for better accountability and audit of the regional bodies and combined authorities. I know there are Members opposite who celebrate the end of the Audit Commission, but the reality is that that has left significant groups and areas in our society without any effective audit and accountability. In the north-east, we have particularly suffered from this. I know that when the first combined authorities elected their mayors, the then chair of the Public Accounts Committee brought in the—
Lord Gove (Con)
I note carefully what the noble Baroness is saying. I presume that on that basis she deprecates the decision by the current Government to abolish the Office for Local Government, which was established by the previous Government.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
I think the noble Lord needs to hear my arguments first and then, when he comes to speak and in Committee, he can challenge them. The reality is that in the north-east we have really suffered. The then chair of the PAC called the newly elected mayors to advise them of the challenges they faced because the normal auditing process was not available to them, and that they would therefore have to make sure that they brought in people who understood the challenge of auditing books for public and private co-operation events and projects.
Some of them took notice. Unfortunately, the Tees Valley mayor did not. Had there been robust arrangements then, we would not have had the difficult circumstances that people in the Tees Valley have faced since. We now have the totally unjustified position of an arrangement having been made behind closed doors, with nobody aware of it, between two individuals and their families—they now live in Dubai, so even the money going to them is not being spent in the region any more—where the 50% public and 50% private benefit from any investment made was changed to 90% private and 10% public. This means that any investment and any return on that investment does not now go to local people; it goes to two developers who now live in Dubai and do not even spend that money locally any more.
We also have the position where land in the Tees Valley is earmarked for the major investment of a data centre. The Government are faced with a data centre they need and the public not being able to get the advantage of that investment. The mayor should rethink and renegotiate. I hope that by introducing the measures in the Bill, the Government will be able to make sure the public in the north-east actually get some benefit from the Government’s investment in that area.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, we on this side oppose many aspects of the Bill, but that is not because we oppose the principles of devolution and greater local accountability; we strongly support both principles. In 2010, the only area of England with a devolution settlement was Greater London. Since then, Conservative Governments have introduced a number of devolution deals with local authorities, which now cover 64% of England. On this side, we have always believed that local people should be able to hold to account those who deliver local services.
This Bill seeks to standardise and restructure English devolution by creating strategic authorities with mayors across the country. But rather than putting more power into the hands of local people, as my noble friend Lady Scott has said, it gives the Secretary of State significant new powers at the centre—for example, creating new strategic authorities, adding councils to them or providing a mayor—without the consent of local councils. The Government will have the power to force two-tier council areas to become unitary authorities. Five new powers will allow legislation to be amended by statutory instrument without the agreement of local councils.
There will have to be close parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill in this House and in the other place. We need to examine the principles and procedures contained in it because of the great importance, to the whole population, of the services for which the new strategic authorities and mayors will be responsible. As has been briefly mentioned, those services include: transport and infrastructure; skills and employment support; housing, economic development and regeneration; environment and climate change; health and well-being—where social care is I do not know and I hope light may be cast on that—public safety; and the functions of police and crime commissioners. All these are extremely important policy areas that are close to local people.
Obviously, and despite disagreements and misgivings, it has been equally important at local level in the areas with mayoral elections announced for 2026—Norfolk and Suffolk, Essex, Hampshire and Solent—to prepare for the changes to come. Much work has been done. Mayoral candidates have been chosen; they are already campaigning. In some places, staff have been interviewed for the new authorities. Imagine, therefore, the disbelief with which local council leaders received phone calls from the Minister in the other place a few days ago to inform them that the local mayoral elections had been cancelled and would take place in 2028. No one was more shocked than the former Minister for Local Government in the other place, Jim McMahon MP, who said:
“Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same … The Government have a moral and a legal obligation to honour their side of the bargain”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/25; cols. 1166-67.]
I agree with those words. Some 5.4 million registered voters live in the areas affected by the changes and Norfolk, where I live, is one of them. In Norfolk, there are fears that the uncertainty caused by the delay will affect investment in large infrastructure projects and stifle growth in the local economy. There is also the question of uncertainty in all the policy areas that will be covered by the new strategic authorities. What are they meant to do? They cannot plan because they do not know what will happen. It is extraordinary.
Why have the Government taken this shock decision to delay the mayoral elections, after all they have said about the importance of devolved powers? They claim that the necessary local government reorganisation is not yet in place. That argument is rejected in all the affected areas. We are certainly 90% there in Norfolk. There have been critics who say that the Government have calculated that they might have more success in the mayoral elections under the new supplementary vote system they intend to introduce for mayors, which is not yet in place. Others claim—I am not claiming this, but there have been headlines—that the Government are running scared, given the current opinion polls. Whatever the reason, many of us in this House value and respect local government. I believe that the Minister does too. I look forward to her reply to this debate.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, as I rise to speak, I am reminded of 15 years ago, when four leaders from Greater Manchester stood outside the Cabinet Office in Whitehall awaiting an invitation in. I was one of those leaders. Greater Manchester had 10 local authorities in 2010: five Labour, three Liberal Democrat and two Conservative. We had already signed up to the first combined authority in the country—a legally binding agreement to serve the people of Greater Manchester—and that was running quite well. We therefore asked the Government for full devolution and full powers, and, more importantly, the funding to go with it.
We presented to the full Cabinet of the Government, including Nick Clegg and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Four of us sat there, facing them, with two jugs of water and four glasses. We did not expect that. We thought it would be a small number of people. My role was to explain the earn-back model, which was simply that the combined authority would provide, at no cost to government—they quite liked that—the infrastructure for major development schemes: motorway links, transport hubs and many other measures that would then enable development to take place. When successful, the Government would collect the subsequent gross value added tax from the businesses and we would earn a proportion of that tax back to reinvest to create more jobs and opportunities. We were successful, but it took four years to hammer out the financial details of that deal with the Treasury. It was eventually signed off in Manchester by the Chancellor himself, George Osborne, in 2014.
The obvious difference between that devolution deal and the devolution Bill we have today is elected mayors. We did not have elected mayors in those days. We, the 10 leaders, were responsible for our portfolios, directly accountable and directly elected—and that is the problem. We have an elected mayor in Manchester now, Andy Burnham, and he has been outstanding, working collaboratively with combined authorities, putting place before politics, with the first mayoral development corporation not in a Labour-run town but in Liberal Democrat Stockport. It has attracted over £300 million of private investment so far, including thousands of new homes, a fully integrated transport hub, now expanding further across Stockport town centre. Bringing the bus network back under public control was a masterstroke. He is also driving Greater Manchester to be the fastest-growing economy in the UK at present. Having said that, all is not well in Greater Manchester. The private hire cross-boundary issues are of great concern to us. My noble friend Lady Pidgeon, our transport spokesperson, will go into more detail later, but there are more private-hire drivers from Wolverhampton working in Greater Manchester than work in Wolverhampton itself, and that cannot be right.
Mayor Burnham might one day in the future leave us to do greater things in another place and reach higher office. We do not know that. What we do know is that the new Bill gives elected mayors sweeping new powers but is almost silent on democratic accountability. Removing planning powers from directly elected members does not sit well with this group, and future governance arrangements for fire and police will be high on my agenda as this Bill receives the full scrutiny it deserves. As I have said, Greater Manchester has a combined authority. However, there will be strategic authorities, and there must be stronger roles for their council leaders to ensure that potential mayors cannot override the views of three or four constituted local authority leaders. And is it right that the mayor has a casting vote where decision-making is tied? Where is the accountability and the honesty in that?
The Liberal Democrat party is the party of devolution. Talk of “empowerment” in the Bill is frankly laughable. It goes hand in glove with robust scrutiny, accountability and giving citizens the confidence that voting matters, their voices matter and their voices will be heard. That way, you get benefits for all of society, not only a few. If this Government listen and accept reasonable amendments, this Bill could begin to do what we all want: growth, investment, better transport and better qualities for all. But, if it does not, there will be opportunities lost. We delivered in Greater Manchester and continue to do so, because we increased scrutiny, embraced joint accountability and built confidence in the private and public sectors. I hope the Government take heed of that, because this Bill is too important to fail.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords can see, this is a doorstop of a Bill. I draw attention to my registered interests as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, and I support development forums in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cheshire as well—but of course anything I say is entirely my own view.
As a former Leader of the House of Commons with responsibility for parliamentary counsel, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that more than two-thirds of this Bill is to be found in its schedules. When parliamentary counsel published their most recent document on the drafting of Bills, they said that technical detail should not interrupt the narrative—the story one is trying to tell in the Bill—but that special attention should be paid to the question of whether material should be relegated to the back of the Bill. Well, virtually everything has been relegated to the back of the Bill. We have something like two dozen clauses that do not tell you what their intention is but simply tell you that there is a schedule to go and look at.
A rather effective example, referencing the interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is Homes England. The powers of Homes England in relation to the acquisition of land are to be found in Schedule 16, introduced by Clause 35, but it makes no reference to Homes England; it references only strategic authorities. So the uninitiated reader of the Bill would not find anything about Homes England in its contents at all, yet there are powers provided for it.
I will take only a couple of minutes, because there will be many opportunities in the Bill to take up many of the issues that I know the Minister understands very well. As we finish the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on Wednesday, we will start this Bill with some of the same issues in our minds: neighbourhood planning, how to relate local growth plans to spatial development strategies and, for that matter, what the spatial development strategies of strategic authorities should do in relation to the national land use framework when it is published.
On the principle of the Bill, I share the view that many have expressed that we want to see devolution achieved. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referenced the Localism Act 2011, but the then coalition Government, of which I was very proud to be a member, set us down this important path, which we wanted to see completed. I think our expectation was that, 15 years on, we would probably see devolution across the whole of England and Wales, but it is tough to do.
My own experience is in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which is interesting and instructive, because it is not one of the city mayoralties with a metro mayor. From the outset it illustrated the difficulty, because we had parish and town councils—actually, there was no town council in my own constituency, because we had nothing in those days as large as a town. But we had parish councils, a district council, a county council and a combined authority. That was too many, and in principle the Government are right that we should arrive at a simpler structure. If we are going to have a strategic authority, we should have beneath it unitary authorities, to which people can relate, that are responsible for the delivery of the great majority of those local government functions.
At the same time, as these authorities get bigger, we must have effective neighbourhood governance. I am interested that there does not appear to be a schedule that tells us the detail of what effective neighbourhood governance looks like. We just have Clause 60, which tells us that appropriate arrangements should be made for that, but that is something that the Minister in the other place told us would be set out by way of principles in statutory guidance. Well, noble Lords might well find that it would be instructive for us to set out what the principles for effective neighbourhood governance might look like, rather than leaving it to civil servants in the ministry to do so at a later stage.
The only other thing I want to draw attention to is the importance of pace. When we had a devolution priority programme, I thought it was a priority programme because we would get on with it. I declare that I live in Suffolk—we have had contributions already from Norfolk, and we will have at least one more. We thought that we would get on with it, and people in local government thought that we would get on with it and have responded on that basis. It feels a bit like that memorable occasion: being sent to the crease having had one’s bat broken. I am afraid that, after the Bill’s passage through another place, it feels like the Minister—for whom I know we all have the greatest respect—had her bat broken by that decision before she came here to stand at the crease, as it were, to look after the Bill.
I have to say that I am a cynic. My noble friend Lady Shephard talked about this decision and why it might be motivated. It may be to do with this Bill because it will allow those mayoral elections to be conducted under the supplementary vote system in the future, rather than the first past the post system next year. Cynical politics is not what we were looking for in the devolution priority programme; we were looking for the positive politics of devolving decisions to local government and seeing local government take up that mantle. I hope that we can see that principle through in the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the recipient of a small local government pension. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, which I welcome in so far as it sets us off on what will be a long road towards true devolution in England.
The aim of the Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall, which I strongly welcome. No Government can run England, with its population of 56 million, out of London, yet that is what Westminster and Whitehall try to do. The devolved nations get their block grant, and Ministers in Whitehall manage—indeed, micromanage—England.
However, despite its title, the Bill is not about devolution but decentralisation. Even then, the Bill creates a centralised structure through mayors, who, in practice, will be managed by Whitehall, and in particular by the Treasury, because mayors will be forced to compete against each other for resources. There is also a huge centralising power in mayors having the right to hire commissioners, as opposed to elected councillors, to drive policy and delivery. The terms of these appointments will need challenge in Committee.
Having said that, I want to work with the grain of the Bill, because it represents a start on which we can build. I see it as a staging post to direct elections to combined authorities in the course of time. Time will be needed anyway to build capacity at combined authority level to take on all the extra powers and responsibilities proposed.
I am content with the need for there to be a strategic planning tier, and I welcome local growth plans, but can the Minister confirm that all Whitehall departments are signed up to the Bill? Paragraph 15 of the Explanatory Notes confirms a long list of changes that will be delivered by the Bill, but these can be delivered only if all parts of Whitehall are committed to delivery of the Government’s ambition. Are they?
Will the Bill fix the foundations of local government, as Ministers suggest? I fear that it will not, for the reason that resources to do so are insufficient. We are told that mayors will be able to raise revenue, which is welcome, but in Committee we will need to explore what this really means. Fiscal policy is sadly lacking in the Bill; it is not just about the community infrastructure levy.
In terms of local growth, I hope that in Committee we can examine community banking. I want to see simplification of the regulatory requirements involved in establishing new banks to respond to local communities’ needs for access to banking in the face of branch closures. Such banks could be supported by local authorities in their duty to promote growth. There are many useful examples of success in this field in Germany and the USA that we can draw on.
I am pleased by the proposal to end the first past the post election system for mayors, but why stop there? Do we not need proportional representation across all local government in England to have effective governance?
I welcome the end to upwards-only rent review clauses for commercial leases to help regenerate our high streets, although I accept that we may need to review the detail of that carefully in Committee. I like the principle of micromobility schemes; I like the new health duty to be imposed on all strategic authorities; and I am strongly in favour of proposals for Local Government Pension Scheme funds to help drive growth.
I compliment the Minister and the Government on their proposals on local audit, which are hugely important. They matter because we cannot devolve power successfully if there is no audit system examining proposals and spending commitments alongside decision-making.
I have two negatives. First, I do not understand why culture, creativity and heritage are missing from the Bill. Secondly, it is wrong to enforce an end to the local government committee system. The Government claim:
“The committee system is a less effective form of governance for local authorities”.
I invite the Minister to publish the evidence for that assertion, because I have never seen any.
Finally, can the Minister say more about effective neighbourhood governance structures? It is easy to say but, as previous speakers have said, I fear that this ambition cannot be delivered given the current state of local authority budgets. Does the Minister really think it can?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I chair a seafront development and regeneration board on behalf of Brighton & Hove City Council.
I am delighted to speak in this debate for a number of reasons. First, I enjoy a discussion about local government almost as much as I enjoy watching Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club. Secondly, it is a genuine pleasure to speak on a Bill being fronted by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, whom I think we all admire and respect—we enjoy her passion for all things local government. Thirdly, I am a big supporter in principle of both devolution and unitary councils. Indeed, I have been arguing for these probably for the better part of the last 40 years. Like others in your Lordships’ House, I have served on district and unitary councils and was privileged to be successful in arguing for Brighton and Hove to become a unitary back in the 1990s. My experience from back then informs my comments and words of advice to the Government today.
Brighton and Hove was carved out of East Sussex, with the Brighton element, previously an old county borough, and the Hove district. My task as leader was to merge two organisations with different cultures and approaches, and to blend in county services of highways, education, social services, transport, et cetera—no easy task. We got most of the reorganisation right largely because we were well led in our officer core, because we settled the big decisions early and because we established a cabinet-style authority with clear lines of accountability. We also developed a vision for the city and a radical programme of change and service modernisation, behind the mantra of “M&S quality and First Direct banking service enthusiasm”.
Getting it right meant setting effective working structures early in the process. This gave us two and a half years before the authority was set up—the first in a sort of pre-shadow year and the second as a shadow authority. So on 1 April 1997 we hit the ground running. The lesson I took from this was to give authorities time. Do not try to do everything at once. To make unitaries successful, roll them out; do not just impose them. If I were to be critical of the Government’s approach to the combined mayoral authorities and unitaries, it would be on this point.
For understandable reasons, the Government want to crack on with change—they should not. They should pause and think about it, and do as their predecessors did. They should do it gradually and sensitively. Why? So much of a Government’s programme relies on getting councils to deliver, whether it is social care, new housing, stronger environmental programmes, the growth mission, nursery schools, getting people into work, retraining or meeting the challenges of the digital age. We cannot expect councils to do that and more while they are being set up from scratch. Councils that are unfamiliar with each other, having different systems and offering different organisational structures, will need time. We need to make sure that they are well resourced to do it, and we should not expect savings. In my experience, local government reviews rarely ever achieve a net saving.
For me, the Government made a wise decision last week in delaying the creation of the combined mayoral authorities for Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, Hampshire, and Sussex. The reason why the mayoral model has worked in the mets in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and so on is that they were built on a sound unitary council base. The councils need a strategic body for the bigger issues to be resolved. Sadly, that went in the 1980s and had to be reinvented in the last decade or so, and in London back in 1999. Additionally, the issues in Manchester, Merseyside and so on are very different from those in the south and East Anglia. Will the same structure work for Sussex and Hampshire as for South Yorkshire or Greater Manchester? A one-size-fits-all approach may not be best. The Government should use the time that has been provided to pause and think through some of the issues and some of the structures.
Finally, the Bill is strong on empowerment, which I approve of—I think we probably all do. The UK is far too centralised, with some of the biggest regional disparities and inequalities in Europe. We need to do more to help communities, so we should use and develop parish and town councils, let strong neighbourhoods emerge and ensure that they have the resource to run things close to people and places. On place-making, which I know a bit about, we should not create local government structures that people cannot identify with. We should not make the unitaries so big and disparate, with big divides between rural and urban. Place-making will be harder because it will get lost, which I think would be a great shame. The Bill provides us with an opportunity. If we want bottom-up governance with citizens in control, let us use neighbourhood funding as a way of empowering people in their communities.
To finish, I applaud the Government’s commitment, but they should not rush this, otherwise the objectives will get lost amid structures that are dysfunctional. They should not expect big savings, but should place an emphasis on creating renewed local government that is about responsive services based on quality and excellence. That is what the public want; they do not want more cuts and austerity. They want the improvement of the public realm and the higher quality of local service. If this reorganisation and the development of strategic combined mayoral authorities do one thing, they should focus on delivering that.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her opening speech. This is a significant Bill and has the potential to reshape the governance landscape of England in a profound and lasting way. The intention of the Bill—to bring decisions closer to communities, strengthen local leadership and enable greater public voice—is one that I support. But if we are to deliver those ambitions, we must ensure that the structures set out here are sufficiently whole, coherent and socially attuned to the challenges that local areas face.
We also need to be mindful that the process of devolution can lead to complex effects on national unity. While it can nurture a sense of identity, it can cultivate a sense of competition, rather than co-operation, and undermine social cohesion. Balancing local devolution with national cohesion is a critical challenge, particularly now when we are grappling with our sense of identity as a country, identity politics are rife and we are witnessing a fraying of social cohesion. The Bill provides an opportunity for deliberative engagement to foster social cohesion and inclusion.
For me, the Bill prompts an important question: what enables people to participate fully in the life of the communities of which they are part? Administrative efficiency alone cannot be the answer, and economic development alone will not do it either. True participation rests on something deeper: the capacity of communities to come together, to build trust, to form relationships across difference and to have shared spaces in which dialogue and collective problem-solving can take place.
We need to look beyond narrow service provision and towards the underlying social and cultural conditions that sustain inclusion. Culture, creativity and heritage are among the principal ways in which people make sense of the world around them. Throughout my work in public life for over five decades, I have seen how vital this can be for intercultural dialogue, which is not just a slogan but an ongoing practice of listening, understanding and negotiating difference. Again and again, it has proved essential for sustaining social cohesion, and it is much more than cultural expression or appreciation. It is a strategic means of enabling people to meet across boundaries, build trust and shape a shared sense of purpose.
As we begin to develop a robust regional tier of governance through the provisions in the Bill, we must ensure that these principles—the ability to communicate across diverse communities, to foster understanding and to strengthen social bonds—are woven into the strategic functions of the new authorities it will create. Without that, devolution risks becoming an administrative exercise rather than a genuinely community-building endeavour.
This is where the Bill, as drafted, is deficient. The area of culture, creativity and heritage has profound significance for social cohesion and civic participation, but it is entirely absent from the list and does not have a place within the statutory architecture. Organisations such as Culture Commons and the RSA have consistently shown how cultural ecosystems underpin community well-being and local agency. There are a lot of local examples; the one I am familiar with is in Southampton. The Southampton model is a culture-led, place-based impact initiative led by Southampton Forward and Southampton City Council. It is a successful model that has focused on unlocking prosperity and delivering impact for people and place. It is akin to the agenda of the Government’s Office for the Impact Economy, which, interestingly, sits within the Cabinet Office, not the Minister’s department.
I am aware that culture, creativity and heritage are often characterised as cut-across issues. But many of the functions already named here are, by their very nature, cross-cutting. Creative industries, seen as an important pillar of the industrial strategy, are sufficiently central to the life and cohesion of a place to merit explicit recognition within the governance structure before us. It is precisely because they sit across so many parts of people’s lives that they should be included purposefully, not by implication, in the strategic remit of the new authorities. Implicit powers are rarely sufficient when multiple departments, funding streams and accountability regimes are involved.
Previous devolution arrangements show that cultural or civic functions are often left orphaned, dependent on discretionary grants or short-term programmes, rather than treated as part of the strategic fabric of our governance. For that reason, culture, creativity and heritage should be included as a defined area of competence, consistent with the other functions named in the Bill.
Culture is not an adornment to governance but part of its foundation. In too many parts of the country, people do not feel heard, connected or part of a shared civic story. If devolution is to succeed, it must help rebuild that sense of belonging and inclusion that sustains social inclusion. The Bill is an opportunity to design a system that supports not only economic co-ordination but the deeper, often more fragile threads of social life: trust, dialogue, identity and belonging. If we neglect those, we risk building institutions that are technically capable but socially brittle.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, will reflect carefully on these issues and consider whether some measured adjustments can be made to strengthen the long-term sustainability, fairness and cohesion of England’s devolved governance landscape.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, when I saw the Title of this Bill, I thought that all the long years of deliberation and the many reports produced on the subject of local devolution were about to come to fruition. Experts such as Sir Michael Lyons, Tony Travers and the late Lord Kerslake are among the many luminaries and organisations that have advocated for the fundamental need to bring government closer to the governed. As a long-convinced supporter myself, I hoped that this Bill would empower local people, enabling their participation in matters that directly affect their lives and that they would be able to influence and see how their money was spent and hold directly accountable those who were responsible for governing their local area—an opportunity to address the present democratic deficit.
As the Bill says, we in England have one of the most centralised systems of government in the world, with citizens increasingly disaffected and scornful of those who govern—badly, as people are fond of telling us on their doorsteps—but the overall feeling is that it does not much matter how you vote or what you do as nothing changes. This powerlessness is expressed by many as a reason for not even going out to vote. Anyone who has ever canvassed as a prospective councillor must surely have struggled in trying to explain why people should vote in a local council election while at the same time explaining that local aspirations cannot be met because the Government in Westminster control all the money. Local councillors are bound by the stultifying financial constraints imposed by central government over popular local projects. This tramples on local ambition, demotivating communities and generating widespread cynicism.
The Bill’s Title raised our hopes, only to confound them as we read its woeful contents. Devolution is not the purpose of this Bill; empowering Ministers, not local people, is what we find here. If this Bill passes, the Secretary of State will have unfettered powers to bring about radical changes, such as merging or restructuring councils, without local input or consent and without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is the opposite of devolution.
The Bill seeks to create a distant elite of so-called strategic councils covering large geographical areas delegating government policy implementation to mayors. They will control these authorities on behalf of central government, supported by unelected members—some might say cronies—who will have real decision-making powers but no accountability. With district councils being abolished, there will not even be the means of holding mayors or authorities to account by the people they will purport to govern. Mayors will answer upward to Whitehall, not to their communities. In many areas, a regional mayor may cover vast, diverse counties and communities with very different priorities. Experience shows that top-down solutions rarely meet local needs.
My noble friend Lord Wallace talked about the regional assemblies. This is another attempt to shoehorn locally diverse areas into large amorphous bodies. I was a member of the South West Regional Assembly, and that august body sought to combine the counties not just of Devon and Cornwall—which would be a challenge on its own—but of Somerset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Bristol into one body. There was basically a huge conflict in that people who were members saw real dissonance between their local interests and priorities and those chosen by the RDAs, who, incidentally, were given most of the powers and the resources. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Wallace, the referendum in the north-east gave a firm thumbs down to these bodies, with 77.9% against the idea, and the entire policy was abandoned. Therefore, I hope the current Government will look back on what went wrong with those attempts to impose top-down solutions on an unwilling population. They will eventually take their revenge in the ballot box, as we all know and have found out in the past, I am sure.
Furthermore, the Bill ignores the councils that are actually closest to residents: our towns and parishes. These bodies are often the first port of call for communities. Parish and town councils understand the local identity, the civic history and the practical day-to-day realities of where people live. Yet, in this Bill, they are barely mentioned. There is no statutory role for them in the new stretches and no guarantee that larger authorities will have to work with them.
It also should be said here that mayors are not universally popular. In my own city of Bristol, the city mayor was removed as a result of a referendum in 2022. The West of England Combined Authority and mayor are a matter of complete apathy to the local population, with a 30% turnout for the mayoral vote and a complete lack of understanding of what this body is actually intended to do and how it affects local people. So, if this model were to be replicated in our area, it would be considered absolutely derisory by the local people.
I believe that this is a damaging Bill and that it will be deeply unpopular; it smacks of desperation and despotism. The Government are saying that, in the interests of delivering change, they will remove the rights of those who disagree with them; they will create distant bastions of government policy, remove means of dissent and discount the views of local people where they do not coincide with their own. Participation-influenced scrutiny and accountability of government by those who are governed are hard-fought basic rights in any democracy. This Government will ride roughshod over them at its peril.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I am slightly reluctant to follow such a position on the basis that I believe that the Government—if they stick to what they say in the Title of the Bill—are doing the right thing. Unfortunately, like some episodes of “Yes Minister”, this could be a case of “Get the hard bit out of the way” in the Title before you get to the detail.
Most noble Lords have expressed great joy in having the Minister lead this Bill because of her belief in the subject matter, but I hope she is truly in that space. Most Members of this House know that if you were to cut me right through the middle, I would have “localist” written through my core, which is why I stand awkwardly in your Lordships’ House to speak: it is not my natural space. However, I will put my signature to any amendment that anybody tables to make this Bill better. I obviously do not have the brains big enough to actually write any of the amendments that will be necessary to make it work, but I am quite prepared—now that I have mastered my new signature—to put my name to them and support them.
While I am standing, I also draw Members’ attention to the excellent briefing notes from the County Councils Network, which has got a position, and the District Councils’ Network, which has also got a position. Strangely enough, while they agree on some things, they do not agree on the detail nor the positions they agree on. They do agree, however, on constituent members having better scrutiny powers, but they are just not sure on who the constituent members should be. They both take on the hard challenge of accepting that they will disappear in the new world, but they are not agreed on what should replace them.
When we were first introduced to this Bill, we were told that London was going to be in scope, and that the number of councillors on councils would be fair across the whole country. Given that the last council the present Secretary of State ran was a 300,000 unitary, it would be interesting to know his position compared to the previous Secretaries of State on the numbers we should be aiming for. I am not advocating for one number over another, you understand, as the smallest council I have an interest in is 30,000-odd and the largest was a million, so I am quite comfortable someone will come up with the right number anywhere in between.
I have one technical question for the Minister. Where there is a proposition to take some power—not much—from central government and give it to a mayor, does that mean that central government will lose that power? I am thinking particularly about the ability to call in a planning decision from a council. If the mayor can call that decision in, does that denude the Secretary of State of also having that power? If that is the case, is there anywhere we can find it? If it is not the case, is there anywhere we can amend the Bill to make sure that it is the case? That is what devolution should really be about: it should be stripping powers out of Westminster and Whitehall and putting them into the local communities where we all live.
We know that, over about the last 14 years, Whitehall was grown by about a million employees and the town hall was shrunk by about a million employees. So, even in the devolution plan my noble friend Lord Gove saw through—which was the Osborne plan originally—the state centrally has managed to grow and not shrink. If devolution is going to be anything, it should be about a smaller centre and a bigger local. That is what I think most Members of this House would like to see.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, like my colleagues on these Benches, I am a strong supporter of devolution. I was therefore sadly disappointed to see in this Bill the number of areas where power is still to be with Whitehall and not local government, where opportunities for genuine devolution are missed, and where it risks adding to, rather than reducing, the legal complexity faced by local government. I will give brief examples of each and, in doing so, I hope to suggest some areas in which amendments may, in due course, help improve the Bill.
I start with the most fundamental of provisions: people’s right to elect those who govern them. We all recognise that in some exceptional circumstances it can be necessary to delay democracy. For example, I doubt few, if any, in this House would think it was a mistake to delay the general election during the Second World War. However, such delays should be the rare exceptions, at moments of major crisis when safety is at risk. Yet the Bill as it stands will continue the power of a central government, including any future Government of who knows what level of commitment to democracy, to cancel simply by order of the Minister elections that have been previously scheduled. That is far too low a bar. The postponing of democracy should require the full permission of Parliament, through primary legislation. I hope the Minister will say more about why the Government view local democracy as not being worthy of the protection that would come from requiring primary legislation to interfere with it.
I will give two examples of where powers could and should be devolved but are being kept within Whitehall’s grip. Here in this House, we let Members participate remotely. It is a carefully limited right but one that is used and works, whether or not we happen to agree with those remotely-contributed views. Personally, I would make the rules more permissive, but, even as they stand, they are more permissive than those Parliament allows local councils in England. If we think it is okay for us to decide these matters for ourselves, even though there is not the safeguard of elections for people to kick us out if we get it wrong, why should we withhold that right from democratic councils? Indeed, we have seen remote participation used successfully in local government around the UK, both during Covid and since, outside of England. To give credit where it is due, earlier this year the Government made positive noises about introducing new rights for remote participation in English local government, with the proviso of needing to find parliamentary time in due course. Well, here we are in Parliament and we have local government legislation in front of us, and a good chunk of time allocated. I hope the Minister can tell us more about why this opportunity to get on and act, and get this sorted, is not being taken.
Another example of how the Bill still holds so much power tightly at the centre is cattle-grids. For those of us who are collectors of examples of unusual centralisation, the grip of Whitehall on permission to install a new cattle-grid is, in its own way, a famous one. My hopes rose when I saw cattle-grids mentioned in the White Paper. However, looking through the Bill, I see that the decentralisation of those powers does not seem to have made it into the legislation. Indeed, the whole bundle of decentralisation mentioned alongside cattle-grids in the White Paper seems to have been watered down significantly. I hope this is not due to any change of mind by the Government, or to a sudden fear that, if the controlling, centralised hand of the Secretary of State is relaxed, we will have a sudden outbreak of mad cattle-grid disease sweeping the country. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister as to what has happened to those final two sentences in the section of the White Paper on local government taking back control.
On the third area I mentioned—the risks of adding to, rather than reducing, the legal burden on local government and the complexity in the Bill, as touched on earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—my point is that so much of the legislation passed by Parliament ends up never being commenced. We do all the work to legislate but the law then sits there, with different pieces buried in different places within it, never getting commenced. I appreciate that, for understandable and practical reasons, the commencement provisions in this Bill are not simple, stretching over three full pages. However, the way the commencement of different parts is left open, particularly in Clause 92(7), runs the risk of repeating what has happened to so much previous local government legislation, in that it never gets commenced. I hope the Minister will share where the Government’s thinking is on having a clear cut-off date, so that if parts of this legislation are not otherwise commenced sooner, there is a backstop that catches the remaining items and ensures that the Bill does not become just another addition to that huge sludge of bits and pieces of local government legislation that are passed but never enacted and hang around in limbo.
I hope that, as the Bill progresses, we will see from the Government more willingness to enact genuine devolution. I particularly look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s thinking on the right threshold for cancelling elections, why elected councillors should not have the same rights that we hold for ourselves in allowing remote participation in their proceedings, whether the Government are still committed to devolving power over cattle-grids, and what they will do to ensure that, whatever Parliament passes, it really does at some point come into force. If we can get those issues right, the Bill will be very much the better for it.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, this is the latest legislation in a long line of tinkering that has made our sub-national governance structures more fragmented, complicated, opaque and financially unsustainable. That the opening clauses enumerate 13 types of so-called strategic authority proves that point unambiguously. Such complexity has sown confusion among councils, voters and governments, preferring the wants of the administrative state over the people and taking power further away from residents and business to the dead hand of Marsham Street.
Over 20 years as a councillor, I have seen a mania from officials who live in the London borough bubble to tidy up things outside the M25 for their own bureaucratic convenience. This is just another attempt to lard on half-baked new structures in a half-done settlement that is already unwinding and unravelling before the legislation is even passed. For example, the Budget announced that mayors could raise a new tourism tax, and the Minister lauded that in her opening remarks. Surrey was promised a mayor to do so, but now that has been taken away in the same breath as the cancellation of the mayoral elections. The Bill asks mayors to write growth plans in pursuance of the urgency of driving economic growth. I thought this Government were all about growth and that the mayors were the key to unlocking it—it is clearly not that urgent, given that those mayors have been delayed for two years.
I have heard it all before: let us get rid of the districts and the 86 things that residents value the most, so that it can all be lost in a system where 70% of the money is spent on adult and children’s services, but somehow it will all be all right. It is nonsense. If we were really interested in community empowerment, the Government would sort out a system in which three-quarters of local government expenditure is spent on the 5% of the residents who need social care and those with special educational needs and disabilities. On this, the Bill is silent—another can kicked down the road.
Nowhere in the Bill do the Government set out what local government is for. There are lots of administrative functions listed, but none viewed through the lens that, if it is not foreign policy or defence, it is capable of being done locally. It is not hard to articulate a purpose. Local government exists to raise a family, grow a business, invest in local infrastructure and protect the local environment. On this, the Bill is silent. Instead, we get 380 pages of schedules and impenetrable processes so complex and convoluted that they come round to meet themselves in the opposite direction without working out whether they benefit either the resident or the firm.
As if to prove that point, whole parts of the Bill contain duplicative provisions for mayoral and non-mayoral authorities, with extra discriminations between London and everywhere else in a metropolitan apartheid that is all about shoring up Labour’s electoral heartland at the expense of everyone else. There are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. Some 3,108 electors get to choose a councillor in London but in the shire counties it is typically more than 10,000. That is a cynical dilution of democracy.
Schedule 26 is all about reorganisation everywhere apart from London and the mets in Birmingham and Manchester—funny, that. It is nothing less than a gerrymander to save Labour’s councillors in the city while pursuing Labour’s war on the countryside by other means.
The Bill’s title is a confidence trick that promises more structures, not fewer. There will be mayors able to raise unlimited taxes for things they have no control over, new combined authorities with dodgy decision-making provisions, and confusion between tiers. Even smaller-scale powers such as taxi licensing will be transferred up to strategic authorities without the systems, staff or experience to execute them. Proud city councils will be disbanded and relegated to parish council status with unconstrained council tax raising powers.
There will be a vandalisation of our historic county boroughs and cathedral cities, which will lose their identity and civic pride, including their lord mayors, sheriffs and lieutenants. County councils with their pension funds, which the Chancellor wants to control, will be split up. There will be destroying of the districts, which do the things that people value most, with net budgets of only around £10 million to £12 million but which scoop up the most vulnerable people Labour tells us they are most concerned about.
Worse, we now get a new war on the motorist, with new civil enforcement powers for traffic contraventions. This is not a Bill about empowerment; it is about disempowerment and centralisation. It is a disembowelment of local accountability, because part of community empowerment is all about helping people to stand for election, but the Bill actually makes it harder for single mums or community-minded businessmen to stand, with larger councils further away from people and relying more and more on the rich and retired motorist. That is the effect of Labour’s vision for devolution and empowerment: more layers taking powers further away from people while creating a new professionalised councillor class.
I have heard it said that this will save money, but the people who called for this in 2020 now say it will not save a bean. Look at Somerset, bankrupted by an LGR process that is now to be visited elsewhere, and pension strain costs of at least £1 billion, which we know will have to be factored in but have so far not been calculated, to be borne by the local ratepayer. As for the parishes, Salisbury council, for example, was converted from a city to a district, and council tax for a £383 band D is up 44% in four years—a stealth tax if ever there was one.
Fly-tipped right at the end of the Bill are some provisions on investment-sapping commercial rent reviews, as if that improves devolution or community empowerment. It is well-meaning but counterproductive. Let us pin the tail on the donkey: everyone affected will pay more for less. It is all about top down, not bottom up. We should send the Bill back under the Trade Descriptions Act: it is about neither devolution nor community empowerment.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I think I have just entered a parallel universe. The real clue to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill lies in its title. While I will touch on structures, my real interest in the Bill centres upon community empowerment. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s commitment to devolution, and the Act will be the most significant step forward for a decade. The statement that powers and funding are the floor and not the ceiling of where we want to get to is most welcome.
The newly announced ability for metro mayors to implement the overnight visitor levy is another significant step forward and will help English cities such as Liverpool compete on a more equal footing for international events and visitors.
In my view, there is no one better placed to lead on the Bill than my noble friend the Minister. Having served as the leader of Stevenage Council from 2006 to 2022, she fully understands the complexities of different tiers of local government and is demonstrably committed to effective, devolved local governance and its truly important role in delivering quality public services as close as possible to the needs of local citizens, especially in deprived communities.
Having had the privilege of representing the north-west of England, with a population of 6.8 million and over 40 local authorities—including Stockport—I came from a region of largely unitaries, combined local authorities and city regions. When my mum got ill, I moved back to the West Midlands, where we currently have town, district and county local government. While we have excellent local councillors, many of whom I am proud to call my friends, it has taken me two years, with some experience of having been a local councillor in Liverpool myself, to truly decipher which layer of government is responsible for what.
I truly believe in the role of local government to understand the possibilities of local regeneration and strategic planning; effective landlord licensing schemes; unlocking resources in, for instance, pension schemes, to regenerate local communities and town and city centres; joined-up, affordable, accessible public transport; and, most importantly, understanding that physical regeneration alone does not work, but that it has to be accompanied by innovative training, apprenticeships and lifelong learning, to ensure that local people are equipped to maximise local job opportunities.
It also has to embrace a just transition to ensure that workers are equipped with the skills to move from declining industries to the high-GDP jobs in the emerging industries of the future. Every three year-old girl should be given the creative education to set her on the path to shape her own future. We know where growth is coming from: the creative industries and clean, green energy, for example. Who better to plan for growth than locally accountable strategic authorities?
I firmly believe that Manchester, for instance, is better placed to seize the opportunities for Manchester than Whitehall, and that having only national standards for taxis and private hire cannot work. Bury knows the needs of Bury rather than out of area licensing, which, in my view, should be stopped. There are more taxis licensed in Wolverhampton operating in Manchester than in Wolverhampton. This is potentially dangerous. I also strongly welcome the proposed creation of a strong local audit office to ensure effective delivery of local plans.
In the clean energy Bill in the EU, we proposed local energy communities to enable local people to plan and benefit from the creation and delivery of local energy. However, I say to the Minister that we argued that in order to be effective, these had to be resourced and financed.
My noble friend the Minister knows that a key challenge is how devolving funding and powers to neighbourhoods can really and effectively get local people involved. In my view, this requires resources. Accountability of any resourcing is key. We must also seize this opportunity to achieve the joined-up delivery of public services: politics being done with, not to communities.
We also have to embrace the fact that different areas are at different starting points and may need additional help. We must enable the exchange of good practice and support between regions. Before the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, we had the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, AGMA, so there was a history of the 10 local authorities working together and cofinancing innovative initiatives in culture, for example. Greater Manchester CA therefore had a head start. No such model existed in Merseyside. I am, however, very proud of how GMCA and Liverpool City Region have worked together to support one another. In resourcing, we have to be cognisant of different starting points and regional differences and needs, especially in rural communities. Having represented Liverpool, European Capital of Culture in 2008, I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider adding culture, creativity and heritage as defined areas of competence.
In strengthening our ties with partners in Europe, the role of elected mayors is key. Carlos Zorrinho, a newly elected mayor in Portugal with a proven track record of delivering digital skills, is working with mayors in the UK. I worked closely with the EU Covenant of Mayors but was acutely aware that while Manchester and Liverpool were prominent, Carlisle was not. How do we achieve a more level playing field? Using the Covenant of Mayors as a convenient consultation tool excluded swathes of my region. How do we achieve consultation that is profound and reaches all areas?
Having a lifelong commitment to local governance, I am delighted to welcome the objectives of the Bill. The question to my noble friend the Minister is how we work to achieve them.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin.
I note my interest as the Earl of Devon and—perhaps unsurprisingly—will speak to the impact of the Bill on that county, where I co-chair the Exeter Partnership, promoting the interface between the city and its rural hinterland. I am a programme board member for the Great South West, and I liaised with Devon County Council and Exeter City Council on their respective—but regrettably conflicting—local government review proposals. I sat on the recent Devon Housing Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I am a partner in a law firm originating in Devon that practises in many areas impacted by the Bill. I also operate a Devon-based heritage, land and farming business, which interacts with various tiers of local government, not least in licensing, economic development and planning.
Despite so many touchpoints, I am not a politician, so, like the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, I remain somewhat mystified by the workings of local government and its many levels. I am therefore benefiting immensely from the wisdom of this informed and erudite debate. If I remain ignorant of local government after a decade of involvement, I am concerned about how we educate and inform those who might be less engaged. Many people—the typical local resident; the consumer of local public services who is due to elect their local leadership after the passage of this Bill; the new strategic mayors; and the new unitary local councillors—must be bemused by the complexities of local governance, with its various and changing boundaries and tiers. Perhaps this explains the lack of participation in local authority elections, about which we have heard. Voters simply do not know what they are asked to vote for.
To the extent that the Bill simplifies matters and creates a consistent and level playing field across England, it therefore has my tentative support. But can the Minister outline what plans are in place to provide an education for the nation on the reforms that are taking place, so that we decrease the disenfranchisement that arises from our collective ignorance?
As a feudalist who owes his presence here to the regional autonomy of the south-west during the 13th and 14th centuries, I can only applaud the Government’s efforts to return us to the status quo ante. It is ironic that, as we are banished from Westminster due to our antiquated nature, the Government seek to return to the regionalism that typified the Plantagenet era. That was before the trauma of the Wars of the Roses, which caused the Tudors to centralise authority, thereby creating one of the most centralised countries in the world, which now has some of the highest levels of geographic inequality in Europe.
Historical context aside, given the poverty suffered by once-prosperous rural and coastal communities in the south-west, the peninsula’s best bet for economic and social development stems from greater regional autonomy, so that it can look to its strengths—the traditions of trade, innovation and exploration—to chart a path to a sustainable and better future. I therefore support the broad ambitions of the Bill, but I reserve judgment until I understand how it will impact the south-west. Specifically, what form of strategic authority does His Majesty’s Government foresee for the region? Was Luke Pollard correct when he told the Great South West conference that Cornwall cannot go it alone and must combine with its neighbours to form a strategic mayoralty? That would necessarily mix the cream with the jam, I say with a nod to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Equally, what does local government reorganisation look like for Devon? I understand that the closing date for LGR submissions saw a smorgasbord of proposals from Plymouth, Torbay, Exeter and Devon councils, and maybe more—indicative perhaps of the county’s long-standing tradition of political diversity. How will those different proposals be resolved? Was it really wise to invite existing local governments to propose their own reorganisation, when their response will necessarily be informed by their own political interests? Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas.
Perhaps a more pressing concern is what will happen in the interim while local government is reshaped. Looking specifically at housing and the target of 1.5 million new homes, planning departments surely need to be focused on nothing but delivery. However, with recent amendments to the NPPF and the upheavals due to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the landscape for local planning is in great flux. Add to that the promise of wholesale local government reorganisation—some 10 planning authorities in Devon are due to be rationalised to two, three or maybe four unitary authorities—and we can only pity the local departments, which are generally understaffed and overworked and may not even have a job in a few years’ time. The Devon Housing Commission found that one of the major challenges to the delivery of affordable housing was uncertainty in the planning process, and that will only get worse.
Also of concern is the status of rural communities. The Government must be aware of the productivity gap between rural and urban, as well as the terrible poverty that exists, often unnoticed, in rural and coastal communities. As an advocate for the interdependence between rural and urban societies, I believe that we should seek, wherever possible, better integration of the two for the benefit of both. However, there is a danger that the specific challenges of rural communities will be ignored and even exacerbated where they are governed by a leadership that has a predominantly urban interest. The expansion of strategic authority coverage will include large swathes of rural England for the first time, and steps must be taken to ensure that rural residents are protected and able to thrive. There is not a single mention of “rural” in the Bill’s 360 pages, so I invite the Government to consider amendments to establish a rural commissioner as well as duties to consider rural needs.
There are multiple further aspects of the Bill that are of interest, including the environmental and climate change competences. With my tech lawyer hat on, I note that the future-proofing of local private hire vehicles is of some interest, particularly having spent time in California, where Waymo autonomous vehicles are predominant. With my property barrister hat on, I will be interested to understand the policy behind the abolition of upwards-only rent reviews. On assets of community value, I recommend to the House the tireless work of the Plunkett Foundation; I look to forward to sharing with noble Lords its insightful work in this space.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am not sure that I entirely concur with his view of Plantagenet governance, although I note that the Angevin Empire was distinctly a European structure.
I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and of the NALC. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said.
Democracy is at the foundation of Green political philosophy. Democracy means decisions being made locally by the people affected and referred upwards only when absolutely necessary. Despite its thoroughly misleading title, the Bill involves not devolution of power but Westminster directing what should happen in local areas, communities being disempowered by the loss of local representatives, and the imposition of a single “strong leader” model of a mayor, without any deep responsibilities for local engagement. More than that, those mayors will be subject to little local scrutiny and oversight. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, just how wrongly that can go, through her example of the Teesworks project.
There has been much hand-wringing about the apparent loss of trust, particularly among young people, in democracy. But democracy should be about much more than an election of a single person every four years—and, as we have seen in the postponement of four of next year’s scheduled local mayoral elections, at the whim of the Government in far-off Westminster. Before we give up on democracy, we should try it.
To take one example, I will discuss Clause 59 and Schedule 25, which saw a hard-fought win by Greens and others in the other place. Those provisions will enable Sheffield and other communities—Sheffield is particularly close to my heart, as I was part of the campaign—to allow councils currently operating a committee system to keep it for varying renewable periods. That is great—a concession from Westminster for local power—but why was it necessary to fight so hard to keep local decisions in place, particularly in Sheffield, where a local referendum secured huge community support for this far more democratic model of local governance?
Why are this Government, as with previous ones, so opposed to democracy? Do they not understand what damage centralised control and direction are doing? Do they not understand that 29 councils are already in financial crisis, with a fresh warning today that more will fall into this position after the new funding settlement is announced this month? As the LGA explained today, cost and demand pressures are unrelenting, particularly in children’s and adult social care, homelessness and SEND, all areas where councils are forced, in effect, to be the agents of central government-determined statutory responsibilities. That is not local empowerment but local desperation and rightful anger at the failure of local government to deliver local priorities because it simply does not have the cash.
There is one area of positivity in local government, in town and parish councils, which, under a decade and a half of austerity, have often been forced—sometimes gladly—to pick up many of the responsibilities previously carried out by larger authorities. Many of them have done it extremely well, efficiently and democratically. But there is a problem: it tends to be the more privileged communities with longer histories—a market town, say—that have these structures, while a large, relatively new council or other estate, where representation is most urgently needed, is now further away from it than ever.
There is little time and so much in the Bill, so I will tick off some further issues that I am going to be picking up on Report. On community wealth building, rather than allowing a few to profit while the rest of us pay for privatised and outsourced services, seeing community facilities sold into developers’ hands—so often for luxury apartments, it appears—and lost as community spaces for ever, why does the Bill not take steps to allow an inclusive and democratically owned economy? That is a question for the Minister.
The environment is such a crucial issue for community health and well-being on these islands that are some of the most nature-depleted on this battered planet. I note the extensive briefings received from Peers for the Planet and the Wildlife Trusts, which stress how out of date and how very mid-2000s the Bill and the Government’s approach are.
The 2025 council climate action scorecards found that progress improved by only 5% between 2023 and 2025. We can all see, in the floods, droughts and heatwaves, how much faster we have to go. As the LGA consultation concluded,
“local authorities need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding, and robust support to lead on climate action”.
I note that more than 500 councillors, including Andy Burnham, have signed an open letter calling for more statutory responsibilities. In Committee I will bring forward amendments, I suspect with others, to seek to address these issues.
To pick up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the Better Planning Coalition, the Bill is urban-focused, as are this Government. Adding rural affairs as an area of competence and, where relevant, providing for a rural affairs commissioner—if we have to have the undemocratic structure of commissioner at all—would certainly aid local democracy and ensure some catering to desperately underconsidered communities.
Finally, and briefly, resilience is a crucial issue in this age of hybrid warfare, climate, nature and health shocks, and the dreadfully fragile for-profit infrastructure on which oligopolistic multinational companies have forced us all to rely. We need to see democracy to build local resilience. The Bill will not deliver that.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I also declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As a passionate localist, someone who strongly believes in devolving power to the lowest possible level, I was rather excited to hear that there was a devolution White Paper and subsequent Bill. But sadly, as for many of my noble friends, the excitement evaporated pretty quickly. The Bill is not about subsidiarity; it is Whitehall giving out a few goodies but with strings and budgets very much attached and controlled from the centre. This is not devolution in my book.
Compared with other OECD countries, the UK remains one of the most fiscally centralised countries. Data from the OECD’s revenue statistics shows that in recent years, no more than 6% of the UK’s total tax revenue has been raised locally. This is about half the OECD average. Whitehall needs to let go and devolve far more funding and services to local and regional government. Fiscal devolution—as we see in cities and localities around the world—alongside a fairer voting system, would allow local innovation and creativity and would help reset politics. Sadly, these are all absent from the Bill.
I will focus my concerns on a few specific areas. The Bill provides insufficient scrutiny of strategic mayors and authorities. The mayoral model is being rolled out across the country without the strong check and balance that is needed. In the Commons, the Minister said:
“I assure the Cttee we will consider how to strengthen the scrutiny of strategic authorities, because I completely agree that as they acquire more powers, it is right we have accountability and scrutiny frameworks that are robust and fit for purpose, to ensure they are held to account for how they use the powers we confer on them”.—[Official Report, Commons, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, 28/10/25; col. 521.]
Perhaps the Minister could update us on the work to strengthen the scrutiny of these new mayors.
There is also an assumption that London has had devolution through the 1999 Act and the amendment Act—tick, job done—but that is not the case. The reality is that the mayor has been given increasing areas to oversee over many years and now has a budget well over £21 billion. Yet the London Assembly, the other half of the Greater London Authority, has not seen an appropriate increase in its powers, and the Bill proposes even more powers to the mayor.
Having been an assembly member for 16 years, I know at first hand that some additional powers are needed to strengthen the scrutiny of the Mayor of London and partner agencies, and ensure that services are being delivered effectively and efficiently. I therefore ask the Minister: what engagement did the Government have with the London Assembly ahead of the Bill? It is clear that the assembly needs stronger powers, such as a wider power of summons and a change to the threshold for the budget. I will bring forward amendments in Committee to address these concerns.
The other areas to which I wish to draw attention at this stage are related to transport. Over recent years we have seen the explosion in micromobility, e-bikes and scooters, covering our pavements and streets. They are a lifeline for many who use them to get about our cities at pace and convenience but are a nightmare for those with mobility issues or visual impairments or for young families having to negotiate routes around these obstacles dumped all over the pavements. Local authorities are unable to license or manage these bikes or set safety standards for them.
While it is welcome that the Bill covers this area, neither the Bill nor the accompanying guidance includes explicit requirements on mayors or strategic authorities to engage with constituent authorities on the development of micromobility schemes. An upfront duty would ensure that engagement at all stages is robust and covers all instances. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on this matter.
My final issue, which has been raised a number of times, relates to private hire and taxi licensing and regulation. While welcome, the amendment introducing national minimum standards does not go far enough, and it feels as if this issue is being kicked into the long grass.
I have been talking to transport authorities across the country; they are all concerned about out-of-area licensing. This is a safeguarding issue. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her June 2025 report on group-based child sexual exploitation, as the Minister mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that the Government
“should take immediate action to put a stop to ‘out of area taxis’”.
Noble Lords might be wondering why this is an issue. Different authorities have different standards in their licensing regimes, and if you want to operate in an area, you should be licensed for that area.
As we have heard several times, in Manchester 49% of drivers are currently licensed in Wolverhampton. This means that Manchester local authorities have no say over the standards of drivers and vehicles in the city, nor the resource and right to carry out inspections. This is a huge safeguarding issue and a loophole that needs closing. Will the Minister work with me and Members across the House to close this dangerous safeguarding gap?
I look forward to working to improve the Bill to ensure local empowerment, genuine devolution and safer transport for all.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill and I welcome the Minister to her place. Just when she thought she was going to have a quiet life, another Bill comes along.
We heard earlier that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall by giving local leaders the tools to deliver growth, fix the foundations of local government and empower communities. How precisely will this work in rural communities?
I spoke against the orders for the combined authority and the mayor for York and North Yorkshire and I think that my concerns have been proven right. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I shared similar views at the time. The population of North Yorkshire and York combined is 768,000. The area is too big geographically but not big enough numerically to make this worthwhile. For the last five years, I was in the most rural part of the constituency that I represented. If I drove 200 miles in one day, I would barely touch the sides of the constituency. How a mayor is expected to get round, meet people and represent that area is a challenge for anybody and I wish him well.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It is a him.
I believe that democracy is grass-roots, certainly in rural areas. The building blocks are parish councils, districts, boroughs and counties. It is very confusing. I was three times subject to Boundary Commission reviews in my parliamentary career—once as a European MP and twice as an MP. When we keep meddling and making more mysteries to local government, as we are doing in this Bill, it discourages people from going out to vote, because they do not know which area of government or which authority they are living in. We were promised that, if we got rid of the districts and boroughs in North Yorkshire, we would save money. We then had a metro mayor imposed on us, and most of the rural dwellers stayed at home. Politically, it was not a riotous success for us in North Yorkshire. We lost our overall majority. So it is going to be a challenge as successive elections take place. The lowest turnout was for the police commissioner election—something that was imported from the States. It might work well there, but it certainly did not work well in rural parts of North Yorkshire.
I share common cause with noble Lords who have spoken in favour of rural commissioners. There is a great case for saying that in deeply rural areas we must have a rural commissioner in place. Better still, could we go back to having rural-proofing of all policy across the piece? That would help very much. I look forward to working with the Minister and others in the House when we move to Committee to make the Bill work in this regard.
When it comes to funding, if I have understood correctly, there is going to be a levy for transport. How are the Government going to square the extra responsibilities on combined authorities, particularly when it comes to solar farms and battery storage plants, both of which are highly flammable? If the fire service has to attend to these, it will put an extra call and extra resource implications on them. I would be interested to know how the Government expect to fund this if it cannot be met out of general funding at this time.
There are areas which I support. I support the provisions on out-of-area services. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, did the House and the country a great service by showing how that was part of how grooming gangs were able to target their victims. It is not just in Wolverhampton and Manchester. There are problems right across North Yorkshire and the north-east. I think there are still problems with Uber and it is right and proper that these services should be brought under the Bill.
I am grateful to Guide Dogs for its briefing. There is still the issue that about 58% of guide dog owners are reportedly turned away by taxi or private hire vehicles, despite this being a criminal offence. Will the Government address this as part of the Bill to make sure that there is a better understanding? I am very proud that it was a Conservative Government under my noble friend Lord Hague who introduced what became the Disability Discrimination Act, which made enormous strides in this field. I hope this issue can be addressed as part of this Bill.
The Bill sounds excellent in theory. How it will be delivered in practice, particularly in rural areas, will be a real challenge. I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. There is a key issue to be addressed of funding drainage boards where they do exist to make sure that they have the means to do their excellent work in keeping us all safe from floods.
I welcome the Bill as it stands but hope to improve it and to reintroduce the agent of change principle, this time successfully.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet.
I welcome this Bill, but I feel for the Minister. She has just about finished the Herculean task of taking the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Renters’ Rights Act through this House. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, this is another doorstop of a Bill for her to take through.
This is a very important Bill on something that many Governments have grappled with over many years. So far, it has been tackled in quite a piecemeal way. There is a real need for that strategic-level approach to complete that process and seize all the benefits of comprehensive devolution across the UK.
I have worked for many years on regional issues in the Midlands. Noble Lords have mentioned many areas of the UK in this evening’s debate, but not yet the Midlands. The Midlands is a great test bed or case study for the issues we are talking about. When I came into Parliament, we had a single combined authority in the Midlands—the West Midlands Combined Authority—but there was nothing across the rest of the region. Where I was, in Derby, in the East Midlands, we looked on the west with a little envy. At the time, Andy Street had huge levels of success in being that voice and in bringing large levels of public and private investment into the West Midlands, while we in the East Midlands were lagging far behind. Now things have moved on. We have the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the Lincolnshire Combined County Authority as well.
There are issues with the way in which this devolution is being approached. I go back to something that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, brought out. He made a very perceptive comment on what was then the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill, earlier in the Session, which was looking at Skills England. The noble Lord said that devolution was something we could all get behind as a concept but, in doing so, we create joins and barriers that were not present before, and we have to learn how to get through those barriers that we have created.
From observing a lot of the legislation that has gone through the House in this Session, I have noted many areas where that is a problem. For example, I have talked about skills. The Government’s approach to skills in Skills England has been driven through combined authorities. Even though we now have three combined authorities in the Midlands, more than half the population lives in areas outside a combined authority, so they cannot take the benefits of some of these initiatives.
We have seen the same in the Social Mobility Committee, which has just reported on the approach to social mobility. The Youth Guarantee Trailblazers are being driven through combined authorities. Of course, that will be resolved in time through the Government’s plans but, even when we move to a model of strategic authorities that cover the whole country, we will need to break down those barriers and I suggest that a pan-regional level is the best place to do that: to look at investment into regions, skills, energy and social mobility. These are areas which require this broader, pan-regional approach. So I look forward to working with noble Lords in Committee to think about how we can put more of a broader—perhaps a pan-regional—structure into this, which is something that was brought out strongly in the Government’s White Paper as well.
My second point is that the Bill is surprisingly silent on energy. If we look at the areas of competence in Clause 2, a number of areas are brought out—transport, skills, housing, et cetera—but energy is conspicuous by its absence. There is a need for clarity here on how these strategic authorities are going, for example, to work with Great British Energy, and on the role of regional energy strategic plans and local area energy plans. We will need some discussion in Committee on how energy will be factored into the role of these new strategic authorities.
On the environment as well, we are retreading some of the discussion that we had on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but the planning role of these strategic authorities needs to align with the strategic priorities of the country: environment and net zero. This carries on from our earlier discussion. I want to bring back in Committee how the planning system can better align with these strategic priorities to ensure that what gets built by strategic authorities aligns with those goals, and to empower the strategic authorities to deliver on those goals.
To finish, the vision is there. Many of the issues that the country has faced in recent decades can be traced back to that centralisation of power and opportunity. The regions have been left behind—the geographic inequality that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned—and the way to resolve that is to devolve power and resources and use all that local knowledge to revive the regions and, not least, deliver the Government’s economic growth agenda.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Devon: I will speak about Cornwall, but I will also mention our brothers and sisters in Devon at a certain point.
I start with a serious point. As Members will know, Cornwall is in the far south-west of the United Kingdom: only the Isles of Scilly are further south-west. It is a Celtic nation that is surrounded by the ocean, primarily, and a little bit of the River Tamar as well. It is also an area of the country, together with parts of Devon and the Tamar Valley, that was part of the first industrial revolution, not just in this country but globally, in terms of its extraction of minerals, tin and copper, and international trade with the Phoenicians way back in classical history, and it is a nation that is now looking at providing the nation with the mineral lithium so that, in Somerset, our first and only gigafactory can produce its output with British raw materials. It is also a nation that is surely one of the first sources of quality food and drink and all of that area.
Culturally—culture has been mentioned a great deal in this debate—it is the only part of the realm outside of Ireland, Wales and Scotland that has its own language, Cornish, which is recognised by the Council of Europe through the charter for minority languages and recognised by the Government as well. So it is an important part of the United Kingdom.
Although most of my colleagues here have been very critical of the Government and their proposals at the moment, the one thing I will definitely congratulate them on is Steve Reed’s announcement two weeks ago that Cornwall should have—let me get it exactly right—a “single foundation strategic authority”. That has been very much welcomed through the work of Cornwall’s six Members of Parliament—four Labour and two Liberal Democrat—and indeed the leadership of Cornwall Council under its Liberal Democrat and Independent leadership. So I want to thank the Minister for that move forward and the clarity that there is, and its importance for the people of Cornwall. I should explain that I am not Cornish myself. My family were migrants from Denmark into Suffolk in the 10th century. But residents in Cornwall feel that the personality of the land they live in and its culture are of importance to them, not just to those who were born and have long traditions there.
With those congratulations, my questions to the Minister are the following. First, will all strategic authorities be able to become members of the Council of the Nations and Regions? At the moment, that is quite an exclusive club in terms of authorities and, in the past, Cornwall has been excluded, even though the terms of reference make it sound as if it is for all authorities with “devolved responsibilities”. Clearly, all strategic authorities would have that.
Secondly, Clause 51 allows the established strategic authorities to come back to the Secretary of State and ask for extra powers. We do not want to see a caste system of strategic authorities, which would be very dangerous for the future. Could that ability to ask for further devolution be moved out to all strategic authorities?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. I am sure my colleagues would hope that a similar thing could be extended elsewhere, but I welcome it for Cornwall. I stress that we are not anti the rest of the south-west at all: we work very closely with other local authorities in the south-west. Although the noble Earl, Lord Devon, may put his clotted cream on his scones before the jam, we do not hold that against our brothers in Devon, even though we have a different culture ourselves.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to raise a particular issue at this Second Reading debate on a Bill which I am very pleased to support. The issue is the need for legislative change to address out-of-area taxi licensing, which has been raised several times in the debate today. This is part of a campaign led by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham—who, by the way, is quite popular—and council leaders in the devolved Greater Manchester Authority, entitled “Backing Our Taxis: Local. Licenced. Trusted”, which calls for more local accountability to drive higher taxi standards and stronger public safety, and to safeguard the livelihoods of drivers. As a former chair of the licensing committee on Manchester City Council, I welcome that initiative.
On Report in the other place, as we have heard already today from the Minister, the Government introduced an amendment to the Bill that would provide the Secretary of State for Transport with the power to introduce national minimum standards for the licensing arrangements for drivers, operators and vehicles. This should present a valuable opportunity for greater consistency, improve public confidence and improve support across the sector. However, its success will depend on the reasonableness and appropriateness of these standards and, most importantly, on their implementation and ensuring compliance with them. The Bill does not yet set out what these national standards would be, but this can be further debated as it progresses in this House.
However, while it is very positive that the Government are willing to add taxi and private hire services into the scope of the Bill, a key concern remains, as we have heard on several occasions tonight, that out-of-area operations remain unaddressed. This was particularly highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her contribution. As the Minister referenced, the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted the challenges that out-of-area taxis have presented to local authorities trying to enforce standards to protect children at the risk of child sexual exploitation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, noted, the report recommended that the Government take immediate action to put a stop to out-of-area taxis and bring in more rigorous statutory standards for local authority licensing and regulation of taxi drivers.
The Government accepted the report’s recommendations, including for the Department for Transport to take immediate action to stop out-of-area practices, as we have heard. We have also noted that many licensees operate predominantly outside the district in which they have been licensed. As a resident of Manchester, I see numerous licence plates from Wolverhampton every time I walk into my local village.
Mayor Andy Burnham and Greater Manchester leaders have supported Elsie Blundell MP, who has been championing the out-of-area issue in the other place. She tabled a new clause for an optional “license where you operate” model, which will give mayoral strategic authorities power to require that journeys wholly within their strategic area are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. There may be other options than this proposed amendment, which I am sure we can debate at a later stage, as the Bill progresses.
What is most important today is that there is no clear government stance on advancing the Casey recommendation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will clarify the Government’s position on this when she responds to the debate, so that we can clearly determine whether further legislative change will be required during the passage of the Bill.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing this 371-page Bill. I declare an interest as a deputy lieutenant of Hertfordshire. I am well aware of the high regard in which the Minister is rightly held in our county, across the political spectrum.
Noble Lords may wonder why the Government are pushing for more elected mayors while, at the same time, forcing areas that still operate under a two-tier system to switch to a single-tier system. This move involves dismantling traditional counties and creating new unitary councils. On the one hand, the Government claim that two-tier local governments are bad, because people feel remote from decision-making—hence the push for unitary councils; on the other, they seek to impose new second-tier authorities in the form of strategic mayoral authorities through a top-down approach.
The closest level of local government to communities are town and parish councils, which deserve more attention, especially after the abolition of district councils. If the aim to replace county councils with smaller unitary councils is to bring decision-making closer to communities, why are the Government transferring powers to larger strategic authorities? Moreover, the Bill grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers, including the authority to create new strategic authorities and mayors without local councils’ consent.
I know that the Minister loves Hertfordshire, but I am concerned that the implications of unitarisation and the break-up of counties are not fully understood. The word “unitary” is horrible. I regret the destruction of our historic counties. Philip Larkin wrote in his 1972 poem “Going, Going”:
“And that will be England gone,
The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,
The guildhalls, the carved choirs”.
The guildhalls are going, including the magnificent County Hall in Hertford, where I recently attended a mayor-making ceremony. I wonder what Larkin would say about the ongoing local government reorganisation.
The Minister argues that the identity of traditional counties will not be affected by the move to unitaries. I am far from convinced. As a child, I remember that Sussex was thought of as one county but, after the Local Government Act 1972, even the lord-lieutenant’s and high sheriff’s offices were replaced by appointments for East and West Sussex. The historic counties of England were established by the Normans for administrative purposes. They have also helped to define local culture and identity. Stripped of any relevance to local government, the so-called ceremonial counties will gradually be confined to the history books and lose their practical relevance. If counties such as Wiltshire, Dorset and Buckinghamshire can basically remain as single counties, why cannot Hertfordshire and Essex?
Aside from the significant extra costs involved in setting up a new tier of local government, I am sceptical that there will be any savings from this reorganisation. Many councillors who support it do so for political not administrative reasons. Hertfordshire has been well managed as a county and the old adage—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it—should apply in this case. The Government seem to lack understanding of the importance of community identity or of the function of history and political geography. I believe that we proceed with this compulsory reorganisation at our peril.
The argument that people do not understand where decisions are made between county and district councils is not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water. The new strategic authorities created by the Bill will control most of the funding and services, such as police, fire, social care and NHS. This means that decisions affecting residents will be taken further away from communities, not closer, as the Government claim. Does the Minister believe that people will understand the complex web of new authorities—CAs, CCAs, SAs, MSAs, FSAs, EMSAs, et cetera? Most people could understand the difference between district and county councils, but the confusion began when districts stopped calling themselves district councils. I suspect that, in the future, people will have much less understanding of where crucial decisions are made.
Councillor Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, has stated that mayors should not undermine the role of councils but work with them to drive growth, build infrastructure and deliver better local services. However, it is clear that the creation of mayors will significantly diminish the role of councils, which are undergoing expensive and unwanted restructuring at the same time. This has the makings of a disaster, particularly in the absence of strong leadership to manage such a large-scale reorganisation.
A recent headline from the Bishop’s Stortford Independent about the “dog’s dinner” of the plans for new authorities sums up the situation well. The Conservative group at Hertfordshire County Council staged a walkout on 19 November, because it was given no option to vote against all three proposed options for unitary councils. I agree with Councillor Nick Cox of the Green Party, who said that Labour’s plans are
“a coup against local democracy delivered with a smile and a flow chart … We are asked to choose between two, three, or four unitaries. That’s like asking the passengers to vote on the band’s encore when the Titanic is already sinking”.
There is a credible alternative—a single county-wide unitary authority, with as much power devolved to local town and parish councils as possible. Even in districts where the majority of councillors support one of the three proposed options, there is widespread doubt about any savings and concern about the disruption that this will cause to vital services such as social care. Some councillors fear years of chaos as new structures bed in. Anyone who believes that breaking up the county’s £1.7 billion highways deal into smaller contracts will lead to savings is mistaken.
In conclusion, the Government’s plans for local government reorganisation are fraught with risks. They undermine both local identity and efficient governance, and they add unnecessary complexity and costs without delivering any clear benefits. I look forward to working with others to persuade the Government to reconsider their approach before it is too late.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I speak today with some fear in my soul because, unusually for a Liberal Democrat, I have very little grounding in local government—or, as one of my colleagues said to me, “not yet”. So, fearing that candidate selection with my arm jacked up behind my back will follow, I will say one or two things about the Bill in front of us.
One thing on which I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is that most people do not understand local government. But I disagree with another. I did a little service for the RFU a few years ago explaining local government planning issues and it was quite clear that most of the people involved did not know the difference between a district council and a county council. They had no knowledge of it, because they were a group of people who were committed to a bit of the public service—in this case sport—and who went training, played, manned their committees and even went to work and had love lives. They did not have time to understand the structure of local government and did not realise that until they bumped into it when something was going wrong and said, “Oh, do we have to do that?” The Local Government Association helped me with that.
We then went and spoke to other sports and—guess what—it was the same there. These local structures, which are often designed on historical county lines, have been there for a long time and have ignored the changes in local government whenever they could, have not spoken to each other because they are doing their own thing in their own time. Local governments, often run on local political structures by local volunteers, have exactly the same problems—they do not meet very often and until something goes wrong. Will the Minister undertake to make sure that, when these local government changes come through, there is an active programme of integrating them with these large voluntary groups across the country? Sports should be one of the first, but it goes through. How do they interact? By local transport. If you do not have a bus stop, you do not have a junior team because they do not have cars. That is a problem you will have when you are explaining to somebody who wants to move their club outside the area to a wonderful new site. The developer who has offered you the sun probably cannot offer you a bus service. All these things have to be explained and integrated. If we are going to make these changes, please can the Minister go in and talk to these groups? That should also catch other cultural groups who should be mentioned in this.
What is the relationship between these bodies and public health? Establishing an exercise habit for reasons other than the fact you are told to by your doctor is a very good way of keeping going. You are also involved in the cultural interactions of a group, which is very good for mental health as well. It is also an informal job market and something that allows you to meet people outside your normal group, which helps understanding. Why do we not help them more? These are self-sustaining groups that are probably struggling to get by. Government, particularly local government, really should be reaching out. Please can we do that? This Bill is an opportunity to start doing this. Try to reach out and find out what is going on. We could expand on this into minute detail, but I am at the edge of absurdity here, so I will stop very soon.
What are the Government going to do to reach voluntary groups? Sporting groups would be a good place to start, but they are not the end of it. How will the changes happen? How will you reach out and change their lives for the better? If you do not, the wall of ignorance that exists—it is not even a wall; it is a pit that you fall into—is there. These bodies do not interact; they have their own politics and agendas. They do not have time to get in touch with yours on a casual basis. You need to form bridges in a regional structure. Even unitary authorities might be a good way to start.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I think I might have discovered why Governments of all flavours make their legislation so heavy and long—in the case of this Bill, 371 pages, 93 clauses and 34 schedules. It is to enable any Peer to speak about the one subject they know about at Second Reading. That is very generous, because several clauses are to solve long-term problems in the taxi industry and that is what I want to talk about.
I must first declare my interests. I have been connected with the taxi trade for about 45 years and I own my own wheelchair-accessible licensed taxi. Historically, I was the group CEO of Manganese Bronze Holdings plc, which voluntarily introduced the first production wheelchair-accessible London taxi in 1997.
I want to mention the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Thirty years ago may seem to the young people in the transport department to be legislative archaeology, but the wonderful Library here has dug out the history of this legislation. Section 32 of the 1995 Act says that the department
“may make regulations … for the purpose of securing that it is possible … for disabled persons … to get into and out of taxis in safety”
and
“to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort”.
The Government did not actually make the regulations, and the DDA Act was repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. The same clauses were carried through in Section 160 of that Act, but the same inactivity was carried through too. The House of Lords did post-legislative scrutiny on the Equality Act and disability, and the Liaison Committee did so again in 2021. I think that both said the provision should be commenced without further delay. The Government leaped into action, agreed with the committees, and did nothing. So, I believe that the words in Section 32 are still relevant 30 years later. The department “may make regulations”, but has not bothered to do so, and still disabled people with flat batteries are pushing their wheelchairs uphill.
These words pose an obvious question: why have they not been actioned? Is it because there has not been the time in 30 years to action them? The Conservative Party was in power for 16 years, the Labour Party for 14 years, and the Liberal Democrats in coalition for 5 years. All of them have had the power to do something, but nobody has actually done anything. The blame should be shared among the parties represented here; there is ample obloquy for everyone other than the Cross-Benchers to take their fair share.
This is a shameful history, and it should stop. Essentially, Parliament decided to do something and the department decided not to do it but did not have the courage to repeal the legislation. Thirty years is enough. In those 30 years, the number of people who use wheelchairs has grown enormously as longevity has increased. Indeed, I can point out that all of us have used a wheelchair; it is called a baby buggy, and we are very fortunate if it is only at the beginning of our lives when we use a wheelchair.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a speech on 4 March 2022 that impressed me. She mentioned that she had arrived at her local station, Watford, after 11 pm in sleet and snow, and only a very few of the taxis were wheelchair accessible. She had a flat battery, so she had to push her heavy wheelchair because there was not an accessible taxi available. Why did any party in power not do the small work required to get the statutory instrument in place?
I have enormous respect for the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who I know is enthusiastic to solve this wheelchair accessibility problem. I ask the Government two questions: has the department already drafted the statutory instrument needed by the previous Section 32? I presume that that was 30 years ago. When can we see it proposed?
On the Bill itself, where there are new clauses on the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, I ask: why not set a timetable for these excellent clauses, which I thoroughly support? Why does it say “may” and not “must”? Are we debating a 30-year timetable to get these changes done?
The largest problem in the taxi industry is cross-border hiring, which was mentioned earlier. It was a problem mentioned in the Casey report. If a taxi driver can be caught in a crime and lose his licence but carry on working the same place with a new licence from somewhere else, this change to enlarge licensing areas should be made.
There is clearly something suboptimal about the knowledge in London. Butter boys—the London trade’s name for newly qualified drivers—spend three to five years memorising knowledge which is inherently computable. It can be done better on an iPhone than in a brain, because the answer to the question, “How do I get from the House of Lords to Carey Street?”, changes from day to day, depending on who is digging up which road and then staring at the hole.
There may well be significant problems with the rest of the legislation, but I support the taxi clauses. I will propose amendments to compel the Government to bring forward the inclusion of wheelchair accessibility to taxis—a matter agreed no less than 30 years ago.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
My Lords, I will reflect on the journey that has led to the Bill before us. English devolution has not arrived all at once; it has been shaped over time by successive Governments of different political parties, each building on what came before—from the championing by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, of local leadership in economic regeneration, to my late noble friend Lord Prescott, whose Northern Way set out the economic opportunity of stronger regions, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, who worked with George Osborne to translate that economic logic into the modern mayoral model. Although their contributions were informed by different political traditions, they were bound by a shared belief that this country succeeds when power is closer to the people it serves and reflects their needs and aspirations.
Because of that shared endeavour, the landscape has changed dramatically. Eight years ago, there were no metro mayors in the north. Today, we have nine, representing several different political parties. I welcome the Bill’s ambition, building on that cross-party progress, to standardise and strengthen the powers available to mayors and combined authorities that are made up of council leaders. It offers a clearer framework for how devolution should operate, moves us beyond the ad hoc deal-making of the past, and sets a strong direction for the future: that devolution is not a patchwork experiment but a permanent and essential part of how we govern.
The powers in the Bill over skills, transport, housing, regeneration, health and well-being cover exactly the areas where local leadership can make the biggest difference because, out there in the real world, the challenges people face are not neatly divided into departments but intrinsically connected and overlap varying government departments. That is why decisions taken locally and regionally better reflect need. A lack of affordable housing affects employment, poor transportation limits access to training, and health outcomes are shaped by all of the above. The mayor in my region, Kim McGuinness, is using her formal powers and wider convening role to help address child poverty. She strongly supports the ending of the two-child limit to benefits announced by the Chancellor recently in the Budget.
If we do not give our mayors powers to address all those challenges, we should not be surprised when the same problems persist. The Bill gives them a more complete toolkit, and I hope we continue to build on this as devolution evolves, but tools alone will not get the job done if they do not come with the resources to deliver that change. Too often, mayors with clear mandates have to return to Whitehall to bid or make the case for funding when they want to act. That is neither a good use of their time nor consistent with the spirit of devolution, so I welcome the move towards longer-term, more flexible funding settlements. I hope this becomes the standard across all devolved areas. Fundamentally, if we want accountable mayors who are actually responsible for the destiny of their localities, we must go further by allowing them to raise and retain revenue. That is why I was pleased to hear the Chancellor announce a discretionary visitor levy in last month’s Budget, which I hope will be a first step towards a new era of fiscal devolution.
Ultimately, politics is about achieving outcomes, not changing governmental structures, but should we really be surprised that when decisions are made at a distance from the people they affect, they often lead to worse outcomes? Devolution gives local leaders the ability to act on the priorities that matter to their communities: to create jobs, improve public services and ensure that growth is felt more widely. I support the Bill because it moves us further along that path, and I hope we continue to build on it.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, in that I am a contributor to the Local Government Pension Scheme. Sadly, I am not able to take any money out of it as yet, but I know that it is in good hands.
I am particularly pleased to follow the contribution by my noble friend Lord Borwick, whose wife, Victoria, I served with on the London Assembly for two terms. She was a wonderful deputy mayor of London and set a very high standard for the rest of us to follow. I particularly agreed with my noble friend’s comments on disabled access to taxis. If he brings forward that amendment, I would be delighted to support it and help it, because it is about time.
I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, had to say about out-of-area licensing. While I was in London, I visited cab drivers and would go out with them to see some of the challenges they faced around London. I was often dismayed to see the number of out-of-area plates from towns around London that were plying in the centre of town, seemingly with no enforcement, even though we knew that the standard they had to pass was far lower than the London cab standard. That was in the days before the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, made her report on the grooming gangs, which makes that type of licensing only even more urgent. I am pleased to see the Government bring that forward.
It is 25 years since the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and I arrived at Romney House, just down the road from here, to take up our role as founder members of the London Assembly, which celebrated its 25th anniversary this year. I will confine most of my other comments to London issues, because that is the area I know a bit about. I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the London-wide licensing strategy, which was added to the Bill at a fairly late stage. I note that, in the other place, Dame Meg Hillier, another former colleague of mine now representing Hackney South and Shoreditch, had some very technical questions to raise about the licensing strategy. I will be interested to see how it develops as the legislation moves forward.
I have some questions about London-wide entertainment and alcohol licensing, largely on the basis of why it is being done, why it was asked for, what the objectives are and how we will be able to judge whether this trial is successful before it is rolled out to the rest of the country. Local communities guard their decisions on licensing fiercely. There needs to be a very obvious benefit for taking them away or making that decision at a higher level further up the ladder.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her comments on the assembly’s powers and, perhaps, improving them. I suspect many people here will not know that there has been no occasion at any time in the 25 years that the assembly has existed when the assembly or its committees have been able to amend or overturn the mayor’s budgets or strategic powers, despite the fact that that power was put into the legislation. That is because those committees and the assembly require a two-thirds majority to do that. Linked with proportional representation, that is almost mathematically impossible.
There has only ever been one term in which that might have happened, which was the second term of Ken Livingstone’s office, when the Labour Party was reduced to seven assembly members, which was not enough to provide a one-third blocking number. On that occasion, a number of deals were done with colleagues in the Green Party: I think the mayor’s conversion to green policies was dragged along partly by the political necessity of having to get his budget through. Perhaps the solution to that is to allow the assembly and its committees to amend the budget by simple majority rather than by a two-thirds majority. An amendment to that effect was introduced by Peter Fortune, the honourable Member in the other place who represents Bromley and Biggin Hill, another former assembly member. I think it was defeated, but we might see it again here.
I also believe that another look at the way the assembly is described in legislation may be overdue. The assembly has been in existence now for 25 years. In that time, the population of London has increased by over 1 million people. That is an increase in the size of the population of London of over 10%. Yet the assembly is still made up of 25 members: it has not grown to reflect that. The reason is that the legislation says that the assembly should be made up of 25 members, so some legislative change is required to enable a boundary review to take place. Perhaps the Minister will consider that, while we are going over London matters. It has been an asymmetric growth in numbers. Two particular constituencies in London—North East, which covers the Lea Valley, and City and East, which covers the Barking Riverside development—have grown much faster than others and therefore the people in those constituencies are possibly underrepresented.
I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Porter, who mentioned “Yes Minister”. There has been a lot of discussion about the title of this legislation. I dug the quote out from the first episode of “Yes Minister”. Sir Humphrey Appleby’s advice to Ministers on drafting legislation was, “Dispose of the difficult bit in the title. It does much less harm there than on the statute books”. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that is not the case.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Like my noble friend Lady Pidgeon, when I looked at this Bill, I was excited by the possibilities. I thought, “Here is a real opportunity”. Sadly, I do not think we have seized all the opportunities that we could have done. But maybe, as somebody said, it is a first foot in the door.
I have been a local councillor in Liverpool for 38 years and was leader of the council for eight years. I was reflecting, as various people talked, scribbling and changing things on my notes, on what have been the real changes that I have seen during that time and whether there is such a thing as civic pride. Well, I think there was at the beginning. I felt truly that people were proud of the city. Perhaps they still are. I hope they are, but it is difficult to be proud when finances are constantly being cut. I do not know how Liverpool survived when it lost a third of its budget. Imagine your own family losing a third of your income. With the huge costs of adult social care, special educational needs and school transport, what is left is just about managing to keep statutory services going. There is little left for those things that might help to regenerate civic pride.
It took the Toxteth riot to get the then Prime Minister to come to Liverpool. It took a Liberal Democrat-controlled council to get the Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to come to Liverpool. He came willingly. He came in my first year as leader of the council. He came to a breakfast. He arrived late and Alastair Campbell told me I could not speak because the Prime Minister had to speak and go on to his next engagement. I was not allowing that to happen and we created a good relationship. One of the hallmarks of a successful Government in terms of working with local authorities—this is not in the Bill, of course—is the relationships that are created. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, is not in her place, because she helped us enormously with our cabinet model. Tessa Jowell helped us with winning Capital of Culture, although she remained impartial. The relationships that you have with Ministers are hugely important. Of course, Michael Heseltine almost became a Scouser: he changed his views completely.
In Merseyside now we have a combined authority that, I have to say, is remote from the people. You cannot access that. The cabinet or the group that advises them are all the leaders of the local authorities in Merseyside. And guess what—they are all Labour. Can you, as a citizen, find out what is happening? When it is decided, yes. Can you ask to see an agenda of what is being discussed? No. Can you go to a meeting and petition the meeting? No, you cannot. So, when we talk about devolution and opening up local government, it is not just about structures: it is about people themselves.
The former Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, at Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, said:
“I know that I will not achieve our goals unless we fundamentally change the way that our country is run. That means handing power back to where it belongs—to local people”—
Hallelujah. We all agree with that, do we not?
“so that they can make decisions on what really matters to their communities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 180.]
However, this Bill sees power remain at the centre. The Secretary of State will retain sweeping powers to merge authorities and extend functions without local consent or parliamentary oversight.
Place is important to people, whether it be a village, a town or a city. Regional identity is hugely important to people. When it comes to strategic elected mayors who have a real vision for their communities and the energy to drive forward that vision, two names come to mind, both with the same first name: Andy Street in Birmingham and Andy Burnham in Manchester, who are real, visionary champions for their combined authorities. Others have quite frankly been rather dull and not had the vision or the determination, and that is to the detriment of local government.
The Bill needs to ensure that all elected mayors are on equal footing and given the same responsibilities: as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, equal financial security, not the drip, drip, drip of responsibilities and finance favoured by the previous Government. We on these Benches have always believed that decision-making should start at the lowest level, at the grass roots, and not become remote and removed from citizens. Elected mayors must always be accountable, and local government at all levels should be open and accessible to the electorate.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, a lot of good points have already been made in this debate and it is clear that the principle of devolution is supported across all of our Benches. I have personally seen really good results from devolution in the Midlands, where I have lived for most of my life. There, we have had serious and meaningful devolution that has already delivered real progress under the leadership of former Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Sir Andy Street. It is quite telling that people from across this House have mentioned him in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just talked about pride, and Andy made us feel proud of our region and my home city of Birmingham for the first time in a very long time. That was truly precious, after a lifetime of being laughed at for being from Birmingham.
Nothing in the Bill, I am afraid, resembles that successful model. Instead, we are presented with a measure that centralises power and concentrates authority in the hands of a few individuals. It sidelines councillors and weakens scrutiny, and I am afraid that, against the backdrop of cancelling mayoral elections, it makes a mockery of the Government’s claim that they want to strengthen democracy.
I shall bring in some concerns that have been raised directly with me by councillors in my former constituency in Redditch and in the county of Worcestershire. These are people who actually deliver services and understand their communities. I pay tribute to them and to everybody else who steps up to serve their local area. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, it is far from clear how an area such as Worcestershire will be affected. It is too small a county to be a large strategic authority, but lumping it in with Birmingham or combining it with Herefordshire or Gloucestershire just would not work. It would be a million miles from the wishes of local communities, so I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how Worcestershire, and Redditch specifically, will be affected by the plans to combine those two tiers of government into one authority.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard is right to highlight the deep roots of counties. I am old enough to remember when my hometown of Solihull was kicked out of Warwickshire and put into the West Midlands. That caused everyone to go into a frightful tizzy and to vote against all the local councillors who had done it.
I have also heard concerns expressed about the concentration of power into the hands of a small number of individuals, and that really is a danger. To have good governance, you need a robust group on a committee challenging each other and making sure that alternative points of view are presented. I can see that we are creating a situation where influence can be captured by targeting a handful of individuals. We could find a small number of mayors who could create a cabal distant from the people that they serve, rather than the current model we have of ward councillors deeply embedded in their local areas, living and breathing those day-to-day problems affecting people every day. Without proper checks, a mayor can simply ignore scrutiny panels. There is no equivalent to parliamentary votes. If a mayor just says, “Well, it’s my way or the highway”, what can those local representatives do? Absolutely nothing.
As I am speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, I follow him in talking about the Midlands. I was fortunate enough to work very closely with Sir Andy Street as he started out as the first mayor of that combined authority. The reason he was successful is that he was able to navigate relationships with other local authorities of different political colours. He was able to deliver significant benefits for the region and put that authority on a path to being an outstanding authority, and he did it just through relationship building and developing trust, despite their different political colours. I genuinely do not think it would have worked if the then Conservative Government had just said, “You have to do it this way. We’re dictating from MHCLG”—as it was at that time. That would not have worked; they would all have dug in and refused, as Labour authorities, to work with a Conservative mayor, but Andy Street was able to bring them together and deliver something. The Government would do well to reflect on successful models of devolution that have worked well and delivered benefits for those areas.
Reorganisation, if done properly, could potentially save millions of pounds, and I think the Government are planning to do that. My worry is that any cost saving could get swallowed up into more bureaucracy. I fear, and I think many of us share this concern, that it looks as though the Government are potentially using this to do their favourite thing, which is put up taxes. When I listen to the Government Front Bench, at no time do they say they have the aspiration of lowering council taxes on hard-pressed council taxpayers. They talk instead about more taxes for tourism, which will cost money to administer and collect and might well have the opposite effect to the one that they imagine.
Real devolution means trusting local people, not bypassing them, but the Bill does none of that. Local government, in the words of one of our noble Peers who I was just having a cup of tea with, is one of those things that is boring but really important because it touches the lives of so many people. It is vital that we get this right, and I hope the Minister will take on board the suggestions of noble Lords to improve it throughout its passage.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire, which is a large unitary authority with both a metro mayor and a combined authority, I have both an interest to declare and experience to share.
This has been a great debate to be part of and to listen to, because the passion for local governance and local democratic government has been apparent throughout the afternoon. Many issues have been raised that are important locally, such as cattle grids—who knew?—and taxi and private hire licensing, which is vital for safeguarding. We have heard about different parts of the country, from Cornwall and even Devon to Lincolnshire, Norfolk, the West Midlands and now Yorkshire.
This has been an important debate, but it has had rather a mixed response from various Members across the House. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are completely in favour of the principle of devolution. It is fundamental to our values, as is community empowerment, which should naturally flow from devolution. Unfortunately, the Bill being debated neither encompasses real devolution nor, unfortunately, empowers communities. We on these Benches will strongly support proposals that enable either or both.
At the heart of the chasm that exists between the Liberal Democrat and the Government’s approach to devolution is an understanding of the essential purpose of local government. Successive Governments have viewed local government as simply a necessary local service delivery function. Perhaps that notion has its beginnings in the statement made by Sir Keith Joseph, when he was a Cabinet Minister in the early Thatcher Government, that local government should outsource all its service delivery, and the council would therefore only need to meet once a year to agree the contracts. Since then, there has been a persistent trend of central government viewing the purpose of local government through that lens.
Nearly 20 years ago, the Lyons report into local government expressed a more positive purpose for local government as being one of place shaping in order to use powers and influence to promote the well-being of a community. Lyons said that that approach was crucial to improving satisfaction through greater local choice and flexibility. It is that wider, more inclusive place-shaping role that we on these Benches support. It follows the long line of great local government reformers and indeed the Localism Act 2011, which introduced the concept of subsidiarity.
It is in that context that Liberal Democrats challenge the basis of the Bill. We support a strategic authority, but it should have greater democratic accountability and not be at the expense of local decisions made locally, where they belong. During this debate, there have been many contributions on Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which establish strategic authorities and the role of mayors. Strategic authorities have an important role to play in place shaping, as we have heard, and both Manchester and the West Midlands have been trailblazers in doing that, but what is not acceptable to those of us who cherish local democratic decision-making is the powers given to a single person over a large area with minimal accountability, minimal community engagement and little involvement of elected local councillors.
The Mayor of West Yorkshire, for example, serves 2.5 million people, and the combined authority consists of, in effect, the five council leaders. Under the Bill, the mayor will have very wide powers to determine a strategy for land use, for example, that will have a significant impact on local communities who will have been denied a genuine opportunity to have their voice heard. Where is the community empowerment in that? Where is the local accountability and local democratic decision-making?
My noble friend Lord Pack has rightly criticised the change to the mayoral electoral system. A supplementary vote fails the test of enabling the candidate with the widest support to be elected. Why has this system been chosen when others, which are more effective at ensuring the election of a candidate with the widest support, have been rejected?
A further undermining of transparency is the power the Bill provides for a mayor to appoint up to seven unelected commissioners. As it stands, this enables a mayor to appoint their mates to these roles—as has apparently already happened in some mayoral authorities, including one not far from where I live. At the very least, there need to be requirements in the Bill for an open process of appointment through a selection panel.
The extension of mayoral powers is far remote from the notion of community empowerment. For example, the potential for civil enforcement powers to be undertaken by the mayor removes them from local involvement. Further, the power of a mayor to take a planning decision away from the local planning authority is at complete odds with local democracy. I have read nothing in the Bill that explains how a strategic planning decision will be defined. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.
Part 3 is a further attack on local democracy and accountability as it provides powers to the Secretary of State to merge councils into unitary ones. What is not sufficiently discussed is that the key criteria for a unitary council is to be its population. The number of people will determine the geography of the new unitary councils, not whether places coexist and work well with each other, or whether it is the will of the people. Forced amalgamations fail. The council on which I served is a prime example. Even after 50 years, there are regular heartfelt calls for its abolition, because it forced together the great towns of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley, when they do not have much in common. That is the danger of forcing councils together in this way.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that there are elements of the Bill that are welcome, such as the creation of the local audit office. That is a very important move. Since the Audit Commission was abolished, there has been a lack of oversight and guidance for local audit, so I welcome that clause. Clause 58 is important, because it gives a nod towards neighbourhood governance, although there is no clarity about what that might mean. In any case, Clause 58 provides a power for the Secretary of State, for crying out loud, to make the decision on what constitutes a neighbourhood unit.
If we really believe in devolution, neighbourhood governance should be decided by the local council area, not the Secretary of State. If there is one thing that I hope the Minister will help us to change, it is that. That is at the heart of what devolution should be: local people determining what neighbourhood governance should look like and what the area should be, not the Secretary of State, who surely has better things to decide on. That is just one example of a ministerial power to override local decisions, which are unfortunately peppered throughout the Bill.
This is not real devolution. There is no fiscal devolution in the Bill either, which, as many Members have said in their contributions, makes devolution a rather empty promise, given that mayors will probably have to compete for resources from the Treasury.
At its best, local government is greater than the sum of its parts. It is what matters most to the daily lives of people. The plea from these Benches is for the Government to start appreciating the power of vibrant, well-funded local government that enhances the lives of the people who live there and the place in which they live. During the next stages of the Bill, we on these Benches will challenge the Government to look through a local lens and provide real devolution and real community empowerment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire and a local government pensioner. I extend my thanks to the Minister for the time that she has given noble Lords today, as well as for the many constructive meetings that she has kindly hosted outside your Lordships’ House. I am likewise grateful to the many organisations and individuals who have written to us all and provided many submissions to and analyses of the Bill.
One question troubles me: what is the true purpose of the Bill? I remain far from certain. Over many years, we have seen a consistent trend of centralisation in the UK. As a councillor and an ex-chair of the LGA, I am a huge advocate of devolution, and I was looking forward to the Bill delivering real devolution. We have heard support across this House for genuine devolution. But—and there is a but—while “Devolution” is in the Bill’s title, as hard as I try, I find very little devolution in the Bill. Yes, the Bill devolves licensing of micro electric vehicles and removes outdated Secretary of State consent for things such as special event notices, the conversion of footpaths to cycle paths, and the construction of cattle-grids. Given our previous discussion on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I am pleased to see the partial removal of the need for Secretary of State approval for lane rental schemes. While these are all very helpful, they can hardly be described as real devolution, and would certainly not justify a Bill of this size—well over 300 pages.
In fact, the reality is the reverse, with the Bill seeking to centralise powers in Whitehall. Reading the Bill, there are 43 mentions of “must have regard to”, including regard to guidance from the Secretary of State; 76 mentions of “duty” in relation to local government; and 105 mentions of the “Secretary of State may”. With all this new guidance and new duties that have to be followed, there is no mention of transferring funding for fiscal devolution in relation to, for instance, new duties for health, housing and education. Instead, there is an ability for mayors to increase taxes on hard-working residents, who are already suffering from a £68 billion increase in taxes over the last two Budgets. The Bill clearly risks substantial increases in local taxation from uncapped mayoral precepts that can be used for almost any purpose, no doubt to fulfil new duties and guidance as dictated by Whitehall.
Had the title of the Bill been “local government reorganisation”, this would have been more understandable. The Bill’s focus is on the establishment of mayors and strategic authorities and the transfer to them of powers currently held by existing county, district and borough councils. I ask the Minister: what is the purpose of the reorganisation? In the Bill, it is clearly not about devolving powers from Whitehall.
I will reflect on some comments that were made across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised development corporations, and I have a lot of sympathy with that, but do we really need mayors to create development corporations? The existing structures could do that. Taxis have been raised by many noble Lords, as has safeguarding—and the alarming statistic on the number of Manchester taxi drivers from Wolverhampton. These issues need to be addressed.
Why is there a delay to the mayoral elections? Why could they not have carried on? The Minister said that these strategic authorities would carry their formation, so why not have a mayor to help that? Also, the issue of town and parish councils is critical, and the Bill is rather reticent on that.
On devolution, there were some interesting quotes. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, called the Bill “constitutionally incoherent”. My noble friends Lady Shephard and Lord Trenchard spoke eloquently on local democracy and local identity. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said the Government should “pause and think” before rolling out. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, called it a “woeful” Bill. My noble friend Lord Porter made an interesting comment: should we be judging this on how small Whitehall gets? Our suspicion is that it will not get smaller. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, made important comments on commencement, and I ask: why are we having a Bill when many powers that already exist on the statute paper have not been commenced? This should be about local identity, local democracy and real devolution. We should be trusting local people, as my noble friend Lady Maclean said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it should be about place-shaping, which is best done at the local level.
I will reiterate the important questions posed by my noble friend Lady Scott regarding cost and economies of scale. Both my noble friend and I have led councils through reorganisation, and we know the difficulties and the upfront costs involved, as well as the need for scale in certain services, such as social care. How will the Government ensure that any projected savings, potentially in the tens of millions, are actually realised and not frittered away by consequent changes? If such savings do materialise, will they be used to ease the burden on local taxpayers, who are already under considerable pressure? In Committee we will wish to probe in detail the areas of competence that the Government seek to shift, and, crucially, the rationale for doing so.
I must also raise what I consider to be a fundamental issue: what powers are actually coming down from government to local government—local councils and mayors? The Minister suggested that future powers will depend on what mayors demand, but how will these demands be made? Who decides which powers are devolved and which remain tightly controlled from the centre? As drafted, there is no clear pathway by which a mayor may secure the genuine authority needed to effect meaningful change—and, as importantly, funding for the services involved. Annual bidding for funds is not the same as having a guaranteed revenue stream against which you can plan. In this regard, the Government already have form, removing the incentive for growth provided by retained business rates, which are set to be removed by a business rates reset. The Bill does not devolve power; it simply rearranges administrative functions through Whitehall diktat.
Devolution has huge potential. Whitehall does not know and cannot implement holistically at the local level. If we as a nation are to address the issues of social care, health, economic growth and inactivity, it cannot be done centrally; it needs to be done by local partners working together at the local level to get the best outcomes for their communities. As we have heard across the House, whether it is Cornwall and Devon—there is a bit of a dispute about cream and scones, but hey—or Kirklees, Yorkshire or elsewhere in the country, they are all different and need to be looked at separately.
I hope that in Committee the Government will provide the clarity that is presently lacking and explain how they intend to bridge the gap between nominal competence and real power. Only then can we properly assess whether this legislation truly serves the interests of local communities or simply strengthens the hand of central government. For these reasons, I fear the Bill does nothing to empower local communities. Instead, it reduces local democracy through government-imposed restructuring, irrespective of local opinion, local geography or local identity—bureaucratic reorganisation that will cost money, distract from housing delivery and offer no evidential basis for improved services. It risks higher costs for residents through the new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, higher parking charges and the creation of further layers of mayor-appointed officials. Can the Minister assure the House that this will not lead to higher bills for hard-pressed residents while services are disrupted through reorganisation? These are serious concerns and I look forward to returning to them in more detail at the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their excellent contributions. It has been an engaging and constructive debate and, for someone as passionate about devolution and local government as I am, it is heartening to hear that passion echoed around the Chamber. We may have different views on how we do things, but that passion for moving some of the powers and funding that are currently held in this little bit of London to local areas has been echoed today. We all know the pressure that the current system is under. It is not working in many places now, and it certainly is not sustainable for the future. We can see the signs of the system cracking all around us, and we need to move forward with this.
I will answer a couple of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, before I start picking up particular detailed points in the Bill. The noble Baroness spoke about respect for local identity. These proposals have come from local government. We have not devised them in the office—there is no map-drawing going on in Marsham Street. That has been done by local people in their own areas. I will not take any lessons from the Tories, who dithered and delayed on local government review and devolution. They did some devolution, but they left huge areas of the country stranded from the increased powers and funding that some areas have benefited from. That cannot be right, and we need to address that now.
The accountability gap that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned is there now; what we are doing is introducing locally elected mayors to provide local accountability for local decision-making. With the powers that will be devolved from Whitehall to those local mayors, they will have a powerful democratic mandate to take decisions on behalf of their residents. With the strong local authorities that will sit alongside them and the neighbourhood governance that will take that accountability to the very local level, this is an empowering Bill in terms of accountability, not the other way around.
The noble Baroness asked about funding. There is £200 billion of funding being devoted to this mayoral project, and that gives areas a real chance to make decisions on their own behalf. There are other powers, which I will come to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned fiscal stability. Fiscal stability comes from having growth and investment in every part of our country, not just in the bits of it where it is decided that it will be. We will get that fiscal stability only where we are making decisions on growth and investment at local level. It is therefore very important that we take these steps now.
Just briefly on the noble Baroness’s point about adult social care—which is well made; we know that there are huge problems with adult social care—each of the proposals for local government reorganisation contains the area’s ideas of how to do the transformation to adult care services. With that local input and the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is doing, I think that we have a chance to make a real step forward on adult social care after a long time of waiting for that to happen.
I will endeavour to respond to different points in turn, but I would be happy to discuss topics of interest in detail in advance of Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked an important question about other government departments and how they are reacting to the Bill. I simply point to the huge amount of co-operation that we have had from other government departments on, for example, skills, transport, public health and prevention, policing and the fire service. There has been a great cross-governmental project to work on this. I have some of my fellow Ministers sitting on the Front Bench with me and I know that they will be working in their own departments on how we devolve these powers to the local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also asked whether this devolution can really be delivered with local government finances in the state that they are. I very much regret that they are in that state, and we need to move that on. The answer to that question is that we simply cannot deliver the public services that people deserve and the growth that people need to see without making these changes. To the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I say that we absolutely understand the pressures: many of us have been very close to those pressures over the years, but we need to move this on now.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, that mayors will have powers devolved from Whitehall, not upwards from local government. That is very important. We will have stronger, more sustainable unitary local authorities delivering services to local people. As my noble friend Lady Griffin very articulately pointed out, that will instead create the opportunities and growth that we need to see across our country. Of course, people are worried about change, but I point to the success that we have seen right across mayoral areas already. Those areas that already have mayors are making great strides forward with economic growth, housebuilding, skills, transport and infrastructure.
Let me be clear, particularly to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who I have spoken to on many occasions at Hertfordshire events as well as in this House, that the historic institutions, such as lords-lieutenant and high sheriffs, remain a fundamental part of local life and will continue to do so.
A number of noble Lords raised issues about the functions of local government. As I said, no one is drawing maps in Whitehall; they are being devised and owned by local people. This place-shaping goes right to the heart of the local government reform that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to. Devolution by default is the principle right at the heart of the Bill. As mayoral authorities grow and get more established, they can request more powers, as we have already seen our colleagues in Manchester and other mayoral authorities doing. The Bill sees our system of devolution move away from an ad hoc and inconsistent model, replaced with a model where it is clear what places can access, when they can access it and under what conditions. Our new system of conferring functions on levels of strategic authority is devolution by default, which will streamline the devolution of functions. All areas can be confident about the functions they will receive and, as the framework deepens over time, they will know that they will have access to the new powers as they are introduced.
I am very grateful for the examples of great local action that we have heard. My noble friend Lady Elliott is right that accountable responsible mayors must have the funding that they need to deliver local outcomes and the right framework to demand further powers when they are ready to take them. The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Shephard, Lady Bennett and Lady Maclean, and the noble Lord, Viscount Trenchard, all spoke about issues relating to the establishment and the expansion of functions. The Government have been clear that devolution can deliver growth, unlock investment and deliver the change that the public want to see. That is why we want to see more parts of England benefit from devolution. Our engagement with councils to date has demonstrated that there is real appetite for this devolution across England, and the Bill will streamline the process for establishing new strategic authorities. It is our strong preference for devolution to be locally led.
However—and I hope this addresses some of the points about the powers that we have put into the Bill to deal with issues through ministerial-led routes—there are powers providing those routes to establish or expand strategic authorities or provide a strategic authority with a mayor. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and others who have raised this issue that these powers will be used only where no local agreement can be reached, where this cannot be moved forward at a local level. We much prefer this to be done at a local level, and this measure will definitely be a last resort. The powers will be subject to conditions and statutory tests and will not be commenced automatically. Instead, they will be commenced by regulations only when Ministers consider it necessary and we will ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to engage further on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Bassam’s points on pace are noted. I thank him for all the work that he did in Brighton. I agree that we need to establish stable unitary authorities as the foundation for devolution, and I am grateful for his comments.
As it has been mentioned in the debate many times, I will briefly refer to the devolution priority programme mayoral elections. Although we had a Question on it earlier, it is important to reiterate those comments, as they were questioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Shephard, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about the importance of pace in the devolution priority programme associated with this, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, mentioned this as well. Of course, we are committed to this extension of devolution and, for Cumbria, Cheshire and Warrington, the first mayoral elections for the new strategic authorities will take place in 2027, as those local authorities had already requested that that be the date for them. For Norfolk and Suffolk, Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, and Hampshire and the Solent, which are all areas that currently have two tiers of local government, we have announced that we are minded to hold the first mayoral elections for those areas in May 2028, because we know mayoral devolution is most successful when mayoral strategic authorities are underpinned by strong unitary councils. Therefore, holding elections for new mayors in 2028 will allow enough time for the reorganisation process to conclude and unitary councils to be well established.
On the issue of why culture and heritage are not included in the competence list—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and my noble friend Lady Griffin mentioned this—the current list of thematic policy areas is deliberately broad and is intended to allow a wide range of activities to fall within the scope of the areas of competence. Many initiatives relating to culture, heritage and tourism would naturally be encompassed within the economic development and regeneration area of competence. Strategic authorities will remain key players in supporting culture and heritage initiatives locally. Many are already using their existing powers to support culture, heritage and tourism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised important points about the ability of local government, confidence in its institutions and how that can drive community cohesion. She is absolutely right to raise that, which is why it is important that these institutions are stable and people have confidence in them. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, mentioned the environment, which is the specific competence of mayors, and energy, which is the subject of new powers over local growth plans and strategic planning.
The issue of the appointment of commissioners was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I think that the noble Lord asked why they are not local government leaders. They can be local government leaders if that is the way that the mayor decides to take this. Local authorities will have critical new functions to undertake. They require representation on national bodies and joint working. It is not realistic to expect a mayor to do all this on their own. That is why mayors will be able to appoint and remunerate commissioners to lead on one of seven areas of competence, helping to increase the capacity in their strategic authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about rural communities in this respect. Mayors can set an expectation that one or all of their commissioners should focus on rural issues. This is rightly a local decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and many other noble Peers raised issues around local government funding. We are making good now on long-overdue promises to fundamentally update the outdated funding system and its decades-old data. We are targeting money where it is needed most by properly accounting for local need and equalising local income. We are giving local authorities greater flexibility and certainty as we simplify the more than 30 funding streams that were there when we came into office, worth almost £47 billion through the first multi-year settlement in a decade. Giving local authorities that certainty over funding, and over multi-year settlements, is critical here. We will publish the local authority allocations later in December and they will be subject to consultation and the usual parliamentary process.
On mayoral combined authority precepts, to empower mayors to deliver change in their communities, they need to be able to spend money effectively. Previously, mayors could use their precept only to raise money for mayoral functions. This did not cover some areas vital to growth, such as adult skills provision. The Bill will allow mayors to spend money raised through the mayoral precept across the whole of an authority’s function. The introduction of a precept will need to be approved through the budget voting process within each strategic authority.
On council tax, we are committed to empowering local leaders to drive growth and deliver for their communities, without placing excessive tax burdens on people. We are delivering the long-awaited local government funding reforms and the multi-year settlements, and we are consulting on modernising and improving the administration of council tax, to make the system fairer, more efficient and more transparent. That package builds a more sustainable, accountable and locally empowered system that focuses on the needs of communities.
There has been a broad agreement that local audit reform was needed. I agree with my noble friend Lady Armstrong that audit is essential for public confidence. When the whole-government accounts cannot be cleared because of the issues with local government funding, something has to change. Local audit is vital for ensuring trust and confidence that taxpayers’ money is being used wisely. We have acted decisively to clear the backlog, but significant further reform is needed. Last December, we published a strategy and consultation on measures to outline a road to recovery and set the system up for long-term, sustainable success. The Bill delivers core elements of this strategy, creating a clear statutory remit for the local audit office to oversee and streamline the system. I hope that picks up the points that noble Lords mentioned.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Pidgeon, my noble friend Lady Armstrong and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, all mentioned the scrutiny of combined authorities and local public accounts committees. All combined authorities will be required to establish both overview and scrutiny committees, and audit committees. Beyond these structures, the current system of accountability and scrutiny is guided by the English Devolution Accountability Framework and scrutiny protocol. We are reviewing both documents to reflect the changes brought forward by the integrated settlement and the Bill. We recognise that there is scope to further strengthen the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities. That is why we committed in the White Paper to exploring models for local public accounts committees and local accounting officers. We are committed to strengthening accountability alongside the strengthened devolution offer, and we will confirm our policy approach in due course.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Janke, Lady Bennett and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, among others, mentioned the important issue of our parish and town councils. The Government value the role that town and parish councils play; they are an important part of local democracy. There are no plans to abolish town and parish councils or to change their powers. Our plans on neighbourhood governance in the Bill are about hardwiring community engagement into local authorities themselves. Parish councils will be an important partner in creating stronger, more responsive neighbourhood governance, as will the whole range of grass-roots groups that support community empowerment. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about community groups and their engagement in this. It is for local authorities to determine whether new parish and town councils are needed, and this is done through the community governance review process.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Griffin, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised issues around community empowerment. Of course, communities need power returned to them. We want to empower local leaders so that they can better affect the decisions impacting on their areas. That is why we are giving communities stronger tools to shape the future of their local areas, such as the new community right to buy, to help protect against the loss of cherished local assets. Some 350 of the most deprived communities are receiving funding from the Government. This includes the 75 plan for neighbourhoods areas and 25 new trailblazer areas, which will receive £20 million in funding over the next decade, including the pride in place funding. There is a clear ambition to hardwire that community engagement into this new system.
On the neighbourhood governance plans, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about removing powers from local areas. It is the opposite of that; we are creating a clear neighbourhood governance system for local authorities to hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working into their governance. The goal of that neighbourhood governance is to move decision-making closer to residents. Decisions about local communities should be made by people who understand local needs. That is why we are introducing a new requirement for all local authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the effective governance of local neighbourhood areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised issues about rural versus urban. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I will not get involved in the cream and jam debate. I am afraid the planning Bill and the English devolution Bill are quite controversial enough for me; I will not get involved in a debate about scones. The Government recognise that neighbourhoods across England are diverse, and that rural and urban communities have different needs and characteristics. Through the review of existing council-led neighbourhood governance models, we are working closely with local authorities and the community sector to understand what works best in different contexts.
The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley, raised important issues around mayoral development corporations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the value of the New Towns Taskforce report and Sir Oliver Letwin’s report relating to master planning and development corporations. That is why the Bill extends to all mayors the power to create mayoral development corporations, to drive economic growth and regeneration. Mayoral development corporations will benefit residents by delivering new homes, better transport and economic opportunities, revitalising areas for future generations.
I can see I have run out of time. I am sorry; I knew I would not get through all this, but I will respond in writing to any noble Lords whose questions I did not get to. I will conclude my remarks now. I reiterate my thanks to your Lordships for their engagement with the Bill to this point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for raising the issue of the District Councils’ Network and the County Councils Network, which have contributed hugely to the work going forward and to briefing noble Lords.
As the Bill progresses, I am happy to accommodate any requests from noble Lords for meetings or additional briefings wherever helpful. As I have set out earlier today, this ambitious legislation will deliver top to bottom redistribution of power, putting decision-making in the hands of local areas and delivering real change for working people. With this Bill, the Government will deliver on our manifesto commitment to empower local leaders and mayors to unlock growth and opportunities right across our country by making the right decisions for the communities they serve. I look forward to working with your Lordships during the passage of this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 to 23, Schedule 5, Clause 24, Schedule 6, Clause 25, Schedule 7, Clause 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 9, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 10, Clause 31, Schedule 11, Clause 32, Schedule 12, Clause 33, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 34, Schedule 15, Clause 35, Schedule 16, Clause 36, Schedule 17, Clause 37, Schedule 18, Clause 38, Schedule 19, Clause 39, Schedule 20, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 21, Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 22, Clause 47, Schedule 23, Clauses 48 to 50, Schedule 24, Clauses 51 and 52, Schedule 25, Clauses 53 to 57, Schedule 26, Clauses 58 and 59, Schedule 27, Clauses 60 and 61, Schedule 28, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 29, Clauses 64 to 73, Schedule 30, Clause 74, Schedule 31, Clause 75, Schedule 32, Clauses 76 to 84, Schedule 33, Clause 85, Schedule 34, Clauses 86 to 93, Title.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand that there has been no agreement in the usual channels for the Bill to be committed to a Grand Committee. I put on record that it is very disappointing that the Government have tabled this Motion without the agreement of the usual channels.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip consulted the usual channels in the usual manner. I am also aware that he spoke to some key Peers with an interest in the Bill.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Tuesday 20th January 2026
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-I(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Jan 2026)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Purpose of this ActThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) strengthen community empowerment,(b) secure sustainable council finances,(c) protect vital social care services and enhance local accountability in their delivery,(d) support local growth through devolved powers and locally led decision-making, and(e) enable flexible and locally driven housebuilding and planning to meet community needs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause sets out the overarching purpose of the Act, emphasising locally led, consent-based governance, sustainable council finances, and strong accountability for social care and growth. It also clarifies the Act’s intent to support flexible, community- driven planning and housebuilding.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, before I start, I wish a belated happy birthday for yesterday to the Minister. I hear it was a big one, and I hope she enjoyed it. Secondly, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils.
I am pleased to open the debate today on the first amendment on the first day in Committee on a set of important principles that should guide the remainder of our debate on the Bill. I must also say, with respect, that the Title of the Bill still promises rather more than its text delivers. It speaks of devolution and community empowerment, yet too often it reads as central direction dressed up as local choice. We can and we should do better than that.
Amendment 1 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson goes back to first principles: the purpose of this Act. It asks the Government to be clear in the Bill that we will champion consent over compulsion, secure sustainable council finances without unfunded mandates, protect social care with stronger local accountability, support local growth through devolved powers, and enable flexible, locally driven housebuilding and planning. These are not abstract aspirations. They are the everyday tests by which our residents judge whether devolution is real and beneficial to their lives.
Proper devolution is built, not imposed. It is negotiated, not mandated. It respects identity, geography and local choice. That has been a consistent theme in the debate on this Bill: concern that the centre would gain broad powers to redraw local structures, create strategic authorities, consolidate councils and impose mayors without clear and explicit local consent. That is not empowerment; it is compulsion. At Second Reading, many noble Lords raised precisely this point, and we did so again when the Government proposed to commit this Bill, a constitutional Bill, to Grand Committee without the agreement of the usual channels. Process matters because it reveals intent.
Our amendment therefore states plainly that the Bill’s first purpose should be to strengthen community empowerment by championing consent over compulsion. Noble Lords might think that that should be a given in a Bill called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but the detail of the Bill does not follow. It risks a power grab, enabling Ministers to force reorganisations and mayoralties on areas that have previously said no and even to postpone local elections to fit a central timetable. That is not how you build trust.
Local government cannot be rebuilt on financial quicksand. We all know how many councils have come to the brink. We have heard repeated warnings about local government reorganisations that promise continual savings but deliver costly transitions and do not make any of those savings into the future, and about new duties placed on councils, such as social care or regulation, but without the resources to meet them.
The second purpose listed in the amendment calls for a simple commitment: no unfunded mandates. If the Government wish to assign functions downwards, they should assign the means to discharge them as well; otherwise, we will set up local leaders to fail and then blame them for that failure. That is not partnership; it is abdication. Commons colleagues pressed this exact point at Second Reading and on Report: stop hoarding power in Whitehall while offloading pressures on to town halls. Put the principle of fiscal sustainability into law and plan reforms accordingly. If we do not do so, we risk even more tax rises through the back door.
Nowhere is the risk of failed devolution clearer than in adult and children’s social care. Every noble Lord who has served in local government, of whom there are many, understands the arithmetic, the demography, the demand and the duty. This does not change where local government is organised or reorganised. If we devolve responsibility with capacity, we will simply move waiting lists from one council to another and call it reform.
The amendment’s third principle seeks to
“protect vital social care services and enhance local accountability”
for outcomes, with transparent reporting to the people who depend on them. Reorganisation cannot become a distraction from stabilising the front line. We need to understand how this is going to work. Social care is perhaps the biggest responsibility of local government, yet the Bill does not even mention those words.
Growth is not ordained by Ministers; it is enabled by place and by leaders who know their patch and who can unlock a stalled site or knit together skills, transport and planning to make things happen. The Government’s own narrative for the Bill claims that it is the biggest transfer of power from Whitehall in a generation. If that is truly the case, the test is simple: will local leaders get the levers they need, or are we just creating authorities that must still ask for permission for every pilot, every power and every penny? Our amendment’s fourth principle states a purpose to
“support local growth through devolved powers and locally led decision-making”.
Finally, on housing, communities will support more houses when homes make sense: the right homes, in the right place, with the right infrastructure. That is achieved through locally driven planning that takes communities with it—not rigid national targets that ignore character, capacity or constraint. The Government speak about flexibility, but our amendment would require it. It would clarify that the Act’s intent is to
“enable flexible and locally driven housebuilding and planning to meet community needs”.
This is perfectly compatible with ambition, but it rejects the idea that Whitehall always knows best.
This purpose clause would not blow the Bill off course but set its course. It states exactly what Ministers say they want to achieve: empowerment, sustainability, accountability, growth and locally led planning. If the Government mean what they say about handing power back to local people, they should welcome having this in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I declare at the outset that I have been a vice-president of the Local Government Association for a number of years. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said many things with which I agree. We are in a position where we are seeing the cumulative impact of many years of underfunding—serious underfunding of both local government and problems such as adult social care, to which the noble Baroness referred—for which a proper policy has never ever been devised.
I want to be clear that we are in favour of strategic authorities that can drive growth. I am, however, bothered about the potential for upwards mission creep, on which the electorate have no direct say other than via the election of a mayor every few years. So I see this Bill not as a destination but as a staging post towards something that genuinely devolves power.
I went first to the overview of the Bill, given that this amendment seeks to define the Bill’s purpose. In the Explanatory Notes, the Government have indeed done that. I shall read it out, if I may. It is very short:
“The purpose of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall, by giving local leaders the tools to deliver growth, fixing the foundations of local government, and empowering communities”.
There is great potential in the Bill for delivering growth. However, I do not think that it fixes the foundations of local government or that it empowers communities. As we go through the Committee stage, I hope that this will become clearer.
In Amendment 1, the purpose of the Bill has been redefined by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. It has some things in it and other things are not in it. I hope that the Minister will try to explain in greater detail how the Bill does deliver devolution. There are two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I should tell the Committee that I am standing here because my noble friend is not able to do so. We hope that she will, in the next two or three weeks, be walking much better than she has been able to and will return to your Lordships’ House. I send our very best wishes to her and I hope on behalf of the whole Committee, as I am sure that that is shared by everybody.
In Amendment 95, my noble friend has explained what she thinks the Secretary of State’s statutory duty should be in terms of strategic authorities. Amendment 95 is very important, because it specifies that the role of local government is to be
“the primary democratic institution responsible for the leadership, coordination and long-term stewardship of local areas”.
We have to be clear, and I hope that the Minister will confirm, that that is what the Government think. Secondly, it says:
“Arrangements for strategic authorities must be framed so as to enable constituent local authorities to … pursue a long-term vision for the … development of their areas”.
We need to be clear that they
“exercise convening and coordinating functions in relation to public, private, voluntary and community sector bodies”
and that it is their job to
“integrate the provision of local services with wider economic, social and environmental outcomes”.
The conclusion in proposed new subsection (3) is that, in discharging this duty,
“the Secretary of State must not treat local authorities solely as administrative or delivery bodies for national policy”.
This is a fundamental problem. It is not clear to me from reading and rereading the Bill that that is actually the situation, so I look to the Minister to say that the Government indeed agree with that. We should bear in mind that it was the 2007 Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, under a Labour Government, that clarified that the role of local government was to provide
“democratic, place-based leadership and long-term stewardship of local areas, rather than acting solely as a delivery arm of central government”.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wish to speak in favour of the purpose clause tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson.
From the outset, the Title of the Bill is quite wrong and misleading. The Bill is not about devolution; it is about centralisation. The number of directed powers it awards to the Secretary of State to instruct combined authorities is alarming. The purpose clause proposed by my noble friends reinvigorates the Bill to achieve what matters most to local government now and the issues most likely to be of concern in the future—namely, sustainable council finances and keeping the “local” in local government through locally led decision-making.
Putting aside the tax-raising powers for mayors enshrined in the Bill, it does nothing to address the serious concerns the sector has about putting the finances of our councils back on to a sustainable footing, or on the ever-increasing DSG deficits or the seismic pressures placed on upper-tier authorities in the delivery of their SEND responsibilities. However, what we had before Christmas was the Government’s unfair funding announcement, which left many councils worse off than before following the withdrawal of the remoteness adjustments metric, which in turn has left councils such as Buckinghamshire £44 million worse off.
We then come to the part of this purpose clause on local decision-making, which my noble friends are correct to underpin. At the start of my contribution, I referenced centralisation. It is astonishing that a devolution-facing Bill will essentially award mass powers to the Secretary of State to impose LGR and strategic authorities without any say from local authorities and groups in those areas. If devolution is to work, it needs to be locally led by local leaders and the community, not forced on communities by Whitehall. Over recent years, we have seen that local government reorganisation and the creation of combined authorities can be agreed by a consensus in local communities and without the imposition of Whitehall. Just look at Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire—two examples of unitarisation which have gone to plan. I welcome the addition in this purpose clause of ensuring that reorganisation and the creation of strategic authorities are locally led.
The Government’s approach to this has already been fairly shambolic. County council leaders who had elections postponed were of the clear understanding that mayoral elections, shadow unitary authority elections or a combination of both would happen in May 2026. Instead, we have had further delay as a result of Whitehall not working closely with local leaders. This is why the point in the proposed new clause about locally enshrined decision-making is worthy. I hope the Government will accept this amendment so that the purpose clause sits in the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I have no interests to declare, other than that I want legislation to be as good as it can be. I very much welcome my noble friend’s amendment because it provides the foundation for my Amendment 251 that would provide for post-legislative scrutiny, which we will come to much later. Too often, Ministers see legislative success in terms of getting a measure on to the statute book. The real measure of success is when the Act delivers what Parliament intended to deliver. To check whether it has done that, post-legislative scrutiny is necessary some years after it has passed.
To assess whether the Act has achieved what it intended, one needs to know clearly what its purpose is—in other words, the basis on which you are undertaking the measurement. This amendment has the great virtue that it stipulates the five purposes that the Bill is intended to deliver. That would provide the measure against which a body set up to engage in post-legislative scrutiny could examine whether it has actually delivered. That is the great value of this amendment and, for that reason, the Government should have the confidence to accept it, as it would show they believe that the Act will deliver what it is designed to do. If they will not accept the amendment, will they bring forward a purpose clause of their own to demonstrate what they believe are the key purposes against which success can be measured?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have no interests to declare. Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I am an academic and am interested in clear language, among other things. I was horrified when I first read the Bill by the looseness of its language. Devolution has already been mentioned. The PACAC report some three years ago on the governance of England noted that
“we … refer to what is currently taking place in England as ‘decentralisation’”
rather than devolution, but it is not really effective devolution. This Bill carries on what its predecessor under the Conservative Government was doing in providing a mayoral strategic structure throughout England.
“Local”, “community” and “neighbourhood” are used extremely loosely throughout the Bill. The use of “strategic” implies something that is not local and has to be seen separately from it. Incidentally, in talking about strategic authorities, we enter into the structure of government in the United Kingdom and are talking about constitutional matters—although, with the odd absence of constitution that we have in this country, Governments can muck about with local government in a way that no other constitutional democracy that I am aware of can.
I regard community as very local. In France, the commune is the village, and each commune has a mayor. I think about the ward represented by my colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton; she has five or six separate communities within the one ward. Neighbourhoods are parts of towns or cities, and a neighbourhood is somewhere you can walk around, but the Bill uses those terms to cover much larger areas. That raises questions about its relationship with central government, in setting up a network of strategic authorities.
I have submitted a later amendment that refers to a mayoral council for England; that indeed has been set up by prime ministerial fiat, but is only a pale shadow of the structure for the Council of the Nations and Regions and the mayoral council associated with it, which Gordon Brown usefully proposed some years ago. If we are to have real devolution, there will have to be some mechanism for negotiation between strategic authorities and central government. That is why the absence of any reference to the fiscal issue here also indicates that we are not really dealing with devolution.
The last thing I want to say is that, according to all the opinion polls, we are in a situation in which public trust in national government is remarkably—horrifyingly —low. Public opinion polls also say that public trust in local government is less bad than it is in central government. Strong local government, with councillors whom your average voter might actually know, is one of the ways that one holds democracy together. Colleagues like the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, find themselves trying to represent 15,000 people per ward in a district like Bradford; that is not really effective local democracy. It is very hard for the councillor to know all the electors, let alone for the electors to know the councillors. When we come to the question of town and parish councils, and devolution from strategic authorities to the levels below, we will wish to emphasise that.
I signal that, as we talk about the context of the Bill and strategic authorities, we must first be clear how those strategic authorities relate to central government and, on the other side, how they relate to the single tier of effective local government and to the town and parish councils in which we hope your ordinary voter will find some sense of identity and participation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
Before I comment on the amendments in this group, I send my very best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We had an online meeting with her last week, and I know how frustrated she is not to be able to be part of this Committee’s work at the moment. I hope that she will be able to return to work with us in due course, so please convey our best wishes back to her.
I thank all noble Lords who have continued to engage with me since Second Reading and for the amendments that have been submitted. This House does great work on Bills, as I have experienced on both occasions that I have taken Bills through the House recently, and I am very grateful for that engagement and the work that has been done between Second Reading and Committee. I will start with a brief introduction of my own.
The Bill will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Westminster to mayors and local leaders, enabling them to unlock growth, transport and infrastructure and deliver the change that we need in our local areas. It will deliver our commitment to a fit, decent and legal local government as the foundation of devolution by establishing, for example, a new local audit office that will transform our broken local audit system. We have committed to transfer power out of Westminster to all levels, which is why the Bill will also empower our communities via a new duty for local authorities to establish effective neighbourhood governance, bringing decision-making closer to communities, and a new community right to buy, which will help our authorities to have the power to do with the assets that they value what they think is the right thing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Turning briefly to Amendments 95 and 266 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—I wish her well; we are missing her already—I agree with the principle that this Bill should provide genuine devolution, with decision-making lying with local government and not dictated by central government. This was the guiding principle behind my amendment. I am especially grateful to those who recognise that this is not about trapping the Government but about anchoring their ambitions in the text of the Bill and I thank my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Norton of Louth for their support. I am looking forward to his Amendment 251, where we can discuss further the important issue that he is raising.
Ministers tell us that the amendment is unnecessary because these principles already guide the Government’s approach, but the evidence simply does not sustain that claim. I want to look at one relevant example—housebuilding. The facts are stark. England delivered 208,600 new additional dwellings in 2024-25, well below the Government’s implied benchmark of 300,000. In the first half of 2025, completions fell by 12.6% year on year. Some areas recorded extraordinary collapses. Labour-run Islington saw a 90.2% fall in completions. Even the OBR forecasts show housebuilding falling from 260,000 annually to just 215,000 by 2026-27. That is a 17% decline, moving us even further away from the trajectory and the numbers needed. New-build completions hit an eight-year low in 2025 at 190,600, again far below what is required.
We have heard warm words about empowerment, sustainability, local accountability, growth and locally led planning, but the real-world outcomes—the measures by which our residents judge us—tell a very different story. That is precisely why this purpose clause is needed. This amendment asks the Government only to put in the Bill what they say they believe—a very simple message on the front of this Bill, not in guidance on a large piece of paper, but a simple message that says that devolution should be consent led, that local finances must be sustainable, that social care must be accountable and must be protected, that local growth must be enabled through genuine local powers and that housebuilding must be locally driven and responsive. If the Government are confident that they will already be fulfilling these aims, enshrining them in a purpose clause should not be a burden but a reassurance to councils, to communities and to Parliament.
I hope that the Government have listened and will consider this amendment very carefully to align the Bill not just with the Government’s rhetoric but with the realities facing local government today. But at this point I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether, within a strategic authority’s competence, it would have the power to borrow in order to nationalise local transport.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. This group of amendments on Clause 2 concerns the areas of competence afforded to strategic authorities under the Bill. The amendments tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook are probing. They seek to test the scope and limits of the powers the Government intend to devolve, and to understand the rationale behind the choices made in drawing up this list.
We have tried to understand the logic that underpins the Bill. Devolution, if done well, can bring decision-making closer to communities, improving outcomes for local people and delivering better value. But ambition must be matched with clarity, legal certainty and a clear understanding of how these powers are intended to operate in practice. Clause 2 is central to that. It is right that this Committee examines it carefully. Of course, this would be so much easier to debate if the Government were being clear on the powers and fiscal capacity that they are devolving to local government. However, as my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook commented, we see little in the Bill of what is actually being devolved.
Amendment 2 in my name would leave out Clause 2(a). This amendment probes whether, within a strategic authority’s competence, there would be the power to borrow to acquire local transport businesses. The Bill as drafted appears to give strategic authorities a broad remit over transport, but it is not clear whether this extends to the acquisition of assets, the taking over of services or the borrowing powers that would be required to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s intention here. Is the power envisaged to be purely strategic and co-ordinating, or could it extend to ownership and operational control? If the latter, what safeguards or limitations would apply? Is transport buses and trams, or is it also rail?
Our Amendment 5 concerns the reference to public safety. This is a term that appears in a number of statutes but its meaning is not always consistent. This amendment seeks to determine what is meant by public safety in the context of the Bill and on what legal definition this remit is set out. Do the Government intend this to relate to emergency planning, community safety partnerships, policing or something broader? Clarity is essential, not least to avoid overlap or conflict with existing statutory duties.
Amendment 11 in my name seeks to clarify how strategic authorities will be expected to identify, seek and assume powers in their areas of competence, and how accountability for those powers will be maintained. The amendment proposes that strategic authorities may exercise functions only within a powers framework set by the Secretary of State, who would be required by regulation to specify the scope and limits of powers, identify any functions reserved to central government and impose any conditions or statutory objectives. It would also require strategic authorities to publish a statement setting out which powers they have assumed and how these relate to the functions within their constituent councils. This is intended to ensure clarity over scope, limits, conditions and transparency for both constituent councils and Parliament as to where responsibility lies.
Before I conclude I want briefly to acknowledge the other amendments in this group, which raise important questions about the breadth and ambition of the proposed areas of competence. My noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to include community engagement and empowerment, a reminder that devolution must be rooted not only in institutional structures but in the active participation of the people it is intended to serve.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. My Amendment 3 would make a simple change but it highlights something fundamental to the Bill, so I want to spend a bit more time going through it than that single-word change would imply.
In looking through the areas of competence, energy is conspicuous by its absence, given that it will be a central challenge for the country—and, indeed, the mission of the Government—in the coming years. I shall use the Midlands region, where I live, as an example; of course, the first energy transition really started in the Midlands. I recently visited the Science Museum down the road, where there is an excellent example of the Boulton and Watt steam engine, which was brought into use in Birmingham and started to turbocharge the demand for coal and the first energy transition from biomass to fossil fuels.
That was a locally led transition, of course, but today, the Midlands remains the industrial heartland of the UK. We have so many energy-intensive users and heavy manufacturing, ranging from nuclear reactors and aero engines to trains, excavators and cars. As a region, we want to help lead the latest energy transition, as articulated in the recent Midlands Engine’s White Paper on energy security; I chaired the task force to produce that.
For a number of years, I have been making the case that, to date, the energy transition has been delivered in a top-down fashion. We have had many welcome developments, such as the formation of the NESO—the National Energy System Operator—but there is still a sense that this is something being done to communities, rather than bringing them along on the journey. No doubt progress is being made on the regional planning for the local power plant through Great British Energy, but we are not yet in a place where we have a fully joined-up governance system that marries up the necessary top-down view of the energy system and the critical bottom-up view that informs it.
Why is it important to drive the transition locally? First, I have already mentioned bringing local communities along on the journey. We are talking about significant changes to buildings, including changes in how we heat and insulate them, and changes to both grid architecture and next-generation charging. All this will be much more effective if communities are helping to drive this themselves and seeing those benefits.
Secondly, local areas have the knowledge of how best to implement the energy transition. For example, they know their local housing stock best. They know which technologies are best for future heating solutions, whether that means district heating or heat pumps. They know where the grid, the charging and the local generation is.
That feeds into my final point, on costs. The cost of the energy transition is getting significant attention at the moment, but the benefits for the Government here are the cost savings possible with a locally led approach. Billions in savings are possible if the most appropriate solution is brought forward for local areas, using local knowledge rather than one-size-fits-all. Regions and authorities are recognising this and taking action, but the Government need to drive this approach forward and avoid the patchwork nature referred to in our debate on the previous group.
What is needed is proper energy planning, at a local level, which then feeds up into regional plans and, ultimately, into the spatial strategic energy plan for the UK that the NESO is producing. That is when we will have a transition where we bring in all the expertise at a local level, which means the most efficient solutions at the lowest cost. There is an opportunity here for the Government to recognise, in the areas of competence, the centrality of energy to what strategic authorities need to deliver; this would ensure that strategic authorities are delivering on energy for their regions. The Government could use that to define how a bottom-up governance system for energy could work, how that might flow up into the spatial strategic energy plan, how that will interface with GBE and NESO, and so on.
I was grateful to meet the Minister last week. We discussed how paragraph (a) refers to “transport and local infrastructure” and how that is slightly misleading, in that it may give the impression of a focus on transport. The other benefit of this amendment is that it would clarify that first part of Clause 2 and provide clarity in the language on what strategic authorities are trying to deliver. With that, I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a visual artist. Amendment 4 in my name is a small but important clarifying amendment. It simply adds the words “including through tourism” to paragraph (d) of Clause 2, which already defines “economic development and regeneration” as a core “area of competence” for strategic authorities. This reflects the Local Government Association’s view that tourism should be explicitly recognised in the Bill rather than left implicit.
Tourism is not a marginal activity; it is one of the principal ways in which economic development and regeneration happen in practice. It supports local jobs, sustains town centres, underpins cultural and heritage assets and brings external spending directly into communities. In many places, particularly outside the large cities, it is the economic driver.
I have deliberately not proposed tourism as a stand-alone category nor sought to incorporate it into the important Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. His amendment rightly strengthens the strategic recognition of the arts, heritage and creative industries. My amendment is narrower and more operational. It simply makes it clear that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it in practice.
Too often, tourism is grouped alongside the arts and creative industries in local authority structures, where its scale and commercial focus can unintentionally shape priorities and funding conversations that are not directly about culture itself. Placing tourism clearly within economic development helps to maintain that distinction while allowing cultural policy to retain its own strategic clarity. This matters particularly in the context of the Government’s emerging work on a visitor or tourism levy. Even at modest levels, published estimates suggest that such a levy could raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year in England and potentially over £1 billion annually if applied more widely—sums that would exceed Arts Council England’s entire annual capital budget and be comparable in scale to a decade of lost local authority cultural investment.
In the Cultural Policy Unit’s helpful paper A City Tourism Charge—the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will no doubt develop this point further on Amendment 6, with which I entirely agree—there is a strong and well-evidenced case that a significant proportion of any such levy should be invested directly in cultural and heritage assets, which are often the very reason that people visit in the first place. For strategic authorities to play a meaningful role in shaping and deploying such tools, tourism needs to be clearly within scope. Without explicit inclusion, there is a risk that tourism falls between stools—assumed but not quite owned. This amendment provides clarity, not prescription, and I hope that the Minister will see it as a proportionate and helpful addition.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 8 in my name, which would have the effect of adding to the list of areas of competence in Clause 2 an additional paragraph (h), “community engagement and empowerment”. Noble Lords would not be surprised by the suggestion that this should be designated as one of the areas of competence of strategic authorities and mayors, as the clue is in the Title: the Bill is about community empowerment, and community engagement is instrumental to the achievement of community empowerment. It is therefore one of the areas of competence for mayors.
This led me to thinking about what the Government are trying to achieve by listing the areas of competence—let us understand that and then we can decide what it is sensible to put into the list. As it happens, the White Paper was somewhat more helpful than the Bill itself in this respect, since quite clearly what is intended, as the White Paper puts it, is that this list should comprise
“areas where Strategic Authorities should have a mandate to act strategically to drive growth as well as support the shaping of public services, where strategic level coordination adds value”.
I am looking at that and thinking that “competence” is not necessarily the right word for this; perhaps it is “responsibility”. Let us not worry about the word, but let us at least understand what the Government are trying to achieve. Then I realised that, of course, the point is that they have listed seven because subsequently there is an intention to have up to seven commissioners. Is the answer, “Well, there just has to be seven”? I do not think we need constrain ourselves in that regard.
I then thought that perhaps these are listed because they are the areas of functional responsibility where additional functions are provided by the Bill at a later stage, but when one looks at the functions of mayors, six are the subject of additional functional responsibilities and powers itemised later in the Bill. Environment and climate change is left out but is none the less an area of competence, so we are clearly not talking just about what the Bill adds to mayors by way of responsibilities; we are talking about what mayoral strategic authorities should be engaged with to drive growth, to create social cohesion and to shape public services.
It seems to me, therefore, that there are a number of additions and no problem about how many, as long as they are genuinely representative of the areas of competence—meaning, responsibility and functional powers that are available to mayoral strategic authorities. It seems to me—this will save me getting up and saying anything more on the next two groups—that both Amendments 6 and 7 have merit, in that respect, in adding arts, cultural and creative industries on the one hand and definitely adding rural affairs on the other.
The number of commissioners should be determined in their own right, rather than by reference to the number of areas of competence. If there are more areas of competence than there are commissioners, that is not a problem. Interestingly, while listing the seven areas of competence as we have them in Clause 2, the devolution White Paper said:
“We are interested in where this list could be expanded now or in the future”.
I think that we can help the Government by expanding the list. I personally think that all three that I mentioned could be added without any demerits. They would then be more comprehensively illustrative of the range of functional activities that strategic authorities should be engaged in, in order to achieve maximum growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, quite rightly illustrated by reference to tourism—how they can promote growth, shape public services and improve the circumstances for the populations that they serve.
From my point of view, community engagement and empowerment is central to the delivery of many of these. I have no intention that community engagement and empowerment should be the responsibility of a commissioner. It should be the responsibility of the mayor and, of course, it is a cross-cutting area of competence. I can see no reason why one would leave it out, since it is instrumental to the achievement of the objectives.
I shall finish with just one question to the Minister, which I am perfectly happy to take up with her at a later stage. If it is indeed the Government’s belief that this list may be expanded, either
“now or in the future”,
as the White Paper said, where is the power to add to this list? I cannot find such a power. It seems to me that on the face of it there should be such a power. Even if the Government are not persuaded today, clearly in the future, if, for example, using later powers, the mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities were to make proposals for changes to the Secretary of State and acquire additional functional responsibilities, this may be in a new area of competence, but where is the ability to put that into the legislation? I hope that the Minister may, at this or a later stage, agree that we should add an order-making power at that point.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, in this discussion, there is a lot of confusion between what I call the two Ds: democracy and delivery. I have spent over 40 years working in East End housing estates. Around the time I first arrived, I sat in a room with a youth worker, who asked a group of young people, “What do you want to do?” They said, “Well, miss, we want to go to Walton-on-the-Naze”—which is a seaside resort in Essex—“and we want to go ice-skating and horse-riding”. So I got on an Empress Coach with this youth worker and all these young people, and we did those three things. Then a year later, I returned to the same room with the same well-meaning youth worker, who asked again, “What do you want to do?” They said, “Well, miss, we would like to go to Walton-on-the-Naze and horse-riding and ice-skating”. I said to the youth worker, “You’ve been to university, you’ve been to Australia and you’ve travelled around the world. Why are you asking these young people this ridiculous question?” She said, “This is democracy. This is giving them a real choice”. I said, “Really? Why don’t you suggest we’ll take them across the Sinai Desert in six months’ time?” She replied, “Don’t be ridiculous. They’ve never heard of the Sinai Desert”—precisely.
With a business partner, we ended up taking 200 of those young people, in a programme we developed, across the Sinai Desert with the Bedouin. We climbed Mount Sinai and had an amazing experience. When these bright, sharp, entrepreneurial young people from East End housing estates came back, they raised all sorts of interesting questions. One of them, called Darren, wanted to go off to New York—which he did; he then developed an amazing piece of youth work, which was very entrepreneurial and which the Princess of Wales recently visited.
In the very early days in Bromley-by-Bow, we began to embrace an entrepreneurial programme which was created with local people, including local young people. Some 97 businesses have been involved in that over the last 10 or 12 years. Over the years in Bromley-by-Bow, we must have hosted more than 70 Government Ministers, but I fear that we are still asking the same question in many of these processes. With this kind of legislation, because the granular detail is not understood, I fear that we will spend a lot of time with large infrastructure asking people what they want and where they want to go, without thinking about how we really empower a community, particularly a poor community. That is about jobs and work and, in our experience, about helping them build businesses and enterprises and lifting the game.
I agree that community engagement is really important, but so is the granular detail of how you do it, what it means in practice and how you generate learning-by-doing cultures on the ground in some of our poorest communities. If we do not start to do that, I fear that, once again—I must be on my 14th Government now—we will have some restructuring. We will use all these very fine words, but we will be back in that room with those young people asking them what they want, with no clarity about democracy and delivery. I have found with East Enders that they are interested more in delivery than in talk—that when you promise things, you actually do them, and you transform the opportunities for their children. That will not happen unless we get more into the granularity and create learning-by-doing entrepreneurial cultures. That is what empowerment looks like.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, I feel the need to stress that we should not write off deliberative democracy, where people can access information and ideas and come together to reach new conclusions. Let us also stress that the economy—businesses and jobs—is one part of a much larger whole that is the community. Our society needs resources, education, time and health, so a simplistic, one-directional look at what our communities need will not answer our issues.
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who made some very telling points about how this is a seriously half-baked Bill. Your Lordships’ Committee is going to have to add quite a bit of heat to get it anything like ready for the table. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association of Local Councils. I too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, well and hope that we can see her back soon.
I start with the noble Baroness’s Amendment 95, as it demonstrates why we need many of the amendments in this group. It sets out in clear terms that the role of local government is to provide “democratic, place-based leadership” and it should not be
“solely a delivery arm of central government”.
Increasingly, that is what local government has been forced into being through the decades-long power grab by Westminster, accompanied by swingeing austerity that has left councils unable to carry out pretty well anything but their statutory responsibilities, which are of course determined by Westminster. That is a major driver of the extremely high disillusionment with politics and why the slogan “Take back control” was so popular in 2016.
I set all that out because my Amendment 9 seeks to add to the list of areas of competence. Most of the amendments in this group, as well as Amendment 95, would take the Government in the direction they say they want this Bill to go. I will focus on Amendment 9, but, regarding Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on community engagement and empowerment, I have a lot of later amendments on this which are not necessarily contradictory but potentially complementary. I also support the community energy amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Last night in the Chamber, I spoke about community energy; we are just not seeing the driving force that we need to bring renewables to local communities, which surely has to be a crucial part of the areas of competence of the new strategic authorities.
My Amendment 9 addresses food security and poverty. In terms of local food production, according to a recent report from the CPRE, 1,7 00 farms have disappeared around the edges of towns and cities since 2010. We have seen those peri-urban areas stop being food-producing areas when they should be at the centre of local food systems. We have seen a massive cut in the number of county farms; according to figures from 2019, over a couple of decades they have gone from 426,000 acres to about 200,000 acres. We have seen councils’ control over local food systems hacked away.
We know—this is why poverty and food fit together very well—that we have enormous spatial inequalities, arguably the highest in the OECD. That has been increasing over three decades. There is an understandable feeling in Cumbria, Cornwall, Northumberland and north Devon that Westminster does not understand their poverty problem or the reality of their lives. They are right. We cannot fix the problems of each of those places by making one rule from Westminster; tackling poverty in those places has to be a local responsibility, with power and, importantly, resources to go with it. We have been through regional development agencies, local enterprise partnerships, town groups and the wildly unpopular investment zones. There has been a huge democratic deficit in all those systems, and they all have failed.
I draw on two reports from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. The first is The False Economy of Big Food and the Case for a New Food Economy, which focuses on how what is colloquially known as “big food”—large centralised systems—is making us sick. It is the first report I have seen to have calculated the estimated total cost of our broken food system: £268 billion. A lot of that is the costs of healthcare, welfare support, social care and loss of productivity, all of which are having to be met by local authorities. Those are the costs—surely we need to put the solution and a reduction of those costs together.
We have lots to do here in Westminster. We have an extremely uneven playing field with a handful of big supermarkets and big food manufacturers entirely dominating the markets, throwing their weight around against local communities and farmers. Westminster needs to act, but how are we going to fill in the gaps? What are we going to put in all these different communities up and down the land? There is no one answer. Westminster does not have the answers.
I stress that about 22% of people in the UK are in food poverty. That means people who have a limited opportunity to feed themselves well, often relying on food banks, et cetera. UKRI is funding the Food Systems Equality project, involving systems in local communities to ensure healthy, sustainable food that reflects cultural preferences. We have recognition from one arm of government that the solution to our food issues has to be local—that is what UKRI is doing—but we have to put the power into local and strategic authorities to deal with that.
I pick one example of where something great is happening. An organisation called Growing Kent & Medway is an inspiring effort to create healthy and sustainable food systems in what has traditionally been the garden of England. It is place based, with a huge number of small independent businesses. I have tasted some great cheese and cider here in the House when they have come to visit us. But if we are going to have those kinds of systems all around the country in each area, they have to be supported by the strategic authorities.
Finally, I bring together food and poverty issues, including local food security in the UK. There is an interesting piece of work by the Royal Geographical Society, which carried out a visualisation of what food insecurity looks like in different parts of the country. It is useful to have this as a map, because you can see what different colours come out on the map showing the difference in different places. Food insecurity is variable across the country because of the levels of poverty, but the way in which people’s foodscapes are configured are different in different places. There is no way in which Westminster can find the solution for each place, because the solution in each place is different. There is nothing more fundamental for government to ensure that people are fed, but the Government in Westminster have to let go and let local communities find their own solutions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we have been talking about public safety under Amendment 5. I want to check with the Minister how far the Bill is linked to some of the issues with which other departments in Whitehall are dealing. We all know that all the complicated policy problems are cross-departmental. Chapter 6 of the Strategic Defence Review was about a whole-society approach to home defence and home security, and the need for a broad approach to the multiple threats that we now face, including terrorism, climate change and hybrid warfare of one sort or another. The review stressed that we need local resources, knowledge and co-operation in order to make sure that we face some of those threats. So, I am glad to see public safety here.
I recall that when the Salisbury poisoning took place, the public health officer in Salisbury played a vital and impressive role in sorting out its response. I also remember that, when the Covid pandemic struck, the Government outsourced the placing of testing centres to two large companies, one of which had its headquarters in Miami and made a remarkable number of mistakes in where to place the centres. We need not just strategic but local authorities to be leading on this. I hope that the Minister can assure us that public safety is one of the dimensions with which we are concerned.
I am struck that it has been eight months since the Strategic Defence Review was published. It also said in chapter 6 that we needed to start a “national conversation” on how we respond to multiple threats. I have not heard any of that national conversation yet. I hope that the Minister’s department and the Ministry of Defence are in active conversation about how this dimension is built back into our society and our government structure and how the resources—because it costs money—will be provided to local authorities, local civil rescue services, local fire services and police forces to make sure that we can face these multiple threats to our public safety.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group, but the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made me think that it might be helpful to ask the Minister to explain where she sees land management and agricultural policy fitting in any of these categories. This is a bit of a precursor to the rural affairs amendment coming up, but it would be helpful at this stage to hear that. Food security is key to the agricultural policy that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised. I note my interests as a farmer in Devon. I also sit on the food security programme board for the Great South West. I am interested to understand whether the Government think that strategic authorities will have some competence over those areas. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group either, but my noble friend Lord Lansley raised some points. I need to declare a set of interests. I am a non-executive director of Norse Group, the part-owner of Porter and Verrells, a non-executive director of Elixr Earth and strategic adviser to Prodo. There is also Efficio and Peopletoo; I think that is it. They are all companies that will, if this legislation goes really well, probably find a way of doing something better. If this legislation goes badly, they will all probably suffer for it. So, one way or another, they will all be tied into this.
I had not realised, because I do not read the Bills like my noble friend Lord Lansley does, that the Government have not left a place in which they could add further powers to mayoral combined authorities as we prove the concept. At the moment, we know that the concept is different in different places. The team in Manchester is steaming away doing loads of brilliant stuff. Most of the other places are sitting further behind. We already have a landscape with different powers. If the Government do not find a way of putting that in after they reject my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, will they consider putting something like a power of general confidence in there for strategic authorities so that they can actually start doing things that are necessary for the areas that they look after, which will be different in different places?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I would like briefly to contribute in the hope that I can be helpful to the Minister at this point. There is a list of areas of competence in Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, told us that this was a probing amendment. By implication, I think that that means some thought can now go into the list of areas of competence.
I just want to add one new thing. I was a board member of a regional development agency, One North East, for a number of years. There is a difference between the list of areas of competence that we had and this list. Let me explain. We had a rural role and a role in culture and sport, particularly capital investment. We had a clear role in tourism and in energy. We had no role in public safety, health, well-being and public service reforms, or community engagement and empowerment, and we did not directly address issues of poverty, although we did indirectly by the nature of what the RDA was trying to do. I wonder if the Minister might take on board all that has been said and look at those areas of competence. I hope that they are not seen to be a final list. In my view, they are not a final list but a very good basis for discussion. I hope that the Government will be willing to do that before Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on the areas of competence and for what has been a useful and helpful discussion on the subject. Many of the amendments in the group seek to probe the list of mayoral competences and I understand why noble Lords would want to do that, but I want to be clear that the areas of competence are deliberately broad to enable a wide range of activities to fall within the scope of strategic authorities. They are intended as a framework that mayors can adapt as their local areas determine where they should place the emphasis.
Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to create a distinct area of competence of “community engagement and empowerment”. It is important that all tiers of local government work to deliver for their communities, as we all know. Strategic authorities, like any other tier of government, will be empowered to engage with those who live and work in their areas. Those already in place do so effectively.
Indeed, many existing combined and combined county authorities already use their powers to engage with their communities to ensure that their work meets local needs. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority has an established region-wide engagement platform, known as Your Voice, to strengthen dialogue with local communities. Through this initiative, alongside wider public engagement activity, the authority is gathering views to inform decisions on how its devolved funding is allocated.
The York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority has invested £1.9 million to support community building projects across the region. Funding has been given to buildings which play an important role for communities, such as the village halls in—I always hesitate to use the Yorkshire pronunciations, so forgive me if I get this wrong —Great Ouseburn and Kettlewell.
The areas of competence have been framed to enable a wide range of activity to fall within scope, including community engagement and empowerment. In this sense, it will be embedded within and throughout all the existing areas of competence. These competences are deliberately flexible. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about any power in the Bill, but we intend for it to be a framework; I will reflect on that point and come back to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, made a point about action and impact, as opposed to the broader framework. I refer him to the Pride in Place funding that does exactly as he was describing; it is £20 million of funding for each of 250 neighbourhoods. This is a long-term project, over 10 years, to make sure that each place is able to shape the things that are important to it. I refer the noble Lord to that important project, which shows how we are working with communities—not to them—to move forward the kinds of projects that he was talking about.
Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to create distinct areas of competence for
“reducing poverty and socio-economic inequality”,
and food security. She will not be surprised to hear that I share her objective of addressing poverty, socioeconomic inequality and food insecurity. The Government remain firmly committed to tackling these issues by addressing all the factors that underpin these challenges that we see in communities.
The areas of competence already enable strategic authorities to tackle poverty and socioeconomic inequality in a cross-cutting manner, via skills and employment support, economic development, investing in transport, tackling health inequalities and in many other ways. The same is true for food security. In Greater Manchester, the combined authority is taking concerted action to tackle food inequality and poverty through initiatives such as No Child Should Go Hungry, which has provided thousands of emergency food cards to residents. At a strategic level, mayors will take account of all the needs of their areas, and locally relevant information, such as the land use framework that colleagues in Defra are producing.
Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to add energy to the existing transport and local infrastructure area of competence. The noble Lord and I have spoken about this Government’s energy plans and I have written to him today. With his permission, in a moment, I will quote briefly from that letter because I think it would be helpful for noble Lords to have a bit more detail. On the role that we intend strategic authorities to play in this space, while I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s amendment, I do not believe at this stage it is necessary. As noble Lords will know, the themes of the areas of competence are, as I have said, deliberately broad in scope and include thematic policy areas such as local infrastructure and environment and climate change. Energy cuts across all these, as well as other areas of competence. Importantly, strategic authorities can, and will be able to, address their local communities’ energy needs through the areas of competence. Indeed, many are already doing so.
On future strategies, the Government are undertaking a number of pieces of work reviewing the benefits of local energy planning for meeting national goals, several of which will lay out our approach for local renewable energy. The forthcoming local power plan will be owned jointly by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. That will outline our shared vision for the local and community energy sector. We are continuing to develop the local power plan with Great British Energy and updates will be provided soon. Similarly, the warm homes plan will cover housing retrofit and heat network zoning and will be published shortly. There will be more details in that plan on heat network zoning. The secondary legislation, rather than this Bill, will provide the necessary framework to empower local authorities to act as heat network zone co-ordinators under the Energy Act 2023. That is just a bit more information on those areas. For example, the Liverpool City Region is working to establish Mersey Tidal Power, with the aim of delivering Europe’s largest tidal power project by 2030, capable of powering up to 1 million homes. In the west of England, the combined authority has implemented its local energy scheme, which is funding community-led renewable projects.
Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, seeks to add tourism to the existing economic development and regeneration areas of competence. The Bill already makes provision for strategic authorities to support the tourism industry. Clause 41 extends local powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors. Combined authorities and combined county authorities can use these powers to promote tourism and host events attracting visitors to boost local businesses such as hotels and shops. Many existing combined authorities and county authorities are already making use of these powers. For instance, the West Midlands Combined Authority is investing £120 million into an economy, trade and tourism programme, supporting over 250 businesses and 10 major sporting and cultural events. This example demonstrates that prescribing an extensive list of industries and sectors within the area of competence is not required. The areas of competence will empower mayors and strategic authorities to determine their own priorities in the application of their powers, and many are already doing so to address local issues such as tourism.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove transport and local infra- structure from the areas of competence for strategic authorities. I note from the noble Baroness’s explanatory statement that her intention in tabling this amendment is to probe how the power to borrow will work for mayoral strategic authorities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was probing this during his speech. All existing mayoral strategic authorities already have the power to borrow for all their functions, including transport. Clause 12 will confer the power to all future mayoral strategic authorities. Strategic authorities have full discretion over the exercise of borrowing powers and allocation of resources, subject to obtaining the requisite support from their constituent members via the budget voting process.
Like the rest of local government, strategic authorities must also operate within the prudential framework— I think all noble Lords here would expect that. This framework comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. It provides robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. In practice, this amendment would remove transport and local infrastructure from the areas of competence for strategic authorities. That is clearly contrary to the aims of the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry, but the Minister does not seem to have mentioned this: I think we are also probing where LRS would fit in and what level they would be if they are going to continue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will finish what I am saying, then I will see whether I can answer the noble Baroness’s question.
Including public safety within the areas of competence is important for several reasons. First, it enables devolution of further public safety functions. For example, consideration is currently being given to the role of strategic authorities in resilience as part of the post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, due to be completed by March next year.
Secondly, it allows mayors to delegate certain existing functions relating to public safety to a commissioner; where the mayor is responsible for policing, they must appoint a deputy mayor for policing to whom policing functions are delegated. Additionally, the inclusion of public safety within the areas of competence allows a mayor who is responsible for fire services, but not for policing, to delegate certain fire-related functions to a public safety commissioner.
Thirdly, it enables the mayor to convene local partners and collaborate with other mayors to tackle questions of public safety—something all residents would expect them to do. There is a wide range of activity in which we would expect mayors to participate.
Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to clarify how strategic authorities will seek and assume powers within their area of competence and then be held to account. One of the central aims of the Bill is to move away from the current patchwork of powers and piecemeal devolution of functions. To that end, the Government’s ambitious new devolution framework will set out a coherent and consistent set of functions.
Part 2 of the Bill sets out specific functions and the voting and governance arrangements that strategic authorities will automatically receive at each level of the devolution framework, categorised under the relevant area of competence. For example, the duty to produce a local growth plan is categorised under the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence. The Bill allows for new powers and duties to be added to the devolution framework over time, ensuring that it remains adaptive and responsive to future needs and policy developments. Mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities will also be able to request and pilot new functions so it will be possible to test and evaluate outcomes ahead of adding new functions to the framework.
Finally, I turn to accountability. Combined authorities and combined county authorities—
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, while the Bill clearly allows for additional functions and powers to be given to mayoral strategic authorities, the specific question was whether the Bill has a power to enable the areas of competence list to be amended.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I heard the noble Lord’s question. I responded earlier that I will come back to him on how this works within the Bill, so if that is okay, I will do it in writing and share it with other Members of the Committee.
Combined authorities and combined county authorities are required in law to establish both an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. Also, all strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes in the English devolution accountability framework and scrutiny protocol. The Government remain committed to strengthening local accountability and scrutiny, and we are exploring models such as local public accounts committees; we will provide an update on our proposals in that regard in due course.
I hope that, with these reassurances and explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Perhaps I might come back to the issue of food security. In her answer, the Minister talked about access to food, which is obviously a crucial part of food security and very much related to poverty, but I do not think she really talked about food production and local systems of food distribution, which tie in with the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—particularly in terms of vegetables and fruit. We are talking about health, as well as pure calories, here. Do the Government see looking to produce as much food as possible locally as an important part of the new strategic authority?
Back in the depths of Covid, I chaired an online event on research from the University of Sheffield demonstrating that Sheffield could be self-sufficient in vegetables and fruit, growing in the green areas of the city. That is just a demonstration of the possibilities: if you get local attention on solving these issues, we can make real progress.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand why the noble Baroness is pushing her point strongly, but I will stick to the answer I gave: those areas of competence already enable a very wide framework to tackle poverty and socioeconomic inequality—including food production, if that is where the mayor chooses to go in a particular area. The issues raised by the noble Baroness are cross-cutting aspects so putting them into one of the competences would mean that you would not be able to work so effectively across those competences, including on things such as skills and health inequalities. It is right to leave the framework of competences as broad as possible to allow people to determine the best way forward at a local level.
There is other work going on in Defra, as the noble Baroness will be well aware, in relation to land use frameworks—as well as all of the other issues around how we account for local food production—but, from the point of view of this Bill, the competences and the broad framework that they offer give the widest framework for local authorities to tackle needs in their areas.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I know that the Minister cares a lot about these issues around community engagement, which is always encouraging to people such as me. As a social entrepreneur, I have spent my life at the other end of this telescope. I now operate with a team across this country, in some of the poorest communities, grappling with local authorities and the machinery of the state.
To be honest, we and some of our business partners find a lot of this state machinery very broken indeed; it is very difficult to make it work in practice. What people such as me are trying to suggest is that there needs to be some humility. It is difficult. I am aware that lots of colleagues in this Room have spent a lot of their lives in the public sector—I get all that; it has been my privilege to work with some rather excellent CEOs of local authorities and in the health service, as well as some who have not been so good, if I can put it like that—but there are real challenges with this machinery, whatever we say. I am experiencing them at the moment in one town in the north, where our Civil Service is not understanding the granular, practical detail of transformation and innovation—or what those things look like—and is in danger of putting old men in new clothes.
So, with the opportunity that appears before us in this legislation, let me explain why we need to create, at a granular, local level and in place, learning-by-doing cultures that pay attention to how we work with the public, local authorities, the health service, charities and the social sector—that is, how those interfaces work in practice to deliver. I suggest that it is because, at the moment, although the words all seem fine and lots of people care about this, when you try to do this stuff—as my colleagues and I do—something quite different starts to appear. I fear that, if we are not careful—and unless we grip some of that difficulty and some of the things that some of us have got a lot of grey hairs from trying to do—there will be lots of meaning well, but very little will change, in some of our poorest communities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for those additional points. In this Room there are many people from local government, who have spent many years working to make sure that what he called the machinery of state is not interfering with actually delivering at local level. What we are trying to do with the Bill is to make sure that we continue that, but no doubt we will have many discussions about whether or not it is going to work.
It is very important that what we do is driven by local people at local level. The Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network, which I started with my right honourable colleague from the other end, Steve Reed, about 15 years ago now, sets up pilot projects to show exactly how you start with the impact at local level and then work up to what needs to be done in the machinery to make that work. That is what I want to do but on a national scale, and I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards doing so.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I raised a minor point around paragraph (a) in Clause 2—“areas of competence”—which refers to “transport and local infrastructure”. My point is about the wording. That could perhaps be taken to mean local infrastructure related to transport. That is probably not the intention of the Government and this is local infrastructure in general, but perhaps there is an opportunity to clarify that wording.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord knows, because we have had the conversation, that I feel that the order of that wording is a little unfortunate. We will reflect on that because it does look as though it is infrastructure related just to transport. That is not the intention of the Bill. The Bill is intended to reflect that the competences will include local infrastructure and transport. If that local infrastructure relates also to transport, well and good, but it might be other infrastructure. So I will reflect on that and come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. What has emerged quite clearly is that there is a huge desire across the Committee for a proper devolution framework that is both ambitious and workable, and one that truly empowers local leaders while ensuring clarity, accountability and coherence.
I want to come back to competence because there appears to be some confusion. My noble friend Lord Porter raised the fact that local authorities already have a general power of competence. Therefore, I want to be clear: what do we mean by competence in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, raised, what matters for the public is delivery. For that to happen, local authorities, mayors and strategic authorities need to have the responsibility, the powers and the funding. My noble friend Lord Lansley, in helpfully referring to the White Paper, said that a competence is a strategic mandate “to do”, as opposed to the general power of competence. I would really appreciate it if the Minister could clarify—not necessarily now—exactly what we mean by an area of competence and what that means in terms of responsibilities, powers, funding and the ability to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, mentioned energy. Over a century ago the last energy revolution of neighbourhood gas and electricity was rolled out by local authorities because they had the power and the funding—they did not have the responsibility but they took the responsibility—to do so. By the sounds of it, many noble Lords here would like local authorities to be in the same position again to be able to do things at the local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned tourism, which is absolutely crucial to delivering economic growth, particularly in certain areas, such as Bedfordshire, where we have the delights of two national zoos and various other things.
My noble friend Lord Lansley and other noble Lords raised the very important issue of empowerment. It is partly because of the need to try to delve into and understand this that my noble friend Lady Scott and I tabled some of our amendments. Amendment 2 seeks precisely to understand what is meant by the devolution of transport powers; I appreciate that the Minister provided some clarity on that. Amendment 5 is about public safety; that term has significant implications, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. My noble friend Lady Scott raised the important issue of LRFs and where they will fit in the future. The importance is around how this will work in the future and the clarity as we go through this process. It is not just about what areas people are competent in but what powers, funding and responsibilities they will be given to deliver that.
The Earl of Clancarty
“(h) the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage as an area of competence for strategic authorities.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 6 would rectify what is, at present, a significant omission from the list of areas of competence: cultural concerns. Amendment 51 is intended to ensure that this area has its own commissioner. I share Amendment 52 with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on a related subject; they both wish to change 7 persons to 8 persons.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar for their support. I welcome the discussions I have had with Culture Commons. I thank the Local Government Association for its briefing and its support for this amendment. I support my noble friend Lady Prashar’s amendment, which has very similar intentions to my own, and look forward to her contributions as well as those of others.
I have given some thought about how this area of competence should be titled. I believe that certain cultural concerns need to be specified at this level in the Bill to know more precisely what it is we are discussing. In this, I have taken my cue from the Government, who, in talking about education, for instance, refer directly to “skills and employment support” as an area of competence, as currently listed in paragraph (b) of Clause 2.
The arts, including our theatres, art centres and more, and cultural services, including museums, libraries and more, provide what is termed the local cultural infrastructure. It is an infrastructure that, traditionally, local authorities have funded in significant part without a great deal of thought about commercial return, even though we know from countless Arts Council studies how much such investment is repaid many times over. It is therefore about funding—the funding that has survived—for the social good and the provision of a civic necessity. This is an infrastructure that, between 2009 and 2024, according to a report produced by the University of Warwick for the Campaign for the Arts, has suffered over 50% in cuts, as the Minister is well aware.
It could be argued that, without the statutory provision afforded by the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, the losses would have been even worse. This is specifically an aspect over which the mayor should have oversight because of the importance not just of economic growth but of cultural growth to a region—of course, one informs the other. Some of our councils, such as the one in Birmingham, are in dire straits in that respect. The first thing that needs to happen, irrespective of this legislation, is for this sector of the arts and cultural services to be properly funded again.
It is also true that there are a minority of councils where arts funding is virtually zero, and where councils have unforgivably said, “If you want the arts, take the train into London and go and watch a play in the West End”. The arts need to be supported—and in every local area, because local areas make up regions. That is why local growth plans, and the mapping of our arts and cultural ecosystem, are important. Despite the cuts, local authorities—and indeed district councils—are still hugely important as a mechanism for funding, not least because they have the local knowledge.
The arts are also slightly different from the more commercialised end of the creative industries. As I say, all regions should be seeking to support the arts, but not necessarily all the more commercialised creative industries, since certain localities or regions will or should be developing their own industries, such as in film or TV, gaming, digital and tech. The Local Government Association briefing helpfully points to the creative places growth fund and the Tees Valley creative investment zone as examples of these specifically industrial concerns and sources of funding, which of course are important in their own right—as is tourism, in relation to our arts and heritage. I support what my noble friend Lord Freyberg said on the previous group about the use of what will be large sums from the tourism levy for cultural purposes. If the moneys are used in this way, they will return to hospitality through making our cultural attractions even more attractive.
But tourism and cultural concerns are separate issues. Tourism drags in a lot of other things, including transport, for instance. It is important then to make the distinctions that I have made in this amendment between the arts, the creative industries, cultural services and heritage, for quite practical reasons because of the strong subtext of the Bill—one might almost say supertext —which is economic growth. There is the danger that, in the drive for growth through the creative industries, we lose sight of the importance of our basic cultural infrastructure and the importance of a region’s cultural as well as economic growth. The mayor should be as concerned about that existing infrastructure as having an effective creative industry strategy. Both of course are important and will feed into each other.
From this area of competence other things flow, whether or not they are formalised legislatively. Later in the Bill, we will discuss the treatment of cultural assets and local growth plans, in connection with amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and myself. As I said, I have tabled Culture Commons’s recommendation of a cultural ecosystem map, which would be hugely helpful. I have mentioned art centres and theatres already, but increasingly assets such as artists’ studios, grass-roots music venues and recording studios, some of which used to be able to thrive commercially, are under threat and require state intervention if we want to hold on to them. Where there are real concerns and gaps, mayors should be able to appeal formally to central government.
Finally, this should be an area of competence because every strategic authority should have these concerns. Not every mayor will have the experience or natural inclination of a Tracy Brabin, of course, but they should have the framework in which to act. I have two questions for the Minister. Does she believe that such cultural concerns should be an area of competence? I do not believe that it overlaps with any other area of competence. Secondly, if so, what does she understand as the responsibilities of a strategic authority in this respect? I have presented my argument, but I am open to other opinions. I beg to move.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I shall also speak to my amendment, which is simpler. As I go through my remarks, noble Lords will see the rationale for my amendment. It is clear that the Bill strengthens the architecture for economic growth. It stops short of embedding cultural and heritage ecosystems within this framework and it does not provide a clear mechanism through which MHCLG, DCMS and DSIT and their arm’s-length bodies can work collaboratively with strategic authorities. It leaves the very sectors, culture and heritage, which are the lifeblood of civic life, which encourage engagement by communities and which are a crucial part of the creative industries’ ecosystem, outside the formal machinery of devolution.
Cultural heritage, in my view, needs to be part of the core toolkit for mayors, since devolution is more than just economic growth. If this new architecture is to work, civic and cultural capabilities, which are the connective tissue of local life, have to thrive, so we need to create spaces where intercultural dialogue can take place.
Intercultural dialogue is not just a slogan but a bridge builder, where an ongoing practice of listening, understanding and negotiating difference to sustain social cohesion prevails for people to meet across boundaries, build trust, shape a shared sense of purpose and see themselves as part of a common story. Culture can be a powerful lever, used properly, to avoid the balkanisation of communities and arrest the intensification of difference in an era where identity politics are rife.
As we begin to develop a more robust regional tier of governance, we must ensure that the aims of fostering understanding and strengthening social bonds are woven into the strategic functions and that this change is seen as an opportunity for genuinely building social inclusion, not social division. I would argue that social cohesion matters for our national security, because we need to ensure that local devolution will help to harness national cohesion. This amendment will, in my view, go a long way in helping to ensure that there is deliberate engagement to coalesce around common issues that deepen what are called democratic behaviours and citizenship.
This amendment will not impose any fiscal or bureaucratic burdens but will ensure that culture and heritage sit alongside other competences. We need national economic renewal, but we also need social renewal. These measures as a whole will build trust and a sense of belonging. I am aware that culture and heritage are often characterised as cross-cutting issues, but the same could be said of other competences. It is because they sit across so many parts of people’s lives that they should not be left to discretionary treatment but should be integrated purposefully into the remit of this Bill.
This amendment is not just an adornment but is foundational and will give human meaning to structural changes. I also want to make it clear that this amendment is not prescriptive about scale, timing or configuration, because it will be rightly worked through by mayors with central government. I hope that the amendment will be looked at sympathetically and I thank Culture Commons for the support that it has provided.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am in favour of all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 6, which I have co-signed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing the amendment today and so eloquently expressing why it is so important to every strand of British life. Sitting next to a Lancastrian, it gives me great pleasure to extol the virtues of Yorkshire arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage. I pause to give my best wishes, too, to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and wish her a speedy return to this place. Having broken my ankle, I know how irritating it is to be immobile, but you have to let nature take its course.
As the MP at the time, I was delighted to be patron of Thirsk Museum. Many noble Lords may not know that Thomas Lord came from Thirsk, so when you go to Lord’s, think of Thirsk. James Herriot was also a son of Thirsk and I pay tribute to his son and daughter, who are keeping his memory alive. The James Herriot museum is one of the most visited museums in Thirsk and North Yorkshire. We are also very lucky to have the more recent Rural Arts centre, which is very active and a great contribution to local culture and the local economy.
Will the Minister say whether it was an oversight that arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage were omitted? Will she look favourably on this amendment to ensure that they are covered in the context of this Bill? This group of amendments is entirely complementary to later amendments that come in my name, and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I support these amendments this afternoon.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill. I also wish my noble friend the Minister a happy birthday for yesterday. I was delighted to hear her cite examples of good practice from my old region, Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region, especially on clean energy. As a city councillor I represented the poorest ward in Liverpool, and as an MEP I had the privilege of representing over 40 north-west local authorities.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support Amendment 6, to which I have added my name, and to express my full agreement with the case made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I also support Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Both amendments address a clear omission in the Bill by placing the arts, culture and creative industries, cultural services and heritage explicitly within the areas of competence of strategic authorities, precisely where local government, the Local Government Association and the sector itself understand them to sit. Amendment 51, also in the noble Earl’s name, provides the necessary consequential provision to ensure that this competence can operate coherently in practice. Together, these amendments bring clarity, not complication, and I strongly support them.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Clancarty and Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lady Prashar. I have spoken to a number of people in local government and become convinced that the new strategic authorities could benefit their regions if they had competence over the heritage and cultural sector.
Noble Lords have only to look at the catastrophic situation in the arts and cultural sector in the West Midlands to understand their importance. Birmingham has reduced the funding of arts in the city from £10 million in 2010 to a mere £1.1 million in 2024-26. In 2015, when the first big cuts were announced, they were in part because the political dysfunction of the city council persuaded the Arts Council to redirect funds, with a terrible effect on the city’s cultural and heritage life. Since then, the crisis has continued. The result of this long decline in funding was that in 2024 the city council signed off 100% reductions to funding for some of the most internationally recognised city institutions—the CBSO, Birmingham Rep, the Birmingham Royal Ballet, the Ikon Gallery, Fabric dance and dozens of community cultural organisations; the list goes on.
Some of these cuts have led to entrepreneurial responses by the city’s cultural sector. For instance, John Crabtree at the Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre has put on a more commercial and popular offer that has helped to stabilise the Birmingham Royal Ballet, which is also housed there. The Mayor of the West Midlands, who has strategic authority over the region but does not have legal competence for the cultural sector, has been able to direct some financial support through the regional authority’s cultural leadership board. It has managed to use money left over from the underspend on the Commonwealth Games and wider devolution funding to channel money to at least some of the most important cultural bodies in the city.
However, all these payments are one-off and do not replace longer-term core funding. They are not able to reach many smaller community cultural bodies, which have subsequently closed. In a city where there is huge concern about youth crime, that seems to be a retrograde and regrettable step. Imagine how much more effective the authority could have been if it had a statutory board to oversee and direct more extensive funds to the cultural sector across the region. I would hope that the establishment of a statutory heritage board in the West Midlands Combined Authority, with constituent authorities as members, would bring stability and greater funding to the sector across the region. In the process, that would allow local and national funding bodies to release money to the region and attract private philanthropy.
The acceptance of Amendment 6 would allow this competence and support for the cultural sector and the creative industries. As many other noble Lords have said, the heritage sector is so important for bringing together communities in a region, for giving them a sense of identity and for attracting tourism into the area. I ask the Minister, with her impressive career in local government, to appreciate how important such an additional competency could be in boosting regional development and cohesion.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very supportive of Amendments 6 and 10. I would have added my name to them, but the slots were already gone on Amendment 6. I am agnostic about the difference in wording between Amendments 6 and 10. Like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I am keen to use this opportunity to discuss the best form of wording, but it is important that these areas of life are added to the competences for the strategic authorities, simply because they are the things that make life worth living. I had the privilege of being the Arts Minister as we were bouncing back from the pandemic—a time when people were cut off from the arts, creativity and heritage—and saw the natural yearning in us all to enjoy these things. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and others, they are also the things that forge communities, bring people together across all their differences and help boost a sense of pride in place and a sense of belonging.
It is tempting often to think of them as a drain on resources but, as Amendment 6 does, that mixes things that might be parts of the subsidised creative sector and the creative industries, which are huge engines of growth, with massive employers, often some of the biggest employers in the strategic authority areas that we are talking about. That is one of the reasons why the creative industries were one of five priority areas for the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and are one of the eight priority areas for the Government now. We all agree about the huge importance of these industries to our economy overall.
The arts, whether subsidised or run commercially, are vital for the skills pipeline that drives all this, and heritage is the infrastructure that underpins them. Our historic houses, churches, heritage railways and more are not just the filming locations for so many of our brilliant TV and film productions; they are places where people can gain skills that they take into other areas of the economy. The Minister knows well Knebworth, which has been the site of many rock concerts from the time of the Rolling Stones to Robbie Williams. These locations are places for literary festivals that draw people in for so much more.
In discussions with local authority leaders when I was in government, I also saw how enlightened local authority leaders could see that, if they invested in the arts, they could save in other areas. If you could get people engaged in arts and creativity, you could save money in your education budget or health budget. They saw the boost in well-being. In so many of the other strategic competences that have been set out, it is important that we think about the arts, heritage and creativity.
It was also clear for me in my time in government that some local authorities get it more than others. I had the privilege of meeting all four shortlisted places for the most recent UK City of Culture competition. It was clear that the four had excellent chief executives and often the local authority leader had previously held the culture portfolio and could see the power of this to galvanise local businesses, employers, universities and more to leverage the opportunities and investments. We have seen from Hull, Coventry and most recently the brilliant Year of Culture in Bradford the inward investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. I see my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—Hull University carried out a good study into the economic impact of Hull’s year as City of Culture, which continues to bring great benefit to that city and wider region.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in the previous group mentioned his role in One North East. I have seen throughout my life the power of the arts and arts-led regeneration across Tyneside, from the Baltic Gallery to what is now the Glasshouse International Centre for Music, rippling up the Tyne to the Mouth of the Tyne Festival and regeneration in Whitley Bay.
But it is also clear that some local authorities do not get it. We have heard about those that have sadly not invested as much. I found myself as a Minister critical of a number of local authorities, including some controlled by my own party. It was not a party-political issue. I found myself criticising Suffolk County Council, the Conservative council, when it slashed its arts budget, the Greens in Bristol City Council and Labour in Nottingham City Council. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, pointed out, I followed closely the travails of Birmingham City Council after that city, the largest local authority in Europe, was bankrupted. There were frantic discussions between DCMS and the commissioners who were appointed. They were tempted to sell off some of what they could see as assets, the art collection and the historic buildings in that city. We are not going for those easy wins. These are collections that have taken generations to build up but can be lost in an instant.
If there is not this statutory message, the issue is not always viewed as a priority and certainly not the priority that it ought to be. Even with devolution and trusting strong local leaders, it is important that we give that encouragement and that nudge, particularly if the authorities are to have the powers that we have heard of in relation to the tourism levy. There is a mixture of opinions out in the country about what that will mean for heritage, tourism and local arts. Some are enthusiastic, while some are more sceptical about whether they will see the benefits or whether they will be diverted into some of the other areas that are already set out in the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I would like to make a point of clarification, if I may, on the Ipswich cuts. The Greens were protesting the cuts, not doing them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I became leader of Brighton council in 1987. One of the first things that we did was triple our spending on the Brighton Festival. At the time it seemed like a fairly minor thing, but it triggered a lot of inward investment through leverage. It demonstrated to me the importance and the value of public sector investment in the arts. Since then, the Brighton Festival has grown; it is now one of the largest arts festivals in the country. But you have to make that important statement to attract extra funding and inward investment.
I currently chair a seafront regeneration board for Brighton and Hove City Council. One of the things I am quite determined to do is to bring a new major art gallery to our city, because it is one of the missing elements. Those things have a long-term strategic benefit and that is why I think adding this as an area of competence to strategic authorities is very important.
After all, it is one of the Government’s missions. We often talk about the £128 billion value to the UK economy of the arts. If we can embed that statutorily, we can grow and develop our reputation. We are one of the arts growth leaders in the world economy. It would greatly help our growth mission and our economic and industrial mission if we were to place this as an important strategic responsibility.
Without that, as others have said, it is not there—it is voluntary and it is very much up to the localities to determine, as they rightly should, what their priorities are. But it is an encouragement, and that long-term commitment and encouragement will make a very significant difference to the development of arts and cultural services across the UK.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I would like to add a small voice to the chorus of support for these amendments. I do so from the perspective of my role as the owner of a cultural institution in Devon and my work on the Exeter place partnership, which has been particularly successful in encouraging arts and heritage activities within the city over recent years, such as Radio 1’s Big Weekend, the Rugby World Cup and the Women’s Rugby World Cup. It has been a tremendous success for the city.
I do not want to repeat what has been so excellently stated by many noble Lords. It does not need repeating. But there is one area to consider that maybe has not been emphasised: the importance for the strategic authorities created under this Bill of having competency over the arts and creative industries within their region. If they do not have the competency over these areas within their region, obviously someone else is going to, and that will be a central authority. That is going to homogenise and fail to develop the cultural identity of the strategic authority region. If we can bestow that core competency on the strategic authority, we will see the identity of that strategic authority grow and improve. It will better sustain the health and vibrancy of the strategic authority itself—not just the region but the strategic authority—and we should think of that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the inclusion of this measure—above all because, if it is enlisted as one of the areas of competence, it will strengthen the argument that strategic authorities will have to make with the all-powerful Treasury that this is one of the funding elements that must be included.
I declare an interest: I live in Saltaire, which is a world heritage site. We are an open world heritage site, which means that we cannot charge for entry. The delicacy of our relations with Bradford Council, with a very strapped budget in terms of providing the resources to cope with the tourists and visitors, is very much one of the things we have to struggle with. As other noble Lords have said, Bradford has just had the most successful City of Culture year. It has done a huge amount for social cohesion and morale—indeed, for all the things the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was talking about earlier, in terms of expanding people’s horizons and bringing people together.
Culture has been funded through a range of different streams. We all know about and remember the battles with Arts Council England about funding areas outside London. We have seen the way in which local councils used to pull cultural elements together through education in schools, local music arrangements and so on. They have dismantled those music hubs, which have been played around with—they have been constructed and put together, then taken apart—and schools have become very separate. If we are to build back to local intervention, local help and regional support, culture needs to be stressed as one of the things that is of enormous benefit to all of us, both socially and economically. It has been squeezed as councils at all levels have had to squeeze their budgets; they have found that culture is one of the things that has to go, as other things seem more important immediately, but it leaves a huge gap in the long run.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I have a point of clarification: I believe that my noble friend Lord Parkinson was referring to Bristol, not Ipswich.
The amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, would add the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage as an area of competence. The noble Earl has long been a vocal advocate for the cultural and creative sectors; his contributions to these debates and their economic, social and civic value are well recognised by the Committee. The case made by the noble Earl is compelling, as is the case made by the noble Baroness.
Cultural policy is most effective when it is shaped locally, with the flexibility to reflect the distinct histories, assets and ambitions of local areas; we have heard this from pretty much every noble Lord who has spoken today. Taken together, these amendments ask an important question: what role do the Government envisage for culture within the devolution framework? The Bill as drafted is silent on this point. Many combined authorities already treat culture as a strategic priority; local leaders would welcome clarity that they may continue to do so within the new statutory framework.
As with earlier groups of amendments, the issue here is not simply whether culture matters—few in this Committee would dispute that, I think—but whether the Government’s model of devolution is sufficiently flexible and ambitious to allow strategic authorities to support and grow the cultural life of their areas. These amendments invite the Government to set out their thinking and explain whether the omission of culture from Clause 2 is deliberate or merely an oversight. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for Amendments 6 and 51, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for Amendment 10. These amendments seek to create a distinct area of competence for culture; and to enable a mayor to appoint a commissioner to this additional area of competence. As noble Lords will be aware, we had long discussions about this matter during the passage of the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
When I was thinking about this, I thought I would have a look at what was going on in Hertfordshire, my own county, which calls itself the Hollywood of the UK. That might be disputed territory, but that is what it calls itself. When you look at the economic impact in Hertfordshire, there was film and TV investment of £3.7 billion, and 4,000 direct jobs, but 7,000 to 19,000 jobs if you include supply chain and freelance workers. There were major new investments, such as Sunset Studios in Broxbourne, which brought £300 million a year into the local economy; Sky Studios Elstree has an estimated value of over £3 billion over the first five years; and then there are Warner Brothers, Elstree Studios, and all the rest.
I know that is the economic dimension of this, but the whole ecosystem starts with local arts and grass-roots infrastructure, skills and training, and inspiring a new generation of creatives to go into the industry. Mayors and strategic authorities can, and already do, play a very important role in these areas. That is precisely why the Bill’s existing areas of competence have been framed as they have. They are deliberately broad, enabling a wide range of activity to fall within scope, including cultural, creative and heritage activity.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for correctly highlighting the power of these activities to tackle some of the divisions we are seeing in society; they play a very powerful role in that respect. My noble friend Lady Griffin highlighted the importance of skills enabling the culture industries to thrive, which illustrates the cross-cutting nature of the competences because skills in the creative industries and elsewhere are included in the competences as we see them.
For example, Clause 41 extends a broad power to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors to their area. That power sits under the “Economic development and regeneration” heading. This demonstrates how these activities are intended to be captured without the need to list them in a separate policy area. Indeed, many authorities already fund and support culture and heritage initiatives using their existing powers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a point about the West Midlands and Birmingham. As we have already had north-west and Yorkshire examples, I will use the example of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which invested £4.1 million into arts and culture projects as part of the legacy funding following the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games.
However, I take the noble Viscount’s point that for local authorities this has been a very difficult time when they are faced with the difficult choice between whether they fund the adult care services and the children’s services or arts services. That is why this Government have started to work on the fair funding of local government so that we can get local government’s confidence back that there is the possibility to invest.
The provisional 2026-27 settlement will make available £78 billion in core spending power for local authorities in England. That is a 5.7% cash-terms increase compared with 2025-26. By the end of the multi-year period, we will have provided a 15.1% cash-terms increase, worth over £11 billion, compared with 2025-26. The reforms ensure that this funding is allocated fairly and that the places and services that need it most are supported. It is for services such as adult care and children’s services, but it will also ensure all areas are able to deliver at the kinds of cultural services that we have been talking about.
In my own area, I hung on to the Gordon Craig Theatre in Stevenage. In spite of successive cuts in funding, we recognised its value to our community, not only in terms of our strong cultural life but to skills and our economy. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, called recognising the long-term strategic benefit of what that brought to our community. While I am talking about specific places, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned Bradford, and I congratulate Bradford on its fantastic year as City of Culture. It has done an amazing job, and we look forward to that continuing in Bradford and elsewhere around the country.
On commissioners, I note that they are an optional appointment for mayors to support delivery in a specific area of competence. Mayors are able to shape the exact brief of the role, and it would therefore be reasonable, for instance, for a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration to also lead on a strategy focused on culture and the creative industries.
However, I note the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who is a great champion in this area, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I would be very happy to meet them and discuss this further before we get to Report. I hope that with these reassurances, the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I am grateful for all the support across the Committee that my noble friend Lady Prashar and I have had for our amendments. I am disappointed by the Minister’s initial response. I am very happy to meet her; it is essential that we do so between now and Report.
I will pick up on a couple of points. I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, mentioned education, which is so important. We are basically saying that we have an area of competence that has its own identity; it is not covered by anything else. I am not sure whether, for “local infrastructure”—which is the competence in paragraph (a)—the first thing that people will think about are the arts. There is a massive danger that local arts will get forgotten in favour of the commercialised end of the creative industries. That worries me more than anything else.
My noble friend Lady Prashar spoke about social cohesion, which is an important part of this. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, talked out the transformation of cities. This amendment would have a huge effect on cities. Having this as its own area of competence would make a massive difference; it would be a game-changer in how strategic local authorities and the public look at the legislation when it becomes an Act. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(h) rural affairs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add “rural affairs” to the list of areas of competence in clause 2 of the Bill.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 128 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for what he said in his earlier remarks.
The English devolution White Paper, published last year, set out the Government’s intentions for this Bill, including the exploration of
“a better route for rural communities to be considered in local policy decision making”.
The specific reference to “rural communities” is key, given that the Bill, as it currently stands, does not have a single reference to “rural”, “landscape” or “farming” in all its 371 pages. With the national focus on meeting housing targets, delivering large-scale infrastructure and supporting the Government’s growth mission, it is essential that rural areas are not forgotten and that rural communities feel that they have a genuine say in the decisions affecting them. It is important to note that 85% of England’s land area is classified as rural, with around 17% of the country’s population living in those areas. Rural areas have context-specific needs and challenges, and we should take this opportunity to ensure that these communities get the fair representation, strategic investment and support that they need to thrive.
Amendment 7 seeks to add “rural affairs” as an area of competence in Clause 2. Adding rural affairs to the list of competences would, in turn, allow mayors to appoint a specific rural affairs commissioner, if they so wish. As it stands, each competence in Clause 2 can be applied differently in rural and urban settings. There is a concern that in strategic authorities that contain both rural and urban communities, the strategic focus for commissioners covering these competences will lead towards the urban, with rural communities being treated as an afterthought.
Adding rural affairs as an area of competence would ensure that a specific rural affairs commissioner can be appointed to cover the range of needs of rural communities. It would also, incidentally, enable mayors to convene meetings with local partners, as set out in Clause 21, on rural affairs, and enable rural affairs to be one of the thematic areas on which neighbouring mayors can request collaboration, as set out in Clause 22. While Amendments 56 and 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have a similar aim of ensuring the appointment of a commissioner with responsibility for rural affairs, my amendment, in keeping with the objectives of the Bill, seeks to enable this to be an option available where necessary, with the decision on whether to appoint one ultimately being made locally. My amendment would also allow rural affairs to become a thematic area to which other functions in the Bill can refer, in addition to the clause on commissioner appointments.
As this Bill draws many provisions from the Greater London Act, there is a need to safeguard and ensure that measures being brought forward are not purely urban-centric in their approach and that different contexts are being considered across strategic areas, including those with significant rural populations. Amendment 128 would provide that method of safeguarding. This proposed new clause would place a duty on strategic authorities and their mayors to have regard to the needs of rural communities when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions. As a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network noted:
“Bill amendments that place a duty on combined authorities to consider the needs of rural communities would help ensure that rural housing is not overlooked in favour of urban-focused strategies and investment plans, and that accountability mechanisms are available to rural communities and advocates”.
I welcome Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would add public and active transport provision to the areas to which strategic authorities and their mayors must have regard. These would be vital inclusions to the duty relating to the needs of rural communities. I further welcome Amendment 260 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
Rural areas are important economic drivers for farming, food production and other local businesses, as well as tourism. According to the House of Lords Library, in 2022 predominantly rural areas of England contributed an estimated £315 billion in gross value added to England’s economy, representing 16.2% of England’s total GVA. Historically, investment has been focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire inward investment from the private sector and meet essential needs in food production, health and well-being. With their rich ecology and large landscapes, rural areas also present an opportunity to target investment towards significant gains around nature recovery and climate resilience. We cannot miss this opportunity to recognise the value of our rural communities.
Along with well-respected organisations supporting rural communities, including the Rural Housing Network, the Country Land and Business Association and the Rural Services Network, and as was highlighted in briefings by the Royal Town Planning Institute, I believe this Bill should be strengthened through the strategic focus on rural growth in these amendments. Their inclusion would help identify the enabling infrastructure needed to support rural communities and ensure that their needs are considered in recent and upcoming planning reform, as well as this devolution programme. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and thank her for introducing this group of amendments. I will speak to Amendments 52, 56, 60 and 260 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his support for all of them and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for signing Amendment 52.
The noble Baroness has fulfilled the first part of what the Royal Town Planning Institute—I do not think it is any relation to her good self—said in seeking a duty to consider the needs of rural communities. My amendments propose the second thing it asked for: the establishment of rural commissioners where appropriate. This answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Lansley about where in the Bill there is a legal basis to create other commissioners, so my amendments dovetail entirely with those in her name.
It is important to recognise that in the old days, in the first Labour Government to which I was elected— I was not elected; I was elected to the Official Opposition, let me get the facts right, my memory is playing tricks with me—one of their early proposals was to create regional development agencies, I think they were called. The beef or the grief I had with that was that, on paper, North Yorkshire, probably one of the most deeply rural, sparsely populated counties in the country, represented 11% of the population of the RDA. One would hope that one might get 11% of the funding, but we never got anywhere remotely near that.
Also, there used to be a policy of rural proofing. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, chaired a committee that looked into rural issues and focused quite a lot on rural proofing. That policy is still reflected on the Defra website, and there have been updates: the most recent one on this page was 2 December 2022. Rural proofing had a very special role to play. It ensured that every policymaker and legislator, like ourselves —so the Library note would have reflected this, presumably, on earlier Bills—would look at, assess and take into account the effects of proposed policies on rural areas.
Why is this important? Look at delivering a health service. My father was a rural GP; it is very difficult to access GP surgeries. It is even more difficult to access hospitals in rural areas. It was a 50-mile round trip from where I was brought up to the big hospital. Ambulances obviously have further to go. Look at delivering social care. Carers are not paid for the time they spend on the road, which is often not factored in. That is terrible and should be addressed. On education, we have had a terrible problem with school buses since this Government got rid of the rural deprivation grant, I think it was called. York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is getting the blame for having to revisit the provision of school buses and the taxi service to get children to schools which are more than three miles away from where they live. This policy has taken away the funding by scrapping that grant.
There used to be a rural commission in Defra which looked at all this rural proofing. I have mentioned some of the policy areas, but there are many others. Some 85% of England’s land area is classified as rural and 17% of the country’s population live in these rural areas, yet so often, particularly at local government level where there is an urban/rural mix, this is not reflected. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I had common cause—she will not disagree with me because it is on the record and I am not quoting her because she is not here—as we both opposed the orders for a metro mayor for York and North Yorkshire and I think that she, like me, also opposed the combined authority for North Yorkshire.
I believe that a metro mayor in areas such as Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester—I am being nice to north- west people at the moment—works where there is a concentrated landmass with a big population in that area. It is perfectly justified for those who wish it, but I do not think it works in rural areas. It certainly has not worked politically, because all the rural voters stayed at home and we have ended up with a Labour mayor for York and North Yorkshire, which is not so excellent for those of us who live there. There is a lesson there.
I also believe that districts and boroughs were closer to the people. People knew exactly where the councillors lived and exactly what they were responsible for and felt that they were more accountable. We have also lost overall control. We have a majority of one now on the combined authority. Again, there was a political lesson that I tried to warn my Government about at the time, but it did not go quite as well as I would have expected.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7 and 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. They are supported by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association, and an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and I was once a rural development commissioner.
These amendments would add rural affairs to the areas of competence for strategic authorities and require those bodies to have regard to the needs of rural communities. As the noble Baroness explained, these amendments would ensure that rural areas are not overlooked in the affairs of mayors and combined authorities in relation to the use and development of land, regeneration, housing, employment, health and well-being. The fact is that rural areas have distinct characteristics, but rural communities are likely to comprise only a small fraction of the total population of a mayoralty or combined authority. The amendments would ensure that the needs of these localities get proper consideration.
I shall illustrate the kind of differences that distinguish a rural area from the rest by reference to the all-important housing matters that affect so many households in these places. They are very likely to be areas of lower incomes and higher house prices relative to the rest of the strategic authority area. The local population also faces extra competition for available accommodation from those commuting from elsewhere, rightsizing retirees and, in many places, second home buyers and those letting on a short-term basis of the Airbnb variety. Yet the amount of social housing is appreciably lower: about 11% for areas classified as rural locations, compared with 17% for the country as a whole. The right to buy has removed a larger proportion of council housing in these areas, and many villages now face a virtual absence of affordable homes for those born and bred in the area or needing to live there for family, caring or occupational reasons. Without affordable homes, rural communities can die. Recently, I chaired the Devon Housing Commission, which made important recommendations in relation to the strategic advantages of combined authorities. It also gave clear warnings of the huge significance of housing pressures for those living in rural areas. Since rural housing schemes are mostly small, they do not trigger the obligation on house- builders to include any affordable accommodation.
Set against these many disadvantages facing rural areas, there are positive opportunities that can uniquely help to address their different circumstances. Rural exception sites allow development that would not be permitted elsewhere. Rural housing enablers can help match social housing providers with landowners. Special grants are available from Defra and Homes England, so on the plus side as well, things are different for rural communities. The danger is that these distinctions are not taken on board by authorities which have very many other matters on their plates. Hence the value of these two amendments in requiring attention to be given specifically to the special aspects, good and bad, facing rural areas, as illustrated by my housing example. These amendments would ensure that these areas get the priority they so clearly deserve and I strongly support them.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady McIntosh, to all of which I have added my name.
First, I must declare my interest in that I still have a family farming interest in Somerset, although I am now retired and live in Cornwall. I must also declare an interest—it is more of a perspective, really—as having been the Prime Minister’s rural advocate under a previous Labour Government. I was charged with representing rural interests in the Blair Government and often reported directly to the Prime Minister himself, especially during the foot and mouth disease outbreak at that time, which caused major problems—both social and economic—for rural areas. At that time, I was also charged with producing an annual rural-proofing report for the Government. Believe me, it was badly needed—and still is, in my view. The Social Mobility Commission recently reported that inter- generational poverty in rural England is now as bad, if not worse, than in our most deprived urban slums.
I might add, just to prove my Cross-Bench credentials, that I was also asked to produce a one-off rural-proofing report for the Conservative Government some 10 years ago. I should say that I had more difficulty with the latter role than the former. No sooner had I produced my 2015 report outlining the important job that the rural affairs section of Defra had to play in the agenda than the department, under Liz Truss—she of sound judgmental fame—virtually closed down the rural affairs section, so the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ceased to be Defra and became just Def.
I am glad to say that those times are now over and the voice of the countryside is once again being heard. Defra still seems to be a slightly shy promoter of the rural voice in MHCLG, the Department for Transport, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and, above all, the Treasury. It needs to be saying again and again, “Hey, what about our agenda? What about those who live in the countryside?” In the same way, such a voice is needed, or is going to be needed, in the new strategic authorities. Mainstreaming rural issues into policy-making and decision-taking is fundamental to enabling all strata of rural society to engage fully with modern life; and to ensuring that rural businesses, which are the lifeblood of these communities, can thrive in even the remotest parts of England. Of course, having a rural voice at the top table—or, at the very least, a duty to consider rural needs in each and every region—is absolutely key to this agenda.
There are more VAT-able businesses per head of population in rural England than in urban England. There are more manufacturing businesses in the countryside than in the towns—per se, not just per head. The percentage of self-employed people in the countryside is also more than in the towns, especially—this is why I am particularly proud of my fellow country folk—among those who are below the poverty line. This proves to me that we country folk desperately want to stand on our own two feet, but we need help to do so; we need help to release that entrepreneurial spirit.
As was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Best, housing problems in most rural areas are worse than in towns. There are few affordable houses left. The houses are more expensive and wages are lower. The houses tend to be less well insulated and heating costs are higher; mains gas, for instance, is rare in rural areas. Of course, the solutions are different there than in the towns, but I will not go into that here.
Training and skills problems are also different. How does a young person get to their class in their college 15 miles away when there is no bus? There might be one at 11 am or once a week on a Tuesday, for instance, but that is of no use to anyone. After college, how do you then get your first job? It is probably 10 miles away or more. It is a rural Catch-22 situation: you cannot get a job without a set of wheels, and you cannot get a set of wheels without income from a job.
Again, there are solutions to these problems, such as Wheels to Work, but the solutions need knowledge and need thinking about, along with a drive to push them through. For that, you need someone at the top table to tell it as it is—someone who is perpetually thinking about rural issues to ensure that the right policies are put in place. We need to try to create local jobs in as many communities as possible. That means improving connectivity, broadband and mobile services, as well as enabling planning policies; again, both of those are large subjects that I will not go into here.
The point is that ordinary life in rural England—shopping, doctors’ visits or even sports for the kids—is immensely hard when the only, but vital, family car has gone to work with the breadwinner. This lack of a car also means that kids at many schools miss out on all the extracurricular activities—football, sports, drama, music, et cetera—because they have to be on that school bus which takes them back to their rural village immediately after lessons are finished.
Also, rural households in poverty experience what academics call a rural premium, with living costs some 14% higher than for their urban counterparts, according to the academics. There is no cheap mains gas, which I have already mentioned, but only Calor gas or electricity; there is only older housing stock with poor insulation; food, clothing and transport costs are consistently higher; and there is limited access to childcare, healthcare and other basic services. All this compounds financial vulnerability. Thus, I say again that you need someone who understands all this, and who can speak up for rural interests when decisions are being taken at the top table.
Another factor which underlines the need for rural focus or a rural commission in these strategic authorities is the desperate shortage of government funding for rural areas. Although it is quite obvious to anyone who thinks about it that it costs more to deliver services to remote and sparse populations, central government funding for rural councils is on average 40% less per head of the population than for urban authorities—yes, 40% less per head. This differential is about to get worse under the so-called fair funding review. Therefore, a rural commissioner, or at the very least a duty to consider rural communities, is desperately needed to find ways of minimising the harm that such urban prejudice imposes on rural people.
This prejudice already results in rural council tax payers, for instance, having to pay on average 20% more per head than their urban cousins. For too long, I have been knocking my head against this concrete wall of prejudice against rural areas—too long to think that there is any chance of actually changing the financial situation. That is why I believe it will require a real rural understanding and focus to come up with the imaginative solutions which are so desperately needed to correct this long-standing imbalance.
It is crucial that mayors should have to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs whenever there is a rural element in their bailiwick. It has to be someone who can promote new jobs and make the necessary links. As I say, I know from experience that such a person can make a big difference to the quality of life for many people, whether it be in business, sport, transport, education, health or housing; or whether it be for the young, old or those in between. The countryside deserves a voice at the top table, and I believe these amendments will provide it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I am absolutely fascinated by this debate. For most of my life I have lived in a city, and most of my friends think I am a city slicker. The truth is, however, that I was brought up in a rural community in a fairly remote part of north-east Essex in a rather lovely village called Great Bentley. In the time that has elapsed since I was brought up there over 50 years ago, the village has grown but it has also changed. Over that period, there has been a gradual removal—or a gradual eradication—of local services. There is a doctor and a primary school, but we used to have a very regular bus service, a whole range of small retailers, a chip shop, access to a bank and all the rest of it. Now, however, they have been in retreat and have disappeared.
A few years ago, I chaired a Co-op Party commission on restoring rural services and what we needed to do to reimagine what modern reality would look like, because you cannot just reflect on the past and say that was a glorious time; you have to look to the future in planning services. The noble Lord, Lord Best, made a really powerful argument about rural housing. I was lucky enough to be brought up in a council house in my village, and now very few people in that village have access to social housing. The percentage of the population that has is much reduced, probably 4% or 5%, and there are many people who are excluded from the jobs market because of that fact. We need to address that imbalance.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as I have attached my name to Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and tabled my own Amendment 129, I will briefly join this very rich debate in which the case for this group of amendments, which sit broadly together, has clearly been made.
I will make a couple of additional points. One was provoked by the historic reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about the foot and mouth epidemic. This struck me, because it is an area on which I do a great deal of work: I do not believe that there is anything in the Bill about biosecurity or animal security. Your Lordships are trying to strengthen the human health elements of the Bill, but I wonder whether the Minister—I understand if she wants to write to me later—could reflect on what role strategic authorities might have in biosecurity and animal or plant diseases. I am thinking now of the situation with the continuing crisis of highly pathogenic avian influenza, known as H5N1, which is still affecting many of our factory farms and is a significant issue in particular areas. Is that something in which the strategic authorities would have a role? That was a question that arose from the debate.
I spoke extensively in the previous group on food production, farming and supporting farmers, so I will not go over the same ground. That is obviously an important part of rural communities, although it is by no means the majority. If we are to get more farmers into local areas and grow the vegetables and fruit that we need, then affordable housing, as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is a crucial issue. Wales in particular has done some interesting work looking at ways in which to get producers back on to the land through specific arrangements for housing. There are some interesting areas on which strategic authorities might have the power to act if the Bill is written in the right way.
In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made the argument for my Amendment 129 entirely. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, set out, this is actually an amendment to her larger amendment; it inserts “public and active transport provision” into the duties to consider the needs of rural communities. The case has already been made; I would just add that we need to be a great deal more aspirational about the possibilities for public and active transport in rural areas.
One of the recent small but significant Green wins was in the bus Bill, when the Government conceded that they would review rural bus services in the coming years. Some have said, “Oh, it is a rural area; there are just no bus services”—that is not an acceptable position. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, many young people in rural areas do not have a licence or cannot afford a car. We also have ageing populations in which increasing numbers of residents are unable to use a car and they need public transport. We also need active transport provision because it is one of the things that will help people to stay healthy.
Thinking about the possibility of aspiration, I recently travelled back from Kyiv by road through Poland and I was astonished at its quality. It went through a deeply rural, farming area with small villages. Beside the main road, there was a brilliant, separated cycle route; it went on and on through this rural area. If Poland can do it, and its distances are greater than ours, surely we can manage that kind of provision, too.
Finally, on active transport, we are talking at the most basic level about making sure that people are able to walk around villages. Very early in my political career, I went to a council by-election in central Bedfordshire, and I was quite astonished coming out of London. It did not surprise me that cycling from the train station was a pretty hairy experience; what did surprise me was that, when I got to the village, I found there was not a single pavement—everyone in this village just had to walk on the road with the cars. It did not have to be that way; it could have been arranged differently. There were lots of old historic buildings, but there could have been provision. Historically, there were footpaths; that is how people used to get around. We should restore footpaths and improve the provision. We need to think about public and active transport being a standard part of provision in rural areas, not something that just cannot be done.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I have found that some of my views have changed slightly as I have listened to noble Lords. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, seeks to add rural affairs to the list of competences. Given the distinct challenges faced by rural communities, from connectivity to service provision and economic resilience, it is reasonable to ask whether the Bill adequately reflects the needs of communities.
While I was listening to the noble Baroness, I realised that I have concerns that in areas with large urban areas as well as rural areas, those urban areas could take out capacity and investment from the rural areas. When I go back into my history in local government, I remember the regional development agencies that did exactly that. I do not think that Wiltshire got a penny from the regional development agency; all of it went to Bristol and Bath. The Government should look at that to ensure that it does not happen now.
Amendments 52, 56 and 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, relate to the appointment of a commissioner for rural affairs. I thank her for her extensive knowledge of this issue. She is right that rural affairs need to be at the forefront of policy-making, especially in authorities that may be predominantly rural but could be a mixture. However, I harbour some reservations about requiring mayors to appoint commissioners with competence for rural affairs. I believe that rural affairs should be a priority for the mayors themselves—the unitary authorities that make up the commission will, I assume, be both rural and urban—rather than delegating this responsibility to one commissioner.
We should remember that competences are not the same as powers or capabilities. Moreover, allowing mayors to make these appointments may result in the appointment of yes-men for the mayors, rather than individuals who could provide independent, robust scrutiny on behalf of rural communities. While I fully appreciate the intent behind these amendments, I am yet to be convinced that mayoral appointments of rural affairs commissioners will be the right mechanism to ensure that rural voices are heard.
Amendment 128 is also from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon; I thank her for her continued commitment to rural issues. As I have said, it should be a fundamental priority for any authority covering rural areas to consider their particular needs, especially at a time when these communities are being required to absorb substantial housing targets and sprawling solar farms. They deserve a meaningful say if this Bill is really about community empowerment. As I have said, I have a real problem with the mixture of urban and rural, and the issue of the rural voice coming through.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raises the vital question of public and active transport provision in rural areas. Many of us who have been rural leaders over many years have struggled not just with providing that but with its cost and with making it the right type of transport for a particular area. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the need for infrastructure that is tailored to rural lifestyles and connectivity.
Since I am talking about connectivity, I will turn to another form: technology. When I go back to Norfolk, I can never get anything on my machine or any other machine. There is no IT and no phone connection whatever. Many of our rural areas are like that. There is a two-tier system in this country for technology, but that cannot go on.
Finally, Amendment 260, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, underscores that the impact of the Bill on rural areas has not yet been fully thought-through. That is the big issue for me. It is entirely reasonable to expect the Government to be transparent about the costs and benefits for rural communities. They have to go back to the drawing board to look at how we can ensure that our rural communities have equal access to the capacity, capabilities and finances that the mayoral authorities will have and that the new unitary councils will be able to use.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Bill can recognise and enshrine the needs of rural communities, which we have heard this evening. At the moment, rural communities are feeling a bit let down by the Government, and this is an absolutely key opportunity to change that.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. What she said was very important: the Government have to go back to the drawing board on the issue of rural areas. I can imagine an argument that says that it is implicit in all the areas of competence that all those people will take responsibility for rural areas. However, it is my view that that will not be sufficient. In an earlier group, I discussed how the regional development agencies had a role in rural development. It is very important that the Government go back in order to get this right.
I agree with the noble Baroness when she said that it may not be a commissioner who would do this. In my view, doing that requires the knowledge of a council leader from a rural council, because the relevant immediate knowledge is needed. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to ask whether the Government would go back to the drawing board. I hope that, by Report, the list of areas of competence for strategic authorities is revised, so that rural areas are seen to be protected and developed by the structure. Otherwise, there will be public opposition to the strategic authority, for the reasons that the noble Baroness identified in relation to Wiltshire. I have heard that in most RDAs the money goes to the urban areas. That happens—it has often been the case—because the immediate growth can be delivered in an area of high population, whereas the long-term growth in a rural area can be delivered by financial support at a lower pace.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for their amendments on rural affairs, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I will begin by responding to Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, which seeks to create a distinct area of competence for rural affairs. Strategic authorities cover a range of geographies in England, from highly urbanised areas, such as the West Midlands Combined Authority, to more rural geographies, such as the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority. Mayors and strategic authorities will be empowered to support all communities within their geography, including rural communities.
It is for this reason that the areas of competence are deliberately broad in their definitions. The topics that they cover are matters which apply to all communities—for example, transport and local infrastructure or housing and strategic planning. We have heard lots of descriptions of why those topics are particularly important in rural areas, but they will be important in different ways to the way that they are important in urban areas. It is right that, at local level, local leaders are empowered to deal with them as appropriate in their area.
Many existing combined and combined county authorities are making use of powers which have not been badged as rural functions to support their rural communities. For example, the mayor of the York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority, David Skaith, is making use of transport functions to build the foundations for a working rural bus franchising model across the area. It aims to deliver a better bus service for areas that currently see only one bus a week—more of that later. Were a specific competence for rural affairs to be included, it could run the risk of encouraging rural areas to be considered in isolation. By that, I mean we do not want rural areas to become a silo that is only one person’s responsibility; we want it to be a responsibility across all those competences. With that in mind, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I now turn to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seek to ensure that mayors appoint a commissioner where any of their area is classified as a majority or intermediate rural area. I point out to the noble Baroness that, although the structure of the rurality funding in the formula has changed, it has not been taken out; it has been reallocated with the fair funding formula. We have built sparsity considerations into the fair funding formula. The way it has been done has been changed and it has a different name, but we have included consideration of sparsity in that funding formula.
To turn to her amendment, commissioners are an optional appointment for mayors to help bring additional expertise to support delivery in a specific area of competence. Mayors are able to shape the exact brief of the role. It would be reasonable, therefore, that a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration could lead a strategy focused on the rural economy, for example. As I have outlined, rural matters cross multiple areas of competence. Commissioners will not be precluded from addressing these rural considerations in their work. In practice, it would be possible for a mayor to appoint a commissioner to an area of competence that has a rural relevance in the area, such as environment and climate change, and then give them a locally appropriate title, such as deputy mayor for the environment and rural affairs. These amendments would also mandate the appointment of a commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose whether to appoint a commissioner or not.
Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, would require strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities. The Government fully recognise the importance of rural communities and are committed to ensuring that they benefit from devolution.
Mayors already have a strong track record of using their powers to support rural areas. For example, in the north-east, Mayor Kim McGuinness is investing £17 million into the rural economy, supporting farming businesses and rural tourism. The North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural taskforce to ensure that rural and coastal communities are fully represented in investment decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, highlighted housing issues for rural areas. I am very grateful to him for his work on the Devon Housing Commission and his continual advocacy, when I am dealing with housing matters, that I keep considering the needs of rural communities. That has been really helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about broadband infrastructure in rural areas. I visited colleagues of hers in Cromer recently, who were very keen to stress that among the other issues that coastal communities are facing. It is really important, but the Government’s view is that adding a statutory duty may create unnecessary complexity without delivering additional benefits. We want the benefits to come from the overall structure and empowering our mayors to act in the best interests of their communities.
I turn to the amendment to Amendment 128 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I fully agree that transport is vital to rural communities, but this issue is already well addressed through existing powers and investment. The Bus Services Act 2025 strengthens local leaders’ ability to protect services, and from 2026-27 more than £3 billion will support better bus services, including nearly £700 million per year for local authorities. Importantly, for the first time these allocations take rurality explicitly into account, recognising the higher cost of serving remote areas.
The noble Baroness mentioned biosecurity; I will respond to her in writing on that. She also referred to her earlier remarks on food security. To add to my earlier response, the good food cycle published in July 2025 sets out the Government’s vision to drive better outcomes from the UK food system for growth, health, sustainability and resilience. There are 10 outcomes in that cycle, on healthy and more affordable food, good growth, a sustainable and resilient supply and vibrant food cultures. It has a set of near-term priorities, including securing resilient domestic production, generating growth elsewhere in the food system which supports positive public health and environmental outcomes, and improving food price affordability and access—in particular, targeting costs that lead to food price inflation and supporting those who most need access to healthy, affordable nutrition. I am happy to write to her further on that if it would be helpful.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for making the special effort to provide that extra response, but that is what Westminster is doing. I am talking about what local authorities and strategic authorities can decide for themselves to do in their local area, not relying on a direction down from Westminster.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I take the point. That project is being supported by the Food Strategy Advisory Board, including extensive engagement across government. I will take back the point that that should include all tiers of local government, as the noble Baroness makes a fair point.
Through rail reform, mayoral strategic authorities will have a statutory role in the design of local rail services and all tiers of local government will benefit under the new Great British Railways business unit model, taking local priorities into account. The noble Baroness also referred to cycleways. I am very proud of where I live because my town was built with 45 kilometres of built-in cycle infrastructure. This is an important opportunity for our new towns as we develop the work of the taskforce. I know the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, will again be interviewing our Secretary of State in the Select Committee tomorrow on these and other matters. Gilston, which is a garden village near Harlow, made provision for a cycleway. We have to think about that. While we agree on the importance of these issues, the amendment is unnecessary because this Bill and other government activities will already enable authorities to secure improvements to rural transport without imposing an additional legal duty.
Finally, Amendment 260 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on rural areas before any regulations could be made using the powers in this Bill. Ahead of the introduction of the Bill, my department assessed the impacts of regulatory policies within it on businesses and households, urban and rural. This impact assessment was given a green rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee, indicating that it is fit for purpose. It would not be proportionate to complete another impact assessment solely for rural areas, given that our original assessment applies to those as well.
May I just refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron? He referred to the importance of the rural voice being heard across government. I completely agree. The mainstreaming of rural affairs across competences is vital, as is the freedom for mayors to address their local issues in the best way to tackle their local challenges.
In talking about bus services, the noble Lord reminded me of when I did a review of the universal credit system a while back. I was sent to Blandford Forum in Dorset. Some of the people who were working on their skills with the jobcentre had to visit the jobcentre every day. The problem with that was that the bus fare was £9 and there was only a bus to get there, with no bus to get home again; you may have wanted to improve your skills but it was very tricky to do so because, although you could get there, you could not get back home again. That was one of the big flaws in the universal credit system. Of course we want to keep track of people who are trying to develop skills, but there are difficult issues around that in rural areas.
When we discussed London-style bus services across the country—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will remember it well from the then levelling-up Bill—it raised the eyebrows of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. My noble friend lives in Cumbria, so London-style bus services are quite a long way from the service she gets in her local area. I understand the issues, but I think that enabling mayors —and their commissioners, if they choose to do it in that way—to address their local issues is the best way to tackle local challenges in these areas. For these reasons, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She referred to an impact assessment. We used to use the tried-and-tested method of tabling an amendment to ask for an impact assessment to be prepared. If the department has prepared an impact assessment, would it be possible for the Minister to publish it while this Bill is going through? That would be immensely helpful.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Let me just check with my civil servants so that I do not say something I should not say. I believe that it has been published; I will send the noble Baroness a link to where she can access it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and to my noble friend the Minister for her response.
I am of course delighted that mayors are empowered to support every part of their constituency; it must be their aspiration that they do so. It is very good that there are such broad areas of competence. I warmly welcome the great examples from Yorkshire and the north-east cited by my noble friend. However, I firmly believe that this Bill must be, and must be seen to be, relevant to and beneficial for all areas of our country. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out, it is the case for many mayoral areas that, in population terms, such a tiny proportion of their constituents are from rural areas; it would be very easy to overlook their needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about rural-proofing. That is absolutely vital. I wonder whether we could have some discussions before Report on how there can be some sort of rural-proofing in this Bill. Personally, I would favour a duty that could be included in order to ensure that the needs of rural areas will be properly addressed. I recognise that it will be the desire of all mayors to ensure that they are properly representing and addressing the needs of all their constituents, but I fear that that might be very difficult when funding is stretched, as it is bound to be. I would like to see some means of ensuring that the needs of rural areas are properly addressed; perhaps we could discuss that further before Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment
Lord Gascoigne
“Establishing a strategic authorityBefore establishing a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authority is capable of exercising the functions conferred upon it, having regard to its governance arrangements, financial sustainability, administrative capacity, and accountability mechanisms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause ensures that before any new strategic authority is created that there are capability tests which the existing local authority/ies must pass before the Secretary of State grants additional powers.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak for the first time in the passage of the Bill. I know we do not have to address it, but I was intending to speak at Second Reading and I had to pull out for personal reasons just beforehand. This is an issue that genuinely interests me. Every time I sit in these meetings or take part in these discussions, it feels like being at Davos or the United Nations, with so many titles and vice-presidents, and I feel a bit left behind not having any myself. I am a bit like my noble friend Lord Norton in that I am merely a bystander in this, someone who is interested. I am a political geek and a taxpayer; those are my interests. Like others, I congratulate the Minister on many belated happy returns for yesterday. I can think of no better way of spending your birthday than with some of your closest friends late at night in the House of Lords.
My Amendment 12 is embryonic. We are in Committee and I am happy to have a discussion; perhaps if the Minister is still feeling jovial from her party, we can continue that joviality and have another discussion. This amendment is simple, yet it would introduce an essential safeguard into the Bill. Given that the Secretary of State ultimately has the power in the Bill to create these new strategic authorities—it lies in his or her hands—this amendment would ensure that they are satisfied that each new authority is capable of doing what is expected of it before it is created. Those capability tests should be grounded and focused, though not exclusively, on four areas: first, governance arrangements, to ensure that it is transparent, able to make decisions and face scrutiny; secondly, financial sustainability, so that it is on a sound financial footing and able to carry out the new powers and deliver; thirdly, administrative capacity, and whether it has the right people, expertise and systems in place; and, finally, accountability mechanisms, to ensure that it has credible systems for scrutiny and democratic oversight. To be clear, I envisage the same sorts of tests applying to both the new mayoral authorities and the new unitary authorities.
Ultimately, I say with respect to the Minister, this is not game playing, a stunt or an effort to stop the Bill. It is grounded in my concern that there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that, before a new authority can exist, it must be ready and able to do what it says it will. The Bill talks about their functions, voting systems and the powers they will have, yet a Bill about empowering the people has nothing about whether the system being invented will be able to, any good at or even capable of delivering better services for the people—not to mention better value for money, though that is in a future group. I am sure the Minister is looking forward to me speaking on it in due course.
I am sure that some will say that this amendment is unnecessary. Those people who object will probably fall into three rough camps. The first will say, “We don’t need to worry. It’s going to be fine. We should take what we’re given; it is what it is and we can’t go around dictating from on high what it should be like on the ground”. But that is exactly what the Bill is doing: we are dictating what the new system should be like. We are saying that there should be a plan in place and how it will work. I think we should make sure that these authorities are capable of standing on their own two feet. Given that one of the arguments for reforming local government is that it is already quite messy and difficult to navigate, we surely do not want to create a system that is even more confusing. Before we hit the “Go” button, there needs to be effort on the ground and in Whitehall to ensure that the new structures in place are robust and coherent. That is not bureaucracy, it is just accountability. One of the many fears I have about the Bill, I am afraid to say, is that if transparency and accountability are not built in from the outset, that will make it harder to understand and hold people’s feet to the fire. These tests do that.
Another argument against this amendment will be that, ultimately, it should be for the people to decide whether the authority is doing a good job or not. I am a genuinely firm believer in democracy: it is precious and unique. Of course the electorate will ultimately be the judge, but that will come only after the changes have happened, years down the track. With so many elections already being delayed because of reorganisation, there will be no checks put in place before changes take place.
Finally, I am sure that some will say that it is not possible to test something that does not exist. However, we can do so, not just in the prep work and the planning of what is intended, but in seeing whether existing local authorities are good at what they are doing already: whether they are late or slow in delivery, whether services are being cut or expanded, their finances, workforce capacity, roadworks, housebuilding—you name it. Before noble Lords feel compelled—this has happened to me before—to defend the honour of local authorities, I pre-empt this by assuring them that I am certainly not blanketly saying that all local councils are not up to it. Equally, I am not saying that Whitehall is perfect—far, far from it. I am merely saying that, before we proceed to create and approve these new authorities, there should be a system to ensure that they will work, including how they will build on, incorporate or tackle issues in the pre-existing authorities.
There is one final area I will touch on, which we have talked about in passing already. I do not want to open this up into a broad debate about local government finance, but it does have read-through here. We all know the challenges and I do not want to dwell on it, but, across the land, capabilities are not uniform. I read some research that showed that councils in the north are twice as likely to be at risk as those in the south. Then there are the associated costs of reorganisation, never mind whether the new entity is going to be any good. Some organisations are already asking whether the current wave of reorganisation will save money or in some circumstances cost even more. Yet this Bill has no requirement to test capability, never mind finances, before those new bodies are created.
This Bill should not be seen as an exercise to create layer upon layer without thinking it through first. This is a serious issue. It is about spending serious sums of money on serious things affecting the lives of many, so it is important that we get it right. Devolution is meant to be about making the system work better, and that is what is driving this amendment. I recognise that many councils will do an enormous amount of work in getting these changes right, but rather than hoping that this version of devolution works and that things do not go wrong for the taxpayer, let us put in a safeguard. Rather than rely on good intentions, let us make the system work from the outset. Trust is not enough. These simple tests, or something like them, would make sure that from the get-go the new system is better, stronger and more capable of delivering improved services for the people. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I acknowledge the constructive intention behind Amendment 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The desire to ensure that strategic authorities are properly equipped, financially sustainable and governed with integrity is entirely understandable. We have all seen, all too often, the consequences when structures are created without sufficient capacity or clarity of purpose. We do not want that to happen here, and this amendment seeks to guard against it. However—the noble Lord’s heart sinks—while I appreciate that instinct, we cannot support the amendment as drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I have different perspectives as we come from different backgrounds—him from No. 10 and me from more than 25 years in local government, 16 of them as a directly elected mayor. To us, the amendment seems to reintroduce a centralising veto at precisely the moment when the Bill is meant to be shifting power away from Whitehall. The Secretary of State would become the arbiter of whether an area is “capable”—a term left undefined, and thus open to subjective interpretation. What one Minister might judge as prudent due diligence, another might use as a brake on local ambition. That uncertainty does not sit comfortably with our belief in consent-based, locally driven governance.
We also have to be alive to the practical effects on the ground in the places about which we have spent many long hard hours talking—those most in need of levelling up. They are often those with a much weaker starting capacity. They could find themselves locked out by criteria that they are not yet able to meet, precisely because they have not been granted the devolution tools that would help them grow that capacity. We risk creating a circular trap: you cannot have the powers until you have the capacity, but you cannot build the capacity until you have the powers.
However, we recognise that strong oversight will be necessary with changes of this magnitude. Several amendments in the names of other noble Lords show a strong appetite across the Committee for rigorous oversight, but it must be oversight that does not stray into overprescription or paternalism. I understand why there may be concerns; the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, expressed them well. My spectacles are not rose-coloured—I acknowledge that local government has not always got it right and that there have been failures, some of them cataclysmic—but, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I think that we could also say this about past Governments, Prime Ministers and initiatives.
That said, the amendment springs from a very real concern: the public must have confidence that new strategic authorities will function effectively from day one. On that point, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. There is space—and, indeed, a need—for transparency in how readiness is assessed in order to ensure that governance arrangements are fit for purpose and to avoid the creation of authorities that are destined to struggle. However, in our view, the answer is not to place broad, undefined tests solely in the gift of the Secretary of State. Instead, we might look to more balanced alternatives, such as clear statutory criteria developed with the sector rather than imposed on it. I am sure that the Local Government Association will be keen to work collaboratively on this; we could even look at greater parliamentary scrutiny rather than ministerial discretion. There is room for a serious discussion on this matter—I hope that we can hold that with the Minister.
The amendment addresses a genuine risk but, in our view, the mechanism it proposes risks undermining the very local autonomy that the Bill is meant to strengthen. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good by setting hurdles that, in some areas, those who would benefit the most will struggle to clear. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne goes to the heart of what effective devolution requires: capability. As he set out so clearly, it is simply not enough to create new strategic or unitary authorities in the abstract and hope that they will succeed. We can and should look at the performance of existing local authorities—including their financial resilience, their workforce capacity, the pressures they face and the services they currently deliver—to understand whether the foundations are in place for a new body to take on, in some cases, even greater responsibilities.
My noble friend was right to say that this is not about criticising local government wholesale—many councils are doing extraordinary work under immense strain—but capability is not uniform across the country. The financial challenges facing local authorities are well known. Reorganisation carries costs, and there is a real debate around whether it always delivers the efficiencies or improvements that are promised.
Against that background, it is entirely reasonable that we should expect a clear and transparent test of readiness before new strategic authorities are created. That is precisely what Amendment 12 would provide. It proposes that, before any strategic authority or unitary authority is established, the Secretary of State “must be satisfied” that it has the governance, financial resilience, administrative capacity and accountability mechanisms that are necessary to exercise the functions conferred upon it. These are not burdensome hurdles; they are basic safeguards to ensure that a new authority is set up to succeed, not set up to struggle.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for this amendment, which seeks to ensure that new strategic authorities have the capability to take on additional powers. I recognise the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that all strategic authorities are strong and effective in delivering their devolved responsibilities; of course, that is a goal that this Government share. However, this amendment would create an express separate requirement on the Secretary of State, adding complexity to the process of establishing new strategic authorities—much of that burden was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—that, in my view, potentially risks their autonomy without providing an equivalent benefit.
I assure the noble Lord that the Government are building on the capability and capacity of new strategic authorities to ensure that they can deliver the new devolution framework. Let me give him a little detail around how that is working. The Government support the improvement of strategic authority capability by funding the Local Government Association to deliver a sector support programme, which is available to both strategic and local authorities; that includes training for both officers and elected leaders, support in attracting new talent, and guidance on topics such as good governance and assurance. We will continue to review that offer to make sure that it remains fit for purpose.
The Government are also seeking to facilitate greater take-up of secondments by civil servants into strategic authorities to ensure that those authorities benefit from the widest range of capability available. We are keen to support areas establishing strategic authorities to get on to a firm footing and to be best equipped to start delivering improved outcomes for all local communities. We are doing this through the provision of a checklist that sets out the key requirements they will need, information sessions with a number of key government departments and a series of master classes for areas on a number of different topics, such as developing a local constitution and risk management. As an example, when a new combined authority or combined county authority is established, there is a year-long transition period when public transport functions remain exercisable by the constituent councils while the new authority creates an effective transport team.
We are very aware of the issues raised by the noble Lord, but I hope that he agrees with me and that my reassurances are sufficient for him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, as ever.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, got me going: she talked about her rose-tinted glasses and I had visions of the infamous Rose Garden treaty. I thought that this would be a new version of the Tory-Lib Dem alliance, but she dashed my hopes there and then.
I appreciate the Minister’s point. I think she mentioned “levelling up”, but this amendment is to try to give effect to levelling up. It is not to lock people out; it is to make sure that levelling up is delivered for them. I think that there is possibly somewhere where we can meet there.
As ever, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for her genuine support. I am pleased to hear from the Minister’s remarks that there is some work to be done. I would like to have further discussion, perhaps with the LGA, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. There may be something that we could work on, or at least tip our hats to—I do not know. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Shipley
“Devolution of powers within strategic authority areas(1) A strategic authority may devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds.(2) In carrying out any action under subsection (1), a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(3) Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(4) Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how the strategic authority and its member local authorities intend to carry out their duties under subsections (2) and (3) (a “Community Empowerment Plan”).(5) A Community Empowerment Plan must set out how the strategic authority and local authorities within its area will consult local communities on the exercise of those powers which are not devolved to lower-tier bodies.(6) A strategic authority must review a Community Empowerment Plan at least once during the period of four years beginning with the day on which the Plan is published.(7) In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or other body to which it has devolved powers.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the powers of a strategic authority in circumstances where the strategic authority considers there to have been a serious failure or breach of duty in relation to a power devolved to a more local level.(9) Regulations made under subsection (8) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for signing my amendment. When I spoke earlier this afternoon, I said that there was a need to ensure that we do not encourage upwards mission creep in this Bill. This amendment seeks to provide statutory help to prevent that happening and to deliver greater empowerment for local communities.
I accept at the outset that there is an inherent tension in devolution policy between scale and geography. Strategic authorities will be large and will have to cover large areas, yet community empowerment will be on a much smaller scale. I submit that the Government’s commitment to empowering local communities will need some statutory backing, so I propose that we embed the principle of subsidiarity in the Bill. I propose that we embed a legal duty of subsidiarity across the whole of devolved English local government, including town and parish councils.
Further, I suggest that we need to legislate to give local and combined authorities the legal powers that they need to devolve their own responsibilities further. They would also need a statutory duty to collaborate on and publish community empowerment plans setting out how they plan to fulfil their duty; local communities and local councils should have the right to challenge both the content and implementation of these plans.
My amendment says:
“A strategic authority may devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds”.
This may sound quite revolutionary to some but, actually, it is at the heart of devolving power and this Bill is about devolution.
Secondly, the amendment says that the strategic authority must act in a way to enable such devolution to take place. Each local authority in a strategic authority area would, in turn, have to
“consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and … where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution”.
I then propose:
“Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how the strategic authority and its member local authorities intend to carry out their duties under”
the community empowerment plan. I also propose that that plan
“must set out how the strategic authority and local authorities … will consult … on the exercise of those powers which are not devolved to lower-tier bodies”.
Further, my amendment states:
“A strategic authority must review a Community Empowerment Plan at least once during the period of four years beginning with the day on which the Plan is published… In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or other body to which it has devolved powers”.
Then there is the issue of what the regulations should contain to ensure that this measure works well, but I hope the Minister understands that there is a major issue of principle here in terms of devolution. If this Bill is truly about devolution, as the Minister told us earlier today it was, in what way are we going to make sure that strategic authorities do not suck powers upwards but, rather, pass down powers to local authorities, which will, in turn, devolve powers to town and parish councils?
I hope the Minister will be open to thinking about how this must be done. There are so many statements in the Bill and Explanatory Notes about the importance of community empowerment, yet I do not see the means of that actually being delivered in the Bill, hence my proposal on how this might be done. It also requires that the Government just have to make sure that it happens. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I commend him on drafting what I think is a terribly important amendment, as he has just outlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said this might sound revolutionary. Well, I think it is revolutionary, and it would mean reversing the entire direction of travel of English governance over the past decades, which has seen power and resources increasingly concentrated in the centre. I said in the earlier group how much that has disillusioned the public and left people feeling like they are not in control of their own communities and lives. This amendment could point the Bill in the direction it is supposed to be heading in, but it is not currently heading in that direction when you look at it.
I confess that this is at the absolute centre of green political philosophy and thinking. Decisions should be made at the most local level possible and referred upwards only when absolutely necessary. That is the foundation of green political thinking and, in my view, the foundation of democracy.
There is so much in this Bill that I was reflecting on when the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, was talking about the problem with commissioners and appointed commissioners. Although I was arguing for a rural commissioner, if we are to have appointed commissioners, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. There is a huge democratic deficit right across the Bill.
In many cases, we are talking about town and parish councils. We are in a situation where we need to think about creating more town and parish councils where they do not exist. Far too often, we see a traditional historic market town with a town or parish council, but also a big council estate on the edge of town which is not parochial. This is the kind of structure that we need to get power down to the people.
This amendment is really giving us a route forward in that sense. It is important to focus, crucially, on providing a direction to the strategic authorities. It returns to a point that we were discussing on a previous group about giving them direction, but is a direction to be democratic and that is something that I will absolutely defend. For instance, proposed new subsection (2)(a) has to
“consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level”,
and, where it considers that to be the case, it must act. That really is the crucial part of this Bill.
I note that the “Community Empowerment Plan” in proposed new subsection (4) of this amendment picks up what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was talking about in the second group. If there is one thing about this amendment, however, it is saying, “Do as I say, not as I do”. That is what Westminster would be saying by including this in the Bill, but this could be a model for Westminster to guide its own actions in future, as well as those of strategic local authorities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendment. For me, it is a little too revolutionary, but I think the idea behind it—to enable strategic authorities to further devolve any powers that they are given—is correct. I do not think they need any more powers to do that, but they do need encouragement. I believe the amendment is well intentioned, particularly in response to the Bill that seems to be doing the opposite, as the noble Lord said: it is moving all the powers up. I do, however, have concerns about the amendment and how it would work in practice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for Amendment 13, which seeks to ensure that power is moved away from central government—we all agree with that—to strategic and local authorities. The amendment would place a new statutory duty on strategic and local authorities to
“consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level”
of government. Should the strategic authority or local authority believe that to be the case, they must
“act so as to enable such devolution”.
I am afraid that this amendment runs counter to the spirit and purpose of the Bill, and risks creating a patchwork of powers across England, with strategic authorities and local authorities holding different sets of powers depending on where they are in England. We believe that allowing different tiers and areas to hold different responsibilities would blur accountability, make it harder for the public to understand who is responsible for what, and weaken value-for-money assurance for investment by increasing duplication and misalignment. The amendment also risks devolving powers to bodies without the capacity to deliver them effectively—which is part of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott; people need to be willing to accept the duties—and could impose disproportionate and impractical consultation burdens on strategic authorities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not want to give the idea that the parish and town councils across this country would not be able to do it. Some will, but some will not. I know town councils and parishes that run better services than district councils ever did.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was highlighting the fact that the noble Baroness spoke about the willingness to adopt services, which I believe is important.
The devolution framework is designed to eliminate risk by ensuring that mayors and strategic authorities are given a consistent and coherent set of functions, to ensure that strategic authorities can make strategic decisions and deliver policies that span multiple local authority areas. It is important that all tiers of local government work together in the interests of their local communities. That is why local authorities are embedded within the decision-making structures of combined authorities and combined county authorities as full constituent and voting members. A blanket requirement for a strategic authority to meet tiers of local government is a significant administrative burden; for example, in North Yorkshire alone, there are 412 parish and town councils. There is nothing wrong with expecting mayors and local authority leaders to communicate with them, but imposing that approach could place a considerable cost of consultation on them and potentially crowd out the time they need for their core strategic responsibilities.
I take the noble Baroness’s point about town and parish councils. We are introducing a system of neighbourhood governance, and it is important that we have our debates on that when the time comes. We will, I am sure, debate the role of town and parish councils, but including them in the Bill would have indicated to them that the Bill will have some impact on them that it is not intended for the Bill to have. I totally recognise the work that our town and parish councils do around the country: it is important and I know that we will have those discussions when we get to those elements of the Bill.
On Amendment 13, it is important that we do not interrupt the Government’s intention to give a consistent and coherent set of functions to strategic authorities and that their work dovetails with what our local authorities are doing. I hope that that has reassured the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I want to clarify one of the statements she made. This is a devolution Bill. She implied that she wants clarity that all functions are done at the same level across the country. To my mind, the whole purpose of devolution is that you do it at the level that is most appropriate. That may be very different, for instance, in Yorkshire compared with Stevenage. My noble friends from Yorkshire and Lancashire have disappeared, so I cannot refer to them. It may be that there is a brilliant parish council that can take on more responsibility—my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook mentioned Salisbury—whereas, in another area, we may say, “Well, no, that’s better done at the unitary or strategic level”. Devolution is about that local determination of how services are delivered at the best level for the best results for residents. I want to make sure that the Minister was not implying that that is not the case.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have set out clearly in the Bill—with the competences, for example—where we see strategic responsibilities lying and where local council leaders will be responsible for the services they deliver. As we go through the local government reorganisation process, we will have unitary authorities across the country delivering those services. What we do not want to do is muddy the waters by saying that there will be some areas that have different strategic powers from others. That is why we have set out the competences in the Bill.
It is not about what you deliver at local level because the strategic competences allow that to be flexible across different geographies and demographics. It is about ensuring that the strategic level is delivered by the combined authority and local services are delivered by the local authority. I do not think it would be helpful to muddy those waters by having the picture be different across the country.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister asked whether I was satisfied by her responses; I am actually more worried now than when I started. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just said.
I will give an example of where the Government are heading for great difficulty. Let us take the area of competence for transport and local infrastructure. “Local” is not defined—I think my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will come back on the issue of definition at a later stage. I understand that strategic transport and major capital infrastructure, such as on a new railway line, is a strategic matter for a strategic authority, but I hope that transport and local infrastructure does not mean that every traffic-calming scheme in every residential road of a local authority has to be signed off by the mayor. I am keen for the Minister to be clear about what these terms mean because the Bill is not clear.
I jokingly referred to the powers I am proposing being revolutionary. They are very different, but they are an attempt to get everyone to understand that if you have a devolution Bill and think it is about devolution, it has to be devolution from the strategic authority where the mayor and the authority think their powers could go to local government. That debate has to be had. It is not, as the Minister said, about ending up with a patchwork of powers. Of course there will be differences in local areas. That is a positive, not a negative thing. Let us not call it a “patchwork” because that means that Whitehall and Ministers want to run 56 million people in England. In the end, having a standard system that everybody must fit into will not work. It will be a cause of great difficulty.
I am encouraged by some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said—that there are correct things in it, there are principles and it is well intended. The test of successful devolution is a willingness to devolve power from yourself rather than demanding it to yourself. The test is for the strategic authority to say, “We think the powers we have in this area could well be carried out by a local authority, so let’s talk about it”, and say to the local authority, “You in turn must decide whether you need to undertake these powers directly or can devolve them to others, including town and parish councils”. I do not believe that the Government will ever succeed with community empowerment plans unless they empower communities. This Bill is not doing that.
Paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill says:
“The Bill will introduce a requirement on all local authorities in England to establish effective neighbourhood governance, to move decision making closer to residents, empowering ward councillors to address the issues most important to their communities at a local level”.
What it does not say is that that would not include the planning process or a whole set of services that local people might want to have some say in. The Government cannot make statements like that without then delivering the means to increase community empowerment. I will not give up on my Amendment 13. True devolutionists must follow their desire to give power to others to use in a country of 56 million people. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Janke
“(3A) Before laying regulations to designate a single foundation strategic authority under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult all levels of local government in the affected area.(3B) Consultation under subsection (3A) must include consideration of—(a) the proposed geographic area, functions, and powers of the foundation strategic authority,(b) the governance arrangements of the authority, including membership, representation, and accountability to constituent local authorities, and(c) the financial implications of the designation, including funding arrangements, transitional costs, and the impact on existing local authority budgets.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult all levels of local government in the affected area before making regulations to designate a single foundation strategic authority.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in echoing my colleague’s comments reflecting on the previous debate, it sounds as though today we are agreeing on uniformity rather than devolution. The Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to merge, restructure or abolish councils without parliamentary oversight and local consent—all apparently in the name of devolution. A top-down authoritarian approach replaces local choice with a central direction from Whitehall. A single model is to be imposed across England regardless of geography, identity or local preference. It shifts real power away from local councils and into large strategic authorities headed up by regional mayors, with reduced numbers of local councillors serving larger areas and populations.
Civil servants in Whitehall carving up maps is not a process that encourages local participation and people having real powers, as devolution implies. In fact, it is the very opposite of devolution. When its results become apparent, they will fuel further distrust and anger, as local people will find that they have even less chance to influence decisions affecting their lives or opportunities to participate in the governance of their local area. Mayors do not have the confidence of the population all over the country, so imposing a universal model is asking for local dissent. In my area of Bristol, there was a referendum that decisively rejected continuing with an elected mayor, so this actually imposes something on an area that is contrary to what the local population said.
We had some talk about regional assemblies. Having served on the South West Regional Assembly, I dispute that all the RDA money goes into Bristol, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—Councillor Scott—said, but that is something that we can perhaps talk about afterwards. Having looked at housing plans for the whole of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and more, I can tell the noble Baroness that rural affairs were very high on that agenda.
This amendment seeks to restore the requirements of full local consultation on the substantive changes being proposed, including the geographical area, functions and powers of the new authorities, and governance arrangements including membership representation and accountability. Consultation is also to include funding arrangements, transitional costs and where they will be borne, and the impact on existing local government funding. It is essential for there to be transparency and accountability on funding, and that local obligations and responsibilities are fully funded, with councils enabled to do the job for which they were elected.
It seems deeply ironic that an unelected Chamber such as ours should be party to removing powers and accountability from local communities and riding roughshod over local democracy. This amendment goes some way to restoring the rightful importance of local leadership, local consent and local participation.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I speak on this group of amendments concerning Clause 3, which addresses the creation of single foundation strategic authorities. The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook are probing in nature, and we have also given notice of our intention to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill.
At the heart of our concerns is the familiar theme that we have returned to throughout the Bill, and I suspect we will again—the balance of power between central government and local communities. Too often the Bill grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create, reshape or direct local government structures with minimal checks, consultation and accountability. That is not the model of devolution that we believe in.
I also ask the Minister for clarification on the role of single foundation strategic authorities. Will all unitary and counties not in a combined authority be offered the opportunity to be a single foundation strategic authority? What powers and funding will they be given and how does this compare to combined authorities, mayoral and foundation mayoral authorities? Where will a single foundation strategic authority fit in the landscape? Could it be forced into a combined authority?
Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is sensible and necessary. It would require the Secretary of State to consult all levels of local government in an affected area before designating a single foundation strategic authority. Indeed, I would go further. Consultation should involve not only local authorities but local residents. If we are serious about localism and empowering communities, rather than simply rearranging governance structures, the voices of the people who live and work in those areas must be heard.
Amendment 15 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook probes whether the affirmative procedure alone is sufficient scrutiny for the Secretary of State’s powers under this clause. Given the scale of the decisions being taken and the potential impact on local governance and accountability, it is legitimate to question whether Parliament should have a more substantial role in overseeing these powers.
Throughout this Bill we have systematically sought to remove or constrain the Secretary of State’s ability to create new authorities or confer new powers without proper consultation or local consent. Clause 3 as drafted continues the pattern of centralisation. For that reason, we have tabled an amendment opposing the question that Clause 3 stands part of the Bill. We believe that the Government must provide far greater clarity about how and when these powers will be used and what safeguards will be in place.
As I said earlier, this is a theme that we will return to later in the Bill. For now, I hope the Minister will reflect on the strong arguments made today for a more genuinely localist approach, one that respects local government, involves local residents and ensures that decisions about local government are not taken unilaterally by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Janke, for their amendments on single foundation strategic authorities. Clause 3 provides a power for the Secretary State to designate a single unitary council or county council that is not covered by an existing strategic authority as a single foundation strategic authority. Any future designation of a single foundation strategic authority will be subject to the consent of the council involved. For this reason, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is not a necessary requirement.
I appreciate the intention behind the proposal. However, it would not be proportionate to impose an additional requirement to consult every level of local government within the proposed area of the single foundation strategic authority. The principal body affected by the designation will be the old unitary county council and no designation can be made without the consent of the relevant council.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, probes whether Clause 3 should be included in the Bill. Clause 3 is vital to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its ambition to ensure that everywhere in England can benefit from devolution. The Government recognise that non-mayoral devolution to single local authorities can serve as an important foundational step, allowing areas to see early benefits from devolution, while considering all options for unlocking deeper devolution by working with neighbouring local authorities in combined authorities and combined county authorities, over the longer term.
The second amendment in the group, Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, probes whether the affirmative procedure is appropriate for the Secretary of State’s power to designate a council as a single foundation strategic authority. I should reassure the Committee that this is in line with the long-established practice whereby secondary legislation is used to establish new institutions and to implement agreed devolution agreements within areas.
In addition, the use of the affirmative procedure ensures that no designation can be made without the approval of both Houses. As I said, we want local authority designations to be done at the local level; that is the provision, I believe. However, the Government recognise that, in rare cases, non-mayoral devolution can serve as an important first step. To access further functions available at the mayoral tier, single councils will need to work across a wider geography.
I will let the noble Lord know about the issue of funding in due course in writing, if that is okay. Establishing those single foundation strategic authorities will accelerate the transfer of powers out of Whitehall to local government so that local leaders have a greater say over decisions in those areas.
With these reassurances, I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Janke, to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Minister said that the affirmative procedure had to go through both Houses; I understand that. We have set up unitary authorities through secondary legislation up until now, and this Bill has never been needed. However, I am not quite sure what happens with a local authority that does not want this. Is there a power through the affirmative procedure for the Secretary of State to insist that a local authority, which does not want to become a single foundation authority for whatever reason, will have to do it? Will that go through the affirmative procedure or not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government have made our intention very clear: we want to see unitary authorities established across the country. We want that initiative to come from local areas themselves. Some areas may be more comfortable going into the single foundation authority first, before they take the step to go into a combined authority; that is what the provision in the Bill is about. We want to make sure that there are unitary authorities across the country. In extreme circumstances, I believe, the Secretary of State has a power to make sure that it does happen, but that would be very much a power of last resort; we would not want to use it unless there could be no agreement any other way.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The Minister kindly said that she would write to me about funding, but I had two other related questions. First, will all authorities be able to say, “I want to be a foundation authority”, or is that going to be limited in some way? Secondly, if you are a single foundation strategic authority, could you still be forced into a combined authority at a later date?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
For most local authorities—I have spoken to a great number of them over the past few months—the attraction of taking your unitary authority and going into a combined authority is the ability to have the greater powers that that level of devolution will accrue to the area and the communities for which you are responsible. I think that it will be the exception rather than the rule that people will want to be a single foundation authority, but they may be more comfortable with using that as a first step then working it out for themselves. This has happened to a certain extent through the whole devolution programme. Where people are in a unitary authority, they will look around them to see which of the surrounding authorities work best in terms of their economy and public services, as well as which model makes more sense to their local community, before they decide which way to go; if they wish to take some time to do that, the Bill makes provision for that.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for her comments. I do, however, feel that there is a distinct lack of local input into the proposals in this Bill; that is one of the symptoms of the approach the Government are taking. They seem to be taking the view that they have decided what will be imposed on the country and are not particularly concerned about what local people think about it. I point to the regional assemblies, where they did the same thing and incurred huge hostility and a lack of trust from local people—not least in arguments about geography and local differences that took up quite a lot of government time and energy.
I think what the Government are trying to introduce here is uniformity, rather than devolution, and they will find an unwilling reception for their attempt to impose uniformity. People do not want mayors, who are very often seen as the outpost for central government; they also do not want local change imposed from Whitehall. I wish the Government luck with the Bill. Local government reform is a very sensitive business and maybe if Sir Humphrey were here, he would be saying that the Government are being very courageous. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment for the present.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Before we move on, I note that the last group is quite a large one. We are due to finish in half an hour, so I would hate to think that we would have to break off half way through the group. I am in the noble Baroness’s hands—where would she like to go with it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It looks like a huge group, but that is only because of the scheduling. Most of the amendments are about the first part of the schedule, so I think we should get it done.
Schedule 1: Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs
Amendment 16
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and my noble friend Lady Scott have stolen my first line about the size of this group; that is largely down to the structure of the Bill, which has numerous schedules. Consequently, we have tabled a vast number of amendments to make a relatively simple change.
I thank all noble Lords who tabled amendments on these issues. They are not merely technical adjustments; they are amendments that go to the heart of our concerns about the true purpose and direction of the Bill and the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking in it. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has made clear, we on these Benches firmly believe that devolution must be locally led, rooted in local identities and local democracy, and not imposed by central government. Genuine community empowerment cannot be handed down by central diktat, which imposes structures that override locally elected representatives and residents. If devolution is imposed from Whitehall, it ceases to be devolution in any meaningful sense.
The amendments we have tabled seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot exercise powers affecting the governance, composition or boundaries of local authorities without their explicit consent. That consent is not an administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Such changes must be based on local identities and local wishes to truly reflect the meaning of community. They should not be abstract or managerial plans drawn up at a distance in Whitehall, however well intentioned.
Communities are not interchangeable units on a map. They have histories, relationships and ways of working that cannot simply be redrawn by statutory instrument. Any restructuring must have a demonstrative benefit for local people, not just for the administrative convenience of central government. Crucially, it is local councils, through elected councillors accountable to their residents, who are best placed to judge what will or will not work for their area. This is a particular concern given the Government’s decision to cancel local elections this year, denying the vote to potentially 4 million people. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords’ thoughts on these timely issues and the other amendments in this group.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 21 and 24. My noble friends on the Front Bench have pretty much all the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is a pity that she cannot be here, but I join in sending her our very best wishes and look forward to her return to the Committee.
Amendments 21 and 24 are in the same area of where proposals can be brought forward for the establishment of new combined authorities. Before I go on, I could have tabled—I neglected to table—two further amendments about county combined authorities in exactly the same terms as Amendments 21 and 24, which relate to combined authorities. Therefore, perhaps the arguments I am making on combined authorities can be taken as read-across.
The purpose of my Amendments 21 and 24 is to challenge the process by which the Secretary of State would make a decision on a proposal for a combined authority or a combined county authority that is brought forward by the constituent councils in an area. As things stand under the existing legislation, which was set up in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but, for the purposes of combined authorities, is in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009—LuRA 2023 has the same for combined county authorities—the way it works is that those proposals come forward for an area and are subjected to tests.
I am interested, in terms of how the tests are currently applied, in whether they are likely to improve
“the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people of the area”.
Additionally, I suggest that the proposal should be required to include the purposes that are intended to be achieved by the establishment of this combined authority or combined county authority. The Secretary of State would have to look at and assess—these are the tests—whether those improvements in economic, social and environmental well-being as well as the purposes included in the proposal are likely to be met.
To me, these are two elements of the test of whether a proposal coming forward from an area should be accepted. The first is an objective test: will it improve the well-being in the area in various ways? The second is more subjective but none the less purposive: the people in this area and the constituent councils have said why they want to have this authority, so the Secretary of State should look at those purposes and say whether they are likely to be met. In this Bill, the question put to a relevant proposal—what purposes are you trying to achieve?—is simply swept away. There is no requirement for such a proposal to have those purposes any more.
Amendment 21 would remove the requirement to have purposes so that they cannot form part of a subsequent test. The test that is to be applied would no longer be the test of economic, social or environmental well-being, which is an objective test related to the benefit to the people living in that area, and would be replaced by a statutory test: is it appropriate to make the order in relation to the area, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence? In those words, “convenient” leaps out in particular. It makes one think that what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was just saying about the desirability of having conformity is what is actually driving these decisions now, rather than, “What is going to happen to benefit the people who live in this area?”, which should be the objective test.
That question did not escape the notice of the Lords Constitution Committee. In its 16th report, published on 13 January, it stated:
“We draw this provision to the attention of the House. It should satisfy itself that it is content to grant the Secretary of State this power within Schedule 1 to subject the new arrangements for a combined authority to such a broad and potentially subjective test”.
Of course, in the text at which the committee looked, what the committee means by “broad and potentially subjective” is, by implication, a bureaucratic test—“Is it convenient for us to have a combined authority?”—whereas what we have at the moment, which is what the committee is referring to, is, in essence, a test of the benefit. It is intended to be able to be determined more objectively, and it is certainly more relevant to the people who live in an area whether a combined authority is or is not in their interests.
When we go on with this Bill, I hope that the Government will in each of these respects think whether the statutory test should have perhaps both the bureaucratic element of whether it is convenient and the objective element of whether it can demonstrate that it will bring benefit to the people who live in this area.
My noble friends have two amendments in this group, Amendments 22 and 36, the purpose of which, as far as I can see, is to remove the power for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of combined authorities and county combined authorities. It seems to me that although the Minister said this is an exceptional power, there is a risk that once this power is available—again, because it will be convenient to do so—we will be instructed to have combined authorities according to the Secretary of State’s proposals rather than the ones brought forward from within the area itself.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very happy with the amendments spoken to so far, so I will not repeat what has been said. Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock relates to whether the Secretary of State determines local boundaries and whether decisions on local authority boundaries within a combined authority area are a matter for central or local government. In the spirit of this Bill, which is about devolution, I can see no reason why central government has to be involved. It ought to be a matter for local councils to decide on. Perhaps the Minister might explain why my noble friend Lady Pinnock has got this wrong; it seems to me that she has got this right.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There were a lot of amendments in this group, but we whipped through it very quickly, so I thank noble Lords. The amendments in the group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek collectively to remove the Secretary of State’s new powers to direct the creation or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor. The Government have been clear that devolution can deliver growth, unlock investment and deliver the change the public want to see, led by local leaders who know their areas best. That is why we want to see more parts of England benefit from devolution.
As I have said, I have been involved in local government for a very long time. We have tinkered around with this issue for a very long time indeed, and it is time we provided some certainty and stability. Our engagement to date with councils across England has demonstrated the appetite for devolution within local government. I have spoken to many of them and visited many areas that do not currently have those devolution arrangements.
Devolution, of course, should be locally led wherever possible, and the Government remain committed to working in partnership with local government to deliver that vision. At the same time, we have been clear that we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas accessing devolution—that would be very difficult for those areas—or risk creating devolution islands. The backstop mechanism in the Bill will allow the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how to access devolved powers. That will ensure that all of England can benefit from devolution and nowhere is left behind.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting day debating the Bill. I think there is universal agreement across the Committee that devolution is desirable and that local areas having genuinely devolved powers and being able to deliver for their residents would be a good thing and would deliver better outcomes. However, it is essential that they are part of forming that process and area. The Minister said that the Government believe that devolution can deliver great benefit when led by local leaders who know their areas best. I cannot do anything other than agree with that, but we then talk about a backstop that gives the Secretary of State immense powers to impose solutions on people, and that is the area that we are all concerned about. That is why we proposed these amendments to ensure that that is not done for administrative convenience.
As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, there was a test in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that very clearly stated that there must be a clear benefit to devolution and that the area seeking devolution must establish why it is doing it, and it was judged on the basis of whether it would deliver it. That has gone, and, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, the test now seems to be whether it is administratively convenient. We are not here to do administratively convenient things. We are here to deliver real devolution at a local level, determined by local residents, local councils and local leaders. That is our overarching concern. It is all very well for the Minister to say that this is a backstop arrangement so that we do not have islands or things such as that. While I may have some sympathy about that potential issue, we are giving sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to impose. That is the reason for our amendments.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister as we progress through this Bill how we will ensure that that local voice, the voice of residents, councils and councillors, is heard and is not swept under the carpet, so to speak, on the theme of administrative convenience and diktat from Whitehall. With warning that we will come back to this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Tuesday 27th January 2026
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-II(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (27 Jan 2026)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to explore the justification for providing the mayor with a veto over decisions of a Combined County Authority.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 41 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson is a probing amendment concerning why the Government wish to give mayors a veto over the decisions of a combined county authority.
If this Bill is truly about empowering local communities, decision-making power should be allocated equally between all elected councillors, not concentrated in the hands of one political party individual. This is not to say that the mayor should not have a vote, or perhaps even a casting vote, but we currently see no justification for giving mayors a veto over all decisions made by a majority of a community’s democratically elected representatives. This would not empower local government but would instead turn it into a kind of presidential system. That is not how we do things in this country, nor do we want to.
Amendments 42 and 44 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley seek to bring the Bill in line with past legislation. Amendment 42 is in relation to the voting powers of members of combined county authorities whereby the Secretary of State can make provision for different weights to be given to votes of different types of members, as set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Amendment 44, on transport, seeks to bring the Bill in line with the arrangements set out in the Local Transport Act 2008 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. These amendments seem entirely sensible—unless the Government have other reasons, and we would be grateful if they elaborated on those if they do.
Amendment 43, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, again probes the Government as to why the decisions of a combined county authority must require the agreement of the mayor, rather than being determined by a simple majority of local councillors. We believe this would undermine local democracy, rather than empowering it. If decisions require the agreement of the mayor, a majority of councillors may be disregarded and the wishes of the people ignored. That is not democracy, nor have we heard any arguments as to why it is needed.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Jamieson and I oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill, since we do not see why the Government have deemed it necessary to amend the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to replace the constitutional arrangement it sets out. I hope the Minister will explain why the Government hope to empower mayors over other local councillors, since this does not empower local democracy; rather, it empowers a select few individuals tasked with representing large geographical areas with different communities, who inevitably will have different needs.
As the Bill stands, this will not further localism; rather it will centralise power and take away the decision-making powers of local councillors. Not only does this fly in the face of the Bill’s title, but we have not been given any justification or reasoning for it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and speak to these amendments to Clause 6. The clause relates to decision-making in combined county authorities and combined authorities and its purpose is to provide for a default structure of voting in both kinds of strategic authorities. In particular, that default structure would provide that in mayoral authorities the majority in favour of a decision must include the mayor, thus in effect giving the mayor a veto over decisions, since the majority excluding the mayor would not be decisive.
Before I turn to my amendments, and apropos of the question of whether the clause stands part, I will ask a question. I refer noble Lords and the Minister to Section 13(2)(a) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. The section enables regulations to be made about members, and Section 13(2)(a) states that those regulations can include provision about
“cases in which a decision of a CCA requires a majority, or a particular kind of majority, of the votes of members of a particular kind”.
It seems to me that that paragraph of the levelling-up Act enables exactly what the Minister is setting out to do by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation. Could she tell us why primary legislation is required to achieve this purpose? That might inform our deliberations on the stand part debate.
Amendments 42 and 44 are in my name. I do not share my noble friend’s desire, set out in her Amendments 41 and 43, to take out the mayoral veto from the clause. I have been a resident in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority for however many years. When we had a mayor, the mayor found it very difficult to secure, for example, a non-statutory spatial strategy, not least because the mayor was often frustrated in getting a policy through due to the votes of one of the strategic authority’s constituent councils. In my view, if you elect a mayor and you want a mayor to exercise leadership in a strategic authority, it does not follow that the mayor will necessarily be able to get everything that the mayor wants, and the mayor will have to secure a majority to do so. It is very difficult for the mayor to carry on and provide that leadership if there is a majority that can carry proposals against his or her own policy.
This therefore forces the mayor to act in a certain way. I have seen that in Cambridgeshire, where the current mayor, Paul Bristow, is doing a very good job; he will be known to some of my noble friends. Partly because of this legislation, he is securing a majority in the combined authority, not least because there is an expectation that the strategic authority, when it gets these powers, will be able to make progress with the majority that includes him, and so he will not be able to be blocked by one constituent council.
I turn my focus to my Amendments 42 and 44. The former relates to combined county authorities. In this Committee, I am afraid that we are getting used to the fact that we have to do everything twice, because we have to legislate both for combined county authorities and for combined authorities; it will get a lot simpler when we have just one kind of strategic authority and when legislation for all strategic authorities is pretty much the same. Nevertheless, combined county authorities are governed by Section 10 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which enables the Secretary of State to set out their constitutional arrangements. Section 10(2)(b) includes
“the voting powers of members of the CCA (including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.
That is the existing legislation: it provides for different weights to be allocated to different members. The current situation is that the constitution of a combined county authority is not a “one member, one vote” arrangement—it can vary.
Clause 6 will insert new Section 13A into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It says that
“each voting member has one vote”.
So, what I am really asking by way of these two amendments—in this instance, for combined county authorities—is: does the primary legislation we are discussing now override, in effect, the existing potential for regulations to determine a different weight for different members for different decisions; or, because of this primary legislation, does it have to be “one member, one vote”?
There is a problem there. That problem was illustrated to me when we had a meeting just a few weeks back—my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook will recall it—about Suffolk. It was about unitaries, as it happened, but it also encompassed a discussion about the prospective Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority, which is in the devolution priority programme. The leader of Suffolk County Council was asked, “Suffolk is a single unitary and Norfolk is three, maybe even four, unitaries. What happens if they come together into one strategic authority?”
The problem is easily illustrated: one constituent council and one vote equals perhaps three votes for Norfolk and one vote for Suffolk. The leader of Suffolk County Council said, “That’s not a problem because we’ll weight the votes”. This is exactly what one would do using existing legislation, but I am worried that the structure of the Bill’s drafting will take that discretion away. That is the purpose of my Amendment 42.
My Amendment 44 relates to combined authorities, not combined county authorities, but it runs to the exact same issue. Of course, combined authorities are governed not by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, Section 104 of which provides that the constitutional arrangements for combined authorities may, by order, be made according to the provisions of the Local Transport Act 2008. Section 84 of that latter Act relates to constitutional arrangements; subsection (2)(b) refers to
“the voting powers of members of the ITA”—
the integrated transport authority—
“(including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.
The Committee will recognise those exact same words, so we are dealing with exactly the same issue: is it different weights for different members, or is it to be overridden by “one member, one vote”?
I want, as the outcome of this debate, for us to be sure that this legislation continues to permit a constitution for a strategic authority that both allocates different weights to different members and enables voting power to reflect the wide range of circumstances of constituent councils and other voting members of strategic authorities.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall be very brief because it would be better if the Minister responded to the important points that have been made.
I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but I want to say two things that will, I think, help in this situation. First, we must get clarity about which powers are only for the mayor and which are to be shared with the combined authority; it is important that that be made clear. Secondly, on voting in the combined authority, there is at times a requirement for a two-thirds majority and, at other times, a requirement for a simple majority. We need to be absolutely clear why those differences apply.
With that, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their scrutiny of the first clauses of the Bill last week. I have replied in writing to some of the questions noble Lords asked me last week, and I hope they have received those replies. I look forward to further scrutiny today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their amendments to Clause 6, on decision-making arrangements. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, probes whether Clause 6 is required. Clause 6 is central to the Bill’s core ambition of moving from devolution by deals to devolution by default. It creates a clear and consistent decision-making framework for combined authorities and combined county authorities. Current decision-making arrangements in combined authorities and combined county authorities are complex and vary widely, as noble Lords who have spoken have referred to. This confuses the public and makes accountability harder. For example, mayors are often seen by the public as the accountable person for their authority, but the Mayor of the West of England and the Mayor of the West Midlands are not allowed to vote on their combined authority’s budget.
Clause 6 introduces a simple majority voting system which makes decisions more transparent, creates a level playing field and provides more clarity for the public. For mayoral strategic authorities, the mayor must be in the majority for a vote to pass. This reflects their direct democratic mandate across the entire area. When he was referring to Cambridgeshire, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about the consequences if that is not in place. I think it is an important move. Collaboration remains important, and we are clear that we want to see mayors build a consensus, but one member should not be able to block decisions for an entire region. Removing Clause 6 would keep the current patchwork of governance rules, which slows decision-making down and can undermine accountability to the public, so we believe the clause is essential for strong, transparent governance and should remain in the Bill.
Amendments 41 and 43, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek to understand the justification for providing the mayor with a veto over decisions and why decisions must require the agreement of the mayor. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration with strategic authorities. That is exactly why the Bill requires both the mayor and the constituent members to work together. The standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of members support a decision. We believe the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance between collective decision-making and clear leadership. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are elected by the public to provide leadership and direction for their whole area. Requiring mayoral agreement on key decisions helps ensure clarity over who is accountable for outcomes. Without that clarity, responsibility risks becoming blurred. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution. It would lead to slower decision-making, less coherent strategies and reduced accountability to the public.
Amendments 42 and 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to provide that secondary legislation can be used to set voting arrangements for combined authorities and combined county authorities that differ from the standard arrangements set out in Clause 6. The Government agree that simple majority voting would not be appropriate for all situations. That is why Clause 6 already provides that voting arrangements set out in other enactments continue to apply. Therefore, these amendments are not necessary. For example, in non-mayoral areas the local transport plan must instead have the consent of all constituent councils in order to be adopted. In mayoral areas, the local transport plan remains a mayoral function, but it must be approved by a simple majority vote of the strategic authority. The existing powers for the Government to provide place-specific voting arrangements in secondary legislation, to which the amendments refer, will also apply.
Turning to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act—that is a snappy title—and Clause 6, the Bill does not disapply or override those Acts. Their relevant provisions continue to apply where appropriate, so restating them here does not add any new legal protection. Including additional statutory references risks creating confusion about which provisions apply in different circumstances and undermines the clarity of the governance framework the Bill is trying to apply.
We recognise that some parts of the country have unique technical circumstances that require small changes to this consistent approach, such as to reflect arrangements relating to the management of trams or local bus companies. We have undertaken extensive engagement with existing combined authorities and combined county authorities over the past 12 months on this issue to agree a limited set of bespoke voting arrangements that met this high bar. Should any future strategic authority seek bespoke arrangements, the Government would need to consider them on a case-by-case basis. However, we are clear that any changes to the standard voting arrangements would be by exception and subject to a very high bar.
The Government will maintain some of the place-specific voting arrangements. For example, Lancashire combined authority has bespoke voting arrangements in relation to its budget, which reflects its governance structure. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about weighted voting, the existing powers for the Government to provide place-specific voting arrangements will continue to apply, so that will be for Suffolk and Norfolk to determine as we go forward. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As I said, the issues raised today go to the heart of how we structure local democracy and ensure that the voices of all our communities are fairly and effectively represented. That is why we brought forward these probing amendments.
A consistent concern has emerged that the balance of power proposed in the Bill risks concentrating authority in the hands of the one single officeholder rather than empowering the broad and diverse range of locally elected councillors who best understand the communities that they serve. I have not heard a lot today that puts my mind at rest, but I will read Hansard tomorrow and look further at it. I was pleased that the Minister said that places such as Norfolk and Suffolk, quite close to my heart now, will have that flexibility to deal with local problems—but I have to say that they might argue about it. Who knows? Let us hope that there are two single authorities and we do not have any problems.
We all agree that effective local leadership is vital, but leadership does not mean overriding democratic deliberations; it means working with those local representatives, ensuring accountability and respecting the mandate of those who have been elected by their communities. When decision-making structures are distorted in favour of one individual, however capable, they operate not as a system of local democracy but, as I said, as a presidential model, which sits uneasily with the traditions of government in this country.
My noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment rightly seeks to bring the Bill back into alignment with those frameworks established in previous legislation. I will read this back, but it sounds as if that is happening, although I am not quite sure how. If there are any further questions, I am sure that we will talk to the Minister about them. I am happy with that.
In relation to Clause 6, we have urged the Government to reconsider whether rewriting the constitutional arrangements of the Act was necessary or justified. It looks to me as if we are perhaps not rewriting as much as we feared was being rewritten—but, as I said, we will look at that in detail when Hansard comes out.
We still believe that, if the Government truly wish to empower our local authorities, they must demonstrate it by upholding democratic balance, trusting councillors and ensuring that all voices, not just one, carry the appropriate weight in the decisions that shape our counties and regions. But at this time, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
“2A In section 12D of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (contents of spatial development strategy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A spatial development strategy must identify the policies which are of strategic importance in order to meet the local growth priorities identified in the relevant local growth plan for that strategic area.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment links the local growth plan to the preparation of the spatial development strategy.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Clause 6 provides, right at the end, that Schedule 2 makes further provision, including in relation to the spatial development strategy that strategic authorities are required to produce under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by Section 58 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Those who are former inmates of the Stockholm syndrome that was the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will recall this very well. I apologise to all those noble Lords for revisiting this, but I hope with a useful purpose.
Alongside a spatial development strategy, the Bill requires, in Clause 39 and Schedule 20, the strategic authority also to prepare a local growth plan. Noble Lords will see that, by virtue of the transport and infrastructure powers of strategic authorities and their power to charge a community infrastructure levy linked to that infrastructure provision—Clause 34 and Schedule 15 provide for that—the strategic authority will need to have, in addition to a local growth plan, an infrastructure strategy and an infrastructure delivery framework. I hope that is what they intend to do. The purpose of my amendments in this group is to link these things together. I entirely take the point that the Minister may rightly make: “Surely that’s what strategic authorities have to do”. But we have statutory provision in relation to the spatial development strategy, in particular, that does not refer across to local growth plans and I think it is important that it does.
There are two things that should be linked. Amendments 138 and 144 say that the local growth plan should identify, for the spatial development strategy then to take into account, the employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities identified in the local growth plan. Noble Lords will recall from the Planning and Infrastructure Act that there are a number of specifics that the spatial development strategy has to take on board, but they are essentially housing related. I did not succeed in persuading the Government that they should also specifically take account of employment and related issues. But that is exactly what will happen in practice, and ought to happen: the local growth plan and the employment opportunities associated with it should be an essential part of the strategic process of establishing the spatial development in that area. I cannot see that they can be separated and done without reference to each other.
Amendments 139 and 145 are intended for the local growth plan to identify the infrastructure needed to meet the growth priorities set out in the local growth plan. As a consequence, it must identify the employment-related implications for the spatial development strategy. I do not think that I am inventing these kinds of processes. I have been involved locally for a number of years—I refer to my registered interest as chair, over the years, of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The way a local plan is established—and in due course the spatial development strategy for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—starts from an understanding of the future employment implications of the growth that will occur in our area. It is substantial and those growth priorities will be laid out in the local growth plan, a draft of which has already been produced by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. That is a starting point for understanding the spatial development strategy that I hope it will now rapidly go on to produce.
There are two sets of amendments, one for county combined authorities and the other for combined authorities. I hope that Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 would secure an internal coherence between the local growth plan and the infrastructure priorities derived from that local growth plan, which is then linked into the planning of where that growth in employment and housing should be located through the spatial development strategy. I hope that consistency would enable the strategic authorities to work effectively.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We must ensure that any spatial development strategy underlines and works with the principles of the Environmental Improvement Plan and the upcoming land use framework, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out. Particularly regarding the latter, it makes no sense to have two systems dealing with how we use our land pulling in different directions—which is the risk here. We have these central government legally binding environmental targets, so we need to use the Bill to ensure that this new devolved governance structure means that each tool is deployed in an effective but consistent manner. Consistency is key here.
Bluntly, I do not see how we can halt biodiversity loss, let alone restore it, without giving authorities the duty to work towards meeting these targets. A recently published global biodiversity assessment highlighted the threats to the UK’s national security and prosperity from biodiversity loss and really stressed the importance of delivering the 30by30. This is a very tall target at the best of times, but if we have the devolved Governments pulling in different directions on this, there is no chance that we will reach anywhere near it. We are a long way off right now—at 7%—so have an awfully long way to go in the next seven years.
This amendment would mean that authorities think about nature recovery, soil, water and land use from the outset, rather than as something to be dealt with at a later stage. We had a long-standing debate on this in the planning Bill. This is often where the delays are, caused by nature and environmental considerations. If we consider the environment strategically before we get into this whole planning process, I hope many of those delays and debates will go away, so we do not have them. This will reduce conflicts and create more consistency in how we achieve our environmental targets. It is a very good amendment and it has my strong support. I see it as essential but also proportionate.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Spatial development strategies are a really big opportunity and much to be welcomed. We have long needed a spatial view at that sort of level, so we have to get this right because there is a lot that they can deliver.
However, to be frank, if spatial development strategies do not play a key role in delivering things such as the Environmental Improvement Plan statutory targets, I am not entirely sure how government will get those statutory targets delivered, because the land is fundamental to delivering those targets. The question really is: if there is not some strong guidance that the spatial development strategies must play a role in delivering the Environmental Improvement Plan statutory targets, how will government ensure that these targets are met? Is it envisaged that there will be guidance rather than something in the Bill?
We should not underestimate the importance of the environment for growth. I remember years ago, when some of the big drug companies were thinking about where they were going to put production facilities, they came to the conclusion that England’s green and pleasant land was a pretty good place to come. Not only was there a reasonably stable economy in those days, but there were also excellent places for the people they would have to attract—potentially from other countries but also from other parts of the UK—to come and work for them. They were also potentially attractive places for those businesses to come and pursue sustainability and growth as part of their global strategies. Therefore, a pleasant, productive environment not only provides security against climate shocks, flooding, heat and all those things if done on a big enough scale; it is also an attractive place for businesses to come because they can get good staff who want to come and live in pleasant places. That is a crucial element that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out.
I have stood up and talked about the land use framework many times; I do go on about its importance. For me, it has two major importances. First, it brings a degree of rationality to considerations and discussions about competing land uses, which is absolutely what regional—spatial—development strategies ought to be doing as well, so they are very complementary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, pointed out, the land use framework is also a means of reducing conflict.
We all too often see development being delayed because there is local or county-level antipathy by the public to what is being proposed. A land use framework approach is a way of getting that dialogue going across multiple land uses—including land for climate, biodiversity and other environmental management, and land for development—that can introduce a note of calmness, conciliation, balance and rationality to the debate. The land use framework is important and the big problem right now of course is its timing. We have been a very long time waiting for it. My understanding, and the Minister can perhaps confirm this, is that it is in a good enough shape for write-round, but we hear that it may well be delayed.
The reality is that we are up against a hard deadline. The hard deadline for me—and this is a purely personal view, not the view of my party, I am sure—is that we are going to have a rough time in the elections in May and there could well be all sorts of reshuffles emanating from that. The last thing that any of us wants is for a brand-new set of Ministers to be appointed as a result of a reshuffle, or even a few Ministers to be appointed as a result of a reshuffle, who quite rightly, in the case of something as important as the land use framework, will want to delay and have a look at it themselves to make sure that they understand it and that they are behind it. That could cause even more delay, so if we do not get it agreed and published by late April, we could be stuffed—I think that is the technical term. Perhaps we could persuade the Minister to tell us what it would take to get this announced by April.
There is one further requirement that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, does not cover, which is the whole issue of local nature recovery strategies. Those noble Lords who have played a role in local nature recovery strategy development and approval will realise just how much sweat and blood has been magnificently used at a county level to produce these agreed strategies. They are very much another brick in the wall of the rational approach to land use. There has been a huge amount of engagement of local authorities, communities and NGOs at the county level to get these strategies going. They are incredibly valuable, because they have been a meeting ground for all these competing land use bodies. One has to ask: what is the point of a local nature recovery strategy if it does not play a role and does not figure in the spatial development strategy? Can the Minister assure us that local nature recovery strategies will be material in local development strategies? If so, why not put it the Bill? Depending on her answer, I may have to egg on the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to add that into consideration on Report.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments, but can I probe the Minister, for when she responds, about what happens in London? In London, all 33 boroughs—or 32 plus the City, if you want to be pedantic—would all have their own local plans, and out of those local plans would come all our different plans. Then, of course, you have the London Plan, which potentially trumps—I am going to take on board some of the language just used, but I think “trumps” probably is the best phrase to use—what is done locally. Not only can it contradict what is done locally, which has quite often cost an awful lot of money, time, sweat, tears and everything else, but in addition to that it creates uncertainty. When the Minister responds, perhaps she could think about the London scenario, please.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 46, particularly the reference to the land use framework. The point about the land use framework is that it is not a dictatorial thing; it is not saying, “Thou must do this or that” or “Thou must grow that”, or whatever it might be. It is definitely a framework, but on the other hand there is no point in having a framework unless it is part of the thinking from the top to the bottom of government—central government to regional government to local authority and everything in between.
I should also say that a land use framework is not necessarily a fixed event. It is not going to be cast in stone for ever and it should be open to review from time to time. I would have thought that three years would be the right sort of time. However, it needs to change according to events, including world events. Do we need more homegrown food production as a result of current world politics? Does the latest research tell us that our biodiversity is still receding, running away from us? Does the international situation indicate that we need more homegrown green power or more homegrown timber? That is important. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I have just come from a meeting where it was indicated that the Government’s long-term housebuilding programme could very much depend on our ability to produce the relevant timber products needed. What would be the point of a land use framework if regional and local government just continue to do their own thing regardless? Therefore, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is crucial to the efficient management of that very scarce UK commodity—namely, our land.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that it would be unhelpful if regional and local government continued doing their own thing. I think that this is an important debate and I look forward to the Minister’s reply, but the Government might look at the powers that existed with regional development agencies until 2012, in terms of spatial development strategies and the land use framework, when a lot was done. They might revisit that to make sure that everyone going off to do their own thing—the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—is avoided.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his amendments. I think that there has been consensus among noble Lords contributing on this group that this is something that should be explored and looked at further. Amendment 45 rightly links local growth plans to spatial development strategies, ensuring that they are not formed in isolation and do not contradict each other. When a local growth plan is drafted, it should take account of the implications for spatial development. We welcome this amendment and support a more integrated and coherent approach.
However, we also believe that these plans must be informed by neighbourhood plans as well as neighbourhood priority statements, which have yet to be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies take into account national environmental improvement plans and the land use framework. This will help local government at least to have regard to the national Government’s environmental targets and to be aware of the environmental solutions proposed. As for the land use framework, we are still waiting for it to be published. Can the Minister confirm the timeline? As others have asked, will it be imminent?
Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 address the need for spatial development strategies to be aligned with infrastructure projects to identify any that are needed for growth. Again, these should be important considerations to ensure that new developments are supported with the necessary infrastructure rather than treating the two in isolation. As we said in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill debates, the consequences for development of the failure to deliver infrastructure should also be clear.
We agree with the principle behind all these amendments. It is important that combined authorities’ and councils’ various strategies are joined up, co-ordinated and coherent to ensure not only good governance and efficiency across local government but, more importantly, high-quality development. I thank my noble friend for his efforts and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, that was an interesting discussion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his amendments and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of spatial development strategies in the new devolution framework.
Amendment 45 would require strategic planning authorities to identify the policies in their spatial development strategies that are of strategic importance to address the local growth priorities identified in local growth plans. I very much agree with the need for spatial development strategies properly to address the priorities identified in local growth plans where they are of strategic importance to the area, such as the issues that the noble Lord mentioned around skills and infrastructure. There is an expectation in the revised NPPF that that is exactly what will happen.
The Planning and Infrastructure Act, to which the noble Lord also referred—we recently sat through many hours of debate on it—requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy they have published. This would include a local growth plan. In the draft revised NPPF, which was published just before Christmas, we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans, and that would include all of the issues mentioned by the noble Lord. We also set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should be tested against national policy when they are examined; that will include the industrial strategy, for example, and will shine a light on whether they are meeting the expectations we have of the SDS.
A number of Peers spoke to Amendment 46. I say to my noble friend Lady Young that I found her extrapolation of this through to losing lots of elections in May and then having a whole reshuffle a bit depressing. I hope that will not happen, and I also hope that my noble friend will have a wander through one of her new forests and cheer herself up a bit. Amendment 46 would require a strategic planning authority to have regard to the Government’s environmental improvement plan and the land use framework for England while preparing a spatial development strategy.
I absolutely agree with noble Lords on the importance of these national documents relating to land use and the environment. The provisions detailing the required content of spatial development strategies and the factors to be taken into account in their preparation were introduced less than two months ago in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, following very thorough parliamentary scrutiny. I do not consider it necessary to revisit or amend these requirements before they have even had a chance to be tested in practice. The documents in question are expected to inform the drafting of national planning policies, and strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with the current policy.
For example, if we found that the land use framework or the environmental improvement plan were being ignored in strategic development strategies, we would keep that under review. Should any gaps or misalignments emerge between strategic development strategies and these documents, we can consider future changes to the National Planning Policy Framework or planning practice guidance, or even secondary legislation to ensure that they are taken into account in preparing an SDS.
A number of noble Lords asked questions on the publication of the land use framework, which I know is eagerly awaited. The Government consulted on land use in England from January to April last year. The responses, as well as the feedback from supporting workshops that have been held since, are being analysed. The responses will inform the preparation of the land use framework. I cannot give noble Lords an exact publication date today, I am afraid, but I know that my colleagues in Defra want to publish it as quickly as possible.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about regional plans, I used to be on the regional assembly, so I sat thought the entire process of the east of England regional plan; the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, did so as well, I believe. There were a lot of lessons to be learned from those regional plans, particularly around the co-ordination of data and so on, and I know that officials in the department have taken into consideration how that was done. We need to reflect carefully on those experiences and how they fit in with what we are about to do with strategic development strategies.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked about London. The London plan sits outside this Bill, I think, but there is an expectation on London boroughs that this will be done. Indeed, my own borough is quite a way outside London—well, 28 miles; we are in Hertfordshire, so not that far—and we were consulted on the London plan as part of the Ring Around London consultation.
On my noble friend Lady Young’s question about the local nature recovery strategies, it is a requirement that SDSs take account of those; indeed, the London plan has to take account of local nature recovery strategies as well.
Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 would require mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set out in their local growth plan what is needed in spatial and infrastructure terms to realise the economic growth opportunities presented in the plan. As with Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying these needs. Local growth plans will be required to set out an economic overview of their area, shared priorities agreed with the Government, and a pipeline of investment opportunities. Where infra- structure or development presents a relevant investment opportunity, we would expect it to be included in that pipeline. We are clear that local growth plans should provide an overarching framework for growth, identifying actions and investment that can drive economic growth and productivity.
But, when it comes to addressing the spatial implications of local growth plans and identifying the development and infrastructure needs for realising growth, the right vehicle is the spatial development strategy. That is why we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans when we published our proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we will come to local growth plans and culture. Can the Minister confirm that the spatial development strategies will include cultural growth as something to look at?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Each local area will consider its local growth plan, and I hope they will all look at culture. We have carefully considered and are reflecting on the comments made on the competencies we included. This is important, and I gave some stats on the first day of Committee on the benefit to the economy of some of the culture in my own county. It is important that all areas consider this as a key part of what should be in any development strategy and local growth plan.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for that response and to all noble Lords who spoke on this group. In particular, I give warm thanks to those who supported Amendment 46. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, rightly said, we may need to think about this again on Report, just to check, for example, that the National Planning Policy Framework does what the Minister says it does. At the moment, I cannot honestly say that I am sure that it does.
Noble Lords who are often in these planning discussions will always find it rather odd to try to work out that the Government sometimes say that we need to put something in the Bill. For example, local nature recovery strategies are prescribed to be taken into account for a spatial development strategy. Why not prescribe the land use framework? That, apparently, will be covered in the National Planning Policy Framework, which, as we know, is a document that derives statutory weight. So, if it is in there, the weight is there, and that is fine. But the point is that we are writing this legislation now, and this gives us an opportunity for Parliament to say what it thinks, because we cannot and do not debate the content of the National Planning Policy Framework in the way that we debate this legislation. So, there is a reason why we do this now, in the here and now.
There are many links to, for example, environmental well-being, local nature recovery strategies and promoting the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change in the way spatial development strategies are to be constructed. I just think we need to be absolutely certain that Ministers will make that clear in the NPPF. Indeed, they have a power under Section 12D(7) to prescribe the matters that spatial development strategies must include. We just need a bit more certainty that these things will be prescribed.
Where the relationship with the growth plan is concerned, I completely take the Minister’s point. It is just that, although growth appears to be the priority, actually the spatial development strategy says that the strategic authority should focus on the consequences of growth rather than on delivering the growth. The relationship between the local growth plan and the spatial development strategy is much more of an ex ante than post hoc set of decisions. You want to go upfront and say that we are designing the local growth plan alongside the spatial development strategy and not trying to retrofit the housing to meet the local growth requirements. I hope that that is what is going to happen; otherwise, I fear that these will be two teams in strategic authorities, with the economic development people on the one hand and the planning people on the other, when they should be one team producing one strategy. I hope that we can encourage that as much as possible through the nature of the debates we are having.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the new subsection inserting a new section into the LURA to provide the Secretary of State with the power to designate a mayoral strategic authority as an established mayoral strategic authority.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 49 would allow the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation to cause a mayoral combined authority to cease to be a mayoral strategic authority if, and only if, the combined authority consents for this to be the case. That would allow the structures of local government to be formed locally, according to local needs, priorities and democratic wishes, rather than setting in stone structures that may not be suitable for local communities later down the line.
On the creation of established mayoral strategic authorities, Amendment 47 would remove the proposed power of the Secretary of State to designate a mayoral strategic authority as an established mayoral strategic authority because we believe that the process should be locally led and not imposed from above. Amendments 48 and 50 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley also address the creation of established mayoral strategic authorities.
The Government White Paper set out the eligibility criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier. These amendments seek to give a basis for deciding whether proposals for a mayoral combined county authority, a mayoral combined authority, or for being designated an established mayoral strategic authority, have substantive merit.
We also know that the scope of integrated settlements for mayoral strategic authorities will be confirmed at each spending review, on the basis of functional responsibilities and their value, by a formulaic process. Can the Minister please elaborate on what those responsibilities are and on the formulaic process? Authorities need to be able to feed back on the amounts and types of funding they receive, so what process will be in place to ensure that funding is based on funding received from authorities?
In addition, how will government ensure that the timeline for this Bill aligns with the timelines for new strategic authorities and the spending review? Will the new mayors have the same powers and financial resources made available to them as the existing mayors? Local government reorganisation should not be undertaken simply for the sake of it; the Government’s plans and timelines need to be coherent and co-ordinated and underpinned by genuine principles for devolution to be meaningful and effective. I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords and the Minister’s response on these matters. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 48 and 50. It is another of those occasions when there are two amendments to achieve one purpose. Amendment 48 relates to county combined authorities and Amendment 50 to combined authorities, and each is on the question of under what circumstances they should be able to be designated by the Secretary of State as an established mayoral strategic authority.
On the purpose of designation, two key things happen when you are an established strategic authority. First, you can have access to an integrated financial settlement. This is quite an important issue, although it is not in the Bill because it is financial; it would be determined by Treasury financial legislation. However, this being established means that it is a gateway to the ability to manage finances with what we would call in departments the power environment between different headings. These would normally not be available to local authorities where they receive delegated funding for one purpose and want to be able to use it for other purposes.
As we progress, if there is to be a significant tourism revenue to strategic authorities, the financial arrangements of strategic authorities will be an important element. We may come back to that in later groups. I do not want to dwell on that. The point is that this is the gateway to an integrated financial settlement from the Treasury. Very few strategic authorities have it now. I suppose that London and Manchester will get it first, in this spending review, then other strategic authorities will get it in the next spending review.
Secondly—we will no doubt come back to this on Clause 51—there is the ability of established mayoral strategic authorities to seek additional powers and functions within the designated areas of competence. That is quite an important additional power. These are two important powers, and Amendments 48 and 50 ask by what means the Secretary of State decides whether they should be established. What is in the Bill sets out a process but no criteria.
Paragraph 2.2.4 of the English devolution White Paper told us that there would be criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier: that the strategic authority has
“been in existence … for at least 18 months … has a published Local Assurance Framework in place … has not been the subject of a Best Value Notice, a MHCLG commissioned independent review, or a statutory inspection or intervention … is not subject to any ongoing (or implementing) recommendations from an externally mandated independent review; and there are no material accounting concerns covering the current or previous financial year”.
These are essentially matters of financial governance and accountability. I do not understand why the Bill makes no reference to the criteria the Secretary of State would apply, given that the devolution White Paper has set them out specifically. If my amendments were accepted, an indication would at the very least be given of the criteria: effective governance, accountability, and specified performance metrics.
It is a good idea that, as this develops, a specific power be provided in the legislation enabling the Secretary of State to publish the criteria that will be applied to the question of designation. It would not be right simply to say that there is a process but no criteria. We should have the criteria established.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Lansley, for their amendments on established mayoral strategic authorities.
Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to designate by regulations a mayoral strategic authority as an established mayoral strategic authority. We have been clear that newer strategic authorities will need a chance to establish themselves and set up core functions properly before they exercise all the powers in the devolution framework. However, it is important that our most established strategic authorities are not held back from accessing the full suite of powers in the devolution framework.
The ability for the Secretary of State to designate established mayoral strategic authorities is crucial to ensuring that the most mature institutions have full access to all devolved powers. Amendment 47 is therefore inconsistent with the Government’s objective of devolving further powers out of Whitehall. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, established mayoral strategic authorities have access to an integrated settlement, which is a very important measure for them.
I will set out further where we have got to with this so far, as it might help noble Lords with the concept. The English Devolution White Paper confirmed that the following combined authorities have met the criteria and will be eligible to apply for the established mayoral level of devolution: Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, South Yorkshire, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and the North East.
Once the Bill becomes law, several other combined authorities will become eligible to apply for MSA status: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, East Midlands, and York and North Yorkshire at that point. These prospective established mayoral authorities will need to submit formal proposals outlining how they meet the relevant criteria. Those proposals will then be considered by the Government, taking into account the combined authority’s or combined county authority’s track record of managing major programmes. The Government will engage with all remaining mayoral combined authorities when they meet the eligibility criteria to apply for established mayoral strategic authority status. I hope that that helps to clarify where we are at the moment.
In practice, the effect of this amendment would be to remove the regulation-making power when the Secretary of State designates an established mayoral strategic authority. In the absence of that regulation-making power, designation would instead rest solely on the Secretary of State. This amendment would therefore deny Parliament a say on the designation of established mayoral strategic authorities.
Amendment 49, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of a combined county authority before making subordinate legislation in relation to the designation of established mayoral strategic authorities. The amendment, as drafted, would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of a combined county authority before removing its status as an established mayoral strategic authority using secondary legislation. However, the actual effect of the amendment would be inconsequential, as Clause 8 already prohibits the Secretary of State from using secondary legislation to remove an authority’s established status. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary.
Also, if in tabling this amendment the noble Baroness was seeking reassurance that a combined county authority could not be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority using secondary legislation without the consent of the authority, then this amendment is also not necessary. Clause 8 already stipulates that the Secretary of State may designate an authority as established only if that authority itself submits a written proposal asking to be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority. Therefore, the authority’s consent is an inherent part of the process, as no authority can be designated unless it actively applies.
Amendments 48 and 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to introduce a new statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the
“governance, accountability and specified performance metrics”
of an existing mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority, before it can be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority. I accept that the noble Lord has made this amendment in good faith and wishes to ensure that only those authorities with a strong track record of delivery, and which can demonstrate exemplary stewardship of public finances, are able to access the deepest powers and functions. On this, the noble Lord, the Government and I, as the Minister, are aligned. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The Government have already published clear non-statutory criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. The reason for having this in non-statutory documents is that it may require amending from time to time, depending on our experience of taking this forward.
To answer the question about criteria from the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Lansley, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, already set them out, but just to be clear, they include that a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority must have been in existence, with a directly elected mayor, for at least 18 months at the point of submitting the request. It must have published a local assurance framework and it must not have been subject to a best value notice, independent review, statutory inspection or intervention in the previous 18 months. Finally, it must not have been subject to any ongoing recommendations from an externally mandated independent review and there should be no material accounting concerns covering the current or previous financial year that relate to the strategic authority’s ability to manage public money.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend responds to the debate, I want just to be sure that I am clear. On the criteria that are applied by the Secretary of State to the question of whether a strategic authority that applies to be established should be permitted to do so, so far they presently include what the devolution White Paper said. None of that has been withdrawn and nothing has been added; it is still the same. But if that were to change at some point in the future, the Government do not need a power in order to change it, because the Secretary of State will simply issue some document that says, “From now on, this is how the Secretary of State is going to look at these decisions”. It is important to get these criteria right. Unless I am misunderstanding the Minister, the intention is that this is a gateway through which you can pass in only one direction. You become an established mayoral strategic authority and you cannot come back if it is wrong, so the criteria have to be right, and the mayoral strategic authority has to be able to live permanently with that status. Am I correct about that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes, the noble Lord is right, but this is quite a high level of criteria. There are some financial aspects, but the fact that the authority must not have been subject to a best value notice, an independent review, a statutory inspection or intervention in the previous 18 months covers a wide variety of activity in a strategic authority. There is a rigorous process and a very high bar for those authorities to get over. When we look at the established authorities that I mentioned in relation to the progress on where we are with these now, they have been in place for a long time. Some of them are requesting additional powers to do things that were not traditionally in the framework for mayoral authorities. It is important that that is a high bar for them to get over.
As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, having an integrated settlement is an important step forward for those authorities. We hope that this will be a transformational process and that all the combined and combined county authorities will strive to get to that process once they have a mayor in place. We do not want it to be something that slips back. Let us hope that we can set these criteria, setting the bar high, which indicates the direction of travel we have for devolution, and move forward so that our authorities have the powers to do what they need to do locally.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for interrupting; I promise that this will be the last time. On the question of tourism revenue, if there is a tourism tax or whatever, what do we know about the arrangements for that? Is it the case that only established mayoral strategic authorities will be able to levy any kind of tourism tax because they have the financial governance and accountability arrangements established for this purpose—forgive the use of “established”, but the noble Baroness can see what I mean—or is there an intention that this would be a wider financial offering to strategic authorities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The tourism tax is an interesting step forward because, as far as I know, this is the first time a fiscal power has been devolved. The Government are keen to test out that devolution of fiscal power; I do not have the details at my fingertips so I will write to the noble Lord on the detail of how it is moving forward.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughtful amendments and comments. I also thank the Minister for her feedback, which has certainly provided some more illumination on a sometimes slightly murky area of devolution.
On integrated financial settlements, I know that, when I chaired the LGA, I pushed very hard to move in this direction. I was very pleased that we managed to get a couple of them over the line with the previous Government. They are important and offer huge benefits to the areas that have them. Therefore, this idea of criteria, and being very clear on them, is important; I thank the Minister for being clear that the White Paper is where the criteria are set out.
However, I am quibbling over and slightly uncomfortable with the fact that the criteria are just guidance for the Minister and could, therefore, be changed relatively easily. When you are talking about devolution, with local councils and local government making significant changes in anticipation of something that will potentially make a significant difference to their areas, those criteria must be very clear and not changeable. Councils must know what goal they are aiming for because, as the Minister said, this is not something that happens overnight; it takes several years, potentially, and a lot of effort. I do not want the goalposts to move too much—most local authorities would not want that, I think—so I would like some assurances, though not necessarily today, on how set in stone the criteria are as people go through the process.
I am also quite curious about the “no stepping back” bit. As the Minister said, we set some very high bars. However, the day after, someone might fail those high bars—but they are still there. A little elaboration on that at some later point would be very much appreciated.
With that, I thank noble Lords for the debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by a mayoral authority.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this group has a number of amendments in my name: Amendments 50A and 51B; Amendment 53A to Schedule 3; and Amendment 196A. There are two separate issues involved in these amendments; I will speak first to those that relate to the restrictions on the number and roles of commissioners.
Last week, we had a really useful debate on the areas of competence. In a sense, this debate shadows that because the commissioners are supposed to shadow the areas of competence. Those of us who were thinking about other areas of competence—in particular, the arts, culture and so on—were looking for some flexibility. These amendments seek similar flexibility in the related roles of commissioners.
New Section 29A, to be inserted by Clause 9, says that mayors may appoint up to seven people and that their functions align with the competence areas. This is potentially an unnecessary example of central control. I would argue that mayors should be free to appoint people to roles determined by them. Why do I think this? Because every area is very different and every area will have different priorities.
Broadly speaking, the areas of competence are wide-ranging. We were arguing that the arts and culture should be an additional area, but they could be within one of the areas of competence; this may mean that a mayor will wish to appoint an additional commissioner. I use this as an example because it is what we were debating last week. This issue is important because you need to bring in the right people for the right jobs, covering those areas of competence and where mayors will make a particular and special emphasis.
It also makes the devolution framework very rigid for the future, which is bad for two reasons. First, it would require primary legislation to enable a change in responsibilities and job titles, or to add more commissioners. Over time, I suspect there will be new priorities in different areas. Secondly, the restrictions would also prevent mayors appointing people to roles which they might want to fill, inhibiting the innovation we want to see from the devolution model—which, in general terms, I think we all applaud. For example, some already appoint active travel commissioners, who would either be out of scope in terms of the legislation or be prevented from continuing in their roles. The amendment, therefore, deals with this by getting rid of the restrictions.
Fewer restrictions would allow mayors to make commissioner appointments to different roles, depending on the needs of their own area, region, county or counties. For example, instead of a single transport and local infrastructure commissioner, we could see some areas appointing a bus commissioner or an active travel commissioner under these provisions; such appointments would still be subject to other scrutiny provisions on commissions contained in Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Overall, this change would create the right kind of flexibility in the mayoral model, while keeping mayors responsible for keeping a lid on costs through transparency and scrutiny. I anticipate that the Minister will argue that we have to have restraints on costs, and I do not disagree with that.
My second area of interest in this group is the restrictions on mayoral political advisers; Amendment 196A deals with that issue and argues for mayoral special advisers. Currently, the central government model of transparency and flexibility on special adviser appointments has, I think we could fairly argue, been a success in balancing value for money for the taxpayer with the ability of Ministers to bring in the right level of expertise.
I recently read a really interesting book called Every Journey Matters, which looks at the history of the first 25 years of Transport for London. The thing that emerges very strongly from that account of TfL’s first 25 years is the quality of advice that TfL was able to tap about commissioners, support staff and, effectively, special advisers—though I do not think they were called that back in the day. All the mayors have drawn on that and, I think, benefitted from it. One could fairly argue that TfL is one of the most successful metropolitan transportation networks and systems in the world, and the quality of advice has made that difference.
Therefore, the model from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 should be applied to mayors, given their increasingly broad role and responsibility. There are three issues relating to the current system of appointments of political advisers by mayors. First, mayors are able to appoint political advisers only if it is covered in the relevant secondary legislation; in other words, they are governed by secondary legislation. Most mayors are allowed only one political adviser under relevant statutory instruments, which also cap the pay at the level of local government political assistance, which is something like £45,000. This opens the potential for differences which are unfair and need to be standardised. Secondly, there are no requirements for transparency on mayoral political adviser appointments or pay, unlike for government special advisers under the 2010 Act. Thirdly, there is no code of conduct for mayoral advisers, unlike for government special advisers, though the code of conduct is not required under primary legislation.
The amendment applies the central government model of special advisers to mayors; it would deal with these issues by allowing mayors to appoint mayoral special advisers, subject to an annual transparency requirement, and by their being paid in line with the relevant commissioner allowances, which the Bill already specifies should be determined by remuneration committees. It also moves away from the political adviser designation, so that mayors may be able to appoint special advisers to fulfil a variety of roles, just as Ministers are able to. Mayors can then bring in the people they need as they wish, subject to local oversight on pay and public scrutiny of the total cost, as we do with national government.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 51A and 52A in my name. I respect and agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about having some flexibility in the appointment of these different commissioners.
My amendment looks specifically at the commissioners for climate and nature. In particular, it seeks that these two topics do not just become a political football at the mercy of the political leanings of the mayor that is put in place. It is not enough to say that a mayor merely can appoint a person to oversee the delivery of one of the authority’s competencies; the mayor needs to appoint someone to oversee the delivery of the competencies outlined in Clause 2. That is especially important when we consider nature and climate, since both the 2008 Climate Change Act and the 2021 Environment Act have clear, unambiguous delivery targets, many of which are spatially constrained and require strategic oversight and consideration of competing land uses. We need someone in place who is able to oversee the delivery of these competencies strategically. The problem is that, currently, the duties in these Acts apply only to the Secretary of State, so there is an incredibly high risk that one of our most important delivery arms is under-deployed or at least deployed very unevenly, depending on the political swing or leanings of that mayoral authority.
Why is this so important? I calculated—on the back of an envelope, I admit—the amount of land the six new mayoral districts and the combined areas will be responsible for. It is 75% of the English landscape. This is not a small amount: we are talking about the biggest part of our landscape. Therefore, this should really make us stop and think whether we have the right safeguards in place to ensure the delivery of climate and nature targets if the political leanings of the mayor are not that way inclined.
Of course, it should be for the mayors to appoint whom they wish as commissioners, but it is also important to note that we need them to appoint commissioners in certain areas where they have relevant experience or expertise. Although I accept that it would be the responsibility of the mayor of an area to decide how to develop an action policy, we need to put in place some safeguards to ensure that central government’s policy priorities and legal responsibilities are delivered.
I am going to give a few examples of the importance of a commissioner for nature and climate. The first, as we heard about before in the previous discussion, is local nature recovery strategies. These are full of potential, but now, as they reach implementation stage, there is a risk they will sit on the shelf, for two reasons: first, because of the challenge of integrating decision-making in local government; and secondly, because of the need to organise co-ordinated action at scale.
Environmental skills is another issue. They are commonly and widely recognised as a bottleneck; we do not have the people who are able to help our planning officers to make the decisions needed in the planning system. Lack of skills in planning control and enforcement is a really big risk to delivering on things such as biodiversity net gain right now; only 5% of local authorities say that they have adequate resources properly to manage biodiversity net gain. To deliver and fill those gaps, we need skills and education programmes that are co-ordinated and have oversight at the strategic levels. It is highly unlikely that any of these areas of competence for strategic authorities would see the skills gap as part of their portfolio. I cannot see any of those competences thinking that they should focus on employing people or on education programmes; I would see this sitting under a commissioner for climate and nature.
Finally comes the issue of green infrastructure planning, which many of us discussed in the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and the delivery of nature-based solutions and protecting and restoring the UK’s natural capital assets. This requires some large-scale spatial co-ordination actions—for example, the Environment Act targets to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution, and ambitions for nature-based solutions for flood defence. All of that will require strategic interventions and top-down leadership, and to be under a dedicated, named person. Who is going to do it if, within a mayoral system, there is no one with that title who can oversee and manage nature and climate?
At the same time, these large-scale conventional infrastructure projects—I know that one of our noble friends works in the Oxford–Cambridge Arc—require large-scale nature plans to ensure that they do not destroy large swathes of nature and critical natural capital assets. That is something we often forget about when we think about nature recovery.
I would like to zoom out a bit on this one. It is worth remembering that in a report last year about the role of natural capital in the UK’s green economy, the Environmental Audit Committee found that while natural capital assets are an essential foundation of the UK and global economy, there is little evidence of that being considered in decision-making. So, while the amendment does not specifically deal with natural capital, it would ensure that somebody at the top was considering and responsible for oversight of this in the new authority.
I make one more point about natural capital. It is not just a “nice to have”. In November, the ONS released its reports, valuing natural capital assets in the UK at £1.6 trillion. This is not just about the pretty flowers somewhere—this is serious infrastructure. Natural infrastructure underpins so many things we rely on. The annual value of £41 billion in natural capital assets was largely driven by health benefits gained from recreation. So, it comes back to us needing a commissioner at the top who looks at these figures and at what we need to do to deliver on the ground. Devolved government is a fantastic idea, and I am a huge supporter of it, but we need the right people in the right place to deliver what I believe they can deliver.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say what the Government’s intention is here. Do they think there should be a commissioner for each of the competences? Given that there are seven competences and seven commissioners, I would think that the answer is yes, although I am not sure any more—maybe it should be more. If they do not think they should state that in statute, why? What situation are they allowing for if we get in a political situation whereby the mayor does not support nature and climate as part of our infrastructure? That is a very big risk that we should look at in this Bill now.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to six amendments, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59 and 171. As this is my first and may even be my last contribution, I want to express straightaway that I welcome the Bill very warmly. It gives mayors new powers to appoint commissioners, to increase capacity and to maximise the benefits of devolution. Obviously, mayors will have to consider carefully how best to use these directly appointed roles, drawing on the right expertise and ensuring value for money.
I also welcome the Government’s approach to entrusting directly elected mayors to make decisions on commissioner appointments tailored to local needs. However, these amendments seek to make some pragmatic changes that would improve the Bill by giving—vitally—greater flexibility on shaping commissioner roles. All my amendments go to that greater flexibility on shaping commissioner roles and appointments so that they are suitable for the specific circumstances of their region.
I will briefly outline three such issues, to which I will ask the Government to consider making changes. First, in relation to my Amendment 171, the Bill could enable greater flexibility for the appointment of deputy mayors for policing and crime under mayors that will be responsible for more than one police force area. As the Committee may know, I speak as a former Leicestershire police and crime commissioner. Although I may have mixed feelings about the Government’s decision to abolish police and crime commissioners, I am enough of a realist to realise that it is a done deal—it will happen—so we have to talk about the future, and I am happy to do so. Speaking as a former PCC, I recognise the importance of effective democratic oversight and accountability for our police forces in this new world that we are undoubtedly moving into.
The integration of police and fire services under mayors will improve democratic accountability and enable better integration of these services with wider mayoral functions. The Bill will enable the transfer of police and crime commissioner functions to mayors whose boundaries are coterminous with one or more PCC areas, and for most PCC functions to be delegated to a deputy mayor for policing and crime. In the east Midlands, this means that Derbyshire PCC and Nottinghamshire PCC functions transferring to the Mayor of the East Midlands, because the boundaries of the two PCC areas are coterminous with the East Midlands Combined County Authority.
Importantly, the Government also intend to transfer fire and rescue authority functions to mayors too. For the east Midlands, the Government have committed to explore merging the Derbyshire FRA and Nottinghamshire FRA, so that the East Midlands Combined County Authority becomes the fire and rescue authority for the area. I will return to that point in a moment.
As drafted, however, the Bill risks limiting the full potential of this integration, where a mayor takes on PCC functions for more than one police force. This means that a deputy mayor for policing and crime must be appointed for each police force area, so there will be two deputy mayors where there are two police forces. There are good reasons why a mayor may want to appoint a deputy mayor for each police force, including to ensure effective oversight and scrutiny of complex organisations. However, in some cases, a single deputy mayor for policing and crime—or a single deputy mayor for public safety, including fire—may enable better integration and join-up across services.
That is particularly the case—this is the main argument for this in this area—where a mayor may be responsible for two police forces and one fire and rescue authority. For example, it would be impracticable to have a deputy mayor responsible for fire across the whole region but for only one of the two police forces. Therefore, my Amendment 171 to Schedule 22 seeks to ensure that, where a mayor may be responsible for more than one police force area, they would have the flexibility to appoint a single deputy mayor or separate deputy mayors for each police force. I invite the Minister to think carefully about whether this is a sensible proposal to make this part of the Bill marginally more flexible.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, we have had a very interesting set of amendments so far, but what strikes me about them is that they all seem to run counter to the principle of election—be that either direct or indirect election—and we need to be very careful about that.
I have given notice to oppose that Clause 9 stands part of the Bill for two reasons. First, elections are important for public posts that require the expenditure of large sums of public money. I believe that most of those positions should be elected. Secondly, there is a huge absence of detail in the proposal within new paragraph 9 in Schedule 3 for the appointment and scrutiny of commissioners.
The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 74 states that commissioners will be,
“independent appointees, made by and accountable to the mayor”.
I have difficulty understanding quite how they will be independent if they are made by and accountable to the mayor and function, as the Explanatory Notes explain in the same paragraph, as “extensions of the mayor”. Can the Minister say in what way they are independent and why “independent” does not appear in this paragraph? The Explanatory Notes then state:
“Commissioners would not replace elected members”—
and there has already been a debate about that as part of this group, but they then say that areas—whatever an area is defined as—will,
“have the freedom to use a combination of commissioners and elected members to lead on different areas depending on what works best for them”.
Will the Minister say who makes the decision about whether elected members have the capacity to lead an area of competence, whether that decision made by the mayor alone and will the appointment of commissioners be public appointments, subject to the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the posts will be advertised and subject to equal opportunities legislation. Will there be an agreed job description and a person specification? Will there be competitive interviews or is it all a matter, in practice, for mayoral patronage? Will councillors of constituent councils be able to scrutinise the full-time commissioners—for they are full-time appointments—that the mayor may decide to appoint?
Schedule 3 states that:
“The mayor must determine the terms and conditions of a person’s appointment as a commissioner”.
Can the Minister tell us what scrutiny is planned about what those terms and conditions actually are?
We should just note that the appointment of a commissioner will end when the mayor’s term of office comes to an end. That means that a mayor who decides to resign will cause all the commissioners they have appointed to lose their jobs, which are, as it says in the Explanatory Notes, full-time jobs. It seems that the clear implication of the wording of the Bill is that if a mayor was to quit the post, all those appointed by the mayor would have to leave. I seek the Minister’s clarification of that point, for that is my reading of Clause 9 and Schedule 3.
I have noted that commissioners cannot approve local growth plans, local transport plans or spatial development strategy, but they are writing them, planning them and will be advising the mayor on them. I understand the formality of a decision to approve a plan, but what the plan is and how it has got there will clearly be heavily dependent upon the commissioner.
I understand that:
“The mayor must obtain the consent of the CCA to any arrangement for a commissioner to exercise a function”,
but does that extend to the appointments process itself? I wonder why there is no discussion by the Government of using the professional expertise of local government officers. So, not only are the Government dispensing with the ballot box in terms of any form of direct election to strategic authorities, but they are simply leaving an election of a mayor, following which we simply have a world of appointments. I am very concerned about what that means. I ask myself, “Whatever happened to the primacy of the ballot box?” because commissioners will not be elected, so voters will have no say in their appointment because the electorate will elect a only mayor and will have no role after that. Indeed, unlike with a Member of Parliament, the electorate will have no power of recall of a mayor.
We then have Amendment 196A in this group on special advisers. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about them, but I have not understood the difference between a full-time commissioner and a special adviser. The noble Lord talked about a special adviser having professional expertise. I understand that professional advice is needed—of course it is—but I have not understood what is wrong with professional local government officers, with their expertise in the areas that might, at the moment, be proposed for a commissioner.
There are a lot of very important questions for the Minister to answer. The level of expenditure has been mentioned twice so far this afternoon, and the consequent level of the precept, which might then be high. We must be really careful about this and not duplicate. I remember, because I was around when metropolitan counties were abolished and we moved to joint boards, that the expertise in each of the areas of concern we have proposed was held by an individual local authority that had a lot of officers dealing with that specific policy area on behalf of everybody else. The joint boards had councillors; I was privileged to serve as a councillor on a number of those joint boards at different times.
I just do not think that the Government have gone far enough in examining how to deliver some of their proposals on, say, local transport, which used to function in Tyne and Wear with a joint board. What exactly is the problem with that? As I said last week, I fear that we have upwards mission drift in this Bill, taking powers away from established local government. I believe that to be true, but I also think that we are in danger of reinventing processes that have previously worked pretty well. I do not think that Clause 9 and Schedule 3 can stand here without us challenging what the Government intend to do because there is already a demand in this group for us to have yet more commissioners.
I am, by the way, in favour of culture’s status being raised—it is absolutely correct to do that—but I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that every area of concern should have a commissioner. Indeed, that is not the Minister’s proposal. The Government are not proposing that that should happen because there will be a mixture of commissioners, with the elected leaders of the councils of the combined authority and the strategic authority.
I shall stop there, but I hope that the Minister can allay some of my concerns around the failure of the Bill to have anything worth reading in it and with nearly everything that is going to happen next coming in the form of guidance. As I said last week, I would be happier if I knew a little more about what the Government are thinking in terms of guidance.
With that, I shall respond at some point when we come to the right moment, but I very much hope that the Minister will take on board some of my comments.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I agree very much with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just said. I have been unhappy with much of Clause 9 since I first read it, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friends have to say about it, because they have also added their names to the intention from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to oppose the Question that the clause stands part.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, as I have said before, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. Before I speak to my Amendment 221, I will discuss this group more broadly. As my noble friend the Minister has demonstrated, local government is better placed than Whitehall to understand the possibilities of local regeneration and strategic planning; place-based regeneration that is owned and directed by local people; effective skills training for local high-GDP jobs in emerging local industries; industry relevance coupled with creative thinking; and creativity, which is the linking of ideas to technique. As my noble friend said, what is important is politics being done with communities, not to them. Every child should have access to quality green space, clean air and a creative education. Who can plan better the walking pram distance to a school than a local parent or carer?
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on spatial planning, my years as chair of economic development in Liverpool City Council came flooding back. I know that Liverpool City Region is looking forward to the opportunities of tourism tax, and indeed we should consider whether this will work and how it can go further. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, advocated so convincingly last week, devolution done well should and can build social cohesion and inclusion. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say that culture may be considered as a competence.
Having represented combined local authorities in the European Parliament, I have had the pleasure of witnessing how devolved strategic government can mobilise regeneration, growth and job creation, and provide better access to public services, including affordable and—I hope—accessible green transport. The only way forward with hydrogen is green. I firmly believe that no city, town or rural community should be left behind, as has sadly been the case so far. We must afford these opportunities of well-audited devolution further and create an exchange of practice between regions and sub-regions to share learning, both on what is good and on where to avoid mistakes.
Amendment 221 is technical but also practical, widening the pool from which an elected mayor can appoint a deputy mayor. Current rules tightly limit who a regional mayor can appoint as deputy: only members of their cabinet, except for exceptional circumstances—that is, the leaders of the constituent local authorities. This new clause would amend Section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority’s members of the combined or strategic authority, thus widening the pool both of choice, and, as others have said, expertise. Among the wide opportunities afforded by the Bill, I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider this.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be quite brief and will make a point of principle to start with. If something is important enough to be an additional area of competence, it should have a dedicated commissioner to go with it, which is in line with what the Government have done so far. I say that at the outset.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has given us an intriguing, rather creative amendment in terms of flexibility, but I have a couple of concerns. I know that the noble Lord is an enlightened individual arts-wise, who I am sure would like to see—like me—the arts, culture and heritage thrive in the new strategic areas. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I pointed out last week in the debate on my Amendment 6, not all councils are quite so enlightened. Even if every mayor was conscientious enough today to ensure that their strategic authority did everything it could for the arts, culture and heritage—I say this simply as an example of an area of concern rather than competence—there is no guarantee that those who follow would have the same commitment unless there was a statutory commitment. This is very much in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, was saying earlier. I very much support Amendment 51A in her name, and the other amendments that she proposed as well.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly support the amendments in this group that seek to remove the cap on the number of commissioners and the appointment of special advisers. In doing so, I restate my support for Amendments 6, 10 and 51 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to add the arts and culture as an area of competence, which would allow a modest increase in the number of commissioners from seven to eight.
I fully recognise that the Government wish to maintain a coherent and settled devolution framework, to limit additional costs that such appointments would incur and to exercise caution around unelected roles. Here I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to those numerous and very important questions.
I also accept the argument that further powers may be pursued within the existing areas of competence. That said, the question here is one of governance rather than architecture. A small degree of flexibility in the commissional model, as the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, have argued for, would allow mayors to organise their leadership teams and their advisers in ways that reflect local priorities and circumstances without altering the framework itself.
Different regions face very different challenges: a dense metropolitan authority and a largely rural combined county authority may reasonably require different internal arrangements. For those reasons, I generally support these amendments and the flexibility they seek to introduce.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I thank all noble Lords who have participated. It does appear to be the first one today where we are not quite in agreement on things. I assure my noble friend Lord Trenchard that we share his concerns about appointing unelected commissioners to roles that have real political power. However, before I go on to that, this raises an important and enduring question about how leadership is accountable and the flexibility to operate within a system that is devolved.
At its heart, this debate returns to the principles of devolution. It is about not just transferring powers from the centre to the local level but about who exercises those powers. It is about how they are held to account and how clearly responsibility is understood by the public whom those institutions are designed to serve.
On the amendments, while the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made a good case, we have concerns about commissioners holding responsibility for multiple areas of confidence because there is a risk that it could reduce accountability, concentrating authority into too few hands and blurring the lines of responsibility, making it harder for the public to discern who is ultimately answerable for decisions—there may be cases that need further thought in this area. I also accept the noble Lord’s points about police authorities. With the recent announcement in the other place, can the Minister say whether that is being taken into account in the devolution Bill or, even better, whether that announcement is going to take account of the devolution Bill? That is rather important.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, devolution works best when responsibilities are clear, visible and capable of effective scrutiny. I have a real concern here, which has been shared by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. First, I will talk about commissioners. What is the definition of a commissioner? Working in local government, when you say that the commissioners are coming in, while I personally am not used to a failing council, normally you send them in after a best value inspection when one is failing. We have had this issue several times in the devolution Bill, and definitions and consistency of definitions would be helpful.
However, the real concern about commissioners is that we seem to have an expanding strategy. The Bill talks about seven but now we have amendments that talk about political advisers, special advisers and more deputy mayors. My focus in local government is value for money. Local government and mayors should be about delivering services to residents. They should not be about creating an unelected bureaucracy that is appointed and risks political cronyism. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also raised a number of practical issues such as whether when the mayor resigns all the commissioners go and you lose all that knowledge and so forth. I will not go on to those again, because that would be unnecessary repetition, but we have a real concern.
A number of noble Lords raised an issue around whether we can have commissioners for specific areas. I have sympathy with that, but they do not have to be commissioners. We are talking about political leads for certain areas. There is no reason why an elected councillor cannot be a political lead, whether it is for rural affairs, the environment, culture and so forth. I do not think that we have to focus on commissioners there—that can be a political lead.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on mayoral commissioners and for the wide-ranging debate that we have had on the subject.
Before I respond to any individual amendments, I want to reiterate why the Government are introducing commissioners. I completely understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on title and definition. I must say, I asked myself the same question on the potential confusion around commissioners who are sent to do a job when an authority is failing and these types of commissioners; we have to think carefully about that.
As I have set out, the Bill will empower our mayors with wide-ranging new powers over transport planning and local growth, so they can drive growth across their region, and powers over health and public safety, so that they can deliver the public service reform that the public expect to see. These are critical functions, and it is not reasonable to expect a mayor to do all of them. That is why we have introduced commissioners—an optional appointment to whom mayors can delegate functions to support them in their work. Mayors will be able to appoint up to seven commissioners, aligned to the areas of competence and reflecting areas of responsibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, mayors can also appoint members of the combined county authority or combined authority as portfolio holders, of course; they will also have officials to support their work, such as finance officials, legal officials and so on.
Let me be clear: this is not about inviting a proliferation of appointments. Rather, it is about mayors having capacity to deliver against the full range of their functions and giving them flexibility in how they deliver for their area. Local authority leaders who are on the combined authority will be able to support the mayor as portfolio holders; do not forget, though, that it is important to remember that they will have their own authorities to lead as well, so they will be working in their own authority at the same time.
On Amendments 51A and 52A, I reiterate that commissioners are an optional appointment: they are designed to increase capacity and give mayors more flexibility in how they choose to deliver for their areas. These amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, would remove that optionality, effectively introducing seven new statutory roles in the combined authority or combined county authority. We have set out the competency, for example on the environment and climate change, in the Bill itself, but mayors are best placed to determine whether they need additional support on this based on the needs of their local area.
While we have set out in the competencies what we think mayors should be doing, it cannot be right that we make the choice for them about how they do that. Therefore, it is for mayors to decide. I know this can be difficult for us in the political process when a mayor may put an emphasis on an area that would be less important to us than something else, but I am afraid that is part of the democratic process that we live with all the time; it is not that different.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I just do not understand this. If I am a leader of a local authority and I have a specific need for a competence, I employ an official or an officer. I interview a large range of them; I do not go to one of my mates and ask if they would like to be a commissioner. I do not understand why that should be any different in a mayoral office. If they are doing work that demands somebody extremely well-qualified in a specific arts project, they can employ an officer or official. It does not need to be a commissioner who has a connotation of being politically motivated, as well as being possibly qualified in that area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will come on to that in a moment, if that is okay. If I do not answer the noble Baroness’s question, I will come back to it.
Amendments 50A, 51B and 53A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam, seek to remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by the mayor. It is important that mayors have the support they need from specialists to deliver for their constituents. However, we believe the Bill strikes the right balance, ensuring that mayors have the capacity to deliver without inviting a proliferation of appointments.
For this reason, I am afraid I cannot support the Amendment 196A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam. This amendment would enable mayors to appoint mayoral special advisers and would include provisions regarding their appointment, function and code of conduct. It would also exempt these advisers from holding a politically restricted post under a local authority for the purposes of Part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I agree that mayors can benefit from advice that they trust aligns with their politics. Political advisers bring important expertise that helps mayors formulate their strategy, policy decisions and communications approach. That is why mayors can already appoint a political adviser, and our current position is to provide new mayoralties with that option too.
However, these advisers will be subject to political restrictions in the same way existing advisers are. Accountability in public office is of paramount importance, which is why we have existing guardrails in place. The cap ensures that spending remains proportionate to the institution and prevents a proliferation of political appointments. On my noble friend Lord Bassam’s point on the code of conduct, mayors’ special advisers, where appointed, are employees of the strategic authority, and therefore they would be covered by the strategic authority’s code of conduct.
Amendments 54, 55, 58, 59, 57 and 61, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bach, seek to enable commissioners’ work or the delegation of function to relate to more than one area of competence. The amendments also seek to allow two or more commissioners to relate to the same area of competence. I thank my noble friend for these amendments, and I reassure him that the mayor will already have the flexibility to consider local circumstances when considering a commissioner’s exact brief and any delegated functions relating to the area of competence.
The Bill states that a commissioner’s work or functions can relate to other areas of competence and matters outside of them where it is incidental to the work in their special area of competence. For example, a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration could lead on a growth strategy that included elements related to housing, skills and transport.
Amendment 171, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach, seeks to ensure that, where a mayor is responsible for more than one police force, they would have the flexibility to appoint a single deputy mayor or separate deputy mayors for each police force. As I have set out, the Bill already ensures that the mayor has support in exercising police governance functions in each of the police forces for which they have responsibility, and it recognises that these forces remain distinct and separate entities. The provisions in the Bill will prevent the same person from being appointed to more than one deputy mayor for police and crime positions, ensuring that there is a dedicated lead for the day-to-day oversight of policing in each force area.
My noble friend will know that I worked in policing for many years, and I am very aware of the different policing challenges that can occur even in neighbouring forces: the balance of different types of crime—rural and urban—and some of the more internal issues around different IT systems, and so on. That seems appropriate at the moment. Our right honourable friend the Home Secretary spoke very powerfully about her view that there needs to be further reorganisation of policing, and we should of course work across government as we move forward with the Bill to work with her to identify her ideas and how that might be implemented in this. But I appreciate that she was talking about some of this being implemented some way off, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said.
For the moment, this amendment would impact the direct line of accountability the mayor is able to provide to voters regarding the police forces which they are required to hold to account. I will reflect on his call for flexibility around this, and I think we need to have further discussions with the Home Office about how this will work moving forward.
Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, would enable a mayor of a combined authority to appoint any councillor of a constituent council in a combined authority area as deputy mayor. I want to clarify with her that I have understood her amendment properly, because I think she said something slightly different from what is in the amendment itself. The mayor can appoint members of the constituent authorities who sit on the combined authority in portfolio holder roles, but they cannot appoint any member of the constituent authority. I just clarify that.
The position of deputy mayor is a significant responsibility, which could involve stepping in to chair the authority and undertaking mayoral functions. That is why, currently, only those constituent councillors who have been appointed as a member of the combined authority may be appointed as a deputy mayor. These members have been appointed by the council to the authority in the knowledge that this may involve taking on the deputy mayor role, so they have the legitimacy to perform it if called upon. It is important that we keep measures in place to ensure that a deputy mayor is a legitimate appointment, best prepared for the demands they will face should they have to step in as mayor. Because this amendment applies only to combined authorities, technically it would create a divergence between the requirements imposed on them, versus combined county authorities.
The remaining amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek to remove Clause 9 and Schedule 3. This would eliminate the role of commissioners from the Bill, preventing their appointment by mayors. As I have stated, commissioners are intended to increase mayors capacity and give them more flexibility in how they deliver for their area. These authorities will have critical new functions to undertake, requiring representation on national bodies, joint working with partners and access to the expertise they need. It is simply not realistic to expect a mayor to do all this on their own. These appointments will be a local decision, and no additional funding will be provided.
I will now cover some of the questions that have been asked by noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and others. Starting with the question about commissioners being simply devolution to unelected officials, commissioners are optional and can be appointed only by the mayor, who determines their terms and conditions. They will work in lockstep with the mayor to drive forward the policy agenda for a specific function, such as transport or public health. This will be particularly effective where a commissioner has specialist knowledge and expertise that can help deliver the mayor’s vision for local people. There is a real difference here between employed officials of a local council, for example, and what these commissioners will do. The best example I can give is the way that these positions work in London, where the mayor has a number of deputy mayors, as they are called, who act for the mayor in certain policy areas.
The mayor, the combined county authority and the overview and scrutiny committee will each play a role in the commissioner’s appointment and/or the termination of their appointment. We will set out guidance, following Royal Assent, on recruitment and job descriptions. Responding to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I say that these commissioners will be subject to the Nolan principles, as employees of strategic authorities. Commissioners will also fall under the strengthened accountability system for devolution, which will confirm further details in due course; we are likely to have further discussions about that later this evening.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
With voting, the figure required can be either two-thirds or 50:50. Can the Minister clarify what figure is required to remove a commissioner?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
For the overview and scrutiny committee, I believe it is a simple majority vote, but I will clarify that in writing for the noble Lord.
We expect that commissioners will have detailed knowledge and expertise in their assigned area of competence and will be appointed on this basis. Constituent members will not necessarily be experienced in their portfolio subject area. There are also circumstances where it would not be appropriate for a portfolio lead to represent both the borough and the region; there may be perceived conflicts of interest. As I said earlier, the local authority leaders who sit on the combined authority will also be running their councils on a day-to-day basis.
Commissioners will be able to represent the mayor’s authority and policy positions in a given area, including by speaking to the media. They could help make day-to-day decisions that are delegated by a mayor and provide strategic insight and advice for their area of expertise. We also expect commissioners to play a leading role in stakeholder engagement and partnership working, across geographies and organisations, as appropriate. This would include working closely with local councillors, business leaders and public sector institutions, using their advocacy and influence to deliver the mayor’s agenda.
I hope that that has helped clarify some of the points raised by noble Lords and that, with the assurances I have given, they will not press their amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
If there are any matters raised by me or other noble Lords that the Minister did not cover, could she send a letter to cover them? I do not think I heard confirmation about the Nolan principles, for example. If there is anything else, I hope that officials might draft something for her to send.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I did confirm that the commissioners will be subject to the Nolan principles. I will go back over Hansard—I always do after these debates—and if I have missed anything, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an absolutely fascinating debate. It has made me think a lot about the history of local government and how it has changed over 150 or 160 years. There was a time when we had aldermen, but they were abolished. We have had two-tier government, county boroughs and so on, but things have changed there too. The introduction of commissioners is a very progressive move, so I cannot agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson, on that point. I can see that the accountability framework for commissioners is very important; they will have a powerful job.
If we think about it, some of those combined mayoral authorities will cover large geographical areas. My own likely combined mayoral authority involves East and West Sussex, which is about 100 miles from one end to the other and about 50 miles wide—and East Anglia covers a similarly large geographical area. It is right that we have these commissioners appointed and can hold them to account, because they will have a very important job to do. That is one reason why I thought that introducing some flexibility in terms of the patch or territory they cover, or the policies, was so important. However, I have heard what the Minister has said about that, and I hope we can reflect on some of those issues before Report.
On the points I made about political advisers and special advisers, I simply say this: again, it relates to the size of the task in front of mayors and commissioners. The salary is some £45,000 a year, which is generous but not pitched at a level one would necessarily expect to attract the very best. We need to have good quality political advisers involved in these strategic mayoral authorities. In my time as a local government leader, I did not see fit to have a political adviser—I got more than enough political advice from the Labour group, daily, and sometimes beyond that. But political advisers and special advisers are of immense value. When I first became a Minister back in 1999, what the civil servants used to say to me that was of value was that they had access to a special adviser who understood the thinking of the Secretary of State and their Ministers. That is really important, and that is why I thought it worth having a discussion about introducing special advisers into these very large strategic mayoral authorities. However, I have heard what the Minister said about that, and I shall reflect on it some more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“Scrutiny of mayoral commissioners(1) The mayor of a combined county authority must establish, for each commissioner appointed by the mayor, a scrutiny committee composed of elected members of the constituent local authorities.(2) The purpose of each scrutiny committee is to review, assess and report on the exercise of the policy responsibilities of the commissioner to whom it relates.(3) Each scrutiny committee must have the following powers—(a) to require the mayor, the relevant commissioner, or any member of their staff to attend before the committee to give evidence;(b) to require the production of any documents relevant to the exercise of the commissioner’s functions;(c) to publish reports on the committee’s findings and recommendations.(4) The mayor and the relevant commissioner must have regard to any report or recommendation made by the corresponding scrutiny committee under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Mayor of a Combined County Authority to establish a scrutiny committee of elected members with powers of summons to examine and report on the Mayor’s exercise of functions.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 53 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. This amendment is about how you scrutinise mayoral commissioners. I noted what the Minister said in responding to the previous group about the mayor or combined authority members being responsible for scrutinising commissioners, yet that removes any responsibility on the constituent authorities to undertake scrutiny. It is doubly important that elected members of the constituent local authorities have some powers in scrutinising the work of a commissioner. They will need powers to do that—to require the mayor and relevant commissioner or indeed any member of their staff to attend and give evidence—so it can be a requirement to attend rather than a request to attend, and there should be an ability to require the production of any documents relevant to the exercise of a commissioner’s function.
There should then be a right to publish reports on the committee’s findings and recommendations, with an absolute power to do so; it would not be for the combined authority or the mayor to say that this matter cannot be published. It is really a fundamental matter about who is in a position to scrutinise what mayors do.
Can I make just two points about scrutiny, which will come up later in our deliberations? The best form of scrutiny is one that happens before the decision is made, not one that comments on a decision after it has been made. The best way in which to deliver that objective is through a committee system, because a committee system actually authorises decisions to be made and has the major advantage that the scrutiny is happening at the same time as a decision is made.
I have found it very disappointing in the Bill that quite so much is being said about the committee system and its perceived failures, most of which I do not recognise. It may be that when we get to further discussions in Committee and then on Report, further consideration can be given to those matters. I hope the Minister will be able to say that the Government do not downplay the importance of scrutiny, particularly when so many issues and so much public money is involved in the proposals to devolve power to mayors and commissioners. I beg to move.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 191, and, in doing so, declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The amendment would provide for the establishment in every local area of a local public accounts committee to ensure the effective scrutiny and accountability across the whole range of public service spending and activity in that area, not just the actions of the strategic authority or the mayor. So why is an amendment like this necessary?
During the past 40 years we have seen in this country a radical fragmentation of our public services with the establishment of a myriad disconnected, sometimes single-purpose agencies. Sadly, these have too often worked in isolation, seeking to achieve their own specific targets energetically, but on occasions their efforts have conflicted or overlapped with their partners. They have too often worked in silos and, sadly, regulators have been very slow to recognise and challenge that. As a result, the public often struggle to access or even make sense of the disjointed services which this system has produced. In addition, resources are wasted because of the overlap and duplication, bureaucracy thrives, and there is inevitably a culture of competition rather than collaboration. This needs to change, but I do not believe that, as drafted, the Bill alone will achieve that level of change. If we are adequately to integrate public services in a locality, all public service providers and partners have to build co-operation into everything they do.
A later amendment in my name seeks to impose a duty on all local public partners to do just that. But alongside that kind of duty we also need to put in place local accountability—and not always accountability to the centre, which has been the model we have followed for so long. We need more local accountability to ensure that genuine co-operation does take place, so that services are delivered which are actually recognisable to ordinary local people and which meet their needs effectively.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rather suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and I are fishing in a similar pool here. My Amendment 196B is all about local accounting officers and is designed to help to improve the level of scrutiny and accountability for each mayoral strategic authority.
The system of departmental accounting officers and their requirement to appear before the Public Accounts Committee is often used to justify value for money—an issue that could prevent proper devolution—but this is because accounting officers are technically meant to be able to justify all spending even if, in reality, the decision to devolve to a different authority has been made. With the development of the new combined mayoral authority model, we need to learn from those models being used by the devolved Administrations where accounting officers’ responsibilities have been given to the relevant bodies.
This amendment would look to devolve AO responsibilities to new local accounting officers, who would be local and accountable to the relevant authority’s scrutiny bodies for any spending by an established mayoral strategic authority. This is loosely based on the relevant legislation for Welsh accounting officers. The relevant body here might include a local public accounts committee; the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, made the case for that.
This amendment is designed to be helpful. The Minister may say that it is unnecessary but, in my view, it would be a genuine move towards devolved accountability—in terms of models of funding and allowing places to innovate while retaining an appropriate level of scrutiny. With the development of devolved mayoral combined authorities, we need an extra layer of accountability that looks at the way in which public money is spent. For too long, local government has been burdened with more responsibility, less funding and fewer opportunities to innovate and develop; at the same time, to my way of looking at things, local authority accounting practices have not really moved on from where they were in the 1990s. This amendment is an attempt to be helpful, very much in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, spoke to his amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will make a brief comment on Amendment 196B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which is worth discussing further, especially given how it fits with Amendment 191 from the Lord, Lord Bichard, which I strongly support.
The question I asked myself, perhaps trying to anticipate the Minister’s response, was: would it duplicate existing audit and scrutiny arrangements? I came to the conclusion that I do not believe that it would. Audit answers the questions of whether the accounts were properly kept and whether the acceptable processes and procedures were legally carried out. But this amendment addresses a different and much more important question: is public money being spent effectively across the whole system? Audit is retrospective, siloed and looks at individual organisations after the event. Local public accounts committees, as proposed in this amendment, would look across organisations in real time. They would look at how councils, mayors and public service partners are actually working together—they are not the same things.
The Bill deliberately—and correctly, in my view—will push power and spending into shared collaborative arrangements, but our scrutiny remains fragmented, organisation by organisation. This mismatch is the gap that Amendment 191 would fill. Without it, no one body would be clearly responsible for asking very basic questions such as: is it the case that joint working is working? Is it delivering value? Are overlapping budgets aligned with agreed priorities? Are partnerships working as intended? Audit does not do that—and scrutiny committees, as currently structured, will struggle to do that.
In contrast, this amendment would enable that. It is not more bureaucracy; it is better oversight. It is not another unnecessary new layer. The amendment is enabling, not prescriptive, and it allows Ministers to integrate these committees within existing audit and scrutiny frameworks. It provides coherence and not clutter, and in fact good system-level scrutiny actually reduces duplication by exposing it.
My main reason for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, is that devolution without strong, visible accountability risks undermining public confidence. If power and money are exercised at a mayoral strategic level, scrutiny must exist at that same level. Otherwise, we are asking people to trust structures they cannot see being properly examined.
In conclusion, Amendment 191 strengthens the Bill by aligning power, spending and accountability. It complements audit and scrutiny; it does not replace them. In fact, the financial cost of not having effective system-wide scrutiny could lead to duplicated programmes, misaligned budgets and failed collaboration, which will almost certainly cost a lot more than the modest investment required to make this work well. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will give both ideas serious consideration.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support the principle of Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I observe that, for the first time, we are bringing local, parish and community councils substantially into scope, for I believe that the definitions provided in Amendment 191 will do so. What has not been fully understood is that one of the second-order effects of the Bill is that it will create a significant number of larger community councils as a result.
As a result of local government reorganisation, large numbers of cities, such as Oxford, Exeter and Norwich, and former county boroughs, such as Ipswich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, which have been billing authorities hitherto, will now fall into the lower tier of local authorities. Those authorities have no constraint or cap on the amount of council tax that they can raise. In Salisbury, they have jacked up council tax by 44% in the past four years—they have let rip, and it is not good enough. There has been no scrutiny, there has been cost shunting, and the council tax payers have paid more.
I have laid amendments, which we will discuss later, that will make provision for those larger smaller authorities to fall under the constraints that all the other authorities will have. I do not seek to fetter the smallest parish council, but if you have a population that hitherto has been part of a billing authority, it is right that they should be constrained going forward, as they have in the past.
I am not sure that I entirely welcome all the provisions in Amendment 191 on local public accounts committees, but the amendment shines a light for the first time on where we will go with these smaller community parish councils. There is merit in the thrust of what has been proposed here. I wait to hear how the Minister reacts to what constraints will be placed on this new class of large parish or town council as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will take a step back to reflect on what this debate is really about. It is not simply about committees, processes or institutional design—it is about trust that power, once devolved, will be exercised well; trust that decisions will be open to challenge; and trust that the public will be able to see how and why those decisions are taken.
Amendment 53, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, speaks directly to that question. The requirement for mayors to establish scrutiny committees for commissioners recognises a simple but important truth: as we add layers of responsibility and delegation within combined county authorities, scrutiny cannot remain an afterthought. If commissioners are to exercise real influence, there must be clear, visible and credible mechanisms through which their actions can be examined, questioned and, where necessary, challenged. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Government envisage scrutiny operating in practice where commissioners are appointed and whether they are confident that existing arrangements will suffice.
Amendment 191 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard proposes local public accounts committees. The noble Lord has raised a very important point: there has been a tremendous amount of devolution, just not to local government but to unelected quangos and devolved bodies. Anyone who has led a council will tell you how much difficulty they have trying to get those bodies to do things that are best for the local area because they have to report to Whitehall. This is an interesting proposal to try to oblige those bodies to work together with local government. I do not seek to speak specifically to that design—more to question of principle, because it goes back to the heart of scrutiny as we have more devolution and deal with these other devolved bodies. How will the Government ensure that appropriate scrutiny happens across an area where not only the combined authority but those other bodies are essential to deliver some of those services? As I said, local public accounts committees are one possible solution, and I am very interested in seeing what the Government’s suggestion on that is.
I also press the Minister on a number of broader points. First, has the department assessed whether existing local scrutiny arrangements are adequate for the scale and complexity of devolved expenditure now envisaged? Secondly, what assessment of the fiscal governance risks that arise when large multiyear funding settlements are devolved without strengthened independent financial oversight at the local level? As was raised earlier, how do the Government intend to identify problems earlier rather than having the audit function of explaining what went wrong afterwards?
Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could address the question of cost—not simply its narrow budgetary terms but the strategic ones. If the Government do not believe that local public accounts committees are the right answer, what is the solution? If we are serious about devolving power, responsible scrutiny must sit alongside it, not trail behind it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments relating to accountability and scrutiny, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is recovering.
Starting with Amendment 191, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, there is already an existing system of scrutiny that provides accountability to the public and local checks and balances and accountability to government, including a requirement for combined authorities and combined county authorities to establish an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. In addition, the English devolution accountability framework and the scrutiny protocol set out the processes and principles that mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow. Both documents are being reviewed to reflect the changes introduced through the integrated settlement and through this Bill. Where the most established mayoral strategic authorities benefit from integrated settlement, assurance is provided via an outcomes framework which interacts with the wider government system of accountability.
However, we recognise that there is scope to strengthen further the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities. That is why the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to exploring a local public accounts committee model. Listening to the noble Lord made me reflect on some work that I did in 2015 with Sir Richard Leese, who was then the leader of Manchester City Council, and Jules Pipe, who was then mayor of Hackney. That work was focused on devolution and turning the dial from acute responses to prevention.
We recommended that if there was more widespread devolution, there was a need to think about local public accounts committees. Although that feels like six months ago, it was 10 years ago. Maybe every idea has its time. Therefore, I accept the principle behind this amendment and assure the noble Lord that we intend to hold mayoral strategic authorities to a very high standard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was reflecting on the scrutiny of integrated settlements, for example, and allowing those who have the local knowledge of how things are working is crucial. When we were thinking about the possibility of a local public accounts committee, we saw it as being as powerful as the Public Accounts Committee here, being able to call witnesses from various bodies that are impacted on by the services and projects that are being delivered so that it can gain a much fuller picture of what is going on. This is a very different type of scrutiny—fundamentally different, as the noble Baroness said, to audit, which is a financial function. It is really important that we consider this fully. However, I ask that the Government are given time to complete the engagement that we need to do with the sector to design such a new approach, because it is important that we talk to the sector about this.
I hear the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made about the scrutiny of all levels of local government. He is of course right that both budgets and precept levels in town and parish councils are not insignificant in many areas, so we have to think about that. It is essential that any new accountability and scrutiny regime complements the existing system and the reformed audit framework in the future. Above all, it must be proportionate and supported by clear guidance and support for the sector, to make sure that we get these reforms right. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move his amendment.
Amendment 196B relates to local accounting officers. I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for this proposed new clause that would require established mayoral strategic authorities to create local accounting officers. His amendment would designate the head of paid service as the accountable officer responsible for local spending, value for money and scrutiny. Although I agree with the importance of strong accountability and value for money, all mayoral strategic authorities already operate within an existing system of accountability, and that accountability is split between the “golden triangle” of statutory officers: the chief executive, chief finance officer and monitoring officer. These officers are accountable to their board and required to comply with the best value duty.
Strengthened systems are already in place for areas that have integrated settlements. This includes the mayoral strategic authority chief executive being responsible for core accountability processes within their authority, including responsibility for local outcome delivery and value for money. However, we are continuing to explore the local accounting officer model. We recognise that accountability to Parliament for the use of taxpayer money, which the accounting officer system provides, is a fundamental principle and not something to be altered lightly.
As part of our work on testing a strengthened accounting officer model, the Government are engaging with mayoral strategic authorities and other government departments. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of that work with a primary legislative change to introduce local accounting officers at this point. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will feel able not to move his amendment.
On Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this proposed new clause would place a duty on the mayor of a combined county authority to establish a separate scrutiny committee for each commissioner they have appointed. As I have set out, mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow the existing principles and processes described in the English devolution framework. This includes requirements that all combined authorities, and combined county authorities, must establish an overview and scrutiny committee, which provides local checks and balances. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a very important issue about being able to undertake pre-scrutiny. Overview and scrutiny committees are very capable of putting in place pre-decision scrutiny if they wish to do so. Some local authorities have that already, so it is not prohibited.
Further, the Bill ensures that the overview and scrutiny committee will have the power to recommend termination of a commissioner’s appointment. I can respond properly now to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the voting majority. To correct what I said earlier, a two-thirds majority of non-mayoral members of the combined authority or the combined county authority is required to accept the recommendation. Commissioners are also accountable to the mayor, who can terminate their appointment.
As Clause 9 allows for the appointment of up to seven commissioners, this amendment would risk institutions having to establish as many as seven scrutiny committees in addition to the existing overview and scrutiny committee that is already accountable. This would create significant additional labour and cost pressures for combined county authorities. There is a technical difficulty in that it would also apply a lopsided accountability system, as the amendment makes no reference to these seven committees applying to combined, as opposed to combined county, authorities. While we recognise that there is scope further to strengthen the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities, we believe that this amendment would create unnecessary pressures on the existing system, and I therefore ask that it is not moved.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for a comprehensive reply to a comprehensive set of issues. It gives us pause for thought. I am glad that the Minister recognises the importance of pre-scrutiny. That is a fundamental issue, so if it can be better built into the Bill before it becomes an Act, that will be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(3A) Any report produced under subsection (3) must be produced annually and published on the website of the Combined County Authority.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 263 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. If there is one theme that runs consistently through today’s debates, it is the need for transparency, certainty and a clear understanding of the Government’s plans for governance structures, from Whitehall’s right down to local government. Clause 10 establishes the core reporting obligations for combined county authorities. These obligations are the foundations of accountability. As we reorganise who holds which competences, what powers are exercised at what level and who has the ability to pull levers to make things happen, it is essential that those exercising powers are clearly and robustly accounted for. These reporting requirements enable Parliament, constituency councils and, indeed, the public to understand how devolved powers are being exercised, how public money is being spent and whether these new authorities are delivering what was promised when the powers were devolved. Yet as the Bill currently stands, the substance of those obligations is left to guidance, and that has not yet been published. We are, in effect, being asked to approve a statutory framework without knowing how one of its central accountability mechanisms will operate in practice. Our amendment simply provides that Clause 10 should not come into force until that guidance is available and has been laid before Parliament. This is a modest but important safeguard. It ensures that combined county authorities are not placed under statutory duties that they cannot yet fully understand and that the accountability framework underpinning devolution is complete, transparent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny from the outset.
I will therefore probe the Government on a few points. First, why has the guidance not been published alongside the Bill, given that these reporting duties are so central to its operation? Secondly, what assurance can Ministers give the Committee that the guidance will not materially shape or, indeed, constrain the scope of parliamentary oversight once the Bill is enacted? Thirdly, what would be lost in practical terms by accepting a provision that simply requires Parliament to see and consider this guidance before the relevant section is commenced?
This amendment does not seek to delay devolution for its own sake; nor does it introduce unnecessary bureaucracy. It simply asks that transparency comes before implementation and that accountability is designed in rather than bolted on later. To us, that seems a pretty sensible position; I will, of course, listen carefully to what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I have just one thing to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said. Last week, I mentioned the importance of guidance being published in advance of Report; it is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the Bill, given that so much is missing from it. I therefore repeat my support for the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that it would help us to have a better understanding of some of the detail that the Government are going to put into guidance before we get to the point of debating and voting on it on Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to providing allowances for combined county authority members with special responsibilities.
Amendments 62 and 236 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to issue guidance before Clause 10 comes into effect, and would require a combined county authority to publish an annual report on its webpage outlining the allowances that have been paid to members with special responsibilities. I welcome the commitment from the noble Baroness to ensuring transparency in local government—a matter of paramount importance to this Government.
As a former council leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will know, as I do, that allowances probably attract more debate and discussion, from both Members and the public, than much of the other policy that we debate. That is why we will issue statutory guidance on complying with the duty under Clause 10 to produce and publish reports. The guidance will allow the Secretary of State to set clear expectations—for example, regarding the frequency of such reports and where they are published—to support combined authorities and combined county authorities in this area. In the event that further clarification is needed, the power to issue guidance provides flexibility for the Government to update their position.
I would also add that, because this amendment applies to combined county authorities only, it would create a divergence in law between the requirements imposed on them versus combined authorities. That would be inconsistent; it would not be right to treat the two types of authority differently on that basis. My understanding is that this statutory guidance will be published on Royal Assent. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister but we are back where we started, really, in that we would like to see the guidance before Report so that we can see whether the guidance is correct or whether it could include something else. I currently do not know this, and we will not know. So I thank the Minister for her answers, but we should try to get the guidance before Report; if we do not, we are going to be asking more and more questions on this in Committee.
I accept what the Minister says about combined authorities and county combined authorities. I will look at that again and, if we do not get this guidance, I will retable it on Report. At this point, I say to the Minister that this is an important issue, and it would be better if we could scrutinise it properly, at least on Report, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe why the Government propose to change the precept arrangements as set out in the LURA 2023.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 63 and 64 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, both relate to Clause 11 and the proposed changes to the mayoral precept arrangements. They are intended to elicit from the Government a clearer explanation of both the necessity and the principle behind the changes proposed in this clause. We want to see the prevention of uncontrolled mayoral precepts, the avoidance of tax rises through the backdoor and fiscal parity with existing local authorities. That is more important now, having heard some of the debates today.
Amendment 63 seeks to probe why the Government believe it necessary to revisit the precept arrangements that were set out only recently in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. They were presented as part of a carefully planned settlement between central government, local authorities and the public, particularly in relation to accountability and transparency around local taxation. Those arrangements were debated at length in this House by noble Lords on all Benches, as the Minister and I know only too well, given the many hours we spent debating it.
Against that background, it is not immediately clear why the Government now feel the need to depart from that framework so soon after it was enacted. What has changed and what problems have arisen that they are now seeking to address? I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could first explain what evidence the Government have had that existing arrangements are no longer fit for purpose; secondly, whether local councils or mayoral combined authorities have themselves asked for these changes; and thirdly, what outcomes for precepts they are expecting or seeking to facilitate through these changes. It is right to be cautious about reopening settlements that have barely had time to bed in, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that this is not just change for change’s sake.
Amendment 64 addresses a related but distinct, significant concern: why mayors should be treated differently from other local authorities when it comes to limits on precept increases. As things stand, other types of local authority are subject to clear principles set out annually by the Secretary of State, which limit the extent to which they may increase their council tax without triggering additional scrutiny or consent. The amendment simply proposes that mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities should operate within the same principles. Therefore, my question for the Government is very simple: what is the justification for the differential treatments?
Mayors exercise significant powers and command substantial budgets with high public profile. It is only right that those powers come with the same fiscal discipline and protections for taxpayers that apply to other tiers of local government. Without parity, there is a risk that mayoral precepts become a means of raising revenue, perhaps even for vanity projects or unfunded responsibilities, without the safeguards that residents elsewhere quite rightly expect.
This leads me to a broader concern that underpins both of the amendments in this group. Too often, we see responsibilities devolved without sufficient or sustainable funding attached. While devolution can and should empower local decision-making, it should not become a mechanism by which central government passes financial pressures down the line and leaves local leaders, and therefore local taxpayers, to pick up the bill.
If mayors are given additional duties without adequate funding, the inevitable consequence is pressure to raise their precept. From a Government who have sought to raise punitive taxes at every opportunity, this sounds very much like another tax rise through the back door. I do not believe that is what the public would understand as devolution or community empowerment. It is not consistent with the principles of transparency and accountability that we all should stand for.
The last two questions I have for the Minister are: for what reason do precept arrangements in the LURA need to be reopened, and why should mayors not be subject to the same precept arrangements as other local authorities? I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on both points, and I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on precepts.
Amendment 63 probes why the Government are changing precept arrangements, and I completely understand why she would do that. The changes to existing powers will allow mayors to precept for all an authority’s functions, giving mayors more flexibility about how they fund mayoral priorities.
I remind noble Lords that the ability to issue a mayoral precept has existed in law since 2017, but it remains at the discretion of mayors how to use it. However, as it stands, mayors who choose to use the precept can spend it only on mayoral functions rather than on all the authority’s functions. This limitation is arbitrary and unnecessary. It could mean, for example, permitting spending on transport but not on health.
We want to give mayors the tools to tackle the obstacles to growth and improve the lives of people in their area, and to do this effectively, mayors must be able to spend across all an authority’s functions.
Amendment 64 would impose council tax principles automatically on strategic authorities. The Secretary of State can already set referendum principles on strategic authorities should they choose to do so. However, where used, mayoral precept rates are proportionately a small amount. Imposing a limit on how much they can rise in line with councils would mean that, in almost all areas, the value would remain insignificant and be ineffective for investing in local priorities.
The Government have made it clear that any increases to the mayoral precept should be fair and proportionate, but aligning maximum mayoral precept rate rises with other council tax rises reduces local agency, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Bill and of devolution. We want to see mayors who are empowered to invest in their communities, creating better public services and driving economic growth.
I took a quick look at some of the rates of mayoral precepts that are levied. It was interesting for me to see that in Liverpool in 2025-26, residents of band D properties were charged £24 extra for the mayoral precept per year. In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the figure was £36. It is a bit unfair to compare some of the other authorities because they deliver police services and they precept for those as well. But then I looked at some of the town and parish council figures, and the average parish band D precept is £92.22, which was a percentage change of 9.4% in the last year. So, the mayoral precept feels proportionate to me.
The Government consult on the local government finance settlement each year. That is the established and appropriate way of considering what is best for authorities and taxpayers each year, and we will continue to do so. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her responses and for trying to assure me about those amendments. However, she will understand that concerns raised in the short debate between us are not about opposing devolution nor about questioning the role of mayors but about ensuring that changes to local taxation powers are justified and consistent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the Clause 12 stand part notice, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is intended to probe. We recognise that mayors and mayoral combined authorities will, in practice, need the ability to borrow to deliver infrastructure, regeneration and long-term investment. Borrowing can be a sensible and necessary tool. Our purpose today is not to deny that reality but to seek clarity from the Government about how this power will operate in practice and what safeguards will accompany it.
We would welcome further detail from the Minister on a number of points. First, what caps or controls do the Government envisage on mayoral borrowing? Will these mirror existing prudential borrowing frameworks for local authorities, or will a different regime apply? Secondly, what is the Government’s expectation of the purposes for which this borrowing will be undertaken? Are there limits envisaged on the types of projects or expenditure that may be funded through borrowing? Thirdly, who ultimately underwrites this borrowing? In the event of financial difficulty, where does the liability sit? Does it sit with the combined authority itself, with constituent councils or perhaps with central government?
Finally, what checks will be in place to ensure that borrowing decisions are subject to appropriate scrutiny and transparency, locally and nationally? Devolution must go hand-in-hand with accountability. Granting borrowing powers without clear safeguards risks storing up problems for the future—for local taxpayers and potentially for the Exchequer. I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance on these important points. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising some very crucial issues on the levels of borrowing powers. I add to that my concern—made even more so by the fact that constituent councils will not be able to scrutinise the work of the mayor or commissioners.
In that situation, I hope the Government will not be anticipating that local councils will then be responsible for any overspending by mayors and the combined authorities because, otherwise, there will be a demand on the council tax payer. So can the Minister confirm that overspends caused by poor-quality work by mayoral authorities will not end up with the council tax payer having to bail them out?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Clause 12 stand part notice, ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
All existing mayoral combined and combined county authorities have the power to borrow for all their functions. Unlike local authorities, the current process requires making a bespoke statutory instrument after an institution has been established. This process is highly inefficient. The Bill streamlines the process by giving the power to borrow to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities for purposes relevant to their functions. The power to borrow is still subject to safeguards. Clause 12 requires authorities to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before they exercise the power for the first time in respect of functions other than transport, policing, and fire and rescue.
I will cover some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about. First, in relation to agreeing a debt cap, in general the exercise of power will remain subject to consent from the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, before it can be used for the first time, as I said. That would follow any internal processes, such as a debt cap agreement. The only exception will be where the new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities inherit fire, police or transport functions. In this instance, the power to borrow can be exercised immediately for these functions to ensure that ongoing financial arrangements are not disrupted.
In terms of how borrowing is agreed, any borrowing by a mayoral strategic authority is agreed through the annual budget-setting process and is subject to approval by the combined and combined county authority, operating within existing legislative, financial and prudential controls. While the mayor proposes the budget, borrowing cannot be undertaken unilaterally. Under the Bill, most budgets will be approved by a simple majority, which must include the mayor.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the budget, like all other matters, will be subject to the overview and scrutiny process, so there can be scrutiny of the budget in the same way that you would expect in a local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about underwriting. Like the rest of local government, strategic authorities must also operate within the prudential framework. This framework comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. It provides robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord does not press his clause stand part notice.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. If I may, I will delve a little deeper into some of her comments. She said that the first time an authority borrows, it will have to get consent from the Secretary of State, with an implication that, at that time, guidelines or parameters would be set up. I think that is what I heard. I want to make sure it is not the case that, the first time you borrow, the Secretary of State says it is fine, and then thereafter there are no guidelines, or whatever. I appreciate the Minister may not be able to clarify that today, but if she could write to us, that would be much appreciated.
The authority can already borrow for fire and police. The Minister mentioned one other: transport. For those, there would not be any such guidelines, as I understand it from the Minister’s comments. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could come back to confirm whether that is the case or whether they would be subject to whatever guidelines may be given by the Secretary of State. That would be much appreciated.
We talked about budget controls. I am curious about that because it raises the point that the budget in effect has to be agreed by the mayor. I am intrigued as to what happens when the mayor and the combined authority are slightly at odds. What then happens in that process?
The Minister did not mention, as far as I am aware, the key question that I asked and that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was also concerned about: who in effect is the guarantor in the event that the combined authority cannot pay back its borrowing? I would be grateful if the Minister could come back with a response to that. Anticipating those answers, I will not press my opposition to Clause 12 standing part of the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment of clause 13 which provides for the amendment of section 143 of LGFA 1988 and section 106A of LDEDCA 2009.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 13 will allow combined authorities and combined county authorities to make a transport levy on their constituent councils to cover any transport costs not met by grants or other revenue streams. Previously, the powers to charge a transport levy have been provided through varied and disparate regulations and orders. The Bill standardises and makes consistent the ability for combined authorities and combined county authorities to charge a transport levy. These minor and technical amendments correct new sections and amend cross references to protect the regulation-making powers for levies. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, these are technical and consequential amendments to the levies section of the Bill. It has been a long enough day, and I have already made my position on mayoral precepts and council tax very clear in the previous two groups, so I will not repeat myself.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Thursday 29th January 2026
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-III(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (29 Jan 2026)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to begin the third day of Committee with this group of amendments, starting with the proposition in my name that Clause 15 not stand part, as we see no justification or real purpose for it. It is not clear why the Government seek to confer yet more powers on the Mayor of London by secondary legislation. I hope other parties will join me in my concern about this clause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out at Second Reading that the Mayor of London has already been given more and more areas to oversee and a budget of approximately £21 billion. I ask the Minister: what more powers does he need? What is more, rather than giving the London Assembly more powers to represent and scrutinise on behalf of the whole community, Clause 15 will give powers specifically to the mayor. This is not community empowerment but instead gives the Government a mechanism to empower an already powerful individual, without any explanation as to why. Surely this Bill’s priority should be empowering local communities to scrutinise and ensure that services are being delivered effectively and funds used efficiently by those at the top. Can the Minister explain what consultation took place to inform this clause, and with whom?
Clause 15 is further evidence that the real purpose of this Bill has not been made clear. If it is about genuine community empowerment for all England then allowing the Secretary of State to confer further powers on the Mayor of London is hardly a priority. We do not see why London should be put on an ever-higher pedestal. The Committee deserves to know the Government’s exact reasoning behind this clause.
Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seeks to insert a new clause extending the category of people whom the London Assembly can require to attend its meetings or produce documents. You cannot have effective meetings if the necessary people are not there. We on these Benches welcome Amendment 71, also tabled by the noble Baroness, which would replace the current two-thirds majority required to change the Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority. This is entirely sensible. It would improve decision-making and may make better budget-making in London.
Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96 and 182, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, seek to establish a London local authorities joint committee. We are hesitant about creating more committees, but I look forward to his contribution and explanation of this matter.
Amendment 75, from my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, asks us to go back to basics and initiate a review of the London governance model, covering its effectiveness, accountability and, in particular, outcomes. If the Government want to reorganise local government across the country, why not bring London in line as well? This is a perfect opportunity to cut costs and strengthen local democracy in our capital city.
The Government must come clean about their intentions for London. If reforms are made, let them strengthen local democracy and cut bureaucracy, not empower an already powerful mayor. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of London-related amendments, I should declare my former roles as a London borough leader, a member of the London Assembly and a founding chair of what is now London Councils—indeed, I am one of its current co-presidents.
Before I speak to the six amendments in my name in this group—together, they seek to address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance arrangements—I want to say a brief word about the other amendments in the group, drawing on my previous experience. In particular, I wish to comment on the interesting remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who seems affronted at the idea that the Mayor of London and the whole GLA network are somehow trying to accrue on to themselves—or the Government are trying to give them—more and more powers. I respectfully remind your Lordships’ Committee that London is the engine of the UK economy, that without London the UK’s economy would founder, and that it is therefore very important that London retains its status as one of the few great world cities. For that purpose, having strong and effective mayoral and governance arrangements in the capital city is crucial.
I was involved in the discussions with the then Government around the creation of a mayor and assembly for London, and then in the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill when it was in your Lordships’ House. The London devolution settlement was carefully devised by Nick Raynsford, the then Minister for London, and was the first of its type. That settlement has remained largely unchanged for over a quarter of a century.
I have some sympathy, therefore, with Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which suggests that there should be a review of that settlement. However, I have reservations about her amendment, as I do not see why it should be a requirement of legislation. My noble friend the Minister could simply announce today that it is going to happen. Given that extensive consultations and discussions would be needed as part of a review, a year is too short a timescale. In doing such a review, one should look at the role and number of London boroughs. Does having 32 of them, plus the corporation, really make sense more than 60 years on from their creation?
I have some sympathy with Amendments 70 and 71, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. As a member of the first London Assembly, I always felt that the role of AMs was not sufficiently defined or purposeful enough. Strengthening and widening the scrutiny role of the assembly makes a lot of sense, as does changing the two-thirds requirement for amending the mayor’s budget—a threshold that has never been passed, although I gather that the London Assembly is considering the mayor’s budget today, so perhaps something surprising will happen. However, changing that requirement might oblige the mayor to work more closely with AMs—something that has not always been evident over the first three mayoralties. Such a power might be usefully extended to assembly consideration of mayoral strategies. Such a change would, however, alter the balance of the existing governance model in London. Rather than being done in a piecemeal fashion, it should be considered as part of the putative review suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
I turn now to Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96, 182 and 183 in my name. They seek to address an anomaly—an omission in the original Greater London Authority Act. My understanding is that they have the support of all three parties on London councils, as well as that of the mayor’s office. At their heart, these amendments are about addressing a simple but persistent problem: that the collective body of London’s boroughs is not recognised in statute and is unable, as things stand, to receive government funding directly.
London boroughs work together extensively. Through London Councils, they co-ordinate delivery, share expertise and engage with government on issues ranging from transport and housing to retrofitting and the charging of electric vehicles. In many of these areas, boroughs are the primary delivery agency of policies that sit squarely within the devolution agenda. Despite this, London Councils lacks a clear statutory footing. As a result, it cannot receive Section 31 grants directly from national government. Instead, funding must be routed through a nominated lead authority and then passed on—an arrangement that is administratively cumbersome, slower than it needs to be, and inefficient for both local and national government.
These amendments would provide a straightforward solution. They seek to establish a statutory joint committee, made up of London’s borough leaders and the City of London, enabling London Councils to receive and distribute funding directly and ensuring that London boroughs are properly consulted where legislation envisages consultation with local government bodies. Crucially, these changes would allow resources to flow more efficiently to the boroughs that are responsible for delivery, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and making better use of the collective capacity that already exists within the London system. They would strengthen the clarity of consultation arrangements, ensuring that London borough voices are heard in a coherent and structured way.
I should be clear that these proposals are entirely complementary to the role of the Greater London Authority. They would not impinge on or duplicate the powers or strategic status of the mayor, the GLA or the London Assembly. Rather, they would strengthen the overall London governance system by clarifying the collective role of the boroughs within it. That is why I am pleased that the GLA is supportive of London Councils becoming a statutory joint committee, recognising that this change would improve co-ordination, efficiency and the effective delivery of devolved priorities across London.
In short, these amendments are firmly aligned with the Bill’s broader aims of empowering local government and improving the effectiveness of devolution. They would correct an anomaly that has been recognised for some time and replace it with a solution that is sensible, efficient and long overdue.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I know that it was suggested that the Bill would not include London, but I wonder whether this is an opportunity to consider the future governance of London, as well as a chance to put right historic legislative changes. That is what my Amendment 75 is about.
I remind noble Lords that I am still a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was leader until 5 November—no Guy Fawkes jokes, please—and was the longest serving leader in London when I stood down. Previously, I was an executive member and the Conservative lead for London Councils for many years. I am now a vice-president, as is the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
London was the first mayoral arrangement. It is more than 25 years old now, so is it time for a review? It is interesting that no other mayoral arrangement since then has involved a governance structure similar to that of the Greater London Authority. Nobody seems to be suggesting that the London model should be replicated. Therefore, could London governance be more effective and efficient for the benefit of London taxpayers? It is not lost on me that the proposed mayoral precept that is apparently being discussed today will exceed £500 per council tax payer this year. It seems sensible to consider whether that is value for money.
The structure we currently have is quite costly. While some call for greater powers for the GLA, it often frustrates progress. Due to the two-thirds voting rule around the budget, which is referenced in Amendment 71, it is unlikely that the GLA will ever be able to override the mayor’s budget proposals. If you watch some of the question time sessions, it is pretty clear that the mayor does not consider that he is being held to account by the assembly. Some of those frustrations can be seen in Amendments 70 and 71, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Moylan.
The current structure does not encourage the mayor to work with the boroughs. Elsewhere, the relationship between the mayor and borough leaders has been more productive in achieving better outcomes. As a borough leader, especially in outer London, I often thought that the mayor would be more effective if there was a grown-up conversation about what matters to London. London is a very diverse city and not all 33 boroughs are the same, although unfortunately some do not recognise that. The involvement of the borough leaders would allow them to bring to the table their invaluable knowledge of their borough. We should be learning from other mayoral structures. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has suggested the importance of London, and I would not disagree with that, but there is no reason why London should not be efficient and effective.
We know that London leaders recognise that the world does not end at their borough boundaries. There have been many examples over the years when leaders have made pragmatic decisions that are beneficial to London, following debate. Those of us in outer London also have relationships with the councils outside London, especially those on our borders. Amendment 72, from the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, seeks to establish a London local authorities joint committee. I would suggest that this would just bring about another layer of governance which will no doubt have cost implications and which seems shortsighted when we can learn from other governance structures since the inception of the London model. Surely we do not want to impose more costs on council tax payers. If learning suggests that a revised structure would be less costly in addition to more effective, the taxpayers and councils could benefit. Would not we all like to see vital money being spent on services rather than on structures?
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the co-presidents of London Councils. Since the previous two speakers gave their entire London political history, I cannot resist the temptation to do the same.
I was a London borough councillor for 40 years, and leader of that council for 13 years. I cannot resist saying that it has been under Liberal Democrat control for 40 years already and is now no doubt well on its way to 44 years. I am looking forward to it reaching 50 years, by which time I shall have just about reached my century. I stood down as leader of the council to fight the GLA elections, and was elected for its first eight years, along with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. At the beginning, we had many happy meetings trying to work out what on earth we were there to do, how on earth we should do it, whether we really needed committees and, if we did, which committees—and so on.
I spent some not so happy and very long nights in this place working on the GLA Bill, which took a lot of time and consideration. I have had a long interest in London and its governance. I was briefly even a London Member of Parliament, before all those other things. I always felt that that was the best apprenticeship for being a London borough councillor, but nobody else tried it that way round.
I came here at the request of London Councils to express support for the six amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. My name is attached to one of them but should have been attached to all six, as they are a package, and I certainly support them all. They propose sensible arrangements to enable London Councils to distribute government grants, which it is unable to do at the moment. I do not need to go into the details of exactly how it would work, but the proposal to have a statutory joint committee seems entirely sensible. That is the real point of it: the mechanics of exactly how it would work are not for us to determine, as long as there is an ability to make those arrangements. I am strongly in support of that.
I had not intended to join the discussions on the other issues that have been raised today. I noted, not for the first time, the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to get rid of what he calls small London boroughs. I suppose that that is the only way Labour would ever win most of them. I do not agree with that, not surprisingly.
I suspect that a review of London governance is not likely to happen, but I think it should. I was not entirely happy with the one that happened just before 2000, which resulted in the arrangements that we have now. If we are to have a serious review of London governance, I would welcome it, but I reserve my welcome for whatever its results may be. I would greatly welcome a proper consideration of the role of the borough councils, the Greater London Authority and particularly the London Assembly.
As I said, my main purpose for being here is to support the proposal for a London joint committee. I had understood that it has all-party support; it certainly has the support of the Liberal Democrats, for whom I can speak, as co-president. I am pleased, therefore, to support those amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, I have added my name to Amendment 72 and the others already spoken to by my noble friend Lord Harris.
I have to say only two things. These amendments would provide the appropriate vehicle, as some of the tasks that fall within London are cross-borough. A lot of tasks and responsibilities fall to the GLA, and some fall quite clearly to the boroughs, but some are cross-borough. It is important that we have the correct vehicle for that to happen, both for statutory consultations and, as has already been mentioned, to make it possible to spend money in that way, rather than it having to be funnelled through a particular lead borough. It is therefore useful and probably necessary.
I do not agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, said about it being another level of government. That is absolutely not the intention. There is a non-statutory vehicle there, which is immensely useful, but there are a couple of things that it cannot do. It seems to me that defining it in statute would fill a gap and would be better for the people and boroughs of London.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am not a London councillor, nor am I a vice-president of the Local Government Association, so I suppose I have a bit of an independent view here. I am just a provincial councillor from Norfolk. However, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is time to have a look at governance in London, because 32 plus one is quite a lot. There is also an assembly and a mayor—arguably, London is over-governed.
It is time to have a look at this, because it is out of kilter with elsewhere. Outside the M25, the Government are proceeding on the basis that all local authorities must be half a million people or more, covering huge territories. Norfolk, where I come from, has over 900 parishes. It is 85 miles wide and 40 miles long. If you were to start here in Westminster and then travel down to the south coast, the width of Norfolk would take you 30 miles past Brighton and out into the English Channel before it ran out. That is the size and scale of the territories we have in the shires. In Norfolk, over 9,000 electors are needed to elect a councillor. In Essex and Kent, it is between 12,000 and 15,000. In London, just 3,108 electors are required to elect a borough councillor—and of course there are other representatives too. These London boroughs are much smaller territories and much more tightly defined—they do not have 900 parishes. As a result, not only is democratic representation diluted to an unacceptable extent outside the M25, but we end up with the nonsense of the borough bike wars. If you ride a Lime or a Forest, there is an inexplicable invisible line in the middle of the road that applies the brakes as you ride up the King’s Road.
London is overrepresented; there are more councils and more councillors. In fact, there are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. This review should happen. I associate myself with the remarks of the London councillors who have spoken. You cannot reorganise local government everywhere else and leave London to sit it out. That is not good for democracy, councils, governance or the country, and it certainly is not good for the principle of equality of democratic representation.
In the other place, all the constituencies have been equalised, plus or minus 5,000, so that there is an equality of representation. The value of everybody’s vote is the same, wherever you are in the United Kingdom. In London, because of the excess number of councils and councillors, the vote representation is up to five times greater than it is outside the M25. That alone should be an example and a reason to go into a governance review. London cannot just sit it out any more while, elsewhere, there is wholesale reorganisation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I too have a history in London local government, though nothing like as illustrious as that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill or the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I was a councillor for 28 years, in a borough that has been Conservative for 60 years. I am looking forward to it continuing to be Conservative for another four, or indeed 40, years, so that it reaches its centenary as a Conservative-held borough. I was a member of the executive of London Councils, and chairman of the transport and environment committee of London Councils for a number of years.
That is probably half my speech, and I only felt obliged to make it so as to keep up with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and all the others who have recited their credentials for participating in this brief debate.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this debate feels like getting the gang back together around this table. I declare my political interest as a former chair of London Councils and leader of Southwark Council. It is particularly nice to see so many colleagues from those days. I acknowledge the significance of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. They are useful and necessary, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, almost made the case for them during her speech. We have a very clunky system at the moment, in which London Councils makes decisions but cannot be the accountable body for them. Money has to be funnelled through the City of London or, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referenced, during Covid the City of Westminster had to contract on our behalf for additional mortuary provision. London Councils, having made decisions about this, should be able to contract and receive money on its own behalf. These amendments do perhaps tidy things up but they are none the less very important.
I know that the Government are reluctant to embark on a widespread review of London government at this time, but there are three good reasons why we should consider very carefully the noble Baroness’s amendment. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I should make it clear that I do not advocate a review of the 32 boroughs; my approach at this time would be to leave it alone because it works.
First, as others have mentioned, it is nearly 30 years since we properly reviewed London’s governance, which is a long time. Secondly, the London system is unique, again as others have referenced, but I do not think it is necessarily unique in a good way. Thirdly, and I think this important for the Government to consider, if they do review London governments there is an opportunity to make very real savings in how London government operates, and make it more efficient.
Why do I say that? First, we have no formal decision-making link at present, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referenced, between the mayor and the boroughs. In stark contrast to all other combined authorities, there is no requirement for the mayor to have that link with the boroughs. Everything that happens is effectively dependent on the good will of the mayor at that time. While this has worked to date, that is not necessarily the best way of operating. The mayor and the boroughs are two entirely separate entities and, while their paths cross over, the mayor can make decisions that have a massive impact on the boroughs, from planning and housing targets to issues such as the Freedom Pass. I recall mayoral candidates making commitments about Freedom Pass which then had to be funded and administered by the boroughs. That is not a satisfactory way to progress.
Every government fund that is devolved to London has to be the subject of individual negotiation. That is not particularly sensible either. For instance, negotiations on how to agree and distribute proportions for the first round of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund took over six months to agree, because there was no formal structure in place for the mayor to work with the boroughs. For the second round, the Greater London Authority unilaterally changed the rules and proportions that had been agreed with London Councils. Again, that is a defect in the system of how London government currently works. Here is a real opportunity for us to look now at whether there could be a better model of how the mayor works with the boroughs. I have great sympathy for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
The second point I should reference is in relation to the London Assembly. I am nervous because obviously we have some great figures here from the London Assembly’s history, but we have to recognise that it is a body utterly divorced from the work of London’s boroughs. That is the reality. It operates in parallel to the boroughs. I cannot remember a single occasion when there was a joint meeting, for instance, between London’s leaders and the London Assembly. The assembly does some very good work—I do not knock the work of great figures such as the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—but there is no crossover with the boroughs and no requirement for any. When we look at the future governance of London, there is an opportunity to consider the role and function of the assembly. Could that important scrutiny function that it delivers be met in a slightly different way?
While I recognise that the Government might not be keen on this review of London governance, there is an opportunity to look at these issues and I ask the Minister what reassurance she can give us today that the Government will force London to look at itself. I know that she thinks that the mayor and the London councils are having these conversations. I am not convinced that those conversations are happening in the way in which she would like them to be happening. What reassurance can she give us that those conversations will take place in earnest, because it is an important opportunity for London to review the way in which it governs itself?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Other than that, I can declare only a very modest involvement in councils in London. I twice unsuccessfully ran for Camden Council in the days when the Green Party was in a different position from where we are today.
I first want to address Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s simple cry, “Democracy now”. We have a London Assembly and it needs to be able to hold the mayor to account on spending much more strongly than it is able to now by nature of the constitutional arrangements. That is a clear and obvious step forward. It is no secret that the Green Party is no fan of the strong leader model. We believe that the more voices there are and the more input you have into decisions, the better. The London Assembly has been denied the input into the budget that it might have by those arrangements.
I respect the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and agree with him on lots of things but in this case I do not. Scale is not an appropriate way in which to think about the size of London boroughs and how they are divided up. This is by title a community empowerment Bill. Different London boroughs have different community lives and demographics. I think of the fact that, for example, Barnet and Camden are in one territorial London Assembly member seat but they are two very different places. It is important that we have that representation. We are seeing significant under-representation in the rest of the country rather than too much representation in London.
I strongly support Amendments 182 and 183 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others. Local representatives in those boroughs need to be able to get together and work together. They do as much as they can, but that would be a simple step forward.
Finally, on the review of London’s governance model, I might be coming at that in Amendment 75 from a different direction from some others, but it is worth highlighting and celebrating the great work that the London Assembly does, even with the restrictions on its powers. We have not talked about what that is. I draw attention to a practical piece of work done by Caroline Russell, a London Assembly member, about the provision of public toilets in this city. A lot of people care about that very much. People do not regard it as an exciting political subject but when campaigning, listening to Londoners and hearing, particularly from disabled, disadvantaged Londoners and people with small children, one sees that that kind of step is important. It shows what the assembly does.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak initially to my Amendments 70 and 71 in this group. It is a pleasure being here with noble Lords; it feels like a reunion of assembly or London Councils meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know is not able to be here today, for adding his name to Amendment 70, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for adding his name to Amendment 71. Both noble Lords have direct experience of the GLA and London government as a whole. Like other noble Lords, in drafting these amendments I bring 26 years’ experience as an assembly member and a London borough councillor.
Amendment 70 is about the power of summons. The law as it stands means that the assembly has relatively limited powers of summons over individuals and documents. It can summon the Mayor of London only in his or her role as chair of one of the functional bodies. For example, you could summon the mayor to a meeting as chair of Transport for London, but you could not summon them to come to a meeting if there was a huge failure or difficulties in their housing or solar programme and you wanted a detailed discussion. That makes no sense.
Furthermore, the assembly is prevented from summoning those delivering services in London. Noble Lords might well think that that does not matter because people will go and give evidence, so we do not need this power, but I will give the Committee a concrete example. Many years ago, I led an investigation into High Speed 2—then an initial programme that was going to have a huge impact in west London. High Speed 2, admittedly at that time under different management, refused to come before the assembly to give evidence to our inquiry. Despite huge amounts of correspondence, including the Department for Transport trying to put direct pressure on this body that was accountable to it, High Speed 2 refused to give any evidence at all. Yet it was delivering a project affecting London with huge amounts of public money.
Similar bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Port of London Authority and even London Councils, may attend if requested, but they, too, have at times decided not to. That cannot be right when we are trying to look at services delivering for London. This power would strengthen the assembly, allowing it to fully carry out its scrutiny role. It sits well with Amendment 72, which proposes a London local authorities joint committee, because there would need to be scrutiny of that body and this new power would allow the assembly to carry that out.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, is unable to be here today, but in correspondence last night he said that he was happy for me to explain his support for this. He comes at it from a different point of view. He used to work for the former Mayor of London and he said that, although we come at this from different angles—he would brief the mayor ahead of scrutiny and I would be there as a scrutineer—he feels that these scrutiny sessions are serious, healthy, important and substantive and he does not see any potential for these powers to be abused because you would use them only in exceptional circumstances. He feels that, ultimately, if the mayor turns up, they may not answer the questions put to them, but at least you would have that opportunity—so he was keen to support this amendment. This issue has had cross-party support on the assembly for years, so I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this amendment.
Of course, if more powers are given to the mayor, as was discussed at the start of this group, the assembly should be strengthened alongside this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned London being up on a pedestal but, actually, Manchester has more power than London in certain areas, such as health, and it feels as though London potentially needs to catch up.
Amendment 71 would remove the anomaly that, to amend the Mayor of London’s budget, a two-thirds majority is needed at the final stage. For many years, this has meant us, as assembly members, sitting there and rejecting the mayor’s budget and then it still going through at the final meeting because the threshold has not been reached. Such a threshold does not exist in any other part of local government, and I do not understand why it is needed here for London. I ask the Government to remove this requirement so that any mayor has to work with the assembly to ensure that a budget has majority support.
The other amendments in this group cover the establishment of a London local authorities joint committee and the power to pay grants to it. This would, as we have heard, put in place formally what is already taking place through other means. I am happy with these amendments. They have cross-party support and support from the London Assembly. As I said, they complement my amendment on the power of summons for the London Assembly, because I think that this joint committee should be subject to scrutiny as well.
Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, makes a reasonable point—the noble Baroness and I exchanged some correspondence at the weekend about it. As many of us have said, reviewing how the London system works and what lessons there are for other areas does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. I come at this from a different point of view. I am really keen to increase the powers of the London Assembly and to look at stronger scrutiny arrangements across the country with the rollout of mayoral and combined authorities. For me, that is the gap in the model that is being rolled out.
At the moment, there is little to no real scrutiny of billions of pounds-worth of expenditure across the country. This is a huge deficit in these new mayoral models. This scrutiny must be carried out by members who are not conflicted through other roles, such as being leaders of authorities. This is probably where I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord John, because I think that council leaders can be conflicted. They want to secure funding for their borough, and that can cause tension—they may not want to get into the bad books of a mayor. That is where the benefits of the GLA model, with scrutineers who are directly elected, comes in. They can look at things more independently, ask the tough questions and, sometimes, produce very tough reports.
I disagree with the suggestions we have heard in the debate on the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Harris, about reducing the number of London boroughs. I do not think that that would be right. The amount of work, including casework, that borough councillors have to do in London is unbelievable compared to their colleagues elsewhere. That would not be a realistic option.
I look forward to the Minister’s response with interest. I hope we can start to see some movement to strengthen the powers of the assembly and to support London Councils on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their amendments relating to London devolution. As a mere veteran of what the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, described as provincial local government, I feel a little hesitant about sticking my head into the lion’s den of London local government—but it is my job, so I will do it anyway.
I start with the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which would remove Clause 15 from the Bill. It is vital that the devolution framework works for the unique circumstances of London’s governance. Clause 15 must stand part of the Bill in order to signpost to Schedule 25 to the Bill and the GLA Act 1999. This enables the Government, among other things, to confer functions on the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies. Contrary to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about putting London on a pedestal, the provision enables us to confer powers on the mayor and the GLA. If the GLA was excluded from Schedule 25, it would then be the only strategic authority that would require primary legislation for the conferral of functions, and there is no rationale for creating a divergent approach just for London. Schedule 25 will ensure that the Greater London Authority benefits from the devolution framework and can deepen its powers over time.
The noble Baroness asked a question about consultation. Ahead of the Bill being introduced, the Government engaged the mayor, the GLA and London Councils on proposals in the devolution White Paper.
I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for bringing his wealth of experience and knowledge of London to our debates on this Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Moylan and Lord John. I have not yet been able to add up their joint years of London experience, but it is of significant breadth and depth, and it is welcome to have that informing our discussions on the Bill. For the record, my local council was formed in 1971 and has been a Labour council to this day. It does not quite meet the 60 years mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but we are not far away, and we are a new town.
We are currently engaging positively with London Councils and the Greater London Authority on this matter. In the context of that ongoing work and the need to continue to work jointly towards a constructive resolution, I do not feel that it would be appropriate to rush in a legislative change for the unique arrangements for London governance through this amendment. I am very happy to meet my noble friend Lord Harris and other London partners, if he feels that that would be helpful before Report, because I understand the points he has made.
On Amendment 70, in the English devolution White Paper the Government committed to strengthening scrutiny in strategic authorities. As the noble Baroness knows, London is unique among strategic authorities, in that the mayor’s work is scrutinised by the directly elected London Assembly. It is my understanding that the mayor is committed to appear before 10 sessions each year for scrutiny. If he does not do so, or misses more than a number of those sessions, he can be sanctioned by the GLA.
As the Government consider the best way to strengthen scrutiny in strategic authorities, it is right that we tailor our approach to the arrangements in London. We will engage the GLA and the London Assembly on any potential changes. I have much sympathy with the frustration about key partners and providers that spend public money and then refuse to come before scrutiny bodies. I will not go into my particular pain over bus companies, but I understand the point that the noble Baroness was making there. This amendment would significantly alter the powers of the London Assembly and preclude the Government’s ongoing work on this issue, which is being taken forward in close discussion with combined authorities and the GLA.
Similarly, on Amendment 75, London’s model is unique among strategic authorities and has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years—I think the noble Lord, Lord John, referred to the successful part of London governance. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, the Government want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities. We hope to build on these where possible. Therefore, we do not believe that a formal review is necessary.
I listened to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about issues around boroughs neighbouring London, Lee Valley park, the London grants scheme and so on. I will reflect on those. A meeting might be helpful, because I did not quite understand the balance between “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix” and there being things that need to be fixed that we should have a look at to see what changes would be necessary. It would absolutely not be right to interject a legislative knee-jerk into this space without the work that is needed between all parties to determine a way forward. I hope that we can move that forward before Report.
Amendment 71 seeks to introduce simple majority voting for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget. This Bill includes measures to unblock mayoral decision-making. Primarily, this is by stipulating that most decisions in combined authorities and combined county authorities require a simple majority including the mayor, but also by making some functions, such as those concerning police and fire, exercisable by the mayor only.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
We talked about a review of the scrutiny arrangements of other metro mayors, if you like—mayoral and strategic authorities. Is the Minister able to give us a timescale for that? We also talked about discussions with the GLA; the GLA is made up of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. Is the department talking to officers and members of the London Assembly, because the Civil Service often uses the term “GLA” when it means just the mayor’s office.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that discussions are with the GLA, but I will double-check on that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.
We are putting in place a robust system of overview and scrutiny for the combined authorities. We are also considering, as we discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, the other day, whether a system of local public accounts committees might also be relevant.
Lord Moylan (Con)
There is a certain sleight of hand going on. The noble Baroness referred to scrutiny arrangements and, of course, the London Assembly is largely a scrutiny body; that is what it spends most of its time doing. But when it comes to budget setting, it is a co-decision-maker. That is a crucial difference. Setting and amending the budget is not a scrutiny activity by the London Assembly; it is a co-decision-making function with the mayor, which strengthens democratic oversight of the mayor’s expenditure of what are now very large amounts of money—£20 billion-plus—on the people of London.
The question is what an appropriate position and appropriate balance of power for the assembly is in that co-decision-making role—not its scrutiny role, but its co-decision-making role. We are now into 26 years of existence of the London Assembly. The fact that that threshold has never once been met illustrates that it is not allowing the assembly to function as intended, as a co-decision-making body. It needs to be adjusted. One might say that the mayor’s executive functions would be hampered if democracy were improved, but of course the mayor’s executive functions would be further unhampered if there were no democracy at all. The London Assembly is meant to be a democratic body. Why is it not allowed to function as a normal democratic body in this one area where it has a co-decision-making power?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was referring to the difference between the combined authorities and the combined county authorities, which are made up of the constituent members from the local area. The GLA does not work like that, as we all know. It is not a body that represents the London boroughs; it is a different, directly elected body and it has a different scrutiny function. I was not trying to engage in sleight of hand; I was just pointing out the difference between the two bodies.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ contributions, for which I am very grateful. It is so refreshing to hear about London local authorities. I have talked for a number of years in both Chambers about local government, but we very rarely have a proper debate on London governance. It is very refreshing and I thank noble Lords who have, it seems to me, hundreds of years of experience in the great city’s governance. It is seriously refreshing.
To the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I say that of course I understand the role of our great capital city and its importance in the economy of our country, but I do not think that that means that we cannot at times challenge it and scrutinise it from here, and I think that that is what we are doing. It is our genuine desire to ensure that community empowerment, efficiency and localism should apply to London as well when we are looking at the rest of the country.
Clause 15 remains wholly unclear, both in its purpose and its intention. Empowering one individual further without compelling justification or evidence is not the right direction of travel in our opinion. It may be that we need to review London before we give these further powers, as we are doing for the rest of the country. Are we giving these powers to an authority that is as efficient as it can be in governance, just as the rest of the country is being challenged to be before it gets those powers?
If there is a case for expanding the powers in London, I suggest that the Government look at that governance before they make that decision, which is why the amendment was tabled. If such a case exists, I believe that it should be laid before Parliament transparently rather than delivered through secondary legislation at a later stage in a way that limits our scrutiny and public understanding, which is important.
Equally, amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, have highlighted a real concern about the existing governance arrangements and structures, although I remain unconvinced that more layers of committees are the answer. None the less, not only are the Government taking, in our opinion, the wrong direction of travel, but they are also missing a great opportunity in this primary legislation. The proposal to reduce the two-thirds majority to a simple majority, as we have heard, for changes to the GLA council tax requirement would empower councillors, as we are trying to do in this Bill. My understanding is that, when the budget is debated, many of the issues in the budget are voted down by the GLA but, when it gets to the budget decision, that decision is lost. That does not seem right and the Government need to seriously look at this again.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley—I thank her for all her work in the London boroughs—would give us exactly the opportunity that we want in order to assess what currently works, what does not work and where genuine reform, rooted in efficiency, transparency and local empowerment, might be needed.
I suggest that the Government are not listening to what we are saying. It seemed to me that, at different levels, there was pretty much cross-party agreement. I believe that they must explain with much more clarity why Clause 15 is necessary without some sort of review of London, who it benefits and what problems it seeks to solve. We all want a London that works for Londoners, for the people who come here to enjoy our wonderful capital city and for the economy that it feeds in this country.
I also believe that the Government’s arrangements for our city should be proportionate to those for the rest of the country. Further empowering an already powerful mayor without a real, robust rationale does not achieve that. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully between now and Report. In the meantime, I will withdraw my stand part notice but will be considering what we bring forward on Report.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Gascoigne to Clause 16, allows for whatever period that there could be the overlap of both the Mayor and MP retaining both offices.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who unfortunately cannot be in his place today. Amendments 76, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 89 were tabled by my noble friend to highlight what he regarded, when he first saw the Bill, as an egregious error; namely, the Government’s original proposal to ban Members of Parliament from serving as mayors. More than that, he felt that it seemed to undermine the very essence of the Bill.
The Government’s own impact assessment stresses the importance of mayors and how well recognised they are—in some cases, more so than MPs. It states that
“people think more power should come down from national government”.
It therefore seems remiss to want to prevent at least some of our mayors—not all—sitting in Parliament. We have, after all, recent examples of where this has worked and there has been a successful transition—the best, I am sure we all agree, being Boris Johnson, and perhaps Sadiq Khan less so. They are two individuals who have combined the roles, even if only briefly.
To be clear, these amendments are not about personalities and it is not about the individual. But, for ease of reference, let us call this the Burnham amendment. We all know that the Mayor of Greater Manchester wants to return to Parliament—some, including the deputy leader of the Labour Party and former Deputy PM, are even encouraging him. Yet after the last few days of melodrama in the Labour Party, he was blocked, allegedly by allies of the Prime Minister. It makes us wonder whether this provision was originally designed so that the Prime Minister could stop him—or “burn him” off. Despite this, it is assumed that the electorate are being taken for granted, because it is assumed that he would have won, should he have stood. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now tabled their own amendment allowing a brief period of overlap between being a mayor and an MP. Despite that, we will have to wait a little longer for the return of the “King of the North”.
Turning to the Bill, we would have preferred that the period not be so tight or so rigidly defined. We are not sure that it should create such stark delineations between local and national politics. Devolution should mean bringing local voices to the fore, not erecting new barriers between the two similar worlds. Some may argue that the roles are incompatible, but that is a political judgment and one that should be made by the electorate. If a candidate seeks to serve as mayor while sitting as an MP, they do so in full view of their constituents. If the public believe the roles cannot be combined, they will say so at the ballot box. That is how democracy works. Let the people decide. When so much power still resides in Whitehall, there is arguably no better place for a mayor to be than in Parliament, making their case, arguing for money and banging the drum for investment in their area.
These amendments seek to provide flexibility and freedom, and to widen participation in our democratic institutions—something that we hope all sides of the Committee can support. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out why the Government initially opposed any overlap at all in the original drafting, as well as what has changed since the Bill was introduced. Perhaps she might also explain the logic behind the specific eight-day period that is now being proposed. For now, we are pleased that the Government have moved away from their earlier position and accepted the argument that a period of overlap should be permitted. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my opposition to Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. It in no way conflicts with the series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, so ably presented by my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I agree with the thrust of all she said. There is no doubt that, if Clause 16 is to be sustained, improvements to it, alongside those in the government amendments, would be useful. However, I do not favour that approach. I just do not believe that any part of Clause 16, which amounts to an unjustifiable fettering of the electorate—elect a good candidate or otherwise hand it to an elected mayor in office—should be sustained. Therefore, none of it should stand part.
The public are tiring of funny business in elections. I have laid amendments to later parts of the Bill that would make the cancellation of local council, mayoral and PCC elections illegal without the super-affirmative procedure, which would require a vote in both Houses. Labour is playing fast and loose with democracy—a cancellation of a vote here and a postponement there, asking those with the most to lose whether they would like to stay a little longer, and bogus capacity excuses from councils that do not even run the elections. We read today in the Daily Telegraph a Labour NEC member of many years standing disclosing threats with menaces to Labour council leaders to connive to strip the franchise from more than 4 million electors this May.
When I was a young man, my noble friend Lord Pickles told me, “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. He was right then, and that advice is still correct today; it should never go out of fashion. We need to encourage as many people as possible to serve the public at every level. In my public life in local government, I took the view that I did not have the time to be a double hatter, or even triple hatter, by seeking to serve my community as a parish, district and county councillor—combining it with a business career was quite enough for me—but that is not how it is for others.
The fundamental principle here is that the public should get to choose their elected representatives. If somebody wishes to serve at more than one level, that option should be available to them, but they should be accountable to the electorate, not anyone else. It is the public’s choice. We often have people who serve at more than one level, amplifying the experience they gain at one level to the benefit of another; that was not for me, but it worked well for others.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said, but Clause 16 is nothing more than a grubby stitch-up to prevent the public having their free say. It would stain a banana republic for certain citizens to be denied the chance to stand, especially those who had demonstrated a track record of success. I have not had time to consult my noble and learned friends but I am sure that I could get an advisory opinion that such action is contrary to international law. You would think that that would be enough to put the black spot on it, but not for this Government.
I sense that, in drafting Clause 16, there was some intent to prevent my noble friend, who served with distinction as mayor in the north-east—and whom the public elected once, then again—standing as a mayor and being in the legislature. It might have been the case that, as in the last Parliament, a county council leader is also an MP. In those cases, the Bill would force that person to choose, but, if you believe in democracy, it is not for him to make that choice—it is for the public, via the ballot box. Clause 16 is state overreach and a case of party-political interference. That why it should be deleted. I read the newspapers and have been in politics long enough to know what is going on here.
It transpired in the past week that the Labour Party’s own internal rules prevent a Labour mayor from sitting in Parliament. That is a choice for Labour and one that should be available to other parties, but it is not a compulsion to be forced on parties that have a different outlook and better principles. Do not just take my word for it. There are others who cherish democracy more than this Government. The Electoral Commission and the Speaker of the other place have had cause to criticise the debased commitment to the sanctity of the vote. We heard from the Prime Minister himself earlier this week that the reason why the Mayor of Manchester cannot stand in this mother of Parliaments is that it is part of Labour’s rules and has nothing to do with the candidate’s suitability—it makes no judgment on whether the candidate has the appropriate experience. No, the Prime Minister told us that the decision was driven solely by the unwelcome financial cost to the Labour Party of running a second-order mayoral election—so not by statute but by internal rules, which we all know change from time to time. That was coupled with the inconvenience of spreading more thinly the campaigning capacity of Labour’s demoralised and depleted activists.
The Government may have thought that they were being clever with Clause 16, by preventing local leaders from exercising national influence, but they have been pricked by the back-draught from the good folk of Gorton and Denton, which tells me that there is widespread support for the notion that Clause 16 should be excised from this Bill. The public know a lemon when they see one. The former Deputy Prime Minister, who introduced this Bill in the other place, now appears to have a case of buyer’s remorse, as the measures that she published are now being used to deny her Manchester mate from putting himself forward to the voters. That is some irony: it is not just back-draught; it is blowback. Of course, in the case of the Manchester man, that is for future service. However, I am anxious that in other cases there might be a question of retrospection. My noble friend highlighted Johnson and Khan, which is a case in point.
When I was the leader of the council in South Norfolk, which is an electoral authority, I was always careful, in so far as elections were concerned, to separate my role as leader of the controlling group from the administration and operation of the election and electoral matters. If successive returning officers who served me were here, they would confirm that approach. However, that is not how it works in Clause 16. The Prime Minister told us that he would put country before party, but those who continue to promote this Bill clearly did not get the memo, because Clause 16 is about putting the wants of the Labour Party before of the needs of the electorate. It prevents the electorate from having their say on who should be elected, especially somebody who has done rather well in one area of politics and who might do well in the other. It is an abuse of the people, the law and democracy.
We have heard it said that your Lordships’ House is standing in the way of the will of the Government and somehow it is improper and, as a result, we need to be reformed. However, with these amendments, we show that noble Lords are standing up for democracy and community empowerment. The denial of a free vote on candidates is the pure expression of community disempowerment. Labour should be ashamed of itself for Clause 16. It does not trust the folks, as my noble friend Lord Pickles advised all those years ago. No, for them, it is party first and public second. This clause proves this, which is why it must go.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
Can I just make a brief statement? While it is right and proper that each and every amendment and clause is debated, I deeply regret how party-political the last two contributions have been. What we are all doing here is trying to do the best for this country and not make these things party-political. I deeply regret some of the comments that have been made by people opposite.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am sorry if the noble Baroness regrets those, but the facts stand. A mayor who has done a rather good job in one part of the country is now going to be prevented from standing as a result of applying Labour’s rules for all the other parties. That is a statement of fact. I do not deny that Labour has the right to have its internal rules, but those rules should not be forced on all the other parties. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that way, but that is how we in the other political parties feel when another party’s internal rules are applied to everyone else. It is anti-democratic. As I say, I am sorry that she feels that way, but the feeling is equal on this side of the Committee. That should be placed on the record, too.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, these have been an interesting set of interventions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that it is important that party-political contributions are kept to an absolute minimum when we are debating a Bill.
There is a basic issue in this group. The public have a right to expect that elected individuals do not end up with two jobs: being a mayor and being an MP. In some circumstances, it might be possible for the electorate to knowingly vote for that. However, that would be most unlikely to be the case. There is a question as to where, geographically speaking, the mayor might be the MP; it might be within the mayoral authority and it might be elsewhere. Either way, there is a clear conflict of interest, because Parliament judges the allocation of funding, for example, to the mayoral authority.
I do not think that you can have one person doing two jobs. Amendments 76 and others in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would allow that, for whatever period, there could be an overlap of both mayor and MP retaining both offices. To be absolutely clear, we think that that is wrong. I say to the Minister that these matters are important and should not be for political parties to judge alone. It should instead be clearly understood that, when people have been elected to one of the posts, they should carry out the responsibilities that they have been given by the general public.
On Tuesday, I said that if, in a mayoral authority, there had been a large number of commissioners appointed by the mayor but then that mayor decided to become a Member of Parliament, he or she would leave the mayoralty and, as the Bill is currently drafted, all the commissioners would lose their jobs as a consequence. When politicians are elected to a job, they must see the job through and do it to the best of their ability, given that the public have expressed confidence in them doing so. They have an obligation to fulfil their contract with the electorate.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will add something to the wise words of my colleagues. To us, this is about the concentration of power in the hands of one person. The powers being given to new mayors are considerable and I understand them; to some extent, I agree with them—as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, of course, I would say that, wouldn’t I? I see the two roles as completely different: a role in national government is completely different from a local, regional role. There could be massive conflicts of interest, but the key thing is that this concentrates too much power. Conservative colleagues have talked about that, but then they are quite happy to let somebody do both jobs. To our mind, that is just not rational.
The key thing is that this creates more political opportunities for more people. It also encourages mayors. The key thing about a mayoralty is that the mayors can develop their own local, independent mandate, rather than being overshadowed by national party politics. They are very different and distinct and they could be in direct conflict with each other. That is why we absolutely believe in that separation of powers.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. In essence, we are debating a philosophical issue here. I firmly believe in democracy. Elections take place; your Lordships would be surprised to know that I do not always like some of the decisions that the electorate make, but I will defend every time the public having the opportunity to elect whom they want to represent them. That is a priority.
Just because I do not like it or just because they have a second job that I may not think appropriate, they should have that opportunity. We need some protections in place for fraud and other things, but I believe in democracy and, in essence, that is what the comments of my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lady O’Neill are about, and I associate myself with them. We should not prevent people standing for election; we should allow the electorate to make their choice. That is what democracy is. We may all have our views about whether a job is too big and therefore we cannot have somebody doing two of them but, if you believe in democracy, you believe that the electorate should have the facts presented in front of them and they should be given that choice. That is my strong philosophical view. We should not be telling the electorate, “No, you cannot have this person because they are already too busy”. Therefore, I genuinely believe my noble friend’s comments and that it is right that we should trust the electorate.
I appreciate that that may not align with certain party rules on different things, but there is no reason that the law has to mirror a certain party’s rules. I have no problem with whatever party having particular rules for the candidates they choose. That is the right thing to do. I know, from my own experience as chairman of the LGA, that the Conservative group had some very different rules from the Labour, Liberal and independent groups for how long people could stand and who was eligible. That is fine; I would not criticise the rules that Labour or the Liberals had, and I hope they did not criticise our rules. That was a choice; we were not imposing them by statute.
I very much support both the amendments of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the proposal that this clause not stand part of the Bill from my noble friend Lord Fuller. If Clause 16 stands part, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne would introduce a certain amount of flexibility. Given the amendments that the Government are proposing, what would happen if an election were to take place, let us say, 10 days before the end of a parliamentary term? Would the Government really want to impose a mayoral election? I am not quite sure that 10 days works, but I am sure your Lordships get my gist. If Clause 16 were to stand, a certain amount of flexibility would be beneficial, notwithstanding my previous comments.
I also agree with the Government’s amendments, assuming that eight days is the correct period and would give time for an MP to stand down and so forth, but I have a particular question on this. It may be very unlikely, but what happens if an election for a mayor happens when Parliament is not sitting? My understanding is that an MP cannot resign when Parliament is not sitting. Could the Minister at least consider that? I am not necessarily expecting an answer here, but a written answer would be helpful for everyone.
The fundamental point is why this Government believe that the electorate are not the right group of people to decide who represents them, even if they decide that it is Andy Burnham.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Fuller, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for moving the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority, and for probing whether Clause 16 is needed.
It is not the job of this Committee to debate the Labour Party rulebook or decisions of its national executive committee. Your Lordships must trust me that they do not want that job. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their interventions on that issue.
Clause 16 will prevent individuals being a Member of Parliament, or of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a mayor at the same time. This is an important clause for two reasons. First and most critically, the post of mayor is a vital role at the forefront of delivering change—whether that is economic growth, public services, planning for the strategic area, transport or many other issues—and its responsibilities will only increase with this Bill. The role must demand a person’s full attention as a full-time post, rather than being a part-time position done alongside another vital public service role.
Secondly, elected members and mayors have a duty to represent the constituents who elected them. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the potential issue of having different constituencies. Fulfilling two different roles on behalf of different geographical areas could lead to conflicts of interest or undesirable trade-offs. This is absolutely not party political; it is common sense. Indeed, it is now the case that those mayors who are also police and crime commissioners—Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin—cannot be Members of a UK legislature at the same time.
I know that this House operates on a slightly different basis, but when I joined it, I was still leader of my council. As a Minister you cannot do both jobs at the same time, but even before I was a Minister, I would not have dreamed of trying to do so. They are different jobs; both carry a heavy level of responsibility, and it was important to me to focus on one.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the Minister clarify that what she just said about PCCs and Members of the legislature concerns the elected Members? We have to be very careful here; we are part of the legislature.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise; I could have been clearer on that. The noble Baroness is quite right: it is the elected legislature. In view of my comments, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Government Amendments 77, 80, 82, 85 and 90 will modify Clause 16 to introduce a grace period in which a mayor can hold office and simultaneously be a Member of a UK elected legislature without being disqualified. The period will be eight days. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the eight days enables the Chiltern Hundreds process to happen—that is the period required for going from being an MP to being a mayor. To go from being a mayor to being an MP, it enables the mayor to put their affairs in order before they take up their post as an MP. In the event that a mayor is running to be a Member of a UK legislature, it will be eight days beginning on the day when they are elected to that legislature.
I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as I do not know the answer to his question. It is important that Members are given reasonable time to get their affairs in order and to ensure their resignation from the respective legislature. These amendments address concerns raised in the other place about ensuring that an orderly transition can occur in the event that an MP is appointed as a mayor. Similarly, mayors running to be a Member of a UK legislature would otherwise be disqualified immediately on election. Introducing the grace period provides a period of transition for the outgoing mayor to get their affairs in order. I commend these government amendments to the Committee.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I raised another point in relation to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. With a very strict timetable of eight days, one could envisage situations where any sensible person would stand back and ask, “Do we really want to have a mayoral election for the sake of two, three or four weeks?” Will the Government consider a bit more flexibility?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise; I meant to say to the noble Lord that I will write to him about the situation in which Parliament may not be sitting when that election takes place.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I appreciate that the Minister will do that, but I was also making the point that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would at least provide some flexibility. The common-sense approach would be to ask, “Why would I have a mayoral election this month when there’s one happening next month anyway?” Can there be a bit more flexibility? As the Labour Party has rightly said, it costs a lot of money to run an election in Manchester.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will reflect on that question and come back to the noble Lord.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the mayor for the area of a combined authority, and(b) is, on the first day of the mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the mayor for the area of a combined authority,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes mayor) or as mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the mayor for the area of a combined authority, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this paragraph.””Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the mayoral term.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the mayor for the area of a CCA, and(b) is, on the first day of the mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the mayor for the area of a CCA,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes mayor) or as mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the mayor for the area of a CCA, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this paragraph.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the mayoral term.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the Mayor, and(b) is, on the first day of the Mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this section from being the Mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the Mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the Mayor,the person is not disqualified under this section from being the Mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes Mayor) or as Mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the Mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the Mayor, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the Mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the Mayoral term.
Baroness Thornhill
“(3A) After subsection (13) insert—“(14) When making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to identify and minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations under section 30 of LURA 2023, to consider and minimise any potential conflict, overlap, or duplication between the Mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 91, I will speak also to Amendment 92. These amendments are the only ones in the group and concern mayoral powers and functions. Interestingly, I note that some of the wise and pertinent comments made by the noble Lords who are now not in their place regarding issues with London boroughs and the mayor, born of hard-lived experience, will apply in the new structures. So there are real lessons to be learned. I am hoping that my amendments might help avoid some of the issues raised in group 1.
The Bill, as we know, gives mayors significant new powers, and none of us underestimates what that means; hence our collective concerns. The Government clearly support mayoral ambitions as a means of fulfilling their political objectives, many of which we might all agree with. But power alone does not equal good devolution or good governance. Both depend on clarity about who does what, who decides what and who is ultimately accountable. The last thing mayors need are fuzzy boundaries if they are to do the job effectively, as I know from bitter experience. These amendments simply require the Secretary of State—let us not forget that a lot is going to be left to the Secretary of State—when making regulations or orders about mayoral functions to
“have regard to the need to identify and minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies”.
Let us be clear, the new mayors will be involved in all of this and will, quite rightly, have their fingers in every pie. If they are to make a significant difference to the regions that need them most, and to the country as a whole, they will need to be doing that. But these powers, as we know, come with a new complex structure and therefore these amendments are necessary. They simply make sure that at some point when new powers are designed, someone asks a basic question: how is this going to work alongside what already exists?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who asked a number of important and timely questions.
Let me use her first amendment in this group as an example. It would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to consider and
“minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies”.
This is absolutely sensible and common-sense, and it should happen. However, I suggest that, for clarity, this should extend also to Whitehall, from where powers are devolved; then, with the exception of oversight, those powers and the bureaucracy involved should no longer exist within Whitehall.
The Bill amends the 2023 Act through numerous schedules and amendments. It is right, therefore, that we ensure this clarity and avoid unnecessary overlap. I am sure that many Members in this Grand Committee will remember the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill through the House. It was a long and complex piece of legislation—I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my noble friend Lady Scott—and the changes in this policy and space must be approached with care. I am keen, therefore, to hear from the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to avoiding unnecessary and costly duplication and legal uncertainty, in relation not just to this amendment but across the Bill as a whole.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her amendments on the role of mayors. Before I respond to these amendments, I want to clarify the rationale for Clause 18. The clause will extend an existing power of the Secretary of State to provide that certain general functions may be exercised solely by a mayor. The power currently exists in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This clause will ensure that it can also apply to general functions conferred under any other regulation or Act of Parliament. The extension of this existing power reflects the broader range of routes through which functions may be conferred on strategic authorities and their mayors, once the current Bill becomes law.
Amendments 91 and 92 seek to amend this clause and prevent the potential for conflict, overlap or duplication between a mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies. As your Lordships will know, mayors of combined authorities or combined county authorities are not corporate entities in themselves. For that reason, all functions must be conferred on the underlying authority rather than directly on to the mayor. However, some functions may be designated as mayoral functions, as they are to be exercised only by the mayor. Where functions have been made mayoral, they typically relate to the management of day-to-day activities.
Key strategic decisions still require approval by the strategic authority constituent members. To give an example, all members will vote on which roads form part of a key route network, after which the mayor will be responsible for managing it. This will allow for swifter decision-making and more effective governance on day-to-day matters.
It will be important that all tiers of local government work together to benefit their communities. This is why principal local authorities will be embedded within the decision-making structures of strategic authorities as full constituent members. This will ensure that they play a central role in drawing up specific strategies and plans, such as local growth plans. Furthermore, before any new function is conferred on a strategic authority by regulations, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the constituent councils of any affected strategic authorities and any other person who exercises the function concerned. This will ensure that the views of those affected are properly considered.
I hope that, with these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I absolutely accept that the new structures are complex and complicated. It is very easy to be seduced by the noble Baroness’s fluent explanation. My amendment was coming more from the perspective of practicalities, which was also borne out by the comments earlier that, in reality, there is overlap, with weakened scrutiny, unclear accountability and eroded public trust. I would like to feel that a lot of work was being done into what those are. We know it is probably happening, but it is all going to come later through SIs and secondary legislation. I wanted to make it absolutely clear, up front, that those overlaps and duplications will be considered, because they will be a source of conflict and friction going forward. It was interesting that the leaders of boroughs are saying that that is happening even 20 or however many years later. But, for the moment, I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(f) the progress of housebuilding as a consequence of devolution, including whether housing targets are being met and whether the right types of housing are being delivered to meet local needs,(g) the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers,(h) any tax changes made within devolved areas under the powers conferred by this Act, including analysis of their fiscal impact and effect on local services, and(i) changes to the organisation, delivery, and funding of social care in devolved areas, including an assessment of outcomes for service users.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the reporting requirements placed on the Secretary of State. It seeks to probe how the Government will assess the wider consequences of devolution, including the impact on housebuilding and whether local housing targets are being met; the effect of devolved powers on economic growth; the fiscal implications of tax changes introduced by devolved authorities; and the consequences of devolution for the delivery, funding, and outcomes of social care services.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, let me make it clear from the outset that, with Amendment 93, we are not asking for a new bureaucratic hurdle in yet another review, but a few additional report considerations. Amendment 93 in my name would expand the reporting requirements placed on the Secretary of State. It seeks to understand how the Government intend to assess the wider consequences of devolution, including: its impact on housebuilding and the delivery of housing targets; its effect on economic growth; the fiscal implications of tax changes introduced by devolved authorities; and the consequences for the organisation, funding and outcomes of social care services.
I will take each proposed new paragraph of this amendment in turn, beginning with paragraph (f). This asks the Secretary of State to consider the progress of housebuilding as a consequence of devolution, including whether housing targets are being met and whether the right types of housing are being delivered to meet local needs. We have consistently made it clear that we support new homes. The Conservative Party is pro development. However, we are equally clear that local voices must be taken along this journey and that local consent must remain front and centre. Only then can we ensure that the right homes are built in the right places, meeting the genuine needs of local communities. Devolution, if done well, has the potential to unlock more housing delivery. This amendment simply asks how we will measure progress against that ambition.
Proposed new paragraph (g) concerns the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers. Devolution has long been argued as a means of restoring local growth. George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer between 2010 and 2016, was the principal architect of the metro mayor model, advancing it as the cornerstone of the northern powerhouse agenda. The argument was clear that empowering city regions with elected local leadership could help rebalance an economy overly concentrated in London, drawing on the well-established economic case for productivity growth in cities. This amendment simply asks how the Government intend to judge whether these devolved powers are, in practice, delivering that promise and whether growth is being spread more evenly across regions. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible extension to the Minister’s report requirements.
Proposed new paragraph (h) relates to
“tax changes made within devolved areas under the powers conferred by this Act, including analysis of their fiscal impact and effect on local services”.
Tax policy shapes behaviour, incentives and market signals. Changes to local taxation will inevitably affect residents, businesses and the funding of public services. Local people have a right to understand how such decisions affect them and how the revenues raised are being translated into outcomes. How do the Government propose to analyse the behavioural and fiscal consequences of devolved tax decisions? What mechanisms will ensure transparency and accountability to Parliament, but mainly to local residents, for the impact of those choices on services?
Finally, proposed new paragraph (i) concerns changes to the organisation, delivery and funding of social care in devolved areas, including assessment of outcomes for service users. Social care is among the most vital and sensitive of the public services we provide. It also represents a substantial and growing call on public finances. Devolution may bring opportunities for innovation and better integration with local health services. However, it also carries the risk of variation in provision and outcomes. With this in mind, how will the Government ensure that devolved arrangements protect service users and maintain consistent standards of care? What measures will be used to assess whether outcomes are improving for those who rely on social care, rather than simply shifting responsibilities between tiers of government? This amendment reflects a desire to ensure that devolution works as intended, delivering growth, homes and better services while remaining transparent, accountable and focused on outcomes. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance on how the Government intend to monitor and report these important issues.
An extension of the reporting requirements in Clause 19 seems a sensible and proportionate addition. It does not seek to constrain Ministers or to prescribe outcomes, but rather to ensure that Parliament and the public can properly understand how these significant powers are being used in practice.
I anticipate that the Minister may say that such a requirement is unnecessary and that existing reporting mechanisms are sufficient. However, devolution should ultimately be judged against its ambitions. If we are serious about empowering local areas to deliver more homes, stronger growth and better public services, it follows that we must also be serious about measuring whether those ambitions are being met. Local people must be able to see the effects of devolution in their communities and Parliament must be able to hold both central and local government to account for the outcomes it produces. For those reasons, I hope the Government will reflect carefully on whether modest additional reporting could strengthen rather than hinder the success of this agenda. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, that Amendment 93 is sensible and proportionate. If you are going to have an annual report, the modest additional reporting proposed in this amendment would, as she said, help us understand better the success of devolution.
I will speak to Amendments 94 and 197 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. It needs to be demonstrated clearly in the annual reporting whether the Secretary of State has been exercising powers under this Act without the consent of or contrary to decisions made by locally elected officials. It would be entirely reasonable and helpful, when we are asked to pass a Bill about devolution from Westminster, to know what the Secretary of State has actually done in the previous year.
On Amendment 197, we will touch on parish and town councils later, but there is a fundamental issue here. If we have a Bill called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the Government should be reviewing and promoting parish and town councils, maximising their geographical coverage and making an annual report to Parliament as to what has been done. The danger with this Bill is that so much power is being concentrated. I tried last week to get greater devolution from the strategic authorities to existing local government and then through to existing town and parish councils, but the Government were not amenable. I hope that further progress will have been made on that by Report.
There are two other amendments in my name. Amendment 252 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of local and community banking powers. I am grateful for the briefing I received from the Royal Holloway positive money group and its advice on this amendment. This is about the terribly important issue of how devolution drives growth in practice. One of the Government’s objectives is to drive growth, but how do you do that if the resources are not there? This amendment would be central to the success of the Bill, because it addresses a core structural barrier that currently undermines devolution: the centralised control of credit creation.
The Bill seeks to devolve political authority and fiscal responsibility, and it talks about community power, but I do not think that that will be fully realised without devolving financial capacity—that is, the creation of local, community and publicly owned banks. This amendment would ensure that devolved authorities are not responsible for growth outcomes when they lack the financial tools to influence those outcomes. Devolution means that powers have to accompany those devolved responsibilities. There are three aspects to devolution: devolution of powers, devolution of responsibilities and devolution of resources. But there is a problem for the devolved authorities in their ability to deliver local growth, resilient public finances and genuine community empowerment.
I am asking the Minister to do some further work and give more consideration to this. I will bring this back on Report, but I am not asking for the solution to be identified immediately. A range of issues need to be addressed and some are complex. I fear that, when this Bill is an Act, it will get into difficulty with its delivery—in generating growth and jobs. I hope that the Minister does not seek to rule out this amendment offhand.
My other amendment in this group is Amendment 253. I was tempted to degroup, but I decided that it is probably better to bring together all the amendments where I am asking for reviews, to raise these issues and ask the Government to think about them, because I will also bring back this amendment on Report.
There needs to be a review of regional and national public spending. Different parts of the United Kingdom have significantly different amounts of public expenditure. I quote from Table 9.1b of total UK identifiable expenditure on services, per head, from 2023 to 2024, which is the last year in which information is available. The information is from the Government’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2025. That shows that, if the average for nations and regions in the UK is 100, some are well above that and others are well below. London is at 115, when the average is 100. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all well in excess of 100.
There are some reasons for these differences that are unique to those places, which means that work has to be done to understand why that is. However, the Barnett formula is at the heart of it. That formula, designed by the late Lord Barnett and introduced in the late 1970s, is a very useful instrument for the Treasury to disburse money to the nations, but it hides the significant differences in public spending across the UK.
To that extent, I have tried before to get the Government adequately to explain why, when the average public expenditure is 100, the east Midlands is only 90—in other words, 10 percentage points below the average. The great danger of the Bill is that, when it becomes an Act, it will promote a blame culture. The mayors will blame the Government for not having enough resource, and the public will blame the mayors. The whole democratic system will be in some difficulty if it is not understood why some places get much higher levels of public spending than other areas.
All I am asking the Government is that they are aware of this matter and review it. It implies reviewing the Barnett formula, and I have previously moved Questions for Short Debate and proposals for that to happen in your Lordships’ House. I have not been alone in doing that. A number of years ago, there was a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that urged reform of the Barnett formula to one that has a needs assessment across the UK. I ask the Minister whether the Government might think about that.
I am going to bring this back on Report. I understand that it is primarily a matter for the Treasury, but somebody does have to explain all this, because otherwise the public are simply going to say, “As mayors compete with each other for the favours of the Treasury, whose fault is it that they are getting more money than us?”
I want devolution to succeed, but the Government have to understand this issue a bit better. How can we empower community banking? How can we invest for growth outside the existing structures? How can the Government make sure that, when they are spending public money, they are allocating it fairly across the United Kingdom? I hope that the Minister will give me some indication that the Government are prepared to look at this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sorry if I am speaking out of order; we are missing quite a few signatories. I will speak to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 252—about local and community banking powers—which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just addressed. The timing of this debate is interesting, because just this morning Santander announced that it is closing a further 44 branches after an earlier announcement that it would be closing 95 branches around the country. Lloyds is closing more than 100 branches by March. A total of 432 bank branches closed in 2025; this puts the figure of bank branches lost at some 7,000.
Large banks, whether based in London or globally, will say that everyone is going digital. What I find, however, when I travel to communities up and down the land, is that quite often the fact that they no longer have a bank or that their last bank is about to close is a major issue. If you speak to a small or even medium-sized enterprise and ask if they are getting financing from the banks, they just laugh at you. The kind of application you have to make includes filling in an enormous number of forms. You do not speak to a person, and the application churns through the computer; computer says no and that is the end of it. Historically, you would have a local bank manager who knew the local community and its businesspeople, and was able to support people whom they knew were worth the punt. The large banks are physically evacuating out of communities and are just not interested in anything except large, multinational companies and their like.
This is why, with regard to local and community banking powers, getting local banks set up is in the interests of local communities and absolutely something to be looked at as an option by Government. I note that, although I am not entirely praising it—I should declare that I am a customer—Nationwide, with its co-operative model, is staying in communities far more, but it still cannot do everything that communities need by any means. Amendment 252 is therefore terribly important.
I turn to Amendment 197’s duty to review parish and town councils. I declare my position as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. Despite the rhetoric around it, this Bill is taking local democracy far further from the people. In many places—as has been happening through more than a decade of austerity—parish and town councils have been picking up the slack where larger bodies have stepped away and not had the money to engage.
More than a dozen years ago I was in Leominster, and the list of services that the local town council had picked up there ran from keeping the public toilet open—I am sorry; I seem to have a theme today, but it was not my intention—to keeping the tourist information centre open to cutting the grass and looking after the green spaces. These tasks had been abandoned by the unitary authority and were therefore picked up by the town council. The problem is that Leominster is an historic town—there is a wonderful, medieval town hall to meet in—but it is often the more disadvantaged communities around the country that do not have parish and town councils. One example is the large new council estates. Those who need it most do not have that local representation. A review, therefore, would be welcome in examining the Government’s heading to take democracy away from the people and enabling us to see how we can restore it at grass-roots level. To me that is essential.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in this debate. I especially thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Shipley, for their amendments on the subject of reviews.
Taken together, Amendments 93, 251, 253 and 255 seek to expand the requirements on the Secretary of State to report on the effect of the Act and the outcomes in various policy areas; and to undertake reviews of regional public spending and the effectiveness of community empowerment measures. The duty to produce an annual report on English devolution already exists to update Parliament on the progress made by the Government on devolution in England. We are already amending these reporting requirements to include which powers, functions and funding have been devolved to strategic authorities from central government. The reporting of outcomes in policy areas such as housebuilding, economic growth and social care already takes place. Social care is not going to strategic authorities; it will remain with local authorities. These policy outcomes are dependent on myriad factors, and a report on English devolution would not be the appropriate place to cover them.
On tax and public spending, the requirements for the annual report on English devolution, as amended by Clause 19, already cover any new powers to impose new taxes, as well as the funding devolved to strategic authorities. Combined authorities must also publish upcoming decisions that will have a significant effect on their citizens. These amendments would place an unnecessary, duplicative burden on the Secretary of State; in the case of social care, they would create new reporting requirements in areas where local authorities, rather than strategic authorities, have responsibility. I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw them.
Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to expand the requirements on the Secretary of State to report where a power in this Bill is used without the consent of “local officials”. The amendment does not define “local officials”, so it is not clear who would be in scope of the reporting. Where appropriate, the use of certain powers in the Bill already has requirements to consult local leaders; for example, constituent councils must be consulted where a function is conferred through Schedule 25 or where a strategic authority is established. It is not reasonable to expect that there will always be unanimous support for the use of any given Secretary of State power, and it would be disproportionate to require reporting where a power has been used with widespread, but not unanimous, local support.
The Government greatly value the role that parish and town councils play in bringing forward the priorities of their communities and delivering effective local services. Although I understand the intention behind Amendment 197, I cannot accept it, I am afraid. We do not believe that a national, top town review is the right approach. Existing legislation already provides clear routes for establishing new parish and town councils through community governance reviews. These reviews are led locally, are responsive to community identity and ensure that new councils emerge where there is genuine local support. Imposing a duty to maximise geographical coverage would risk forcing parish and town councils on to areas where other neighbourhood governance arrangements may be more appropriate—in urban settings, for example. The Government value the role of parish and town councils; we want to continue working with the sector to support strong, effective, community-led governance, but that does not mean mandating a single model across the country.
It is only fair to point out at this stage that there are about 10,000 parish councils in England and about 100,000 local parish councillors. The sector varies hugely in size from city or town councils to hamlet-sized parish meetings. According to analysis from the National Association of Local Councils and the Democracy Club, in the 2025 parish council elections, 21.4% of seats were left vacant. Sample data suggests that around 55% of these vacant seats were filled by co-option, which would suggest that 11.7% of seats were co-opted. Of the remainder, 65%, or on the way to two-thirds of seats, were elected uncontested, and 12.8% were elected through a contested poll; this is consistent with the rate of contested elections in previous years, which is why we value the work of town and parish councillors. We have to take into consideration the variety of those authorities and their capacity to fulfil some of the duties with which we want to provide them, so in our view a top-down single model across the country would not work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
To go back to the Minister’s comments before he sits down. It is interesting that the Government seem to want one model across the country at higher levels, but not here. Will the Minister acknowledge that it is generally the parish areas and town councils that tend to be wealthier, older communities and it is the most vulnerable communities with less social and financial capital in them that may not be able to prepare themselves for this? However, the Government might identify that there is gap and put in resources to help them.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
There is a duty to provide that kind of governance in the Bill. All I am trying to say is that there are various kinds of capacity in the 10,000 parish councils and they are not all the same. We cannot approach them in the same way. We know some of them have problems. I come from a shire county in the north-east of England so I know the capacity of parish councils and town councils to do certain jobs. We are well aware of that, and it is something that we obviously want to try and improve, and work with these parish and town councils into the future.
Amendment 252 concerns the powers available to local and combined authorities to promote local economic growth through banking and credit provision. Banking regulation is of systemic national interest. Its implementation must be consistent in applying technical standards, ensuring financial stability and protecting taxpayers. As such, it remains important that banking regulation continues to be considered at the national level as a reserved matter. Local and community banking is already possible within the existing framework, and the UK has a strong record of enabling new entrants to support access to finance. Mutuals, including building societies and credit unions, play a key role in supporting local economic growth. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals sector, with reforms already under way to help mutuals grow and raise capital. Further, through our financial inclusion strategy, the Government are improving access to affordable credit and strengthening community finance partnerships to support people and local economies. As such, the objectives of the proposed review are already addressed by existing initiatives, and I ask noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 93 in my name is about understanding whether devolution is delivering what it promises, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his support. The Bill places significant powers in the hands of devolved authorities, which is welcome, but with these powers must come clear and transparent assessment of their impact, not only on governance structures but on outcomes that matter to people’s daily lives.
The amendment seeks to expand the Secretary of State’s reporting requirements to cover four key areas, as I have said: housebuilding, economic growth, fiscal change and social care. These are central tests of success. Are housing targets being met? Are the right homes being delivered in the right places? Is devolution driving growth, et cetera? These are not unreasonable questions; they are essential if Parliament is to judge whether devolution is improving outcomes or delivering value for money and reducing inequalities between different places across our country.
This amendment would not prescribe policy but simply ask the Government to measure, report and be transparent about the consequences of their choice. I have listened to the Minister’s response, but he will not be surprised that I am disappointed. I do not think that using the existing reporting system will necessarily cover things and give us answers on whether these very major changes to local government are a success or whether they need some change. We need to look at this further before Report.
I have not done as much work as I should on parish and town councils, because I know that they will come up in future groupings. However, the one thing that came out of this debate for me, and from one or two of the Government’s responses on different groupings, is that town and parish councils are enshrined in legislation; they have rules. I cannot see anything further in this Bill that would put another type of very local responsible organisation in primary legislation. I would be very worried if there were. These neighbourhood arrangements are not going to be legislative arrangements; they will just be local groupings.
I have seen a lot of how this works in Wiltshire. When we went unitary, we were totally parished; we set up the city of Salisbury as a parish council. However, we also had area boards, which were within our council’s gift. They were where local councillors, police and fire representatives and local council officers got together to discuss local issues. Those boards had small budgets as well. They are very different things, however. I would also suggest that parish councils would work in cities and towns—they do work in some. They work very well in neighbourhoods and, in new developments where there are a large number of houses, they can work, but they want the support of government to work, and some small changes in government policy to make them work. I am not sure that having a parallel neighbourhood arrangement is the correct way to go.
The detail of that is for another debate before this Bill finishes Committee. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and, as I said, we will consider this further and possibly bring something back on Report.
Baroness Janke (LD)
“Secretary of State duty: strategic authority character and consent(1) Before undertaking a function listed in subsection (2), the Secretary of State must discharge the duties described in subsections (3) and (4).(2) The functions are any function carried out by the Secretary of State under—(a) sections 109B and 112B of LDECA 2009 (establishing or adding to a combined authority), as inserted by this Act;(b) section 25A of LURA 2023 (designating a CCA as an established mayoral strategic authority), as inserted by this Act;(c) section 3 of this Act (designating a council as a single foundation strategic authority). (3) The first duty is that the Secretary of State must publish a statement assessing how the following characteristics of the local government areas involved would be affected by the completion of the function—(a) the cohesiveness of the area’s community identity and physical character;(b) the boundaries of other public services in the area.(4) The second duty is that the Secretary of State must obtain consent for the function from any affected local government areas.”
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would place certain requirements on the Secretary of State in the event of significant local government reorganisation. Before the Secretary of State redraws the local government structures, the amendment simply asks for two things: a realistic assessment of the impact on communities and services, and consent from the areas affected.
Local government boundaries are not abstract lines on a map. They shape how people identify with their area, how services are delivered and how effectively different public bodies work together. Ignoring those realities risks creating authorities that may look tidy from Whitehall but feel incoherent and unworkable on the ground. Delivering on strategic decisions is dependent on the successful management of a host of local issues and circumstances underpinning any strategic developments. I mentioned earlier the creation of the regional assemblies, which were the complete antithesis of that and suffered again from this incoherence and inability to deliver on strategic objectives because of a lack of support at local level.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment because it opens up some interesting thoughts. Some years ago, I worked in east London on what had been for many years a dysfunctional housing estate in Tower Hamlets. As some noble Lords will know, Tower Hamlets has, over many years, experienced the dysfunction of local government and services. My work began in a place where nothing was working properly and a small group of us in a local church decided we wanted to be practical and do something about it. We have gained competence in delivering projects, having delivered 1,000 projects over the years. With local residents, we have built our own housing company, which now has 10,000 properties, owns 34% of the land in Poplar and has about a £2 billion regeneration programme in play. But it did not start like that; it started very small, in a housing estate, where, behind our buildings, there was a local authority park where children were injecting on a night.
At that point, we must have worked through 14 Governments but then the Liberals—not the Liberal Democrats—were running the local authority, and they began to realise that, as a local community group and charity, we had competence in delivering things when so much did not seem to work. All the policies and everything were in place, but things did not work. They started to have a conversation with us—our first small project—about whether we would like to run the local park behind our buildings where children were injecting at night. What happened to us at the other end of the telescope was that we spent six months with the chief executive of the local authority putting together a proper plan, in great detail, for the management of that park, getting to know each other and building relationships, and we got it to a place where we were ready to start.
There was then a council election. At that point, the Liberals had created seven neighbourhoods. They lost the election; the Labour Party won, and it then created seven committees. All the work we had been doing for quite some time was completely lost. It was not the Labour Party’s or anyone else’s fault but, for those of us trying to do something about that park, it was another example of local structures and processes creating massive dysfunction for local people. The terms “community reality” and “place-based knowledge” really matter, and we should not just assume that councillors and others have all the knowledge of such realities.
I have one thought for the Government. There is a real opportunity in this legislation, and I am pleased that they are thinking about this; I am encouraging the process. I gave the officials a document we wrote for Demos during the previous Labour Administration about our work in east London, called Communities in Business. I have had no reply from any of the civil servants about it, but it sets out in some detail some of the work we have done and the thinking behind it. We are not the only people doing this. I now operate across the country and there are other really interesting examples that are led not by councillors or parish councils but by groups of people who come together, put a business logic behind something and deliver a very different kind of culture.
This amendment, and the discussion we had earlier, opens up the opportunity to start to think differently about this stuff and what community empowerment might really mean. Of course it needs to involve government and councillors, but I suggest that it is not just about them; it is about the people in these real places who are often grappling with the machinery of the state, certainly in places such as Tower Hamlets, which has not worked for many years.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her Amendment 95A, which is modest but important. It does not seek to block devolution or slow it down unnecessarily. Instead, it asks for two simple safeguards when new strategic authorities are created or altered: transparency and consent. The amendment seeks to strengthen rather than weaken the devolution framework in the Bill and attempt to ensure that strategic authorities are rooted in local identity, coherent service delivery and democratic agreement. For those reasons, I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendment and noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. This amendment concerns the powers in this Bill for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority and to designate single foundational strategic authorities and established mayoral strategic authorities.
The amendment would require the publication of a statement assessing the impact on community identity and public service boundaries when these powers are used, as well as requiring consent from the affected area. I am pleased to say that the Bill already contains safeguards to address these issues. For example, before conferring functions on a single foundational strategic authority or unitary authority, the Secretary of State must consider the effective exercise of functions for a local area. In addition, local consent is required prior to designation as a single foundational strategic authority.
The Secretary of State may designate an established mayoral strategic authority only if the authority submits a written proposal asking to be so designated. The authority’s consent is an inherent part of the process, as no authority can be designated unless it actively applies. Also, the criteria outlined in the English devolution White Paper are clear about the eligibility requirements for a mayoral strategic authority seeking to be designated as established. These criteria are designed to ensure the effective exercise of functions across a local area.
Finally, on the establishment or expansion of combined authorities, the Government have been clear that it is our strong preference and practice to work in partnership with local areas to develop proposals for devolution that carry the broad support of local leaders and the local area. The power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority would only ever be used as a last resort where a local area has not brought forward its own viable proposal. This will ensure that all areas across England are able to benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind.
On the establishment or expansion of combined authorities more generally, the Bill already includes the necessary safeguards, including a statutory test to ensure effective and convenient local government across the areas of competence. Furthermore, where the geographical expansion of a combined authority area could affect the exercise of its functions, the Secretary of State must consider this before making an order to expand the authority.
I hope that, with this response, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for the response, but I feel that the safeguards he has outlined do not address the potential risks in this Bill. The message that seems to be going out at the moment is that the Government are determined to deliver at any cost. Local communities are very mistrustful that they will listen to them. We have heard a lot about a bonfire of the rules and red tape that many local people see as safeguards and protections for themselves. I am afraid that the safeguards in the Bill are not adequate to reassure people: parish councils are barely mentioned and there does not seem to be much in the Bill about joint vision, mutual self-interest and shared benefits.
This modest amendment would be much more reassuring, particularly for areas that will be amalgamated into large tracts and counties which did not necessarily work well without district councils. For many areas, the loss of district councils is enormous. I do not believe that the safeguards outlined in the Bill address those concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but may come back to it in future.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(2A) In the definition of “local authority”—(a) in paragraph (f), for “an eligible” substitute “a”, and(b) omit subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would include all parish councils in the definition of a local authority which has a power of general competence and remove the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of section 8 of the Localism Act 2011.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here a bit earlier and hearing more of the earlier debate and discussion about parish councils. My amendment seeks to include all parish councils in the definition of a local authority which has a power of general competence. It would remove the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011. My rationale for this has, in part, already been mentioned in this Committee by a number of colleagues opposite.
My first experience of local government was the local parish council for the village I grew up in, in Great Bentley in Essex. My mother was not actually a parish councillor, but she was a regular attender, and she was a pain in the neck—a very good and positive one. Part of her thing was trying to persuade the local parish to release part of the village green—it was 40-odd acres, so very large—to have a village hall built on it. They decided in, I think 1970, to conduct a local referendum. She was on one side of the argument, and I was on the green side of the argument; I did not believe they should use common land for a village hall. My side won and my mother held this against me for a number of years afterwards. But it demonstrated to me, at quite a young age, the power and importance of local communities and local community representation.
I borrowed and took some of that thinking into my broader politics over time. I was very pleased when, back in the 1990s as the leader of my local authority in Brighton and Hove, I was able to push ahead with the parishing of one part of our local authority area, Rottingdean, because it enabled the local community there to develop local services. By removing this shackle on parish and town councils, we could enable them to deliver much more. I am one of those people who believes in devolving powers and responsibilities to the lowest possible sustainable level. I think parish councils and town councils are capable of producing services and developing new, useful and valuable close-to-community facilities.
To that end, when I was chair of the Co-op Party commission, I argued that when Labour came into government we should empower parish and town councils, because they are close to the communities that they serve. At the moment, they cannot access funds in the same way as higher tiers of local authority. Back then, I reflected that they could not access the community renewal fund, the levelling-up fund, the towns fund or the UK shared prosperity fund. The same is the story now, of course, while Labour reviews its position on parishes.
In our report back in 2022-23, we made a number of recommendations: we should invest more in that lowest level of governance; parish and town councils should be able to develop amenities and be given the opportunity to develop capital sums; with the development of super-unitary authorities, which we envisaged in our devolution model, the emergence of parish and town councils would be essential to genuinely empower people and communities; and we should invest in training and better servicing of those parishes. That is why I am very attracted to this amendment, which has been valuably drafted by the National Association of Local Councils. With the larger unitaries, we will inevitably lose a sense of place if we are not very careful. That is why helping parish and town councils is so important.
I pick on one particular authority, not because I have anything for or against it—but who knows what Kirklees covers? Local government anoraks might, but people living in Kirklees possibly do not. That is because it is made up of composite urban areas glued together for the convenience of a local authority map. Some of that will inevitably happen when we increase the size of councils to fit into a unitary model. If we are serious about place-making, we need to do all that we can to stimulate more interest in town and parish councils, because the larger the authority, the more remote it is from the citizen and the community.
My tilt at this is contained partly in this amendment. Many of the urban areas that will be brought together in the new unitaries deserve a powerful voice. They deserve to be better integrated into the network of local authorities and to be seen as a powerful partner. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on the Conservative Benches, made that point the other day when he was talking about the inevitability of large authorities, and it was a very important point. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, earlier touched on some of the issues that arose. If we want to be good localist, to value the importance of place-making, and to put more emphasis on that—as we on the Labour side certainly do—we should look again at what local town and parish councils should do and give them the powers and tools to do the job, which they were set up to do many years ago. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for leading this group; I entirely agree with what he says. I hope that we may be able to achieve a further step forward on this when we get to Report. He said many things, but I shall just draw out one of them. In all these changes, we have to avoid decision-making becoming more remote from people. He has a solution, and my noble friend Lady Pinnock had one in a previous group, so I hope that the Government will be willing to explore this further. As I say, we will look at this issue again on Report.
In this group, I have Amendment 241C, which is a probing amendment. I would like the Government to comment on the general power of competence that is being given to English national parks authorities in Clause 73. My amendment would require those authorities to consult communities surrounded by or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact those communities. The need for this review is because the national parks have separate planning powers. Areas bordering or surrounded by a national park need to be given the reassurance that, where there may be an impact on them as a result of a national park’s decision, they have a right to be formally consulted on it. In the context of a new general power of competence, will the consultation actually happen? I think that it must happen, for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised about decision-making becoming remote.
Strategic authorities are going to be very large. Many existing local authorities are also very large. The more we have unitary councils, the more that trend will be increased. The right to be consulted matters more than it may have mattered hitherto. As a consequence of that, where a general power of competence is being given to a national park authority in Clause 73, that should be accompanied by a requirement to consult those communities surrounded or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact on those communities. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government are prepared to look at this issue further.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to give an alternative view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on Amendment 241C. First, though, I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam: I spent 10 and a half years representing Great Bentley in the European Parliament—not all of its residents, but the greater group in the area—and it was a great privilege to represent that part of Essex.
I pay tribute to the work of the North York Moors National Park Authority. Let me say a word about how dramatic its work has been, with the wildfires last summer and the potential prosect of further wildfires ahead. It has done a sterling job. Obviously, at one stage, it looked as though livelihoods and livestock might be imperilled and lost with the wildfire at Fylingdales, which was in my constituency for the last five years of my time in the other place; it came perilously close to many farms. I pay tribute to the work that the authority did.
I apologise that I did not realise that I should have spoken before the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in order to understand more about the background to what he is seeking to do. I would like just to place on the record that, to my certain knowledge, the powers that the North York Moors National Park Authority already has—as well as the powers under the Bill—are received very warmly. It is already working quite hard, I think, and devoting a large amount of time to consulting as widely as it possibly can. I am slightly concerned that Amendment 241C could introduce an extra burden that it would be very hard pressed to meet.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to whom I am grateful.
Parish councils are the most local level of government. They were based on one of the most ancient forms of local administration in England, namely the parish system, which is still rightly maintained by the established Church of this country. Any Bill that wants to reflect the movement towards localism and protect local geographical identity must, in our opinion, have provisions to empower parishes. Parish councils are often the best places to truly understand local views on issues that face local people, providing insights on planning and enhancing both community well-being and quality of life, with the protection of things such as green spaces, playing fields and allotments. They can pay attention to the little things that matter but from which larger bodies are too distant—or in which they are disinterested.
The National Association of Local Councils, of which I am a vice-president, has highlighted that town and parish councils raise more than £900 million in precepts each year and invest more than £2 billion in communities. I thank all of the approximately 10,000 of these councils in England for the volunteering that they do, their time and their energy; indeed, they put some 14 million hours a year into serving their communities. They deserve more of a place in this Bill. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why the Government are not protecting and strengthening such councils’ roles in this Bill?
On Amendment 241C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising this issue. Clearly, there is a problem, in that some communities that border or surround the national parks have less of a say because they are currently not consulted on matters that affect them. However, I remain somewhat hesitant about how this amendment might work in practice. I will talk to the noble Lord because I would like some further clarification on, for example, how a consultation taking place for the communities in the Peak District might have to involve, say, the city of Sheffield. How large or close would a community have to be in order to be consulted, in other words?
In addition, we would also like to understand, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned, the implications on any authority’s resources and capacity. I am interested in the views of the Minister on that amendment as well. We strongly support giving local people more of a voice, which is what this Bill says it should be doing. But we strongly believe in the role of town and parish councils as a way to get really local voices into local services delivery. I urge the Government to look further at the role of town and parish councils in the new local government model for this country.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate. My noble friend Lord Bassam’s Amendment 97 would amend Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011 so that all parish councils could make full use of the general power of competence. That is a broad enabling power which empowers an authority to do anything that individuals generally may do unless specifically prohibited. Authorities have used the general power of competence in a wide variety of ways. For example, Hertfordshire County Council has used the power to provide the basis for its participation in the local authority mortgage scheme, which supports the local housing market by supporting first-time buyers.
Given the breadth of the general power of competence, it is important that any authority exercising it has appropriate arrangements in place for effective oversight and scrutiny. In particular, where a parish council is to be conferred the general power of competence, it must have the means and capacity to oversee its use responsibly. This is one of the reasons why Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011 empowers the Secretary of State to set conditions that must be present before the general power of competence can be conferred on a parish council. I pay tribute to the work of parish and town councils. Coming from a shire county in the north-east of England, I understand the importance of what they do. But, as I said earlier—my noble friend Lord Bassam might not have been here at the time—21% of seats are left vacant on parish and town councils. We have to be careful, if the capacity is not there, about giving the general power of competence over to a parish council. The capacity has to be there for them to use it.
Amendment 241C from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would place a duty on national park authorities to consult neighbouring communities when taking decisions to use their general power of competence. This Bill is providing national park authorities with the general power of competence to ensure that our national parks are able to operate more effectively and deliver our national priorities in our most iconic landscapes. Providing national park authorities with the general power of competence brings national parks in line with local authorities. It is not a requirement for local authorities to consult on their use of powers with neighbouring communities, although they may choose to consult on certain decisions if they want to. Imposing such a duty on national park authorities could introduce unnecessary bureaucracy for national parks. The general power of competence is well established and widely understood across the sector, and reduces the need for the Government to issue legal clarifications on new legislative instruments. The national park authorities will remain subject to these same constraints and we see no reason for any divergence from the arrangements already in place for local authorities. I hope that, after these explanations and comments, my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will withdraw my amendment. I think the noble Lord’s primary argument was about a potential lack of capacity at local level and the need to have proper oversight and regulation. I entirely accept that. That is a reasonable point to make, but I do not see why we cannot pursue it further, because those measures can fairly easily be put in place, not least through the more senior level of local government at a unitary or strategic authority level.
I was always very impressed by what town councils deliver. Some deliver quite big services; others get involved in the business of markets and so on. They are not just about park benches and streetlights. They are much more than that. Noble Lords from all parties have made the case that they are at a level of government which is very close to the people. That has great value and they deliver a lot. We should now look, with this larger tier of local governance across the country, including unitaries and so on, to further empower them. This would be a very sensible and practical way of doing it.
In response to the noble Lord’s point about there being vacancies on parish councils, a lot of people who would like to get involved simply think: “Well, what’s the point? It’s just a talking shop”. If we encourage and enable them to develop further, people will come forward. I have always been pretty impressed by the calibre of people who operate on parish and town councils.
I am happy to withdraw my amendment, but we should have some more debate on this and try to dream up a framework that would enable them to thrive and develop. If we do not do so now, we will need to come back to this tier of governance in the future, to make local government genuinely local.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 98 and 99, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, concern the treatment of local partners in the Bill. While the Bill places a duty on strategic authorities to convene local partners and an obligation for those partners to respond, this falls short of meaningful consultation or genuine co-production. Without an additional requirement to engage substantively, Clause 21 risks becoming little more than a tick-box exercise, as the Local Government Association has warned.
Clause 21 will give the mayor of a strategic authority the power to convene, but what matters is that they can get something done. If a body is competent in an area but does not hold the power to make decisions, allocate resources or change delivery, what is the point of convening a discussion? Is the expectation that those with competence will be able to influence those with power, or that power will in time follow competence? Or is the purpose simply information sharing and having a nice cup of tea?
More practically, how do the Government envisage that these convened meetings will lead to tangible outcomes if those around the table lack the authority to act on what is discussed? I raise this not as a criticism of the clause but as a genuine question of intent. This is a very real issue. As chairman of the Local Government Association, councils continually raised with me the difficulties of getting local partners to genuinely work together to deliver for the local area. I am a huge believer in devolution and think that the local area, whether it is a strategic area or a council, will better deliver for its residents than something directed down from Whitehall.
The propensity of partners is to focus on the short term rather than the fundamental long term. I raise a case in point. On health, we all recognise that prevention, early intervention, health hubs, supporting the vulnerable in suitable homes and a co-ordinated approach to hospital discharge are all the right things to do. However, I recall sitting down at a meeting with my local NHS trust chiefs and they said, “We absolutely agree with you, but on Monday morning the chief executive”—the now noble Lord, Lord Stevens—“will ring me and ask: what is my A&E waiting time? How many discharges do I have today? That is why I have to focus on that”. It is therefore important that the priorities for the area are reflected in those partners.
This is also the case, particularly given their role in economic growth and strategic planning, for things such as drainage boards, utility companies, the DWP and the Highways Agency. Their focus is too often on what matters nationally and what their masters in Whitehall are saying. While they are sympathetic, they will focus on those issues, when there is an important duty to focus on the local.
Fundamentally, if meetings and responses do not amount to meaningful action and outcomes, there is not much point. Genuine devolution is about consent and local leadership. It is not about Whitehall and Ministers sitting behind desks mandating how partners should collaborate. These amendments seek to ensure that partnership under this Bill is real, accountable and rooted in local decision-making rather than some centrally imposed obligation. I beg to move.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 237 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for adding their names to it. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, wanted to be here this afternoon; she has not been well this week so, on the Committee’s behalf, I wish her well.
My simple amendment seeks to place a duty on local public service partners to co-operate. Many people believe that the governance system in England has two major flaws. The first is that it is excessively centralised—probably the most centralised in the developed world—which this Bill seeks to address. In my judgment, the second major flaw is that statutory agencies have too often failed to work effectively together, a problem which has been exacerbated by the way in which the state has fragmented over many years. Put simply, we have established ever more agencies—some of them single purpose—in the belief that this would bring sharper focus and greater efficiency. In reality, this fragmentation and lack of collaboration has produced more negative than positive consequences.
For example, it has produced disjointed services which do not align with the needs of ordinary people. They just do not recognise them. It has produced policies and services which overlap and, at worst, conflict. As I shall go on to say, that costs a lot of money. The same lack of collaboration has produced waste, additional cost and a failure to share data and information. That has been most tragically evident in the never-ending cases of child abuse. A lack of sharing data and information is at the core of those tragedies. Fundamentally, it has produced a damaging culture of competition between providers when ordinary folk just want to see collaboration, partnership and co-operation to address their needs.
Down the years, various attempts have been made to tackle this silo working. Central government departments have tried to work in a more joined-up way. Noble Lords must form their own opinions as to whether that has been successful; I think it is a work in progress.
After the local government reorganisation in 1974—and I know that it is difficult for noble Lords to believe that I was there at the time—one or two county authorities appointed liaison officers to encourage closer working between districts and county councils. I was one of those. In 2012, health and well-being boards were established to improve working relationships between health authorities and local authorities, particularly on the subject of social care. More recently, health authorities have set up their own integrated care boards—again, with variable success to date. The last Labour Government championed an initiative, in which again I was pleased to be involved, called Total Place, which was enthusiastically embraced by many local agencies. More than 100 places quickly endorsed the concept of Total Place but, when the Government changed, they decided not to continue with Total Place. Now we have this Bill which, as we have heard, includes provisions for strategic authorities to convene meetings that partners will attend, again to ensure better co-operation.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I agree with so much that he said—but I shall speak to Amendment 196, which would introduce a duty on local public service partners such as NHS bodies, the police and fire authorities to co-operate with strategic authorities and principal councils. I am particularly concerned about inequalities. I was very proud to co-found and co-chair the Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership, which works closely with businesses, charities, higher education establishments and local councils, including in relation to inequality and health. Oxfordshire is now a Marmot place—and I know that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is considered to be a Marmot city region. I hope that new strategic authorities will follow.
As noble Lords are aware, health inequalities are pronounced within as well as between regions, with huge life expectancy gaps between and within local authorities, including those operating within the same strategic authority. For example, within the East Midlands Combined County Authority, the gap is 5.2 years. The gap is enormous within cities; we all know that in London the gap is between 17 and 19 years. But, shockingly, in counties such as Oxfordshire there is a life expectancy gap of at least 10 years. Addressing these health inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the power to shape economic growth, create healthy places and, consequently, reduce the inequalities.
The Bill already contains several important levers to do this, which is welcome, with the duty to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Clause 44; the requirement for strategic authorities to produce local growth plans in Clause 39 and Schedule 20; and the inclusion of health, well-being and public service reform in the areas of competence for commissioners. However, I believe that this amendment is necessary, because we know, and evidence demonstrates, that health improvement and a reduction in health inequalities requires joined-up policies and actions across public services.
My amendment would ensure reciprocal engagement in local decision-making, service planning and policy implementation, strengthening whole-area collaboration across public services. It would also be the catalyst for places to use the powers that they already have to build local partnerships. The duty would also embed in statute best practice around co-operation, which already exists at neighbourhood, local and regional level. It would set out clearer expectations on different parts of the system, such as integrated care boards and local authorities, to collaborate on improving health.
The amendment is light touch, practical and evidence-based, with the support of many organisations that work on health and reducing health inequalities. It would not add unnecessary bureaucracy or require new spending commitments, but it would make a profound difference to policy-making and action in areas of our country and in the new bodies that are about to be created. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the issues raised in this group are fundamental, and I support everything that has been said so far, broadly speaking. Our efforts to identify how the new structure will relate to all the other organisations delivering public services, and how they will all work together, demonstrates the importance of Committee. I hope that when the Minister replies there will be some positive movement on that.
I hope the Minister will not think me flippant when I have said what I am about to say. Amendments 98 and 99 are important in probing the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests. Many of the Bill’s pages—pages 23 to 34—are about mayoral powers to require local partners to attend meetings and other mayors to collaborate, and so on. I have a simple question for the Minister about local partners; as I say, I hope she will not think I am being flippant. The Bill says:
“The mayor for the area … may convene meetings with local partners to consider relevant local matters”.
I understand that, but can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor to consider relevant local matters?
I ask that question because, on previous days in Committee, the answers that we have had about devolution away from mayors to, say, constituent councils, have been that there is to be no power of scrutiny for a constituent council within a strategic authority. That is a very serious matter—I do not think it will work. My question is simple: can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor, or is this a one-way power whereby only the mayor can convene meetings with local partners? If it is, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will be willing to pursue the matter when we get to Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments on local partners’ co-operation with mayors. This is an important group of amendments. Without this type of local co-operation, devolution will not work, so I take it very seriously.
Amendment 98 would provide for the Mayor of London, instead of the Secretary of State, to define “local partners” for the purposes of Clause 21. Elsewhere in England, it would remain for the Secretary of State to define the meaning of “local partners” in regulations. Were this amendment to be made, it would create an immediate inconsistency between the powers of the Mayor of London and the approach taken elsewhere in England. Allowing the Mayor of London to specify local partners where other mayors could not would lead to a piecemeal and unclear definition of local partners, risking confusion at all levels. Defining “local partners” in regulations will allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny—I think that is important—will provide a single, coherent definition across England and will ensure that mayors’ power to convene can be clearly understood by both mayors and local partners.
Examples of the types of organisations the regulations may include are those that deliver public services on behalf of, or receive funding from, a mayoral strategic authority; are identifiable as key enablers in statutory strategies; or play a material role in helping a mayoral strategic authority perform its functions within its local area. We are not seeking to define “local partners” in isolation. We are interested in understanding from strategic authorities and their mayors the type of organisations and institutions that should fall under a definition of a “local partner”. We are doing some more work on that with our strategic authorities.
I turn to Amendment 99, which seeks to understand the requirement for local partners to respond to a notification from a mayor of a strategic authority to convene a meeting. Clause 21 provides mayors with a new power to notify local partners of their intention to convene a meeting on a local matter that relates to their areas of competence. It also places a corresponding requirement on any local partner to respond to such a notification. This power is designed to enable mayors to bring the right people around the table, so that partners can work together to tackle shared challenges, seize opportunities for their communities and deliver the best outcomes for local people. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, about data sharing was very relevant to this. It is often the lack of ability to share data across organisations that slows down these kinds of collaborative projects.
The requirement on local partners is proportionate and not unduly burdensome. It does not oblige partners to engage beyond acknowledging the notification, nor does it prescribe what steps a local partner must take following any meeting or how they must act. Rather, the requirement is simply to respond to a mayor’s notification. The intention is to promote constructive dialogue even where there may be a difference of view on the relevant local matter. Taken together with the other mayoral powers of competence in this Bill, Clause 21 will strengthen the role of strategic authority mayors, giving them the means to drive growth, foster collaboration and deliver improvements for their communities.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about whether public bodies can require the mayor to attend, the mayor’s role in convening will probably answer that point, but I will reflect on it. If the mayor had a duty to convene people to collaborate on issues, and another body requested a meeting to discuss something like that, it would not seem in the spirit of what is in this Bill for the mayor to decline that invitation. I will take that back and think about it a little more.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 196 and 237 from my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I assure noble Lords that the Government —and I—strongly support the spirit of the amendments: local public service partners and strategic authorities should collaborate to ensure quality, joined-up services for local people. Placing a new, wide-ranging statutory duty on local public service partners to attend meetings; provide information and assistance; and engage with strategic and local authorities in their local area may place an additional and unwarranted burden on these bodies. I, too, remember the Total Place initiative. One thing that got in the way of that was the dialogue between bodies, when they said, “We just do not have the capacity to provide that at the moment”. It caused some friction between some bodies.
As set out in the English devolution White Paper, it is the intention that mayors act as conveners on public service reform. The Bill provides them with the power to do this by granting them a power to convene local partners on their areas of competence, which include health, well-being and public service reform. The Bill places a corresponding duty on local partners to respond to a request by a mayor to meet. It is important to note that this does not place a duty on local partners to agree to particular policies of the mayor or to meet if they do not think that it is appropriate. We believe that this strikes the right balance between giving mayors the tools to drive collaboration, protecting the independence of local partners to act as they think fit and avoiding burdensome duties to which they must adhere.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been a genuinely useful debate, raising the key issues of the duty to co-operate and co-operation in local areas. As the Bill stands, it places a duty on strategic authorities to convene as partners and an obligation for them to attend. However, as several noble Lords have pointed out, it falls short of requiring meaningful engagement or genuine co-production. Without a clearer expectation of substantive collaboration, there is a real risk, as highlighted by the Local Government Association, that Clause 21 becomes a consultation in form but not in substance.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I believe she said that she agreed with the spirit of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. However, she then seemed to row back a little on implementing them; she had a concern that placing a duty to co-operate on partners would be a burden. As we have all experienced in the past with Total Place and other things, without a solid mechanism in place, we end up with people getting on with what they perceive as their day job and not co-operating together.
I am supportive of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, on his amendment, which we were pleased to sign. Our support that one was a balance of judgment; we did so because we thought that the wording was somewhat clearer and easier to interpret, but we readily accept that, at this stage, the precise wording matters less than the principle. I urge the Minister to look again at the principle of whether the Bill, as currently drafted, is strong enough to deliver the whole-area collaboration that devolution both promises and requires.
If the Bill is to fulfil its promise, devolution must mean more than new structures; it must reshape how public sector services work together on the ground. Will the Government, between now and Report, consider how best that principle can be put more firmly into legislation? It is quite clear that, in this Committee today, there is a feeling that greater firmness is needed to make this happen—rather than just having a talking shop, which we have had in the past to some extent. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I just want to say at this point that we have one more group to go. I hope that we can finish by 5 pm; otherwise, we will have to split the group and start it half way through next week, which I do not think we want to do.
Clause 22: Duty of mayors to collaborate
Amendment 100
The Earl of Clancarty
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments is, broadly speaking, about collaboration in its various forms—not just between mayors but between mayors of other parties, as well as other forms of collaboration.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as that of my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar, for my Amendment 100. It would add “cultural” to the other categories of well-being, alongside “economic” and “social”, for mayors of neighbouring authorities who would like to collaborate with each other over areas of competence; in this context, I interpret “well-being” in a very general sense. I believe it to be logical that this amendment should be accepted if the arts, culture and heritage were to be added as areas of competence.
I support the other amendments in this group. Collaboration across boundaries should be encouraged, both within and outside the strategic authorities. I have added my name to Amendment 101 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I look forward, too, to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has to say about citizens’ assemblies.
In support of this amendment, I want to mention something that I probably did not emphasise enough in our debate last week on Amendment 6 and areas of competence but which is particularly relevant to this debate nevertheless: the importance of the arts and the creative industries as a generally well-functioning ecosystem. I say that despite the large and damaging cuts to the arts that we have seen in the past 15 years.
In some ways, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is often said that you tamper with this ecosystem at your peril because of the co-dependence of one part on another. There is considerable crossover in media and skills, as the Minister will appreciate—theatre, film and TV exemplify that—but there is also co-dependence geographically. The grass-roots arts, which are often subsidised, are traditionally where the most interesting, innovative work takes place and influence both what is taking place in London and what goes into London—for instance, into theatres in West End.
This is still true, to a large extent, but London is increasingly not the be-all and end-all of the arts. The way in which the regions negotiate the changes that are taking place—for example, with the new creative hubs—has to be done collaboratively. This is particularly true with such a significant shared cultural asset as Production Park in Wakefield, where “Adolescence”, the hit Netflix drama, was filmed.
It is also important for the regions that the new hubs are not simply colonial outposts of the big entertainment companies. The West and South Yorkshire mayoralties already have a long-standing relationship, which includes a common strategy for developing the skills that are needed to work in the many areas of the creative industries and for doing this regionally, in Yorkshire. This is something that is being fostered at Production Park, which, significantly, has its own educational facilities. There is a growing sense that work can be made in the regions—by local, original creators—that will have national, or even international, exposure. This is very exciting, but it does require mayors to come together.
Other areas of necessary collaboration across strategic authorities include cities of culture. Different regions may be rivals, but there will be much to be learned from previous experience. There are the big events, of course, including music festivals and national cultural events. Mayors should be sharing best practice for every level of cultural activity, from the provision of cultural services and access to the arts by local authorities to commercial opportunities, employment concerns, issues around trade and concerns around touring, including touring abroad. There is also the tourist levy; mayors should certainly be talking to each other about how that will be administered and how the money will be spent.
In some of these suggestions, I am talking about communication between different regions as much as I am about more formal collaboration between authorities that pass the “neighbour test”. The Minister may say that mayors are already collaborating in this area, but it is important to recognise the reality; indeed, where mayors are not talking to each other, talking absolutely needs to be encouraged. There is a real, practical use in treating culture in this context—for all the reasons I am setting out—as a separate, integral and identifiable area. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 101 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their support. This flows on nicely from what we talked about on smaller-scale collaboration in the previous group. This is all about collaboration across larger geographies. I go back to something that I remember the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, saying in a debate back in 2024 on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions) Bill, as it was at that time. He said that devolution was something that all noble Lords could get behind and support. We would perhaps differ on the means of achieving that but it is, as a principle, something that we should all agree on.
However, by undertaking devolution, as this Bill does, we are creating joins and barriers that were not there before. We therefore need a way in which to create a holistic approach that ensures collaboration across those boundaries. This drives us to more of a pan-regional collaboration, looking at larger geographies such as the north or the Midlands. I give a few examples of why this is important. On inward investment, for example, we have vast pools of capital across the world that are mobile and can invest anywhere in the world. Selling a region and its opportunities is an excellent way in which to focus on bigger opportunities, rather than leaving it to smaller geographies to help bring in that capital and investment. Also, on large-scale infrastructure, transport is a great example. Large-scale rail projects that impact across many strategic authorities need to be considered on a pan-regional basis. I have later amendments on thematic areas such as social mobility policy but one of the key findings from the recent special inquiry committee was that there needed to be bespoke regional approaches to this long-standing problem to fit with the circumstances of each area, and there needs to be better regional co-ordination and collaboration on these approaches.
In the last Parliament, we had pan-regional partnerships such as the Midlands Engine and Northern Powerhouse that aimed to undertake this collaborative approach across regions. I worked extensively with the Midlands Engine. I founded the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group and led a number of work packages with the organisation, such as chairing the task force, which led to the Midlands Engine Energy Security White Paper. The Midlands Engine operated right across the Midlands region, from the Welsh border to Lincolnshire. It covered all local governments and the 11 million people in that geography, with the explicit aim of closing the gap in economic performance between the Midlands and the rest of the UK.
The economic argument sits at the foundation of all this. There is a persistent economic gap between the regions and the metropolis. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, highlighted this also. You could almost consider the UK as two countries in economic terms. We have a prosperous enclave in London and the south-east, with the rest of the country lagging far behind. Therefore, there is a strong argument that the Government need to focus on catch-up growth in the regions to meet their overall growth ambitions for the UK. I saw at first hand the benefits in the initiatives to join up the work of local authorities and combined authorities for the economic benefits of the Midlands region. So much great work was done, including setting the foundations of the Midlands Rail Hub, which has been taken forward today, large infrastructure investments such as fusion, and investment funds for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I also saw some of the political difficulties in trying to do that with the pan-regional partnership approach. There were challenges in a separate organisation, with the remit it was given, in getting political buy-in on initiatives from a broad range of stakeholders.
In reading the devolution White Paper, I was encouraged by that aspect of the Government’s plans in that they intend to keep pan-regional collaboration going but focus it more around partnerships between mayoral authorities, which could help to resolve some of the difficulties in those separate bodies. I was surprised to see no mention of this approach in the Bill, and to perhaps pre-empt what the Minister will say—I thank her for the meeting we had and the engagement on this amendment—there is of course nothing to stop mayors and authorities creating these convening bodies. There is some progress here already in the Great North partnership, for example. However, the Government do need to play a role in making this happen.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 102. Before I start, I must tell the Minister that, when I went home from the last session of this Committee, I found my wife watching an old episode of “Yes, Prime Minister”. The Prime Minister’s Cabinet Secretary and Treasury Secretary were discussing the threat of real regional government to Whitehall control, and how they needed make sure that some regions were set up sufficiently diversely to ensure that Whitehall and the Treasury maintained control. It deepened my already deep scepticism about whether this Bill will really achieve devolution or not.
Like others, this amendment talks about the problems of making sure that, at the regional and subregional level, we co-ordinate as far as possible. If I understand the purpose of the Bill, we will end up in England with somewhere between 30 and 35 strategic authorities with mayors. In some areas, they will meet the urban conglomerations; in others, they will be artificial, imposed on different counties. I note, however, that the Home Secretary is now proposing that we have in England perhaps some six to eight police authorities. At present, in Yorkshire where we wanted to have a regional single strategic authority, we now have four mayors and four police forces, so it fits relatively well. What the Home Secretary now proposes will tear that apart and make much more difficult again any sense of regional and local democratic control of the police. The next restructure of the NHS might well do something similar on a departmental basis. Can the Minister say how far there is any attempt in Whitehall to make sure that, when restructuring takes place, it does as far as possible attempt to make sure that boundaries coincide rather than cut across each other, as they have so often done?
Nevertheless, we recognise that there will always be different levels at which one has to co-operate. If you live in West Yorkshire, the trans-Pennine region is extremely important. If we ever get round to building Northern Powerhouse Rail, which will probably not be in my lifetime, we will have created a new region which is Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and all those between it. That will require a range of different authorities. The water catchment areas are unavoidably difficult. We have spent ages in my region discussing how far the Humberside region fits into either Yorkshire, Lincolnshire or wherever. There will be a need for co-ordination.
The question I would like to leave with the Minister—perhaps she can come back to us—is this. How, following this restructuring of local and subregional government, will they do their best to ensure that, in the next set of restructuring of other bits of public agencies, we will try as far as we can to recognise that a sense of place and regional identity is fulfilled by ensuring that, where possible, those things coincide?
To finish, I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that I once spent a Saturday morning in Huddersfield marketplace—I used to be president of the Huddersfield Liberal association—trying to help people with their vote. At least half of the people who came up to me said, “Can you tell me what constituency I’m in? I do not know”. The constituency boundaries or their names had been changed, which is confusing for local people. It is all part of why public trust in our Government has weakened. The sense of place has also weakened. This Bill should be doing something to improve that, but I rather fear that it does not.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendments 103 and 104 appear under my name. I confess that I can take no credit for drafting them; they started with my honourable friend Siân Berry in the other place. I take note of the Whips’ injunction on brevity, so I will largely focus on those two amendments. They may look rather long, with pages and pages, but they have the same injunction repeated three times relative to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act and the Greater London Authority Act, so they are actually much shorter than they look.
As the proposed titles state, they would create a duty on mayors to establish a deliberative citizens’ assembly within six months of being elected to inform strategic decision-making. That word “strategic” is important, because we have seen it demonstrated again and again that citizens’ assemblies provide a great way to address the big strategic questions. Proposed new subsection (6) in each amendment states that the mayor must take into account any recommendation made by the assembly, and publish a response.
Assemblies have really taken off up and down the country, if in a very piecemeal fashion—perhaps despite Westminster, rather than because of it. I am holding previous Governments responsible for that, but the current Government now have a chance to turn over a fresh leaf and act towards democracy by encoding citizens’ assemblies in this Bill. The organisation Involve, which has organised many of these, stresses how citizens’ assemblies are a way to
“strengthen legitimacy, foster trust, and solve complex problems”.
As it said in a recent blog post, it is a
“powerful answer to the breakdown in trust in our elected representatives and the wider crisis of democracy”.
Just to give noble Lords a sense of the kinds of government organisations that have been making use of citizens’ assemblies, Involve has organised various events along these lines for Innovate UK, UKRI, the Care Quality Commission and the West Midlands Combined Authority. There is a very long list; that is just a sample of them.
Under different structures and local initiatives, one area where citizens’ assemblies have proved particularly powerful is in looking at climate action. We have seen many local authorities set net-zero targets and communities have got together through citizens’ assemblies to work out how to do that. I take two examples of very different ones. In Kendal, right in the depths of the Covid pandemic, the town council organised a climate change citizens’ jury that was regarded locally as very successful. Then, in another place, very different politically and demographically, there was the Westminster citizens’ climate assembly in 2023. This is something that is taking off, but in a piecemeal fashion. This is a chance to really put a focus on deliberative democracy at the heart of this Bill.
Finally, on citizens’ assemblies, I draw attention to the powerful speech by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on the lead amendment in this group and the really powerful testimony from a group called Citizens for Culture, which is based in the south-west. It talks about championing citizens’ assemblies in terms of arts culture and says that:
“When diverse voices come together to learn, deliberate and decide, it leads to decisions that are more legitimate, more inclusive, and more connected to the lived experience of local people”.
Culture, brought together with a citizens’ assembly, creates a vital space where communities can make meaning, build identities and imagine new futures. I think that expresses the idea very well.
I can see the Whip looking at me so let me just say something about Amendment 104. There are many different amendments, both in this group and in previous groups, about mayors having to work with—in this case—local public service providers and other local government. This amendment would provide one more way of doing that. We have heard from all sides of the Committee that that is a really essential and necessary thing that is missing from the Bill; I am not attached to any particular way of doing it, but this would be one way of doing it.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 196D, which would place a duty on strategic authorities to work with local and community-based bodies when exercising their functions. Devolving powers to the level of the people whom they affect means that effective devolution depends not only on transferring powers from Whitehall but on ensuring that those powers are exercised in partnership with the communities they affect. Without an explicit duty to work with community-based bodies, there is a risk that decision-making becomes remote, technocratic and insufficiently grounded in local reality. This amendment would ensure that parish and town councils are treated not as an afterthought but as partners in governance, helping strategic authorities to understand local conditions, priorities and constraints before they are implemented.
Voluntary and community sector organisations also play a critical role in the delivery of local support and preventive services. They are often hubs of energetic volunteers—people who want both to be involved in their local communities and to bring enthusiasm, energy and drive to local life. Following on from the story of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, when I was a member of a community council on the west coast of Scotland, volunteers and members of those communities persuaded the mighty Strathclyde Regional Council to support a town-twinning project and fund it. So you can find examples of this kind of thing all over the country.
I believe that, in all of the powers and strategic aims of this Bill, the key roles played by town and parish councils are forgotten; in fact, the Bill barely mentions them. Parish and town councils are key players in local communities. They are closest to the ground and most responsive to the day-to-day needs of communities. This Bill must contain a statutory obligation to work with the most local and community-rooted bodies—parish councils—as well as the other essential local groups and agencies that are involved in delivering services at a local level.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.
If the arts, culture and heritage are rightly recognised as an area of competence, as the noble Earl argued persuasively they should be, it follows logically that they should also be recognised as a basis for collaboration. Amendment 100 would simply make that explicit, placing culture alongside economic and social well-being as something on which mayors may work together, rather than treating it as incidental or discretionary.
I understand, of course, that the Bill currently frames collaboration as applying between neighbouring strategic authorities. I acknowledge that intention, but I would gently suggest that culture does not always conform neatly to a geography. Cultural ecosystems are interdependent in ways that often cut across administrative boundaries and sometimes beyond immediate neighbours; that is not an argument against the structure of the Bill but a reflection of how culture functions on the ground.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spoke powerfully about cultural ecosystems, and I agree with him entirely. They are both geographically and economically interdependent. Grass-roots venues feed major institutions. Studios, rehearsal spaces and local festivals sustain the pipeline of skills on which national and international success depends. As is well known, cultural infrastructure —including libraries, museums, theatres, music venues, studios and heritage sites—acts as a form of civic glue, regenerating high streets, anchoring communities and driving wider economic activity.
We already see good practice emerging. Manchester and Liverpool, for example, have used accommodation-based visitor charges through business improvement districts to reinvest in culture, the public realm and visitor services. Although these schemes are imperfect, they demonstrate how locally controlled funding can support cultural ecosystems in a way that aligns the interests of residents, visitors and the hospitality sector. In that context, I very much look forward to seeing how the tourism levy evolves and how it can best support this kind of joined-up cultural ambition.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I lend my support to Amendment 100. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for their knowledge in this sphere. I am grateful to the noble Earl for referencing West and South Yorkshire in this regard. I place on record how impressive Screen Yorkshire is, as well as the Rural Arts Centre in Thirsk that I mentioned previously. I am all in favour of collaboration in the areas of competence, arts and culture; they have a tremendous role to play for young people coming on to the scene.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I fully support what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said. To some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, touched on the issue that I wanted to raise about a broader meaning of the word culture. Culture is used to bring people together and bring social cohesion. It is a deliberate action taken by people to build and deepen democratic behaviours and citizenship. I want to register that much broader meaning of the word culture, because if we can use culture as a vehicle for bringing people together, that good practice can be used across regions, which will be beneficial. I elaborated the reasons for that in my previous comments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will try to be quick, given the time. This has been a useful debate. I am sympathetic to the principle behind Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Culture really is the glue that glues local areas together. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, because collaboration across boundaries is very important. In a similar manner, Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is both sensible and welcome, recognising again that economic activity, trade and so on cross boundaries and that we need to establish mechanisms to ensure co-operation.
Moving on, Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, follows the same theme. I shall also refer to “Yes, Prime Minister”, because I watched the same episode. I noted that Sir Humphrey had a huge concern that devolving things to local councils would actually lead to real delivery; his solution was to create a whole series of bureaucratic, cross-regional structures to ensure that nothing happened. That is why I am slightly concerned about this amendment producing additional layers of bureaucracy and additional planning boards that will potentially duplicate or confuse. Although we agree with the thrust behind this amendment, additional bureaucracy is something that makes us feel a little uncomfortable and a bit nervous—hence my referring to the Sir Humphrey situation.
I turn to Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am a huge believer in democracy. We should elect people and trust them to get on with the job; if they do not get on with the job, they should be booted out when the next election comes around. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that mayors, councils and so on should engage with their residents and listen to what they have to say—depending on what the subject is and where the place is, that may take a variety of forms —but I am hugely concerned about setting up self-appointed, unelected bodies that then hold democratic bodies to account. I just do not feel that that is the right way round; people should engage, but that engagement should be based on democracy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am sorry but I must interrupt the noble Lord, if he will allow me one second. He said “self-appointed”; the whole idea of people’s assemblies is that they are a representative group of people usually chosen by lottery, lot or similar.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I will take back what the noble Baroness says. In this case, my point is that a random unelected body is not the same as an elected body. I genuinely think that democracy is important. If you wish to engage, you probably need to be a bit more nuanced in whom you engage with, because it should not be random; it should be those people who can really give you the feedback and information you need, depending on the subject and the place. Take central Bedfordshire, for example: a random 100 people from across central Bedfordshire will not be particularly helpful when we are discussing what is happening in my own little village of Maulden; I would rather discuss it with the residents of Maulden.
With that, I shall move on. This debate has made it clear that collaboration is important—in many cases, essential. I hope that it will be taken seriously by the Minister and that she will come back with some flexibility later on in the Bill’s passage.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that we have been pressing on time; the Hansard team and other officers were here until very late last night and we do not want to put them under any further pressure.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Janke, for their amendments on the duty to collaborate. I shall start with Amendment 100, for which I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I completely understand the intention behind this amendment—we have now had many discussions on this issue—but we ultimately think that it is unnecessary, as cultural well-being is captured in the current wording of Clause 22.
Culture underpins our creative and visitor economies; in this way, cultural activity is inherently captured in the meaning of
“economic, social or environmental well-being”.
The formulation is intentionally wide so that mayors can request collaboration on a broad range of matters; it is also intended to avoid an exhaustive or prospective list. Adding “cultural” risks undermining that approach and creating pressure to enumerate further dimensions of well-being without delivering any substantive new effect. Indeed, explicitly singling culture out could invite arguments that other aspects of well-being that are not listed are of lesser importance, or that cultural interests should be interpreted narrowly or separately from economic, social or environmental considerations.
Mayors of strategic authorities can, and already do, collaborate on cultural matters. The Mayors of South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, York and North Yorkshire have come together to sign the White Rose Agreement, committing to work together on high-profile culture and sporting events and to celebrate Yorkshire’s heritage. I hope that the noble Earl and the other noble Lords who raised the issue of culture have been reassured by my agreement to reflect on how culture is treated in the competency framework.
I turn to Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, which seeks to promote greater regional collaboration between mayors and other public and private partners. The Government agree with the value and benefits of regional collaboration. However, while the amendment is well intentioned, we do not think it is necessary. Strategic authorities and their mayors already have a wide range of mechanisms to collaborate across administrative boundaries, and several mayors are already doing so successfully. We heard some examples from the noble Lord.
The powers in Clause 22 are not intended to replace the wide range of positive and informal collaboration that already takes place. They are intended to supplement these existing mechanisms and strengthen mayoral leadership by providing a more formal route for cross-boundary pan-regional collaboration where this can improve outcomes for communities. However, it should be for mayors to decide for themselves how to use these powers rather than for the Government to prescribe or constrain the purposes and form that mayoral collaboration must take. More broadly, under existing legislation, combined authorities and combined county authorities can already enter into joint committees, allowing them to discharge certain powers together and jointly produce legislative documents such as spatial development strategies.
I turn to Amendment 102 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace; this is not from Sir Humphrey, but from me—I am passionate about devolution and am not letting anyone get in the way of that; it is good programme, though, and I like it. This amendment would require strategic authorities to prepare joint strategic development plans, covering two or more strategic authority areas in certain circumstances. I appreciate the intent behind the amendment to join up strategic authorities, but I do not agree that the amendment is necessary. We already have broadly equivalent powers as a result of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. New Section 12B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the 2025 Act, enables the Secretary of State to require authorities to work together on spatial development strategies through the establishment of a strategic planning board. The Government intend to use these powers, in particular in areas without a combined authority or a combined county authority. The same Act gives the Secretary of State a wide range of intervention powers in relation to the preparation and adoption of spatial development strategies.
It is worth highlighting that, where strategic planning authorities are working on separate spatial development strategies, they are required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, to have regard to the need to be consistent with current national policies. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out strong expectations on authorities to work effectively across local government boundaries.
I turn to Amendment 103. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for raising the importance of citizen engagement in local decision-making. The Government fully agree that residents should have meaningful opportunities to shape the decisions that affect their areas. However, as the locally elected leaders in their regions, mayors should have the ability to decide on how best to engage with their local communities. Mayors can convene citizens’ assemblies if they wish to, and, in places such as South Yorkshire, mayors have decided to use these powers. Once the Bill becomes law, all mayors will have general powers of competence conferred automatically on them, which will enable them to convene citizens assemblies should they wish to do so.
Finally, the Bill already includes a provision in this area. Clause 60 introduces a neighbourhood governance duty, requiring all local authorities to put in place arrangements to secure effective neighbourhood governance. That will ensure that communities have meaningful opportunities to inform and influence local decisions.
I turn to Amendment 104, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 196, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. Both seek to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities work closely with their local authorities, public service providers and bodies representing local communities in town and parish councils. I recognise the spirit in which these amendments have been made. It is important for all mayors to engage with the wider public sector and the local authority family in delivering their own functions. However, strategic authorities are already expected, through existing legislation and provisions in this Bill, to work collaboratively with local partners and communities when exercising their functions.
Amendment 104 in particular would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on mayors of strategic authorities by placing a new duty requiring them to meet local authorities, public service providers and town and parish councils. As an illustration, North Yorkshire alone compromises 729 individual parishes, organised into 412 town and parish councils. Expecting a mayor to discharge this proposed duty in respect of each body would be impractical and may crowd out some of the time needed for the officer’s other strategic responsibilities. Parish and town councils continue to be supported in their work, and local authorities are strongly encouraged to work with them to understand the contribution they are able to make to the delivery of local services and the management of local assets.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply and will be very brief. I thank noble Lords for their support for my amendment.
The point about the word “cultural” is that it has an important integrity. If we do not have it then something significant will be lost, because what it embraces will get shared out among other things.
Finally, the great theme in this debate has been a plea for greater flexibility and collaboration. I agree with so much of what your Lordships have said in that regard. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Monday 2nd February 2026
(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-IV(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (2 Feb 2026)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for not being at Second Reading, but I care deeply about these issues. Amendments 104A and 105A seek to ensure that, when we talk about micromobility vehicles in this Bill, we do not inadvertently exclude those used for delivery services. These services are now a major and growing part of daily life, whether that is food delivered by bicycle, parcels carried by e-bikes or goods transported by small vans. These services are economically and socially important, but they also have a very real impact on our streets and pavements, which is already being felt.
For example, food delivery has nearly doubled since 2019—as have parcel deliveries by vans, albeit over a longer period—yet local authorities currently lack clear powers to manage how those services operate in public space, particularly where micromobility vehicles are concerned. The Government’s guidance on this Bill recognises that the regulatory framework may need to expand in future, for example to include e-scooters or pavement delivery devices if they begin to block pavements or disrupt shared space, but that future is already here. Local authorities and communities are experiencing these pressures today.
In Committee in the Commons, it was directly raised whether what are now Clause 23 and Schedule 5 could be broadened to cover delivery vehicles. The Minister acknowledged that similar vehicles are already causing problems on our streets and said that the issue would be taken away and considered. I would be grateful to hear the outcome of those considerations today. If we miss this opportunity now, it could be many years before Parliament returns to this topic. We need only look at pedicabs to see how long such delays can last. Transport for London first sought powers in 2005; even now, those powers are not fully in force.
With these amendments, any use of these powers would still require secondary legislation and, crucially, be entirely optional for local authorities. The intention is to ensure that councils can take action where problems arise. That flexibility matters. In city centres, licensing could be used to address issues such as illegal e-bikes, pavement obstruction, unsafe riding and polluting vans, which are now the largest source of air pollution in central London. In rural or sensitive areas, a different approach might be taken, such as permit systems to encourage consolidation of deliveries or to manage speeds on narrow rural lanes. There are also important issues around safety and workers’ rights. Research from University College London found that freelance delivery workers are three times more likely to feel pressured to take safety risks or dangerous risks compared with employed drivers. Giving local authorities the tools to shape how delivery services operate could help to address these concerns.
Ultimately, these amendments are about empowering local decision-making. They would ensure that delivery services using micromobility vehicles are not accidentally carved out of a framework that is designed precisely to manage competing demands on shared space. I hope that the Minister will accept them or, at the very least, give a clear assurance that delivery services will be brought within scope at the earliest possible opportunity. Without that, we risk leaving our local authorities powerless in the face of challenges that they are already struggling to manage. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 108 and 109 would place stronger requirements on traffic authorities with regards to parking and docking, and Amendment 113 would expand the duty to co-operate to Great British Railways and other relevant bodies. I am grateful to the charity CoMoUK for its advice in this area.
This Bill is a welcome opportunity to start the long-overdue management and regulation of micromobility schemes and to reduce any negative impacts. Any noble Lord who has sat through many of the Committee days of the current police Bill will have heard arguments made and concerns expressed about bikes and scooters cluttering our pavements and about the lack of regulation—that is seen in the number of amendments today. This Bill is an opportunity to deal with these issues.
Amendments 108 and 109 would require traffic authorities to provide parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the right level. The proposed legal duty for highways authorities to merely “co-operate” with strategic authorities is weak. There is a risk that authorities will fail to provide sufficient parking spaces for micromobility vehicles. I understand that there are existing cases of the relevant authorities refusing to provide any bike-share parking space at all. This will limit the potential of micromobility to serve the public and will risk micromobility vehicles becoming a public inconvenience through inappropriate parking, as we currently see across our cities.
In addition to the duty to co-operate, it is important that traffic authorities have a duty to provide parking at sufficient densities, with density standards defined by the licensing regulations and guidance that this Bill outlines. Guidance should emphasise that, where possible, parking should be on the carriageway—perhaps replacing a private car parking space—strengthening the role of micromobility in the shift away from private car ownership and supporting the Government’s goals around active travel, clean air and climate.
I will expand on this a little more. It is important that the Bill gets parking right as, on the one hand, the planning of parking locations has a huge impact on how convenient shared micromobility is to use and therefore how much the public can benefit from it. On the other hand, as we hear regularly, poorly planned parking can be the source of so many problems, such as obstructing pavements, that this Bill aims to resolve.
As the Bill is currently written, the authority that gives out licences is not the authority responsible for parking, which creates that risk of mismatch between the number of bikes licensed and the quantity of parking available. These amendments aim to ensure that traffic authorities work in a co-ordinated way with licensing authorities to provide that appropriate level of parking. Density and quality standards outlined in guidance would support those traffic authorities to understand what is needed. If we do not tackle this tension, we will continue the chaos that we see on our pavements and streets, which benefits no one.
Amendment 113 would require Great British Railways, National Highways and other public bodies to co-operate with the licensing authority on micromobility vehicles and the connectivity with other modes of transport. The creation of Great British Railways in particular is a huge opportunity to integrate between rail and other forms of transport. Parking at stations for shared micromobility would make connections easier for passengers. Research that CoMoUK carried out showed that 21% of active bike-share users combine their most common bike-share trips with a train ride.
Similarly, having shared micromobility parking near bus stations improves the potential for interchange, while parking at or near NHS sites—hospitals and the like—and schools can improve access for those travelling for health, education or employment in a public service. Co-operation between bodies is essential to fully realise these benefits and to enable more people to choose active travel modes for more journeys.
An amendment tabled to one of my amendments suggests removing the word “sufficient”. This would leave a gap in the legislation that would allow an authority to say, “Well, we’ve provided one parking space, and that is enough for the micromobility in our borough or area”. So “sufficient” is a crucial word that would allow a proper assessment of need and demand and allow proper provision. I hope that the Minister has been looking into this and I look forward to his response with interest, particularly as these are such delicate issues on our highways.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I start by apologising for not having spoken at Second Reading.
I will speak to a number of amendments in this group standing in my name and, with the indulgence of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendment 112 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who, unfortunately, cannot be in her place today. These amendments relate to Clause 23, which introduces Schedule 5, relating to new provisions in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, creating, in effect, a new local licensing framework for micromobility vehicles.
Let me say at the outset that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked some very interesting questions about the scope of what should be included here, and I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
Amendments 105 and 106 in my name also relate to the definition of “passenger micromobility vehicles”. As drafted, the Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to prescribe further categories of vehicle by regulation at a later date, as appears in Schedule 5 to the Bill, on page 139, in addition to an “electronically assisted pedal cycle”. So a “passenger micromobility vehicle” means
“a pedal cycle … an electrically assisted pedal cycle, or … a micromobility vehicle that … is designed or adapted to carry one or more individuals, and … is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
The “and” there is crucial. We are all aware of micromobility vehicles that are not pedal cycles or electrically assisted pedal cycles, such as e-scooters and things of that sort. They would have to be designated by the Secretary of State in order to be included in the scope of the Bill.
I do not know why that has to happen. I do not see why the Government cannot be clear about what this covers and cover it from the outset, not by way of regulation later, which may or may not happen; the remarks made by the noble Baroness about pedicabs and how long these things take to happen are salutary in this respect. So my reason for tabling these amendments is to probe why those categories are not clearly and properly defined in the Bill at the outset and why we will have to wait for regulations later.
My Amendment 107 addresses the exemption provisions. Schedule 5 permits the Secretary of State, again by regulation, to create further exemptions from what may otherwise be criminal prohibitions. So criminal offences will be created by the Bill, or the Act when it comes into force. On the face of the Act, certain things will be exempt from those criminal provisions—that is fine; not everything has to be criminal, and you might want some exemptions—but the Secretary of State may want to add to them later. Thus, through regulation, not an Act of Parliament, there will be changing and meddling with the criminal law and criminal liability. Even though it is moving in the right direction, I do not think that regulation by the Secretary of State is an ideal way for the criminal law in this country to be changed. So the Government should be clear on what additional exemptions they are thinking of producing, and, if possible, those should be included in the Bill.
Amendment 110 is an amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, which requires local highways authorities to create sufficient space for micromobility vehicles. I have suggested the deletion of “sufficient”. This is probing, to some extent, but “sufficient” creates an unlimited obligation on the part of the local highways authority. What is sufficient? It is sufficient to meet demand. If the demand increases, more space must be produced. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seems to think that this might be quite attractive, because it would force out private motor vehicles, which would have no such prior claim on the highway.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on micromobility.
I will begin with Amendments 104A and 105A. The noble Baroness is right that delivery devices such as pavement robots are used—and in the future may well be used very frequently—in Great Britain. This framework is designed to license the provision of shared micromobility vehicles. It is not designed to regulate how they are used on the streets, but I reassure the noble Baroness that all the categories that she spoke about could be included in the category of “non-passenger micromobility vehicles” in future under the Bill’s existing drafting, as it is broad enough to capture vehicles used for different purposes, including delivery vehicles.
I turn to Amendments 105 and 106. The Bill sets out clear parameters for what could be considered a micromobility vehicle for the purposes of this licensing framework and Amendment 105 seeks to remove them. The framework will initially cover shared pedal and e-bikes, but it needs the flexibility to extend to other modes, such as e-scooters, once they have been regulated for under separate UK-wide regulation. The framework must be future-proof to be fit for purpose. We must retain flexibility or risk leaving our local leaders without the ability to effectively manage their streets every time a new technology enters the market. Retaining this flexibility without being overly broad is key and the parameters and definitions that we have set out in the Bill achieve this balance. These amendments would defeat this intention to the point of being prohibitive, leaving only cycles and e-cycles in scope.
Amendment 107 seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to create exemptions to the requirement to hold a licence. A future-facing licensing framework for shared micromobility is essential to ensure that local leaders have the powers that they need to maximise the benefits of these schemes and decisively tackle any negative impacts. However, these requirements must be proportionate. To ensure this, it has always been our intention to exempt schemes from licensing requirements based on their scale and nature. It is not right that a community-led scheme providing five or six bikes for shared use in a village should be held to the same standard as a commercial operator applying for a licence for tens of thousands of bikes—and that it could face criminal prosecution for doing so. This power has been created to ensure that such situations are avoided.
It is not possible to account in primary legislation for all the potential exemptions to licensing requirements that might be necessary to ensure proportionality, not least as this may differ by vehicle type and usage. Micromobility is a new industry, and new business models and technologies will continue to emerge. This framework is designed to account for the shared use of these future technologies on our streets. The impacts of different vehicle types on shared street space will be different and it is impossible to anticipate these future impacts with certainty right now. Therefore, the types of schemes that it is appropriate to exempt may vary by the type of shared micromobility vehicle or business model. For example, a scheme of 10 shared cycles may be small enough to exempt from licensing due to very limited impacts, but a scheme of 10 pavement delivery devices could have significantly different impacts that may make it appropriate to require a licence. That is why the flexibility to make further exemptions in regulations is essential to the effective future functioning of the framework.
On Amendment 108, while I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that parking density and standards are critical to the success of shared micromobility licensing, I believe that the framework as introduced already tackles this in the most appropriate way. The framework already contains regulation-making powers on what must be included in a licence. That includes the power to set specific licence requirements on parking, if deemed necessary following consultation.
On density, as with other traffic management measures, local authorities know their roads best and are best placed to consider what level of provision is appropriate and in what locations. However, we will set out statutory guidance following detailed consultation to help licensing authorities to make these decisions. Where the licensing authority and traffic authority are not the same, they will have a legal duty to co-operate on parking. I will be happy to discuss this subject, and Amendments 109 and 113, with the noble Baroness further after Committee.
On Amendment 109, regarding parking for micromobility vehicles, and Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, a key intention of the framework is to ensure the provision of shared cycle parking in the right spaces. So, while I appreciate the sentiment behind these amendments, I do not believe that they are needed. The licensing authority is intended to be the highest tier of local government to ensure that oversight of these schemes happens at the strategic level. However, traffic authorities are best placed to deliver effective parking solutions locally. The legal duty, as it exists in Schedule 5, has been drafted to facilitate collaborative working relationships between these bodies. These amendments would place the burden of resolving parking challenges entirely with traffic authorities, which could have the effect of making them junior partners in parking provision and would not be conducive to the genuine positive collaboration and partnership between authorities that is necessary to make schemes successful.
The proposed amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also would not add any further specificity to the duty, given the ambiguity of what is meant by “sufficient parking”. That could create further challenges and opaqueness for local authorities to navigate as part of a licensing process that is intended to make managing these schemes more straightforward and efficient. Local leaders know their areas best, and effective and constructive co-operation will look different in different places. We may well set out in further detail in guidance what constructive co-operation could look like, but it is important that that is done following in-depth consultation to ensure its effectiveness.
I turn to Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Licensing authorities will be able to set licence conditions on the parking of shared cycles and enforce these through the framework. The issues that the amendment seeks to address are largely ones that are likely to arise with illegal private vehicles rather than shared micromobility. Identifying the owner of a private cycle can be challenging but, in the case of shared e-cycles, it is commercially essential that the operator is clearly identifiable and engageable. The police and local authorities in certain circumstances already have powers to remove and dispose of broken-down, abandoned and obstructive or dangerously parked vehicles. For local authorities, the powers extend to cycles and other micromobility vehicles. Indeed, as the noble Lord observed, those very powers have been used by no less than the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to seize more than 1,000 obstructively parked rental e-bikes in 2025, according to the council’s own website. Similarly, concerns about inherently unsafe vehicles are generally focused on illegal electric motorcycles rather than shared e-cycles operated by legitimate businesses. The Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will strengthen existing police powers by removing the requirement for a warning to be issued before the seizure of vehicles being used illegally.
On Amendment 112, on which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke, ensuring the safe use of shared micromobility vehicles is at the heart of this framework. We recognise the role that insurance plays in safety and accountability for operators, users and non-users of shared cycles. That is why we have taken powers that allow us to set out in regulations what insurance may need to be in place as part of a shared-cycle scheme. However, insurance is a commercially and legally complex area. Therefore, it is vital to first consult in depth to understand the full impacts of any potential requirements.
I understand of course how crucial it is that we get the insurance question right, and that the consequences of not doing so could have serious impacts on lives and livelihoods. It will be particularly important to strike the right balance of responsibility between operators and users, and it may not be reasonable or appropriate to place the burden of obtaining insurance entirely on the user, as this amendment would do. This approach would also deviate from existing approaches to insurance for other shared modes, such as rental cars or rental e-scooters. Insurance requirements will need to align with any related aspects of licensing which may be deemed necessary following consultation, such as potential processes for user identity or age verification. It is important that flexibility exists to ensure such alignment in secondary legislation and thereby that the framework is as effective and rigorous as possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I think there were some pilots of privately owned e-scooters. Have the results of those come through? Have they been published?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
To answer the noble Baroness’s question, the original pilot e-scooter experiments were started in the days of the previous Government and there were no results. This Government have extended both the number and the length of the pilots, so there will be some results in due course that relate to current circumstances rather than the circumstances of several years ago.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his answers to my concern about micromobility delivery vehicles. I think I heard the conditional in his words about them, so “could” rather than “would”. I will read Hansard very carefully and then come back to him, perhaps in a Corridor somewhere or on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Parking charges and strategic authorities: restriction of powers(1) In section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (designation of paying parking places on highways), after subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) A combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority may not make an order under subsection (1).”(2) In section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 (financial provisions relating to designation orders), after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) A combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority may not undertake any activity provided for under this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent mayors of CCAs from increasing charges or penalties for vehicle parking, and from using proceeds of those charges, to ensure local communities maintain control of these matters and cannot be imposed upon.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on Amendment 114A, which is genuinely probing. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that parking enforcement and the charges associated with it remain with the lowest-tier authority, as they currently are, and are not subsumed into a combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority and with them, presumably, the money that flows from them. A matter of minutes ago, the Minister said that local leaders know their area best, and it should be local leaders who are responsible for enforcement and the funding that comes from it.
If the Government’s intention is that that responsibility and funding stream should migrate away from local authorities that have had it in the past up to these new combined authorities, they should say so now. If that is not their intention, it would also be helpful to know that because, once we have established that clearly, it should be possible to return to the matter on Report with a proper conservative approach.
There are two other amendments in this group, one of which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and concerns pavement parking—a matter of considerable concern to people who are blind or mobility impaired in a number of ways. I look forward to hearing the case for that amendment, which I think it is going to be spoken to, and to the Government’s response.
Finally, there is an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which, putting it in blunt terms, seeks to extend civil enforcement powers for parking from London to the rest of the country. Again, I will listen very carefully to the proposal, but I am not unsympathetic to it in principle as I currently understand it, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 121A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett who sends his apologies to the Committee this afternoon. He has a long-standing appointment that he could not cancel, so he asked me to speak to his amendment on his behalf. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has expressed, I suspect, a bit of sympathy towards this amendment, and so he should. The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust has provided a detailed briefing on this amendment which sets out a very good case.
Essentially, the amendment would provide the local transport authority or designated upper-tier local authority outside London with the power to prohibit pavement parking in its local area, and provide, where sensible, for exemptions.
The case is very straightforward. Essentially, pavement parking is a threat and a jeopardy to anybody with a disability, and in particular those who are partially sighted or blind, and anyone with a mobility impairment. Polling on the subject suggests that 73% of those with a disability would support local authorities enforcing against pavement parking. For those who are partially sighted, the percentage is even higher.
The truth is that barriers such as pavement parking put people off travelling. According to a national travel survey, disabled people take 25% fewer trips than non-disabled people because they fear the consequences of using pavements that have cars parked on them, so there is a real transport accessibility gap.
Some 41% of individuals who responded to the Government’s consultation on this subject felt that they would leave home more often if there was an end to pavement parking. Pavement parking affects us all, not just those who have disabilities. In particular, it forces people off footpaths or pavements on to the road, which of course can be very dangerous. Another problem that perhaps is not stated as much as it should be is that it damages pavements, causing them to be even less safe to use. Cars parking on pavements reduces walking and wheeling and we should take note of that and make our streets genuinely more accessible, free and easy for all to use.
In London, I understand, there is effective power to tackle pavement parking and Scotland has devolved powers as well, giving local authorities there a very clear steer in the way in which they enforce.
As I understand it, the Department for Transport conducted a consultation on this issue five years or so ago and the public have been waiting a long time for a response. In January this year, the department finally said that it would give these powers to English councils at the next legislative opportunity. I have discovered in my time in the House of Lords that these opportunities do not come along very often, and I suggest that this is probably one of those legislative opportunities. I therefore urge the Minister to give this amendment a positive response and perhaps, between now and Report, we can perfect the words so that the powers can work more effectively, not just for people in Scotland and London but across England as well.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, very much in the same vein of argument. One thing that shocked me, reading some of the background to this, was that local transport authorities do not have this power at the moment. It seems remarkable. Yet Scotland and London, as the noble Lord mentioned, already do.
The other group of people who should be mentioned are parents with young children who are trying to navigate pavements blocked by cars, vans or whatever. It seems absolutely obvious that this wrong, which is right in London and Scotland, should be put right immediately. I can see very few arguments against that.
Having said that—I hope Hansard will pause for a while—I am an offender, because my eldest daughter Jessica lives in Ivybridge on a 1960s estate where the roads are so narrow that when I visit her I have to park partly on the pavement. She is nowhere near public transport. I can see the noble Baroness looking at me disparagingly. There is no local public transport and so, in order not to block the road, you have to park partly on the pavement.
The amendment absolutely states that local authorities have the discretion to apply that exemption to certain streets, so I think it is right for the occasion. It is important for pedestrians, wheelers, parents, the disabled and us—the public.
I also say to the Minister—I do not know whether this is legislated for—that the other thing that really gets up my nose is people parking on cycle lines. That can be equally dangerous, as cyclists have to veer out into the main road. It is not related to this amendment, but I would be interested in the Minister’s comment as to whether that is also illegal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said and as I understand it, this is already government policy, so let us just get on and do it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 121A from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but a number of amendments have emerged in this Bill that fit my wider interest in accessibility.
I did not want to repeat myself, as some of the issues fall under the previous group of amendments, such as abandoned bikes causing a lot of difficulty for disabled people, which is a significant issue. I asked quite a large number of disabled people about their experiences and only one said that there might be a need for it where they lived, because local businesses rely on pavement parking to carry out their trade. However, there is a far more negative impact than that. A number of disabled people explained that they have to take very long routes around and that there is a lack of dropped kerbs. If you are pushing along the road at my height, behind cars, you cannot actually see what is on the road. Also, in lots of places, broken paving is a nightmare for wheelchair users and a lack of tactile paving makes it extremely difficult for visually impaired people, who might have to use routes that they had not realised they would need to use.
I spoke to one scooter user who said that, when they were trying to weave their way around a car, they could not see whether there was a driver in that car; there was, but the driver did not see them, so pulled out and knocked them into the road. This is really difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised parents with prams, for whom this can be horrendous. A mum who is a wheelchair user got in touch with me; she cannot use a pram, because she is a wheelchair user, so she trained her child to walk alongside her. I did that with my daughter and it is amazing how, from a young age, they learn what they should or should not do. But this mother found herself having to walk out into the road with a toddler and she felt very disconcerted about it.
Data from Cambridgeshire County Council shows that we spend about £234 million a year fixing pavements damaged by pavement parking. Data from Guide Dogs, admittedly from 2006 to 2010, showed that local authorities spend about £1 billion repairing kerbs and walkways because of pavement parking. This seems not just a ridiculous amount of money but incredibly dangerous.
Disability rights campaigner Judy Heumann suggested that, to be good allies to disabled people, non-disabled people should let the air out the tyres when people have pavement-parked. I do not think that is a very good idea, but this is such a challenge, not least when there is no other route that can be taken: you risk damaging your chair; you might not get through with your guide dog; or you risk damaging somebody’s car or van. A number of disabled people told me that they have experienced quite a lot of verbal abuse and high levels of threat by asking people to move, which is just not acceptable.
In researching this amendment, I watched a public service film from 1982 that says, “Leave the pavement for pedestrians”, but it seems that we have not moved on too much since then. I urge the Minister and his team to look at this issue. It is a real risk for disabled people and we should just be doing much better.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have said.
I am slightly confused by a comparison between what the Department for Transport said in a press release on 8 January and what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, which is that powers will be available when legislative time allows. He rightly pointed out that we do not know when that will happen. However, the press release on 8 January said:
“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.
That implies to me that it can do what is proposed by setting out guidance and that we can be under way by 2026. However, the briefing we have all had from the trust implies that the Government will resist this amendment because they want to narrow the scope and there will be a place for it at a subsequent date. Exactly what is happening this year? If it is not all going to happen this year, what will happen this year? The press release certainly implies something:
“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.
I am sure the Minister will be able to shed some light on this issue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
That is really interesting, is it not? I am sure the Minister will tell us exactly what all that means.
I am one of those people who challenge people who park on the pavement. Just recently, I saw a huge van parked all the way across a pavement. I went up to challenge the driver and found that it was an ambulance, so I did back off because I thought somebody needed some help. I totally agree that pavement parking means that the kerbside degenerates; it gets broken, which means yet another hazard for all of us, not just for people who are not particularly mobile, at night and so on.
I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but he should not be parking on the pavement. I do not care that the road is too small. He should park in a legal place and walk the rest of the way. It would be really good for his heart. The thing about pavement parking is that, if your car is too wide to park on the road, your car is too wide. Get a smaller car—do not take up space that pedestrians need. I see no rationale or excuse for that. It is just plain rude, and I loathe it.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 238, as she cannot be here today. Local authorities currently have civil enforcement powers which enable council officers to enforce parking contraventions on the highway, such as parking on a bend, across a driveway or too close to a junction. They have the power to impose penalty charge notices. This Bill will enable these powers to be taken by a mayor, which in my noble friend’s opinion will result in a less accountable system as mayoral authorities are likely to have populations of around 1 million.
This amendment seeks to achieve a retention of civil enforcement powers by local authorities and, more importantly, contains a provision to extend the powers to other highway infringements such as speeding on local roads—those which are not A or B roads. I understand that in the past my noble friend looked to table a Motion in the ballot to enable local authorities to enforce speeding problems on residential roads, which had huge support from the Local Government Association, London Councils and many boroughs. That is why she tabled this amendment, so I hope the Minister can respond to that point.
We have had a really interesting discussion about Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made a really good point, to which I hope the Minister can respond. It is an anomaly. Outside London, while it is an offence to drive on the pavement, it is not a specific offence to park on a pavement in most instances. This amendment tries to resolve this.
We have had briefings, as the Committee has heard, from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, and I have had a briefing from Guide Dogs about this issue. According to Guide Dogs, four in five blind or partially sighted people have said that pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week and over 95% have been forced to walk in the road because of pavement parking, so, as we have heard, this is a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, refers to the fact that five years ago the Department for Transport conducted a consultation, and we had the results in on 8 January. I believe this is the legislative opportunity for the Government—that is, if they need one, and if they do not, I hope the Minister can clarify that—and it clearly has cross-party support. It is important that we look to resolve this anomaly as soon as possible.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendment 114A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Bill does not provide powers to combined authorities or combined county authorities in respect of parking provision. As parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations, the same imperative for consistent enforcement does not arise across a combined authority and combined county authority area, as is otherwise the case for the enforcement of bus lanes and other moving traffic restrictions. Civil parking enforcement powers are not considered to be appropriate at combined authority and combined county authority level. The Bill provides combined authorities and combined county authorities only with the ability to take on powers to enforce on a civil basis contraventions of bus lane and moving traffic restrictions with the agreement of the constituent local authorities.
The amendment would have no effect because combined authorities and county combined authorities are not defined as local authorities under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That provision limits the power to make traffic regulation orders for paid on-street parking to specific bodies: county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils, London boroughs, the Common Council of the City of London and Transport for London. The use of any surplus revenue from the designation of parking places is strictly ring-fenced under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for local authority-funded environmental measures and public transport schemes. This important principle will apply equally to combined authorities and combined county authorities for bus lane and moving traffic contraventions, which is appropriate in the interests of consistency and already dealt with in the regulations.
I turn to Amendment 121A, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bassam and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others. I welcome my noble friend’s interest in this matter and I share the concerns that the amendment seeks to address. Vehicles parked on the pavement can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments, as we have heard, as well as those with prams and pushchairs and of course in wheelchairs.
On 8 January this year, my department published a formal response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking, summarising the views received and announcing the Government’s next steps of pavement parking policy. We plan to give local authorities power later in 2026 to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the pavement. That offence already exists and can be enforced by the police, but making it enforceable on a civil basis can be achieved through secondary legislation and will clearly be welcome.
In addition, and I hope this answers the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the Government have announced our intention to make primary legislation to give powers to local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking in their area. That will allow the highest tier of local government in an area to prohibit pavement parking, with exemptions for vehicle classes and streets where necessary. This will ensure accessibility on pavements for all pedestrians, including, as we have heard, some of our most vulnerable pavement users.
This is a complex area. Due consideration needs to be given to a range of matters, including how local transport authorities enact a prohibition, which vehicles might be excluded, permissible defences for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his efforts to move this matter forward, and I agree that the amendment captures the overall intent of the policy to create new devolved powers to prohibit pavement parking in the interests of all pavement and road users. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to enable this at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that my noble friend’s amendment may need only small drafting changes to allow it to fully represent the Government’s position. I am happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this matter further.
In respect of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about parking on cycleways, it is already an offence to park on a cycle track.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
If it is the case that only minor amendments are needed to what is now before us, why can that not happen on Report?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
As I say, I am very happy to meet the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Blunkett to see whether we can move this forward.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry for sitting down prematurely.
Amendment 238, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would have no effect because there already exists a long-established and well-established civil enforcement regime in regulations made under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. That regime covers matters such as conditions for issuance and levels of penalty charge notices, rights of representation to the issuing local authority, and onward appeal to an independent adjudicator if representations are unsuccessful. The Secretary of State has also published statutory guidance, to which local authorities must have regard under Section 87 of the 2004 Act, to ensure that civil enforcement action is carried out by approved local authorities in a fair and proportionate manner.
With these assurances, I hope that noble Lords are able not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief because, on this occasion, the Minister has brought great clarity to a number of the debates that were initiated in this brief discussion. The sensible thing would be for us to take away what he said and consider, ahead of Report, whether there are any matters that we still wish to pursue. Indeed, I understand that there will be negotiations on at least one of the main topics that were the subject of this discussion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am rarely disappointed by the words of the Minister on matters relating to transport. I am delighted that he concedes that the Blunkett amendment is close to perfection; I think it is. I rather hope that, between now and Report, those of us who want to see Amendment 121A enacted will have a constructive, warm and friendly cup of tea with the Minister to resolve those few words that need to be sorted out so that, on Report, we can achieve a sublime amendment to which everybody signs up.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I hope to be brief. I have two main topics to discuss here. No explanation has been given for including Clause 27, which has the effect of transferring to the Mayor of London powers, which currently rest with the Secretary of State, to give consent for the disposal of land owned by Transport for London.
I start by saying that I do not have a principled objection to giving more powers to Transport for London. In fact, when I think back to the pedicabs Bill, I was the one arguing against the Government’s initial proposal that the pedicab licensing regulations would have had to be approved by the Secretary of State in each case. That argument was eventually heard, so the Secretary of State has no say over the licensing of pedicabs in London; it rests entirely with Transport for London, which is the right place for it to rest. I only wish it would get on and do something about it, but that is another question.
I am not opposed in principle to transferring powers over Transport for London to the Mayor of London from the Secretary of State, but I am concerned about doing so in this case, because the land that belongs to Transport for London is very often necessary for operational purposes, although that is not always immediately apparent to the casual passer-by. The casual passer-by—that might include the mayor, who passes by occasionally—would see that land and perhaps see an opportunity for housing on it. If the mayor is responsible both for decisions relating to housing, as he is, and for decisions relating to the disposal of land by transport for London, he can be placed in a position that not only creates an inherent conflict but can create difficulties for Transport for London over time.
There is a further matter: sometimes the land owned by Transport for London is also accessible by Network Rail, and of course vice versa. We know that Transport for London runs services on a considerable amount of Network Rail assets, so the transfer of land that might be of value for operational purposes to another purpose—let us say housing, although it might be something different—could have an impact that is greater than simply one on Transport for London. It might be something to which Network Rail, for example, or Great British Railways in the future, had an objection—yet the Secretary of State, who would be the normal means through which they would articulate their objection, would not be empowered to take any steps. They would be left as simply one of a number of petitioners at the door of the Mayor of London, asking him to take their interests into account. So I am very cautious about this clause and I wonder whether it has been properly thought through. I do not understand the rationale for it, except in the general sense of, “We’ve got to devolve things, so here’s something we can devolve”. I am not sure this is something that should in fact be devolved.
My Amendment 119, and Amendment 118, which is consequential to it, would replace the duty on councils to implement local transport plans with a duty to have regard to them. This is inevitably a fine balance. I think we have all understood it and seen it in other contexts. But there is a real difference, in practice and in law, between being under a duty to implement and being under a duty to have regard. Being under a duty to implement is a very narrow, rigid requirement that will leave very little discretion for local transport authorities to take account of local circumstances. Again, I come back to what the Minister said a little while ago about local authorities being the people who know their area best. I think there is an argument at least—and this is a probing amendment—for exploring why the Government are not content with an arrangement whereby local transport authorities have a duty to have regard to the local transport plans rather than actually to implement them.
Finally, my Amendment 121 in this group relates to Schedule 10 and seeks to remove paragraph 14. As I understand paragraph 14, it effectively transfers responsibility for concessionary travel schemes from district and county councils to combined authorities, or combined county authorities once those bodies are established. There is an emotional bond in many cases between what I am going to call the bus pass and the local authority, which is of great significance both to local people and to the local authority. In fact, when I look at my own Freedom Pass, I see it says that it is funded by London Councils and HM Government. It used to say—not in my time but in years gone past—that it was funded by my local authority, which was named on the Freedom Pass.
That local link is tremendously important. It is one of the most important and valued services that local authorities supply to their residents. To remove the responsibility to the county authority and with it, no doubt, removing the name of the local authority from the pass, cutting that link, is very dangerous. It leaves in the air the question of who is paying for the Freedom Pass or bus pass that people have. Who is paying for it under these new arrangements? The reason why the local authority is entitled to have its name on it is because it is making a large financial contribution, sometimes the whole contribution. In London, the entire contribution comes from London local authorities. That is why they can have their name on it and is the basis of the bond that exists, but who is to carry that burden in the future? Who will be paying for it? Will that bond continue to be connected with the funder? These are important questions to explore. I would very much like to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I will come to Amendment 120F in a moment.
These four amendments look at how this Bill divides responsibility between strategic authorities and local highway authorities and the risk that that division creates if it is not handled carefully. As the Bill is drafted, strategic authorities are responsible for drawing up policy through local transport plans while responsibility for implementing most road-related measures remains with local highway authorities. On the surface, that might sound tidy; in practice, it risks creating confusion and delay. This concern is informed by last week’s judgment by the Court of Appeal, the first time that a court has examined equivalent provisions in Section 151 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which governs the duty of London boroughs to implement the mayor’s transport strategy.
The distinction between policies and proposals is important here. Local transport plans, such as climate plans, contain both. A policy might be to prioritise buses or to reduce speed limits in villages. A proposal is what turns that policy into reality: five miles of bus lane delivered each year or 20 miles an hour limits introduced in five villages annually. I would make it 10 miles an hour through villages, but I understand that people have to get to places.
Under this Bill, local authorities are required to implement policies but only to have regard to proposals. We have also seen amendments that would weaken this even further, reducing the duty to have regard only to policies, not even proposals. That stands in sharp contrast to the position in London where boroughs are under a clear obligation to deliver the proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. Yet outside London, constituent authorities will have a vote on approving local transport plans, something that London boroughs do not have. Surely, if authorities help to shape and approve the plan, it makes sense that they should also be held to deliver what it contains. If proposals can simply be noted and then ignored, we risk gridlock, not only on our streets but in how decisions get made. Strategic plans will promise change while delivery stalls on the ground.
The pace of delivery now really matters. On climate alone, the Climate Change Committee has recommended a 7% modal shift by 2035 that requires major sustained investment in buses and active travel across most, if not all, local authorities. Electric vehicle sales are off target. Other sectors are falling behind. Transport remains the largest emitting sector. It will need to do more, not less. Reducing motor traffic is also essential for public health to cut pollution, much of which now comes from brake and tyre wear. We need to improve road safety and enable walking and cycling. There is also a strong economic case. All major parties now support denser towns and cities rather than continued building on greenfield land. That will not work without significant modal shift. Without it, congestion will worsen and quality of life will decline. These amendments would ensure coherence between strategy and delivery, reduce the risk of stalemate and give local transport plans the force needed to turn ambition into action.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, Amendments 120A to 120C. They are part of a theme that has been talked about before: the degree of devolution and centralisation of existing powers. In general, the Bill is a welcome move towards greater devolution, and my amendments were tabled in that spirit.
Amendment 120A relates to the approval of workplace parking levies by mayors. Back in 2000, the Transport Act was passed, which allowed mayors to implement workplace parking levies but left the final approval with the Secretary of State. The only occasion on which this appears to have been used was in Nottingham some 10 years ago. In the spirit of devolution, my argument is quite simple: we should try to remove barriers wherever possible and consider them where there is an appropriate level of democratic oversight. For example, Leeds City Council is apparently considering using the powers in the Transport Act 2000 in its city centre to support the funding of the West Yorkshire tram. The proposal in my amendment would give established mayors the power to approve a workplace parking levy in their area as part of genuine devolution. I do not understand why those powers require such a senior political level of clearance. That does not seem to be within the spirit of a greater devolved system of governance.
My Amendments 120B and 120C are in the same vein and would allow mayors to approve Transport and Works Act orders in their area. Transport and Works Act orders are the major planning approvals for schemes, such as new trams. All these must be centrally approved by the Secretary of State, whether it is a multimillion or multibillion-pound cross-country scheme such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade or a local tram service extension, and the requirement to go to the Secretary of State can add significant time to projects. It took over three years for the one-mile Birmingham Eastside extension to get sign-off from the department.
If we think about this and put it in perspective, other European countries can go from initiating a project to completion in around four to five years. We must do all that we can to speed these processes up. Clearly, there has to be some further oversight, but letting local areas get on with building and liberating central government from having to approve lots of different things seems a very sensible move.
Mayors are increasingly going to take powers away from the centre and will be running and responsible for large geographic areas, particularly the new county combined mayoral authorities—some, like Sussex, are going to be almost 100 miles long and 50 miles wide, which is a very large slice of the countryside. It seems to me that, if we believe in devolution, we should let them get on with the job and approve schemes in their area, as is the case in other countries. The change to Transport and Works Act orders would simply allow that, which will enable us as a country to grow, and grow our economy.
I think most of us in this room would agree that the economic benefits that flow from expanding and improving the quality of our transport connections are enormous. From the beginning of the development of rail networks, we have seen extensive benefits come about from expanding the network and moving into other areas, and I am sure that doing that quicker and faster will speed up improvements in our economy and economic growth.
I argue that we should have greater devolution for these sorts of decisions and not leave mayors having to scramble around and make sure they catch the wind with the Secretary of State at the right time to get final approval and sign-off for schemes that really do not need to have that degree of centralised control. I beg to move.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 236 in this group is on perhaps a slightly more niche issue than the others raised so far in this group, but it is a detail of relevance which raises some important wider issues. The crux of it is the centralised control over the installation of cattle grids due to the powers reserved to the Secretary of State. The powers are primarily derived from Sections 82 to 90 and Schedule 10 to the Highways Act 1980, although there are other powers, such as those under the New Forest Act 1964.
Sticking to the Highways Act as the principal issue, it rightly requires local councils to consult appropriately before making decisions about the installation of new cattle grids, but it also gives very significant powers to the Secretary of State to have the final decision on such things. It is a legitimate question to ask: what is it about decisions over cattle grids that requires the special attention of the Secretary of State to make a decision on them? I think it is hard to argue that there are great strategic issues at play when making decisions over cattle grids, and indeed the expertise and knowledge that is necessary to decide whether on, say, a particular road, it would be appropriate, dangerous or necessary is very much local expertise and local knowledge. No matter how impressive a Minister may be in their depth of geographic knowledge of the byways of the roads around the country, that expertise will always best sit locally.
The Government’s White Paper was very promising on this topic. I quote it approvingly:
“It is costly, inefficient and patronising that the Secretary of State for Transport has to agree to a new cattle grid”.
I could not have put it better myself. In fact, I think I probably would have been slightly more timid in my choice of language, but, alas, despite that pungent language, the issue then somewhat disappeared. It has not been followed through in the Bill. Listening carefully to the Minister’s comments at Second Reading, it is pretty unclear why this issue has disappeared. I feel there is a slight degree of shadow-boxing on my part, hence the breadth of the amendment that I have submitted, because it would be helpful to tease out what has changed the Government’s mind from that pungent language in the White Paper to the silence in the legislation.
Although in a way it is undoubtedly not the most important of issues when it comes to devolution or transport, it is one of those issues that has wider relevance. Sometimes, improvements in government or public services come from big, grand, sweeping, important measures, but often, the improvements come from relentless incrementalism, the accumulation of small steps. This amendment certainly would be one of those small steps, but a useful small step in properly decentralising power, empowering local councils, acting as highway authorities, to take responsibility and, perhaps, also rather usefully, reducing the workload on central government a little. After all, one of the most common comments that Ministers and civil servants make is how overloaded and overworked so much of Whitehall and Westminster is. Cattle grids on their own are not enough to crack those problems, but devolving power over cattle grids would be a helpful step forward. I look forward to the Minister telling us how the spirit of the White Paper is going to be restored to the Bill on this topic.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Although his amendment does not say so, I assume the noble Lord is talking about cattle grids on highways. The majority of cattle grids are on people’s private land. I think the amendment would be better if it was clearer that it relates to highways, if it does.
Lord Pack (LD)
The answer is largely yes, although the provisions under the Highways Act get into the use of adjoining land and the circumstances in which adjoining land might be used, particularly for bypasses related to cattle grids. However, the intent of the amendment is absolutely to tease out where the Government are on cattle grids on highways.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group, and I shall speak to just a few of them. The last two speakers have outlined that if this Bill is truly about devolution, it should be empowering local authorities to make decisions for their area without having to apply to Whitehall. From Amendment 236 from my noble friend Lord Pack about the decision to install a cattle grid in an area to the speeches we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about workplace parking levies or applying for a Transport and Works Act order, what is the best level for this? In many ways, these are small amendments, but they go to the heart of the Bill. Is this about genuine devolution and empowerment, or is it a little bit of decentralisation from Whitehall but still with the reins attached? That was one of the criticisms we made at Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has had to leave, but I shall speak on his behalf on Amendments 120D and 120E. He apologises to noble Lords for not having taken part before, due to working on other Bills at the same time that have been clashing. Noble Lords will remember the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, now the Bus Services Act. These amendments were tabled by the noble Lord at that time, and we were told:
“The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 90.]
However, according to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the long-awaited road safety strategy is rather coy on bus safety, mentioning the Act and what TfL is doing and then saying:
“Safety measures could then be specified as part of franchising contracts”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is concerned that it seems as though local authorities might move forward in this safety area in some way only if they are minded to do so, whereas, in London, we see that TfL has the Vision Zero strategy, which aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries from the transport network by 2041 and to have no one killed on or by a bus by 2030. Surely these things should be baked into all future transport contracts nationwide. The noble Lord is right to flag up this issue. The road safety strategy is an excellent document in so many areas, but in this area of bus safety it has fallen short of what we all hoped for from the bus services Bill. I hope that the Minister can address our points about devolution and bus safety, as well as about making sure that we are tackling these issues.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, please forgive me—this is my first time in Committee. I declare an interest as a local authority leader here in London, as the chair of the transport and environment committee at London Councils and as an executive of London Councils. I wish to speak to Clause 27 and to Amendments 118 and 118A to Clause 29; I shall speak to Amendment 120B later.
I have sat here and listened to what everybody has said. I believe it was mentioned that, in terms of Clause 27, there are questions around the devolution of power to the Mayor of London regarding Network Rail and land usage. What I can say from my personal experience, having worked closely with the GLA, the Mayor of London, Network Rail, Transport for London and other local authorities, is that they work together. There are often plenty of conversations between the different groups. We do not work in isolation. As anybody who is familiar with planning will know, you speak to and engage with those who have an interest in the land, and so on. I am in favour of the clause because, in London, we work closely with the Mayor of London, local authorities and the GLA. I do not see an issue with having this power devolved to the Mayor of London; it would make things quicker and easier just as much as, when we do anything, we reach out to the environmental authority, for example. This would make things speedier and more streamlined, especially as all the bodies mentioned work closely together.
I turn to Amendments 118 and 118A. I would like to address the fact that, as local authorities, we have local plans. We have to work closely with Transport for London, for example, on our transport plans, and they must have synergy between them. As I mentioned, we do not work in isolation. I believe that establishing local plans gives that freedom to work together, which is why I am not in favour of Amendment 118A.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned freedom passes. They are one of the recent topics of conversation at London Councils because local authorities put a considerable amount of money into them. As such, one of the discussions has been about whether we, as local authorities, should have our local authority on the cards so that residents know who is funding them. That is part of our conversations at the moment. I wish to highlight this because it is an ongoing, live conversation. I say this to noble Lords as somebody who is working hard at the coalface and having these discussions with multiple local authorities, where there is cross-party consensus. I just want to let noble Lords know that this matter is already under discussion in the place where it really matters for those conversations to take place.
Lastly, I am in favour of on my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment. I keep mentioning having those relationships. We are always having those conversations and not just as a mayoral authority. Whether in London or outside it, they speak to those local authorities that are contained within their areas and know the area best, and they have those relationships with other authorities across the border as well. I agree with my noble friend’s amendment. I wanted to speak to those amendments and Clause 27 as someone who is constantly in the rooms where those conversations are being had.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. I am interested in what she said. Unlike many noble Lords here, I am not into London politics at all, but that speech almost painted an ideal situation in London between different levels of local authority. I presume that Great British Railways will be very much a national organisation. I ask the noble Baroness: does politics not get in the way occasionally? I remember some years ago that, when the Mayor of London—it was still Sadiq Khan—tried to turn more of what used to be the British Rail commuter routes into London Overground services, the reaction of the Secretary of State in the Tory Government at the time was, “No way am I going to allow a Labour mayor to take over and have more power in this area”. I am delighted by the noble Baroness’s picture of London politics, but it does not read every way. We are trying to stop politics always getting in the way of improvements—but perhaps she will come back to me and tell me I am wrong, it is all sweetness and light and we do not need to be worried, and I will become a resident of London again. That would be great.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I also work on the Local Government Association, where I have a broader purview. In some of the discussions we have heard today, I have been sitting here thinking, “We do that in London, and we need to make sure that other places do it too”. I find that, where local authorities are keen on Vision Zero and moving towards more sustainable active travel, they are going ahead and doing it. It is with local authorities that are not so keen that a bit of politics probably comes into it. You want everyone to be on the same page and acting the same way. I am not going to mention any local authorities that are not on the same page as Lewisham or, frankly, as progressive when it comes to our green agenda, sustainable travel and so on, but last Monday I had to reprimand someone from a local authority and say, “You’ve got to give people information and guidance so that they can decide. You can’t decide for them whether they want to be included in declaring a climate emergency”. In fact, we have moved past the climate emergency; we are on to a climate action plan now, so I had to inform them of that.
Sometimes there are those differences but, as I say, we work closely with the LGA. The noble Lord mentioned an example where we had a Tory Secretary of State and a Labour Mayor of London. There can be sticking points where we want to get ahead and do something. That is why I speak to my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment, because we need things to be speedier and we have more capacity in local government and know our areas. We need this to be more streamlined so that we can make those decisions more quickly, such as for a transport and works order, and have connections to be able to speak.
For example, with the Bakerloo line extension going out into Kent, we have those relationships and connections. They are not in the Mayor of London’s realm but outside. More locally, in Grove Park, in the south of my borough, we have a desire and an ambition to have an inner-city national park. There is a patchwork of land owned by Network Rail; we are getting it and other parties around the table so that we can drive it and work together. We have an ambition to have this park, where Edith Nesbit lived and wrote The Railway Children. No matter what part of government we are in, money and financing always seem to get in the way. But, where there is a meeting of minds and a desire to achieve our goals, we can try, incrementally and bit by bit, to work towards that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I congratulate the noble Baroness on succeeding me as chairman of the London Councils transport and environment committee. Does she agree that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in relation to refusing the Mayor of London additional rail routes in London, is that that is the policy of the current Government, who as I understand it intend to maintain the devolved routes as they are at the moment but have a policy of creating no more? One does not need to look to a political explanation of these decisions at all. I assume that, because they are in the same party, there is only sweetness and light between the Minister and the Mayor of London.
Does the noble Baroness also agree that it surely cannot all be sweetness and light in London at the moment, because London Councils has a policy that the boroughs should replace the assembly and have a relationship with the mayor much on the national level being proposed in this Bill, whereby the mayor is chairman of a combined authority? It seems to me that they feel that they are not sufficiently in the room, if they would like to be a great deal more so through a mechanism such as that.
These points are very good. While I am on my feet, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that my experience of London Councils and of holding the position that the noble Baroness now does is that politics in the sense of pure party politics does not get very much in the way when boroughs are collaborating with each other, the mayor, Transport for London and so on. However, there are structural differences. The truth is that the interests of the boroughs and those of Transport for London, for example, are not always the same. That form of institutional politics is very apparent. Finally, I would say—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I think the noble Lord was making an intervention. Interventions have to be short, and his is not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
By the time I have finished, it will be short. I was asking the noble Baroness whether she agreed that none of these considerations is particularly relevant because the problem that I drew attention to in my amendment, with which she does not agree, is not because of a disagreement between the boroughs and the mayor, which could be sorted out by sitting in a room; it is about an inherently internal conflict of interest between the mayor as the person responsible for housing policy and the mayor as chairman of Transport for London now being given the power to dispose of property in place of the Secretary of State.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Can I just say to the noble Lord that interventions are supposed to be short and I think he is taking advantage of the Committee?
Lord Moylan (Con)
With respect, this is Committee and one is allowed to go on a little bit. Although it is in the form of an intervention, I could just as easily have stood up and made a second speech. I think the noble Lord should stop intervening on me quite so much.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their numerous comments. I will respond to just a few, because I think some might have been a bit rhetorical. As in any family, it is about communicating and having those discussions. My view is that there is room at the table for London Councils, but we do have those conversations with the Mayor of London and the GLA and invite them down to our boroughs, et cetera.
The other point I wanted to make is that we always work to make sure that we are moving in the right direction. We work cross-party as much as possible and when there is consensus, things can move forward.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with the proposition tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on Clause 27. I will also say what a pleasure it is to hear my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham on this and other issues. Just deviating from the amendments for one moment, I will say that the noble Lord is incorrect about the devolution of rail, because the Secretary of State is currently considering the devolution of northern inner suburban trains to the Mayor of London from the national railway network.
Transport in London is devolved, with the mayor responsible for managing the capital’s transport network, so it is right that, in line with the wider purpose of the Bill, the mayor should be empowered to consent to operational land-disposal applications from TfL. The noble Lord referred to operational land and therefore it is necessary to consult Network Rail, and that is enshrined in the proposition. This will therefore simplify the existing process and better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital. The Secretary of State does not need to get in the way of housing developments on land owned by Transport for London and suitable for housing.
On Amendments 118 and 119, on local transport plans, constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. Clause 29 is intended to support close working between constituent councils and the strategic authority by requiring the constituent council implementing the policies in the local transport plan to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This duty already applies to some constituent councils and this clause will extend that duty to all constituent councils.
The clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working between authorities while not giving the strategic authority undue control over how constituent councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by weakening the duty placed on constituent councils to implement policies and instead substitute “have regard to” them. As members of the strategic authority, constituent councils have a key role in the development of the authority’s local transport plan. As set out in other parts of the Bill, this includes a vote on whether to approve the local transport plan.
I turn to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B. Constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. As I said earlier, Clause 29 is intended to support close working between the constituent councils and the strategic authority, by requiring the implementation of policies in the local transport plan and having regard to the proposals. As I said, the clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working and not giving the strategic authority undue control over the way that constituent councils manage their local highway network.
These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to “implement” rather than “have regard to”, and would therefore give strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads. However, we recognise that there are benefits to strategic authority mayors having levers to implement agreed plans. Clause 28 and Schedule 9 therefore give mayors a power to direct constituent councils in the exercise of their functions on the key route network of the most important local roads, helping mayors to implement their local plans.
On Amendment 120A, I know that workplace parking levies can be effective in delivering local transport priorities, as demonstrated—as my noble friend Lord Bassam observed—by the successful scheme in Nottingham, the only such scheme currently in operation in England. It has both reduced congestion in the city and provided funds to support the operation of the light rail system. We therefore hear the arguments for a greater role for strategic authorities, and for mayors to make decisions such as these in their area, but we need to take time to consider the issue fully before making changes to the framework. We need to be certain that any changes are the right ones. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue, but I urge him to withdraw his amendment, while reassuring him that my department is giving this matter careful consideration.
I turn to Amendments 120B and 120C. Transport and Works Act orders can be used as a single process to obtain the majority of powers to construct and/or operate a range of both transport and waterway schemes. As observed, the Secretary of State is the decision-maker for schemes applied for under the Act across England, operating within a well-established and legally robust framework. The procedure is set out in legislation and would need to be followed regardless of who the decision-maker is. Powers granted through these orders are wide ranging and can apply or disapply legislation. They have significant legal and practical implications. Creating multiple new decision-making bodies would risk introducing inconsistency in the interpretation of policy and the use of powers, creating uncertainty, causing delays and potentially increasing the risk of challenge to the schemes.
However, the new Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 recently introduced changes to this regime to improve the efficiency and predictability of delivering new schemes via this route and, in particular, to address the need for taking decisions quickly where necessary. Secondary legislation will drive further efficiencies. Very careful consideration would be necessary if such powers were to be devolved so that the benefits of the recent improvements that I have just referred to are not undermined and the necessary protections are in place for all parties.
I turn to Amendment 120D on Vision Zero. Noble Lords will remember that bus safety was discussed at length during the passage of the Bus Services Bill. The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, helped highlight this important issue and ensured that bus safety is included in the recently published Road Safety Strategy. Published on 7 January, it is the first such strategy for 15 years. It sets out the Government’s vision for a safer future on our roads for all road users, not only buses. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the whole strategy is based on the internationally recognised safe system approach, a core component of Vision Zero. The safe system principle accepts that human error will happen but ensures that all road users, roads, vehicles, speeds and post-crash care work together to prevent fatalities. It is a shared responsibility. It is right that local areas, including Greater Manchester, Oxford and London, which has also been mentioned, are adopting Vision Zero. The Government welcome other local areas doing so in respect of buses, but it must be right for them.
On Amendment 120E, buses already provide one of the safest modes of road transport in Britain and we remain committed to increasing that safety further. During the passage of the Bus Services Bill, we discussed adherence to the highest standards of safety, monitored by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and regulated by traffic commissioners. This subject was exhaustively discussed then. There is already collection of data by the department, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police, carried down to local authority level through the STATS19 framework. Data is also collected from PSV operators who must report incidents to the DVSA thanks to their operator licensing requirements. These datasets already provide a comprehensive picture of bus safety and, as observed during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to require more frequent or richer data would increase the burden on drivers, strategic authorities and the police. I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on this issue and I hope he will be reassured that we remain committed, as we were during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to increasing bus safety and are taking real action to do so.
On Amendment 120F, tabled by the noble Baroness, the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to ensuring that, for non-mayoral strategic authorities, key strategic decisions will have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those decisions, and the Bill therefore requires the consent of all constituent councils. Existing non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities already have provisions in their constitutions that require local transport plans to be agreed by all constituent councils. We know that those provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils. There is already a duty on local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and alter them if they consider it appropriate to do so, and the Government are committed to providing updated guidance to local transport authorities on local transport plans, which will provide advice to authorities about when they should review and update their local plans.
On Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the moment concessionary travel is managed by travel concession authorities, which are also the local transport authority for their area. This means that one authority does local transport planning, secures the provision of public transport services and manages concessions. Reverting to the approach taken before 2011, as the amendment would do, would make travelling locally more difficult due to a range of concessionary travel frameworks as one moves from one area to another. Since that point, combined authorities and combined county authorities have all become both the local transport authority and the travel concession authority for their area, following a period of transition. This has proven effective, with local transport managed at the strategic level across the broader geography. With travel concessions managed alongside local transport functions, there are also streamlined benefits that would not be possible were these two separated at two different levels of local government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 236. The vast majority of applications to install cattle grids are decided by local highway authorities. Only when there are unresolved objections, or objections following the consultation stage, does the Secretary of State get involved, or where the Secretary of State, via National Highways, is the highway authority. There were no appeals in the years from 2016 to 2025 and only one in 2025, so it is scarcely a huge burden on either national government or the Department for Transport. There were two in 2014 and one in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, so I submit that this is not a huge problem for government and it would resolve only the unresolved issues arising from the primary consideration by local government. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am mildly astonished that the Minister has not addressed the perfectly serious question I raised about the potential for internal conflict between the Mayor of London, acting with regard to his housing responsibilities, and his responsibility as chairman of Transport for London. No doubt we will have an opportunity to come back to that later. However, for the rest of it, the Minister has set out the Government’s position relatively clearly. We will have an opportunity to reflect on it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my proposition.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Before we move on, I point out to the Committee that the finishing time is not 8.45 pm but 7.45 pm. There was an error on the daily note.
Schedule 9: Key route network roads
Amendment 115
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why the mayoral CCA is required to have at least one road designated as a key route network road.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Schedule 9 of the Bill amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Its effect is to require mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities to prepare, publish and maintain a designation of a key route network within their area. I am not raising profound objections in principle to this, but I have some detailed questions.
Amendment 105 relates to the first paragraph of the schedule. Why must there be at least one road designated, even if nobody wants it? That appears to be the effect of 1(2)(1A)(c) of Schedule 9, Part 1, which states that
“if there is no highway or proposed highway in the CCA’s area that is designated as a key route network road, the mayor must prepare a proposed designation in relation to at least one highway or proposed highway”.
I hope that the Minister can explain why that should be, as it is not at all apparent.
Amendments 115A and 115B work together, seeking to define more closely what the key route network should consist of. At present, the term lacks a firm statutory definition. I assume that, when we discuss a key route network outside Greater London, the Minister has in mind, to some extent, the Transport for London road network in Greater London. That in itself was effectively taken over wholesale from the red route network that was established in the 1990s before the creation of the Greater London Authority and TfL. There has been amazingly little adjustment to that network since it was established. It has been the same roads, more or less, ever since.
There is no limit in this Bill on what roads could be designated. When the red routes were established in London, it was clearly the Government’s intention and practice that they should be the main roads. In this case, the key route network could be any road that the mayor and combined authority choose to designate—even side streets. These amendments, Amendments 115A and 115B, are probing because they are limiting the network to classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic. That seems to be sensible.
There is a related and minor issue, a subset of that. The Transport for London road network carries round the corner into side streets to an extent. That is what it was allowed to do when the red routes were established. It was possible to negotiate with the traffic director for London whether they should take the full amount of their entitlement in those side roads—I think it is 30 metres—or not.
These are important matters of local interest, because you might find that side streets with local parking and other local amenities that residents were used to become the equivalent of red routes, and you have very little say about it as a local authority. That is not good enough. We need this clarified in advance. There two levels of that: why not limit it to the main roads, and what are the Government going to do about the side road issue if they have that in mind, going round the corner?
Amendment 117 is intended entirely to be helpful to the Government. It seems that there is a clash here with the Road Traffic Reduction Act, in which principal local authorities are required to provide the information and do the forecasting and monitoring that the new combined authorities will do in respect of the key route network. The principal authorities are required to do it for roads in their area and, unless they are relieved of that obligation, they will do it for the key route networks as well. So, there will be two levels of authority carrying out the same monitoring, forecasting and reporting functions. That cannot be entirely what the Government intend, but, if it is, it is as well that we should know about it. I beg to move my amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will speak to Amendments 116 and 117A to 117G in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Amendment 116 probes the Government’s intentions around these powers, particularly in relation to key route networks and traffic regulation orders. As drafted, the Bill would allow mayors to be given a power to direct the exercise of certain road-related powers, including in relation to roads that are not part of the key route network and that therefore remain under the control of local or constituent authorities. The Secretary of State would then be able to issue guidance about how those powers are to be exercised. That raises some obvious questions. In what circumstances do the Government envisage these direction powers being used? What safeguards will exist to prevent them cutting across local decisions that have been made for reasons of safety, public health or community well-being?
Traffic regulation orders are often the mechanism by which councils introduce bus lanes, safer speed limits, low-traffic neighbourhoods or restrictions to protect residents. They are subject to consultation, legal tests and democratic accountability. There is understandable concern that new strategic powers could be used deliberately or inadvertently to undermine these local decisions. This amendment is about clarity and reassurance. Will the Minister confirm that the traffic management 2004 guidance will be revised to include guidance on key route networks? Will the Minister also ensure that such guidance prevents misuse by mayors, such as using KRN powers to undo traffic regulation orders made by local councils?
Amendments 117A to 117G seek to move the duty to report on traffic levels from the local and constituent authority level to the strategic level, on the basis that the latter has the greater responsibility and power to reduce traffic. As the Bill is currently drafted, the traffic reporting duty is tied to the use of key route network roads. This amendment would remove that limitation, so that the duty applies to all local roads within the area of the local transport authority. In doing so, it aligns the reporting duty with the full scope of the local transport plan.
The underlying issue here is one of responsibility. These amendments reflect the simple reality that strategic authorities, not individual constituent authorities, hold the main levers for reducing traffic across an area. Strategic authorities set and monitor the local transport plan. They determine the overall policy for all modes of travel. Through spatial development strategies, they decide where major development goes—decisions that fundamentally shape whether traffic is generated or avoided in the first place. They also promote and deliver the big-ticket transport schemes—trams, busways and other major public transport investments—and, increasingly, they will hold powers over enforcement and demand-management measures such as congestion charging. These are the tools that shift traffic levels at scale.
By contrast, local authorities have far fewer powers. Even where they do have powers, such as in implementing bus lanes or safer speed limits, those decisions are meant to flow from the strategic authority’s policies as set out in the local transport plan. Given that reality, it makes little sense to place on constituent authorities a fragmented traffic reporting duty that is limited to certain categories of road while the strategic authority is responsible for the policies and decisions that affect traffic across the whole network.
Of course, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. The proposed split would create a perverse incentive for constituent authorities to resist roads being designated as part of the key route network. Why agree to that designation if it means that a strategic authority acquires a traffic reduction duty for those roads but not for others? The danger is that this could lead to traffic being pushed off major routes and on to less suitable residential streets, which is exactly the opposite of what most communities want.
I am concerned that there is a coherent approach. Surely that means placing the responsibility for traffic reporting at the strategic authority level, covering all local roads in line with the scope of the local transport plan.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: Amendments 115A and 115B. However, I also subscribe to the principle of Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which was just discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do so because it is very important indeed that highways, or proposed highways, that constitute key route networks are both genuinely strategic and accepted as such by local councils and local authorities. As it stands, the Bill is unclear on where the powers around and responsibility for traffic management—and, indeed, for the allocation of resources—lie. It is important to clarify these matters in the Bill.
I want to ask the Minister two questions as clearly as I can. First, who will decide on the traffic calming measures proposed for residential roads? Will it be the local authority, the mayor or, in practice, a commissioner making recommendations to the mayor? Secondly, who will hold the budget for such measures? Will the money for the whole area of a strategic authority be transferred from Whitehall to the mayor, or will local authorities have their own budgets for such traffic management schemes? The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said a moment ago that it is important to clarify these matters in advance. I agree with him: it is absolutely essential that these matters are clarified in advance because mayors must not undermine the powers of local authorities.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to Amendment 115 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. By requiring mayors to propose at least one road to be part of a key road network, this measure would ensure that all mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities can adopt a key route network. By establishing and agreeing these priority links across an area, authorities can work together to manage improvements and maintenance to make a difference to people’s lives. It is also important that combined authorities and combined county authorities have a consistent set of transport duties. This amendment would create an inconsistency where combined authorities had this duty but county combined authorities did not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for again making his position clear. I suspect we will be coming back to some of these issues on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Rail devolution: passenger rail servicesA mayoral combined authority has the power to provide, or secure the provision of, passenger rail services within, or within the surroundings of, its area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives mayoral combined authorities the power to provide or secure the provision of passenger rail services within or within the surroundings of its area.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. I have only one amendment in this group. There is also an amendment by my noble friend, Lord Lansley, which, as I understand it, has a similar effect to my own, or at least points in the same direction.
The reason I raise this—I refer to my local government experience—is that anyone with local government experience is seized of the question of vires. We are always worried about whether we actually have the power to do that which we want to do, because, as is well known, if you do not have the power in law, you are probably acting outside your responsibilities and can be held liable for it, and all sorts of terrible things can ensue from that.
Here I am thinking ahead to the Railways Bill, which we intend to amend when it comes to your Lordships’ House so as to give certain rail responsibilities to mayors in certain cities at least. At the moment, that Railways Bill merely gives them the opportunity to be consulted and to request, and we think devolution could go a little further. Thinking ahead to that, one wonders whether the response to that from the Government might not be, “Ah, yes, but even if we were willing to give them such powers, they don’t have the vires to do it. They do not have the legal power to operate a passenger railway service, and it would be inappropriate to bring that into the Railways Bill, where it would be out of scope”. But of course it would not be out of scope of this Bill, which is about exactly that question: the devolution of powers to local authorities. So I thought we would fend off that difficulty if it arose later by making it explicit in the Bill that those local authorities had legal power to run passenger railway services.
Of course, it would not follow at all from this measure alone that they would be able to run passenger railway services. If you want to run a passenger railway service, you have to have a railway and some trains. This Bill would not change that situation at all, but it would give them the legal power should it be made possible for them to have access to trains and to rail in the future. For that reason, I think it is a very sensible measure to include here and I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the opportunity to contribute on this. I fear that those of us who participated during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, such as the Minister and my noble friend Lord Moylan, will be having our Groundhog Day moment on this group because we will be examining, as my noble friend said, the question of whether it should be possible for passenger rail services to be operated by mayors.
My amendment is different from my noble friend’s because I am setting out to examine whether the legislation needs to change to enable that to happen. There has been something of a pre-emption of this debate by the exchanges that took place on the group before last in relation to exactly this question of whether TfL and the mayor should be able to take responsibility for the Great Northern inner suburban services. It raises exactly the point that is the burden of my amendment. So I want to start by asking the Minister: is it possible, as he suggested on the earlier group, for passenger transport executives, accountable to mayors, to run passenger rail services? The Minister is nodding. I shall just explain why I think it is possible and then examine whether that is the case. Maybe we do not need to amend either this Bill or the Railways Bill in due course, but we might need to look at those issues when they come up.
It seems to me that, in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, it is provided that the Secretary of State, as the franchising authority, when he or she—it is a she—wishes to procure passenger rail services, must do so only by a direct award of a public service contract to a publicly owned company. A publicly owned company, as we then proceed to discover under Section 30C of the Railways Act, as amended by the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, is a company owned by the Secretary of State. We know what this now means: it means that Great British Railways will effectively be the franchising authority in the fullness of time—I think we are looking two years ahead or so—of all the passenger railway services other than those outside the present franchising agreement, such as open access operators.
How then could Great Northern inner suburban services be handed to the mayor in any practical sense? The answer is that, under Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, passenger transport executives may enter into agreements. Section 13(4) says:
“A Passenger Transport Executive … in England may enter into agreements for … the provision, by a person who is a … franchise operator … of … services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area”.
So TfL could enter into an agreement with Great British Railways to provide passenger railway services extending beyond London. “How far?” noble Lords may ask. Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 gives us the answer: “within the permitted distance”, which is 25 miles from the boundary of TfL’s area. That takes us out to Stevenage—yes, Stevenage, no less.
I am looking to the Minister to say whether any of this train of thought is not correct. Is it possible for mayors to be given not the franchising authority for the delivery of passenger services in their area but an agreement for the operation of passenger services, to the extent that that is negotiated with Great British Railways and approved by the Secretary of State under Section 13(5)? That operational control, of course, is subject to what we will discuss, no doubt, in due course: the directing mind of Great British Railways. The nature of the operational activities undertaken by TfL must therefore be entirely constrained by the agreement that Great British Railways and Transport for London will enter into. But it seems to me that it is possible to do it now. If it is not possible to do it now, the Bill should be amended so as to enable this to happen, which is what my amendment was originally intended to do.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I want to be absolutely clear in my own mind and check that my noble friend is as well. It is very easy, in London, to think that Transport for London runs those services, partly because they are branded to look like Transport for London, and that therefore, Transport for London is in roughly the equivalent position of a train operating company, but that is not its position. With those services, the Secretary of State’s role as franchising authority has been transferred to Transport for London—Transport for London is not the train operating company, but the franchising authority. All the services are run by train operating companies, which are invited to bid for them. I am not sure that that system applies in other conurbations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. What I am describing and think is now legal is not the arrangement that he describes as applying to TfL as it stands. TfL cannot be made the franchising authority, because that has to be the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can procure passenger railway services only by a direct award of a public service contract to a publicly owned company and only the Secretary of State can own that company.
However, I am suggesting that this is a different arrangement. The franchising authority remains the Secretary of State, who makes a direct award of a public service contract to Great British Railways, which, under Section 13(4) of the Railways Act 2005, enters into an agreement with Transport for London as a passenger transport executive. I am agnostic as to how Transport for London delivers those services. I suspect that we may find only in the fullness of time precisely who the operators are which are accountable to Transport for London for doing this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Under the arrangement that is struck, is it not likely that the only potential operating company that would be acceptable for such an agreement would be Great British Railways? Great British Railways would be agreeing with a mayor, “You can pay us to run services”, which is more or less exactly what the Bill envisages and which many of us find objectionable. What my noble friend is describing may be accurate and permissible—we will find out from the Minister in a moment whether it is—but it does not take us beyond the Railways Bill, which many of us would like to do. That is the purpose of my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. If the Secretary of State were to ask Great British Railways to enter into that agreement with Transport for London, I do not know who would be the operator of the passenger rail services concerned. It might be Great British Railways, because Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 clearly envisages payment for this. That could be to GBR, in exactly in the same way as it has been in the past to Great Northern or any other operator.
The point is that the agreement under the 2005 legislation enables passenger transport executives to enter into agreements with the franchise operators to run those services. As far as I can see, that is not being taken away, as long as the legal authority is not transferred to the mayor. What my noble friend Lord Moylan is correctly saying about the current legal status of TfL is not what can be reproduced in relation to Great Northern in suburban services, as far as I am aware.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, are really testing the provision for rail devolution for passenger rail services and its legal status. It has been a really interesting discussion.
The Government’s White Paper said:
“Mayors will be given a statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network. In addition to partnerships with Great British Railways, Mayors of Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have a clear right to request greater devolution of services, infrastructure and station control where it would support a more integrated network”.
I am not sure that anything before us today goes that far. When we debated the public ownership legislation, I kept talking about Manchester being really keen to extend the Bee Network. I was doing my weekly reading of the rail press earlier today and there was a picture of a lovely branded Bee Network train up in Manchester. They are keen to move forward with that. In response to my amendments on rail devolution on Report of that Bill, the Minister said,
“this Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the role of local leaders and local communities in shaping the provision of rail services in their areas … I can reaffirm to your Lordships’ House that the railways Bill will include a statutory role for devolved governments and mayoral combined authorities”.”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1543.]
Yet when I look in the Railways Bill and at what is before us today, I am not sure that the Government have gone as far as they promised at that stage of that earlier legislation. What has changed? Can the Minister assure us that they are not rowing back on rail devolution? Has there been a change of heart or are we all slightly misinterpreting it and will we see far more rail devolution across the country, whether to Manchester, London or other regions?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendments 120 and 120EA, via provisions in the Transport Act 1968, mayoral combined authorities with passenger transport executive functions already have the appropriate powers as envisaged by Amendment 120. These are the combined authorities of West Yorkshire, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North East England and South Yorkshire. They either have passenger transport executives acting on their behalf in relation to rail functions or have had the powers of passenger transport executives transferred to them.
Other mayoral combined authorities do not have these powers. Instead, via the Transport Act 1985, they can secure and subsidise services where the public transport requirements in their area would not otherwise be met. The Government have the powers to confer new functions on strategic authorities, individually or as a class. This includes the powers in Schedule 25 to this Bill, which enable the Secretary of State to confer new functions on strategic authorities on a permanent or pilot basis. Therefore, should an authority require these powers, there are mechanisms in place to achieve it.
Amendment 120EA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would not be an appropriate mechanism to enable further devolution to establish mayoral strategic authorities. The heart of the matter is that, for example, where services have been devolved, such as Merseyrail in the Liverpool City Region, this has been achieved by the exemption of services from designation by the Secretary of State under Section 24 of the 1993 Act. After the Great British Railways Act is passed, the Secretary of State will not be the franchising authority, so Section 13 of the 2005 Act will not be the appropriate mechanism. I hope that this answers the noble Lord.
It is anticipated that Great British Railways and mayoral strategic authorities will deliver a new place-based partnership model to deliver on local priorities. This will bring the railway closer to communities, enable collaboration and shared objectives and improve multimodal integration and opportunities for local investment. The depth of partnership will vary depending on local priorities, on capability and also, very significantly, on the geography of the railway, which seldom accords with local government boundaries.
The Government are open to considering further devolution of rail responsibilities should an authority make the case for it. I referred earlier to the Mayor of London’s proposal to take over the Great Northern inner suburban services. If operations are devolved, mayoral authorities will have a choice on how the operations are performed—either through Great British Railways or another operator. The Department for Transport recently published guidance on this topic. In making a decision in response to a request for devolution, key considerations will include the financial and commercial implications, the capability and the geography. The impacts on neighbouring services and communities beyond the combined authority boundary will also need to be factored in. I hope that this is clear and enables the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion—at least, a very small number of us found it fascinating, others perhaps less so. This is an important topic, as everyone on all sides has acknowledged. Having listened to the Minister, I am sure that we will want to come back to it at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ravensdale
“Preventing youth unemploymentIn their delivery of functions under this Act, strategic authorities must work in partnership with local businesses and education (including further education) providers to prevent and reduce local youth unemployment.”
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, for now, I am going to steer us away from transport and on to a no less important topic: social mobility. I thank the noble Lords who have signed these amendments and the Social Mobility Commission, with which I worked to develop them.
Social mobility has been a continued focus over the years across all Governments. All noble Lords would agree, I think, that a person’s life chances should not be prescribed by their backgrounds—either their place of birth or their family—and that all should be allowed to develop their talents and interests through education and work. It is to the benefit of individuals, society and the economy that opportunities are open to all.
We have made progress here in recent years. A school friend of mine in Nottingham skipped A-levels and went on to do an apprenticeship at Mercedes-Benz as a car mechanic. He told me that, when one of his teachers heard that he was applying for an apprenticeship, he told him that he would never amount to anything. My friend is now a director of a company that runs a network of garages across the Midlands and is a great example of social mobility. Of course, anyone can point to a story about someone who has defied the odds and succeeded, but I tell this story because it illustrates progress in that the perception of apprenticeships has completely changed; they are now seen the best way to go for many young people.
However, there are some concerning trends in social mobility. In particular, relative income mobility in the UK—the strength of the link between parents’ income and their children’s income—is poor when compared internationally. We consistently rank near the USA among the least mobile developed nations. So social mobility needs continued focus from the Government, as they have recognised through their opportunity mission.
I submitted the successful special inquiry proposal for what became the Social Mobility Policy Committee, which has now reported. One of the key areas we looked at was the regional nature of social mobility; indeed, the report is entitled Social Mobility: Local Routes, Lasting Change. It is all about the move away from a top-down view of social mobility—looking at, for example, broad educational initiatives or early years—to recognising that each area has its own unique determinants and that, therefore, a regional and local approach is needed to drive mobility and improve things. The Social Mobility Commission highlighted this in its recent State of the Nation report, highlighting the facts that prosperous areas in London and the surrounding regions consistently provide better conditions for social mobility than, for example, the Midlands and the north; and that extreme regional differences persist.
One of the key issues is where leadership lies. Initiatives to tackle barriers to social mobility are not one size fits all; they must be built with an understanding of the characteristics of the particular area. The Government need to ensure that local authorities and partners are empowered to lead and to come up with the right policies for their areas. Where does that lead us? In the Bill, there is an excellent opportunity for the Government to ensure that social mobility is embedded in their approach to devolution. It is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to change how local authorities and strategic authorities deliver on this long-standing problem and enable a step change in progress to deliver opportunity for all.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the cosignatories of this group of amendments. The points I will make will be very similar to those for the next group, which we will reach in a moment. The issue is important. I had not thought that immediately after Covid, the rate of those not in education, employment or training would rise. It has risen since Covid. There is something right at the heart of the way in which youth unemployment is addressed that is causing us not to solve that problem and give young people aged 16 to 24 the opportunities that they ought to have.
Looking at the areas of competence in the Bill that mayors will be engaged in, this one seems to be an acid test of whether devolution works. It is one thing to transfer powers from one person or body to another person or body, but it is a different matter when an objective is set, which is, simply stated, to reduce the level of youth unemployment and get more young people into education and long-term employment. The aim of the Government in driving devolution to the mayoral strategic authority system is, I think, to drive growth. From growth, you will have more jobs, and from more jobs you will have a lower level of those who are not in education, employment or training.
The clear ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and, when we get to the next group, of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is to drive social mobility through the enabling parts of the Bill. It is not just a question of moving transport powers from one body to another; it has to relate to helping young people get themselves from one place to another with the right transport systems and support for travelling to enable them to engage with education, training and employment.
There are several amendments in this group and the next one. We ought to take a step aside to look at how we can deliver the ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has set because if this fails and the level of those not in education, employment or training stay stable or gets worse, that would be a failure of devolution. If you were to ask me which is the most important test in the several days in Committee so far, I would say that it is driving a reduction in the number of those who are in not in education, employment or training. This is something that would make a material difference to the lives of many people.
I hope that the Minister will not reply by saying that the Government have everything under control because I fear they do not. If they had everything under control, the number of NEETs would have gone down, not up. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and, when we get to the next group, to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. These amendments are central and material to the aim and ambition of devolution.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Benches opposite for allowing me to speak. I was trying to sort out my timing on the Statement, and I messed up there, so I thank noble Lords for their understanding.
The amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I agree 100% with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that this is one of the most serious issues that we face. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for the time, care and seriousness with which he has addressed social mobility within the Bill. Place-based solutions to social mobility are essential, and devolution gives this Government a genuine opportunity to act in a way that national policy alone never can. It allows local authorities to design policies that are properly matched to their local labour market, their economic strengths and the needs of their communities. In doing so, it offers the prospect of moving beyond one-size-fits-all interventions towards approaches that genuinely expand opportunity and improve outcomes on the ground.
If the noble Lord will forgive me, and for the sake of brevity, I will focus on just a small number of these amendments. Noble Lords in the Committee will know that this area is close to my heart. I spent more than 32 years working with young people, helping them into employment and, more importantly, helping them to stay in employment. I promise noble Lords that I have seen what works and what does not.
I remember getting a young girl who never had any opportunities into the Unipart business in Oxford. We worked with her, and she got the job of booking travel for all the executives. She was so excited it was not true, and she turned up on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but on Friday she did not show up. We went round to her house. She came down in her PJs and I said, “What on earth are you up to?” She told us that she never went to school on Friday and that nobody ever talked to her about it, so she thought she would not come to work. We sent her upstairs to get dressed and took her to work. The next week, the same thing happened. Again, we went round to her house and sent her upstairs. On the third week, she turned up, and again on the fourth week and the fifth week. Sometimes it is not anything deeply interventional that works; it is just a matter of knocking on the door and saying, “Come on now, get yourself together”. There is no one size fits all; it is all about individuals. I have seen what can work, and I hope that, with this devolution Bill, we can make more things happen for people like that.
I will begin with Amendment 123, which would require strategic authorities in the delivery of their functions under the Act to work in partnership with local businesses and education providers, including further education providers, to prevent and reduce local youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is rising, and the figures are deeply concerning. In the most recent data available, 729,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed, which was an increase of 103,000 on the previous year. The youth unemployment rate stood at 15.9%, up from 14.4% the year before.
These figures are frankly scandalous. We could have a big debate about whose fault it is, but I would rather we did not do that. It is important that we agree how we are going to solve the problem and stop it happening in future. This trend cannot be reversed through centralised schemes designed in Whitehall with the political choices this Government have made. It requires local solutions and place-based approaches shaped by the realities of local labour markets. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to bring together employers, colleges and training providers to intervene early, which is critical, align provision with demand and need and prevent young people falling into long-term worklessness. This amendment would give them both the responsibility and the impetus to do so. I completely support it.
Amendment 124 would require strategic authorities to consult further education colleges when identifying where skills challenges are most acute within key sectors. I know I speak often about skills shortages, but I do so because the evidence is overwhelming. Official figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there are almost 1 million young people in the United Kingdom who are not in education, employment or training, and this is the highest figure for more than a decade. At the same time, employers across the country are struggling to recruit and, due to some of the changes that have been made by the Government, vacancies are dropping. It is a right car crash, however you look at it.
We face shortages in some vital occupations, including biological scientists, bricklayers, care workers, carpenters, graphic designers, laboratory and pharmaceutical technicians, and roofers—what a mixture. This mismatch is economically damaging and can be socially corrosive. Further education colleges sit at the heart of any solution. They understand local demand, local learners and local barriers. Failing to involve them systemically in skills planning is a structural weakness. This amendment would help ensure that skills policy is grounded in the reality of local communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments before us, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy and the opposition spokespeople for dealing with the transport groups. They are very technical areas, and I was very grateful to them and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their contributions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for amendments relating to social mobility, socioeconomic disadvantage, local growth plans, skills, education and health determinants.
Economic growth and breaking down the barriers to opportunity are two of the driving missions of this Government. Amendments 137 and 143 go right to the heart of that work. They recognise that supporting business, promoting innovation and increasing productivity are central to growing the economy and, by extension, to addressing socioeconomic disadvantage. This is a core purpose of local growth plans, increasing productivity and attracting investment to grow local economies for the benefit of those living and working there.
We are already seeing local growth plans emerge that recognise the importance of tackling ill health, youth unemployment and child poverty very much as part of growing the economy, and I really welcome that. It is because mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities understand the challenges affecting their areas and how to solve them. They do not need the Government to require the detail of this through primary legislation. Instead, we have set an expectation via our guidance on the contents of local growth plans, which specifies that they should set out an ambitious long-term vision for making the region they cover more productive. That includes by identifying actions across a range of areas aligned to their competences and powers, including housing, planning, skills and transport. Mayoral combined and combined county authorities are encouraged to build on this to ensure that their plan properly identifies and addresses local needs and opportunities, and that they respond with the right solutions for their area.
I completely understand the impulse of noble Lords to prescribe everything in the Bill—it has happened in every Bill that I have taken part in, in this House—but it must be up to mayoral combined and combined county authorities to determine what is best. Otherwise, we risk being too prescriptive and stepping back from the spirit of devolution, which is the only way we are really going to solve some of these embedded challenges.
Local growth plans should provide an overarching and guiding strategic framework for growth in a region. Other, more focused plans will then provide the detail on specific areas such as transport and skills, with those plans developed in consultation with local communities and other organisations. Our published guidance already expects mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to engage a range of stakeholders when developing and delivering their plan, and we know that they are already doing so ahead of the requirement to have regard to that guidance following the passage of the Bill. It is our view that clear guidance is proportionate in this case and that the noble Lord’s amendments are not necessary.
I turn to the noble Lord’s amendments that would seek to require strategic authorities to consult with the Social Mobility Commission on how to collect evidence of social mobility outcomes as a result of devolution arrangements, and to require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on action taken by strategic authorities. We fully appreciate the intent of these amendments and recognise that the policies and interventions that strategic authorities deliver have a significant impact on the public and the opportunities available to them. Central and local government will continue to work together to ensure that outcomes delivered by strategic authorities align with national and local priorities, including the design and delivery of effective and equitable local services.
Additionally, the newly formed Mayoral Data Council will join up senior local data leaders with central government decision-making on data issues that affect them. Strategic authorities under the public sector equality duty are already required to work towards advancing the equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Adding a statutory duty is unnecessary and risks creating an additional administrative burden on strategic authorities that could potentially distract them from the very delivery that we all want to see.
I turn to the noble Lord’s amendments that seek to embed social mobility principles in the Bill’s provisions relating to skills and education. Strategic authorities already consider a wide range of local factors, including provision in areas of deprivation, how their provision aligns to local growth objectives and how to tackle the challenge of people not in employment, education or training. This local insight is their great strength, and I think the noble Lord would agree with that. Schedule 11 to the Bill, which states that strategic authorities will be under a duty to secure appropriate adult education provision in their areas, already allows them to secure the provision prescribed in Amendment 123 and indeed to consider wider objectives as needed.
Local skills improvement plans provide an ongoing mechanism through which local employers, strategic and local authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together and identify skills needs and issues. Local growth plans, which set out long-term opportunities for economic growth in a place, are led by mayoral strategic authorities and will inform the development of local skills improvement plans and engagement with employers on their specific skills needs. The existing framework delivers on the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment and we therefore believe that it is unnecessary.
As set out in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, reducing the number of young people aged 16 to 24 who are not in employment, education or training is a national top priority—I agree with all that noble Lords said about that. In all areas of England, mayoral strategic authorities have been asked to establish partnerships as part of developing their local Get Britain Working plans. This will bring together local government, employer representatives, education and skills providers, Jobcentre Plus and the NHS. These partnerships will consider a range of local labour market challenges, including youth unemployment, and how they can work collectively to tackle them.
The story that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, told us reminded me of a youth training scheme run by our local fire service in Hertfordshire. They introduced us to a young man whom they had had some difficulties with, in the early days of the scheme, about his approach to whether he turned up on time. He had started to make some progress but, when he did not turn up on the second or third Friday, they were worried that he had slipped back again. What had actually happened was that his bus had not turned up, so he turned up about half an hour late, having walked the seven miles from Hitchin to Stevenage because he was so keen to carry on participating in the scheme. He eventually passed the scheme with flying colours, so we must never make assumptions. The scheme really worked for him.
Strategic authorities have a key role to play in tackling the NEET rate, which is why we are delivering eight strategic authority-led youth guarantee trailblazers. These are testing how best to join up services and offer targeted support to young people who are NEET, or at risk of becoming NEET, through those localised approaches. We fear that putting a rigid statutory requirement in place at this time could stifle the innovative, locally tailored solutions that arise during the piloting phase, reducing local labour market flexibility and limiting our opportunity to learn from these pilots and innovations.
As set out in the skills White Paper, we will update local oversight and accountability for young people who are NEET, with an enhanced role for strategic authorities. This means working in partnership with local areas to explore how to bring strategic authorities into the statutory duties that local authorities already have. These duties require them to support young people to remain in education until their 18th birthday by identifying and tracking young people not in education or training, involving partnership with local education providers. This Government are already taking steps to empower strategic authorities and leverage their local knowledge and relationships to reduce local youth unemployment, so we believe that Amendment 122 is not necessary.
On Amendment 124, further education colleges are a critical stakeholder with which strategic authorities already have close relationships—I know the key role they play in my area. Further education colleges that provide post-16 technical education and training are already under a statutory duty to work with employer representative bodies to develop the local skills improvement plan. The views of FE colleges and other providers are readily reflected. It is also the case that strategic authorities can draw insight on skills needs from a number of sources, including employers, local jobcentres and Skills England. We want strategic authorities to plan adult education provision that is right for their areas, drawing on stakeholders and insight that can inform their decision-making. This Bill and the existing legislative framework, including local skills improvement plans, already put the structures in place for that. Therefore, we believe that Amendment 124 is not necessary.
On Amendment 125, statutory entitlements to free courses of study are set out in the legislation and are long-standing, broad and universal to each strategic authority to ensure consistency of access. Learners who are eligible for statutory entitlements to free minimum qualifications will have access to a free course of study irrespective of whether they are from an area of high deprivation or are experiencing long-term unemployment. Amendment 125 would not be appropriate, as we do not need to qualify access to statutory entitlements and believe that eligible learners should have free literacy, numeracy, IT and level 2 qualifications to ensure that they have the skills for employment and everyday life.
This Government are on a mission to create an apprenticeship and skills system that drives growth and leaves no place or person behind, and are committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities to achieve this. However, it would be extremely complex to devolve the levy funding to local areas, as it would be hard to administer and make it more difficult for employers that operate across regional boundaries to access funding. Employers hire apprentices, choose their training providers and direct funding to meet their skills needs, with funding coming directly from the national apprenticeship budget to meet employer demand where it arises. Devolving the levy is unlikely to be achievable without significantly constraining employer choice and adding complexity for the large number of employers operating across local boundaries. Therefore, the Government have no plans to devolve growth and skills levy funding and see no merit in publishing a report of this kind.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed response. I should have declared my own interest in the cost of childcare, as a father of twins; it is a subject that is close to my heart too. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for their support on this group.
I will certainly reflect on the detail of the Minister’s response, but I hope she will also reflect and have some further engagement with me between Committee and Report. A lot of this comes from the comprehensive work that your Lordships’ House has done on social mobility over the past year through the Social Mobility Policy Committee. We have done a thorough investigation into this with many stakeholders and there are many areas that are not working or are working in a haphazard way, as the various local authorities and combined authorities are not joined up, which is why these amendments have tried to get a partnership approach going.
This is of such importance that it needs to be driven through primary legislation. We come back to that debate we often have on what should be guidance and what should be legislation. I look forward to engaging further with the Minister and her team between now and Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness moves her amendment, I remind noble Lords, because some were not here earlier, that we are finishing at around 7.45 pm, not 8.45 pm as outlined in today’s list. There was an administrative error. We should be finishing in around 40 minutes.
Amendment 122A
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“Use of adult skills and employment funding(1) Any allocation of funding made to a strategic authority under this Act for the purposes of adult skills, education, or employment support may be used only for activities which—(a) support adult education or skills development, or(b) improve access to employment, progression in work, or participation in the labour market for persons aged 19 and over.(2) Allocations of funding under this section must be made on a non-ringfenced basis, and strategic authorities must retain discretion as to the design, commissioning, and delivery of programmes funded under this section.(3) Expenditure under subsection (1) may include, but is not limited to—(a) adult education and training provision;(b) skills development, retraining, and upskilling programmes;(c) employment support, careers guidance, and work-readiness initiatives;(d) engagement with employers to support workforce development;(e) outreach activities to increase participation among under-represented groups.(4) Funding under this section may not be used for purposes unrelated to adult education or adult employment outcomes, including but not limited to—(a) highways, transport infrastructure, or road maintenance;(b) general capital projects not directly connected to adult skills or employment provision;(c) activities whose primary purpose is economic development unrelated to workforce participation.(5) Each strategic authority must publish, at such intervals as the Secretary of State may specify, a statement setting out—(a) how funding under this section has been used, and(b) how such expenditure supports adult education or adult employment opportunities in its area.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this group on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She apologises profusely because she has had to go into the Chamber as they are talking about possibly bringing forward dinner break business. As noble Lords have heard, this is an area close to her heart. These amendments reflect her considerable knowledge and expertise while inviting us to consider how we might improve the Bill from an adult skills, work and welfare perspective.
As we have heard already in Committee, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spent more than 32 years working to help young people into employment, and I am grateful for the support and insight that she is providing for this debate. I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend would probably have spoken for another hour on everything that she has gained from working for those 32 years in the area.
This is an area about which we feel strongly, yet, in our view, the Bill as it stands lacks the framework and conditions that are required to deliver a truly meaningful impact. As we said, unemployment is rising. That is not a party-political point—it is just a fact. At the same time, we face a persistent skills mismatch in many parts of our country. If we are serious about reversing this trend, we must work together to ensure that the Bill delivers real and lasting change. That is working together at the top but locally.
I begin with Amendment 122A, tabled by my noble friend. Beyond the legal entitlements set out in the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, strategic authorities will enjoy significant local discretion in how they exercise these functions and deploy the adult skills fund. We understand that allocations to strategic authorities will be made on a non-ring-fenced basis, with minimal conditions attached to that funding.
This amendment is deliberately simple and proportionate. It provides that any funding given to a strategic authority under the Act for adult skills, education or employment support must be used to achieve one of those two purposes—first, to support adult educational skills, and secondly, to help young adults into work, stay in work or progress in work. In doing so, it anchors the funding clearly to adult skills and employment outcomes rather than allowing resources to drift into loosely related priorities. At the same time, strategic authorities retain full discretion over programme design, commissioning and delivery. Nothing in this amendment constrains local innovation or responsiveness.
The amendment also sets out what counts as valid spending. This is a non-exhaustive list and includes adult education and training, retraining and upskilling, employment support and careers guidance, employer engagement and outreach to under-represented groups. This provides legal cover for modern preventive and locally tailored interventions.
Crucially, it also makes clear what this funding cannot be used for. It cannot be diverted into roads, highways or transport infrastructure. You often hear, “This will fund new jobs”, but they are not always long-term jobs. It cannot be used for unrelated capital projects, nor can it be absorbed into generic economic development activity that has no clear link to workforce participation. This is designed to prevent the sort of argument that employment outcomes have been improved simply by building a bypass.
Finally, the amendment would require authorities to publish statements explaining how the money has been spent and how it supports adult education and employment locally. This introduces public accountability, creates a clear paper trail for Parliament and applies gentle, but important, pressure on authorities to demonstrate outcomes. I hope noble Lords across the Committee will agree that this is a sensible, focused and necessary amendment that would materially strengthen the Bill in an area of growing national importance.
I will speak briefly to the new clause that would be introduced by Amendment 196EA. This clause would allow responsibility for delivering the youth guarantee to be devolved to strategic authorities, giving them the flexibility to tailor provision to local labour markets while preserving the youth guarantee as a national entitlement. I heard what the Minister said, but I think we will still be pushing this point. It should be underpinned by minimum standards and parliamentary oversight. I know that this Government are rightly proud of this programme, but, if they truly believe in the model, it should be delivered as close to local labour markets as possible. Local authorities are far better placed to understand employer demand, skills shortages and the specific barriers that young people face in their areas, and to align support with real jobs rather than abstract national assumptions.
The new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 196EB, along with Amendments 124A and 124B, follow the same theme. I will focus on the new clause, which in essence summarises the rationale for the expansion of Schedule 11 and is reflected in later amendments. Fundamentally, they all seek to achieve the same objective. This clause would give mayor-led strategic authorities the power, where they choose to request it, to design and run youth employment programmes or pilot schemes. It would enable mayors to work directly with employers, education providers and voluntary organisations to offer targeted support, such as training, apprenticeships, wage subsidies and work placements, for young people, particularly those at risk of long-term unemployment. The Secretary of State would be able to provide funding for this purpose, which must be used to support youth employment or labour market participation. The clause would also allow for time-limited pilots, evaluation and the sharing of learning, all subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
During my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s time at Tomorrow’s People, she ran employability programmes that addressed the challenges of young people not in education, employment or training and delivered close to local labour markets. Simply put, they worked. They drove real impact on the ground by working with colleges, schools and local businesses. Devolution can provide targeted outreach, tailored support and genuinely high-impact interventions, which is precisely what these amendments seek to enable.
As I mentioned briefly on the previous group, the challenge of young people not in education, employment or training has rarely been so acute. In the most recent data available, 729,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed. As we have said before, that is an increase of 103,000 on the previous year. Of course, tackling this problem requires the right national economic policies. I accept that, but there is also so much that cannot be changed from the centre. In the meantime, mayors can act now. They can work directly with local businesses, design and run pilot schemes and tailor support in their areas for specific labour markets that they understand far better than Whitehall ever could. I hope the Minister will take these amendments seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has just said that she hopes the Government will pay detailed attention to the amendments in this and the previous group, because the importance of this issue is so great that Governments need to act. We cannot go on with the rising number of young people who are unemployed. I support the amendments in this group, as I did those in the previous one.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her amendments on welfare and work. I also thank her for her service in this area; I am sorry that she is not in her place.
Amendment 122A is unnecessary because the Bill and the English devolution accountability framework already ensure that there is discretion for strategic authorities when using their adult skills funding and that there is accountability for their delivery of skills outcomes. The Bill already places a duty on strategic authorities to secure the provision of education or training appropriate to their area, which means they will fund such provision accordingly.
Strategic authorities use adult skills funding to meet the growth and employment needs of their local areas and to ensure that they meet their duty to offer statutory entitlements for eligible learners in their region. They are also subject to strong and wide-ranging transparency and accountability requirements. Under the English devolution accountability framework, strategic authorities should publish annual assurance reports on their adult skills delivery and undertake a stocktake with Skills England. This amendment is therefore not needed. We already have an approach that ensures local flexibility combined with transparency and accountability for adult skills delivery, while empowering strategic authorities to make choices that benefit learners and drive economic growth.
Similarly, Amendments 124A and 124B are unnecessary. The existing legislative framework has the right balance, providing support and guidance to strategic authorities while allowing them to shape provision that is right for their area. Strategic authorities have flexibility in the use of their adult skills funding, and can use it to support employment and growth in their areas and to link up to other employability-focused programmes. Strategic authorities already consider a wide range of local factors when planning and securing adult education provision, including how adult provision will lead to sustained employment outcomes.
Strategic authorities will also draw on their Get Britain Working plans, which will focus on reducing unemployment in their areas. As I have set out, the Bill provides for strategic authorities to secure education for adults across the skills system. This could include the Government’s free courses for jobs and skills training camps, which are designed specifically to provide pathways into employment. We want strategic authorities to secure adult education to meet local labour market needs. However, these amendments are of no further benefit in relation to this objective.
Finally, let me respond to Amendments 196EA and 196EB on youth employment. Supporting young people into education, employment and training is a top priority for this Government. The Secretary of State already has powers to devolve funding to strategic authorities—and they are using them. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That is why the Government have recently announced more than £1.5 billion of investment in young people through the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy. This investment will provide young people with support to find a job, training or an apprenticeship, and involves close partnerships between the Government, strategic authorities and local authorities.
As set out in the skills White Paper, we will update local oversight and accountability for young people who are not in education, employment or training, with an enhanced role for strategic authorities. This means working in partnership with local areas to explore how to bring strategic authorities into the statutory duties that local authorities already have. As I set out in the discussion on the previous group, these duties require them to support young people to remain in education or training until their 18th birthday, including identifying and tracking those who are not in education or training, as well as working in partnership with local education providers to help them to re-engage with the system.
Strategic authorities are also central to wider local planning. All areas of England, including mayoral strategic authorities, have been asked to establish partnerships to bring together local government, employers, education and skills providers, Jobcentre Plus and the NHS as part of the Get Britain Working plans. Furthermore, as part of the local skills improvement plan process, strategic authorities, businesses and providers are already working together to consider how to boost skills, which will help address youth unemployment.
Strategic authorities already have powers to deliver services to support the youth guarantee and deliver youth employment programmes and pilots. The Secretary of State already has the powers to fund strategic authorities to deliver these services, either with or without ring-fences. Using these powers, the Government have been able to fund and enable eight mayoral strategic authorities to develop and deliver the youth guarantee trailblazers I mentioned earlier; they are receiving two years of funding to test those innovative approaches.
In December 2025, we also announced £140 million to pilot the new approaches with mayoral strategic authorities, which I mentioned during the discussion on the previous group. An evaluation, commissioned by the Government and launched in January 2026, will provide evidence to inform the future roles of strategic and local authorities in supporting the youth guarantee. As noble Lords can see, the Government are already taking steps to empower strategic authorities to deliver youth employment support and to determine their future role in the youth guarantee. Therefore, these amendments are not appropriate while that work is ongoing.
With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank all those who have contributed to this debate. These issues are close to the heart of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and appreciate the funding that the Government are putting into this important issue. We will consider carefully what the Minister has said, and we may well return to her with some specific questions to ensure that we collectively get this right, both nationally and locally.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in between now and Report to take her through some of the work that has been happening in more detail than we can in Committee. Perhaps the noble Baroness could take that back to her.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend would be delighted to meet the Minister and I will certainly tell her.
I think we still believe that the Government could go further and perhaps take the opportunities that the Bill provides to do that. I remain convinced that, with the right focus and the appropriate safeguards, the Bill can do more to address the realities of unemployment and skills mismatch on the ground. I know that my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott established a number of successful pilots and that they worked, and I think that it would be useful to also discuss that with the Minister.
I therefore hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the points that were raised today as the Bill continues its passage. Decisions on adult education and employability programmes are best taken as close to the local labour markets as possible. Each labour market is different, each region distinct and each opportunity shaped by local needs. If we are serious about improving outcomes, our approach must reflect that reality. But at this point I wish, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Wednesday 4th February 2026
(5 days, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-V(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (4 Feb 2026)
Baroness Pinnock
“(2) Notwithstanding any powers conferred under this section or Schedule 16, the Mayor of a Combined County Authority may exercise strategic planning powers only where the constituent local authorities have been consulted and, within limits prescribed by regulations, have the power to approve or veto such decisions.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that constituent local authorities have a consultative and limited veto role over strategic planning powers, with any regulations setting those limits made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, it is really good to be able to take part in the debate on the devolution Bill, particularly to speak to Amendments 126 and 127 in my name. These amendments seek to explore the depth of the devolution that we have been promised in the Bill, which is, after all, called the English devolution Bill. For us Liberal Democrats on these Benches, devolution involves enabling—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but would she prefer to sit when speaking?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I will stand, as I am not speaking for long, and will sit if I need to, but I thank the noble Lord very much for his consideration.
For us on these Benches, devolution involves enabling governance at the lowest possible level to make the appropriate decisions. These two amendments in their different ways seek to explore whether that is in the Government’s thinking and whether they would accept the suggestions that these amendments make.
The purpose of Amendment 126 is to provide clarity concerning the powers of the mayor and the combined county authority. Clause 35 consists of just two lines and is a very brief statement of the powers of land acquisition and planning development. Further details are provided in Schedule 16. Clause 35 confers on the mayor and the CCA the power to acquire land and develop it. Presumably, though it is not entirely clear—and maybe this is where the Minister will be able help the Committee—this would be by providing an outline allocation of the site for housing development under the strategic planning powers in the Bill.
This may result in a major housing development being agreed in principle without the consent of the constituent local planning authority or, indeed, of the local council concerned. The consequences are then very significant if the development fails to include, for example, a condition for the provision of necessary additional facilities, such as school places, GP surgeries and transport and highway infrastructure. It may also mean that a significant housing development—as a general rule, given that it is coming through a strategic planning process, it will be a major site of 200-plus houses —is given permission in principle without consultation and the engagement of the local community affected by it. Imposing new developments on communities in this way will only build resentment and further discredit the notion of local democracy. Amendment 126 would provide safeguards to ensure that such engagement and consultation take place.
There is a provision within Amendment 126 for a veto, but it is a qualified veto. It is included but is constrained by regulation, which would ensure that a housing development is not simply rejected by those who do not want any development but rejected on acceptable planning grounds provided by the constituent authority.
The Minister may say that we have to build houses, and with that I agree. But we have to build them with the consent of the communities in which they are placed. In my own area, I have experience of where a mayor has the powers to impose without consultation and engagement. The local community is furious. It has done no good at all to either the mayor or the infrastructure that is being planned, because the mayor has not taken the community with them, which is what the amendment is about. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.
Amendment 127 is less of a challenge for anybody. It just refers to land acquisition powers. In Schedule 16 there is a list of authorities to be consulted when a mayor wants to acquire land, but the list fails to include parish and town councils. Parish and town councils are statutory consultees for planning applications, so they also ought to be statutory consultees for land acquisition by a mayor. In addition, given the nature of the Bill and the guidance that has been given about increasing neighbourhood governance in some form, making the case for parish and town councils is the right way to go, because I can see them becoming increasingly important as large unitary councils become the norm.
The new unitaries are expected to have a population of around 500,000 people, so wards are likely to be large. Each councillor will represent maybe 5,000 voters, which is the norm where I am. That is easily the largest ratio of elected representatives to voters of any western European nation. It therefore seems that more parish and town councils will be created, and that they will be an increasingly important part of our democratic representation. Given that, it is equally important that those councils can be formally consulted on sensitive issues in local areas, such as land acquisitions. The depth of our devolution is what I am exploring today. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 131. There is an interesting pot-pourri of subjects in this group. Amendment 131 would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner for local planning authorities and strategic authorities. Noble Lords who participated in the debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will recall that we had positive debates on this subject during the passage of that legislation, and I do not apologise for returning to it.
The need for a statutory chief planner role is, if anything, increasing. The argument is very straightforward. We are increasingly, and I think the Government are deliberately, seeking to raise the status of the planning profession, increase the strategic responsibilities of planners and ensure that, through the planning reforms, we accelerate housing delivery and growth. The planning profession is instrumental to making this happen. Although on previous occasions the Government’s response was that this was something that local authorities can choose to do, and therefore we should not require them to do it by appointing a statutory officer, all the messages that are coming back to us from across the profession demonstrate that this would enable the planning profession to step up fully to the role that is envisaged for it through the legislation that we passed last year and this year.
Some of the examples will be known to noble Lords. The national scheme of delegation—I am looking forward to soon seeing the first statutory instrument implementing it—will enhance the role specifically of the chief planner, who will work with the chair of a planning committee in a local planning authority. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that the Government’s consultation document referred explicitly to the role of the chief planner, without there necessarily being a chief planner in all these planning authorities.
We are also adding to the number of chief planners needed overall, by reference to the strategic authorities and the increasing role of development corporations, each of which will have planning powers. Amendment 131 includes not only local planning authorities but strategic authorities. Why? Because spatial development strategies —which, if I remember correctly, are to be implemented under the Town and Country Planning Act but are a result of the Planning and Infrastructure Act—are a very significant strategic planning function in strategic authorities. There is a significant risk that, without a chief planner role, the spatial development strategy will be seen as an adjunct to a local growth plan and an economic development initiative, whereas, for it to be successful, it must be implemented by officers who understand and can use the National Planning Policy Framework and government guidance and mesh them together with the views of their elected members and the combined authority.
This was previously the subject of debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Royal Town Planning Institute, whose support for the amendment I am grateful for—I am also grateful for the other signatures on Amendment 131—has added to that support by reference to a number of quotes. I will not keep the Committee for a long time but I want to read some out, if I may.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having broken my ankle before, I feel her pain. I will speak to Amendments 132 and 222B in this group and, if time permits, Amendment 241E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.
The Minister will be aware of my interest in SUDS. What I am seeking to do here is align her department with Defra, because Defra is much keener than her department is on bringing in mandatory standards for sustainable drainage. I hope that we can bring them closer together so that they speak with one voice.
The importance of SUDS as a natural containment of water is twofold, but it is primarily to prevent flooding and to prevent floodwater from being displaced. For example, if as few as 30 or 60 houses have been built on a waterlogged field—it does not need to be a major development of 300 houses—it can displace the water into existing developments. I saw this when I was the MP for Filey, for my last five years in the other place. Flooding of sewage was caused when rainwater mixed with the additional sewage into the combined sewer. It went onto the highway, meant that households, including some pensioner households living in bungalows, had to be evicted for six months and caused £1 million of damage to Filey School.
I know that the noble Baroness will reply by saying that the Government published guidance in June 2025 and that SUDS is part of the National Planning Policy Framework, to which I would say, even more firmly than before, that these are, regrettably, not mandatory. Since my earlier attempts to put SUDS on a statutory basis during the passage of the levelling up Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, there has been a court case, which I will come on to now.
With this amendment, I am seeking to ask the noble Baroness to conduct sustainable drainage assessments relating to planning applications by strategic authorities, before those applications are approved. The assessment
“must include consideration of whether existing public sewerage systems have capacity to support proposed developments in planning applications.”
I refer to the excellent report by the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, Flood Resilience in England, which was published last year. It makes two references to SUDS, one in particular. I quote its paragraph 48:
“We heard that the Flood Risk Management Strategy requires Lead Local Flood Authorities to maintain a register of flood risk assets, but that implementation is inconsistent and that many assets, especially SuDS and nature-based features are not captured”.
That was the initial background to this. It also emphatically recommended, in its conclusions in paragraphs 30 and 31, that more needs to be done on the whole issue of surface water.
I part company with the Minister in that I believe the guidelines need to be mandatory, we need a legal basis and we need to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, because of the ruling last month in the case of Gladman Developments Limited v the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Lancaster City Council. This is important and has caused much concern among practitioners, in particular the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, with which I did some interesting work on bioresources, removing the solids out of sewage and making money out of that, but that is for another day.
CIWEM is deeply concerned because this case set aside the sequential test. I quote from its letter, which I will make available to Hansard. The court judgment
“has a large impact on Planning, not just the Sequential Test which is worrying but also the status of SuDS in development. At the original appeal the inspector dismissed the application as A sequential Test was not carried out but required. The applicant then went to the High Court, contending that the inspector has erred in law, by treating the NPPF as establishing a requirement that planning permission must be refused in every case where the sequential test had not been undertaken… The court agreed and quashed the decision, finding that this is one matter that needs to be weighed up against the other factors and not a sole reason to refuse an application. The scheme was for 64 new homes in Lancaster”.
In the view of CIWEM and others:
“This not only weakens Flood Risk Policy but also the implication that weakens the stance that if a development does not include SuDS is this a strong enough reason in the planning balance to refuse an application on its own”.
That court case has driven a coach and horses through government policy, and I would argue most vigorously that we need to have a mandatory basis and set aside these voluntary guidelines. We need to have one mandatory standard respected by all planning authorities the length and breadth of the country—otherwise we are not doing our duty to householders to have a safe residence, free from the prospect of flooding and, in particular, free from sewage coming into their homes.
I turn now to Amendment 222B. I spoke in the clean energy Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has just taken his place, was an excellent Minister. He has now been replaced by another excellent Minister. I was staggered by the way in which these battery energy storage systems were criss-crossing north Yorkshire and the rest of rural England and causing complete havoc. We do not yet know what additional resources are being given to the fire and rescue services, but we know that they are not statutory consultees to these developments. We had a major wildfire—and there were 196 wildfires in England last year, which takes an enormous amount of resources in terms of water and the fire and rescue services. The wildfire came perilously close to burning down farms and residences, and it also imperilled livestock.
The thinking behind Amendment 222B is to ensure that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees going forward. My main concern is that, for example, in my former constituency, the village of Scotton, which is very important to me, because my niece lives in Lingerfield, one of the villages next door to it, is going to have two of these large battery storage plants, and for good measure, one of the largest solar farms in the country is next door to it. There is another one elsewhere in what was my constituency, in South Kilvington, also perilously close to a school. If both those units were to go on fire at the same time, as well as there being a wildfire in a different part of north Yorkshire, what resources are there? To make sure that that is considered at the time of a planning application, I am asking that there be a duty to consult fire and rescue services and that they be statutory consultees.
Briefly, I bumped into the chief executive of the North York Moors National Park, who briefed me on the earlier amendment on national parks and strategic planning. I put on record that it goes the extra mile to ensure that it consults with every single body, including other planning authorities such as North Yorkshire Council and others, including NGOs, to make sure that any planning application on its land is fully considered.
With those few remarks, I hope that the Minister will finally agree to a mandatory duty for SUDS, and also that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 241E is in my name. I hope that it does not need much introduction, because it pretty much does what it says on the tin. Where a spatial development strategy involves a national park, the national park authority should be involved in the development of the strategy. That sounds so much like a no-brainer that I would not be surprised if the Minister tells me that it is in the Bill already, but my understanding is that, without this amendment, although the national park authorities need to be consulted before a strategy is submitted, they do not need to be consulted while it is being developed in the first place.
This may come from the thinking that a national park is a big, empty wilderness just for nature, but the South Downs National Park and New Forest National Park are places where nearly 500,000 live, and even more work, and cover around 10% of the land in England and Wales, including key bits of national infrastructure, such as roads and energy projects. It seems clear that working with the national park authority is the best way in which to plan a spatial development strategy within or affecting a national park. The relevant national park authority has experience and expertise about so many aspects crucial to an SDS—infrastructure and planning, the rural economy, the tourist economy, opportunities for nature recovery and climate targets—so excluding it seems to set things up for failure. This amendment aims to give national park authorities a statutory role during the planning of an SDS in a really simple way, and I very much hope that the Minister agrees with its sentiments, at least, and will consider tabling a government amendment along these lines.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this is a very interesting group of amendments. I look forward to the responses of the Minister to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who made quite a number of important points, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.
I just want to say something in relation to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, including myself. I do not want to repeat what he has said—indeed, in debates on previous Bills we have had long discussions on the issue of chief planning officers—but I hope that the Minister will take this very seriously. Let me explain a further reason why I think Ministers need to do that.
There are several areas of competence in the Bill for mayors. Four of them require planning advice. One is transport and local infrastructure, a second is housing and strategic planning, a third is economic development and regeneration and a fourth is environment and climate change. Each of those will have either an elected member or a commissioner leading, as it were—I will not say “in charge”, because commissioners have to report to the mayor, and the strategic authority would be making the relevant decisions.
The point is that in any one person, to have the professional capacity in each of those four areas of competence that I have identified, you have to have professional expertise. I do not see in either the Bill or the Explanatory Notes exactly how that is going to be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an unanswerable case for there being a chief planning officer who brings all these things together within a local planning authority and within the strategic authority. No doubt we will come back to this on Report, but I hope that the Government understand its importance. If you are trying to drive growth, you have to have professional expertise in place to do it and I suggest that chief planning officers are one of those positions.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not having been here previously. I was not a Member of the House when the Bill first came to the House, so I could not speak on it then, but I would like to speak on it today. I will set out some context about my understanding of planning and where I come from. I was eight years as a planning lead in my local council, as the regeneration and planning cabinet member. I should also point out that I am an employee of the Local Government Association and I am still a councillor, so my remarks will be based on my own opinions and experience.
I will speak on Amendment 126, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for explaining her position on her amendment. I want to challenge that perception with my experience. I do not think this amendment is needed in actual practice. The points around democratic accountability and community involvement are based within the planning system already and the planning reforms that have come through. Good local plans should have involvement of the community and are democratically voted on in a full council chamber. Should an applicant come to a local council with a planning application and in good faith follow those policies, there should be some safeguards around making sure that those plans are upheld and seen through in development coming forward.
In my experience in London, in the eight years that I was planning lead, not one application needed to be called in or used by the Mayor of London to challenge what the local council had done, because we made sure that the developer or the applicant was able to follow the planning policies. So it is important to note that, in a good planning process, the local plan should be where the heavy lifting is done through community engagement and democratic accountability.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The amendment requires local planning authorities, separately or jointly, to appoint one qualified and experienced person to be chief planner. It would give due recognition to the officer responsible for planning matters in each local authority, as promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute—I declare that I am an honorary member of the institute. A very similar amendment was debated in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last October. At the conclusion of that debate, the Minister said that she would
“keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. 1199.]
Our hope is that she will now be able to accept this proposition.
The case for a chief planner seems an excellent one. It would be a boost to the morale of those working in local planning authorities. It would represent an acknowledgement by the Government that planning needs to be recognised, as it once was, as a very prominent part of local government. When we debated this matter last year, it was noted that identifying the chief planner role is now more significant than it was following the Government’s action to achieve a national planning scheme of delegation for planning decision-making. Decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by officers alone will depend on the judgment of two individuals: the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the chief planning officer. This important responsibility underlines the need for an enhanced status for the planning officer at the helm.
In preparation for the debate on this issue during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I spoke to the chief planner for Glasgow City Council, where legislation already confers a statutory status on the chief planning officer, accompanied by guidance from the Scottish Government on the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skills and experience required. Glasgow’s chief planner told me of the importance of having one fully qualified person holding the position of chief planner, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. Indeed, events are now being organised that bring together chief planners from across Scotland, now that it is clear who shares this common identity. I spoke to an experienced planner in Wales who told me of hopes for a similar measure for Wales to that addressed by this arrangement. I strongly support this amendment as part of the devolution package for England.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—it is great to see her back here on her two feet. I shall speak first to Amendment 130 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that greenfield land should not be designated for development unless the relevant authority
“is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land is available within the relevant area”.
There appears to be universal agreement that building on brownfield first is the right thing to do. It provides a number of advantages. Not only does it save greenfield land, but it helps regeneration, utilises existing infra- structure and minimises transport distances, whether that is to work or to employment. It creates a better environment and promotes growth. While this is recognised, what does not appear to be recognised is the difficulty of building on brownfield land, particularly in high-cost areas such as London, due not only to the remediation costs but to high existing land use values.
When it comes to financing, if you are building an apartment block, you cannot generally sell an apartment until you have built the whole block, whereas if you are building on a green field, you can virtually sell house by house. Time scales tend to be longer and costs higher, due to the complexity of building in urban areas. Because of the high and early capital outlays, return on capital is often the determining factor, meaning that delays inevitably make projects unviable. In urban areas, it is all too easy to find grounds for objection, delaying the process. While a committed applicant may get through all these hoops, it can take years, by which time the project is no longer viable. Many do not even try, or they seek to build with lower quality in order to recoup their costs.
That is a particular problem in London. Last year only around 5,000 new private homes were started, against a target of 88,000 new homes. That has real-world consequences. London Councils estimates that more than 200,000 people in London are living in temporary accommodation or are homeless, of whom around 100,000 are children. That is more than 50% of the UK total. The previous Government introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This has proved to be a very effective tool in delivering development in rural areas because the relatively low upfront costs and the potentially sudden significant uplift in land values where there is not a five-year supply mean that landowners and developers can profitably challenge the planning system and regularly do so. Local planning authorities generally recognise this and tend to be much more reasonable with applications because they do not want planning by appeal and the risk of unplanned and poor-quality developments. This does not appear to work in urban brownfield areas, where, as I outlined earlier, high upfront costs and the complexity of development militate against challenging planning decisions, with developers often taking the easier route of seeking greenfield development opportunities elsewhere.
If we are to get more brownfield development, the balance between brownfield and greenfield needs to be tilted more in favour of brownfield. That is why the previous Conservative Government proposed a strong material presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. The purpose of this amendment is to oblige planning authorities to look at brownfield first, to recognise the potential additional costs and timescales of brownfield development and, through the strategic spatial plan, to seek to address them. With greater certainty and speed in the planning process, we will get the homes that this country needs with more on brownfield, helping urban regeneration and protecting greenfield sites. While the Minister may say that this is already in guidance, that has been the case for many years and it is simply not delivering. It needs to be stepped up; it needs to be in legislation.
I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reflect a shared concern that strategic planning powers must be accompanied by safeguards, transparency and engagement with local communities. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, would extend this to national parks in a similar vein. My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 131 relates to a chief planner. We believe it has considerable merit, and I have heard similar from both the industry and the planning profession, as he outlined. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering rightly raised again the issue of flooding and the role and benefits of SUDS. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response on all these issues and, in particular, on whether this Government are prepared to take the necessary step of legislating for brownfield development.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment 132. Local planning authorities already carry out flood assessments as part of their duties, just as with conservation assessments, tree assessments or bat assessments. Flooding is already part of the routine of planning authorities’ assessments. SUDS are constantly being put in. The number of SUDS is constantly changing, and I fear that a statutory duty would cost money that could be put to better use. A local authority is best placed to assess which flooding remediation is best for an area. We have to remember that regional flooding bodies also review flooding in catchment areas as part of their duties. I fear that this amendment would cause duplication and put an excess financial burden on local authorities and the Government.
Regarding Amendment 241E, I would have thought that the national parks were protected land in a similar way to metropolitan open land, which is highly protected. As it is part of a planning authority’s duties, it should consult with all relevant parties already.
I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward Amendment 130, but I believe it would delay the building of the homes that, as he eloquently said, we desperately need across the country. Planning authorities can look only at developments that come before them; they cannot force a developer to bring an application for brownfield land, or any land. They can judge only the applications that come before them. I fear that this amendment would cause delay in delivering the houses that we so desperately need in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I also welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is very nice to see her back in her place, and I hope her leg is recovering speedily.
I thank noble Lords for these amendments relating to planning and housing. I understand the spirit of Amendment 126, which seeks to restrict the use of strategic planning powers. It is important that the right checks and balances are in place in the governance of strategic authorities. However, we believe that the Bill already puts the right procedures in place. Combined authorities and combined county authorities already have to make decisions collectively. Constituent councils each have at least one voting member and, thanks to Clause 6, decisions will require a majority to be taken forward.
Even then, there are some circumstances where we go further. For example, mayors and their authorities must consult the relevant constituent councils and local planning authorities before using compulsory purchase powers in their area. Non-mayoral strategic authorities cannot acquire land in this way without consent. I can assure the noble Baroness that when a mayor exercises their powers on mayoral development orders, there will be consultation with local communities and local planning authorities. That will be set out in secondary legislation.
Where the mayor exercises strategic planning functions directly, there are appropriate checks and balances. For example, the mayor’s spatial development strategy cannot be adopted until the combined authority or combined county authority has passed a motion to do so. I thank my noble friend Lady Shah for sharing her experience of the planning process. Introducing a requirement that every use of a strategic planning power requires the consent of every constituent council would be excessive and fetter the ability of strategic authorities and their mayors to make strategic decisions for the benefit of their whole area.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127. We have often had discussions about parish and town councils, and I know how strongly she feels about them. Schedules 16 and 17 already place requirements on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils and local planning authorities, such as national park authorities, before seeking to use compulsory purchase powers on land in their area. The types of organisations they must consult or get the consent of are the same as those from which existing strategic authorities already must seek consent. Extending these requirements to parish councils would, I believe, take this too far. There are over 10,000 parish councils in England.
This amendment as written would give parish councils the ability to veto compulsory acquisitions of land. It cannot be right for a parish council to unilaterally block a strategic purchase by a strategic authority—on which all the constituent councils have agreed—that may have benefits beyond that parish. While it is of course right that strategic authorities consider the views of local communities, including parish councils, in their decisions, individual parish councils should not be able to block those decisions.
I turn to Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, which seeks to require mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities to prioritise brownfield over greenfield land when they designate land for development. Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will have a duty to produce a spatial development strategy. Spatial development strategies will guide local plans in their area; identify broad locations for development and key infrastructure requirements; and set housing targets for local authorities. They will not themselves allocate specific parcels of land for development. When preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with national policy.
The promotion and reuse of brownfield land is a central part of the current National Planning Policy Framework. Authorities are expected to give substantial weight to the benefits of using suitable brownfield land within existing settlements to maximise density. The framework particularly emphasises the importance of appropriate uses in town centres, although, of course, it will not be appropriate in all cases for development to be situated on previously developed land and town centres.
We aim to go even further to cement this approach in the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, on which we are currently consulting. New policies on development inside and outside of development boundaries promote a sustainable pattern of development by steering proposals to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable land in urban areas and taking a more selective approach to the types and locations of development outside settlements. Mayors will also be able to grant upfront planning permission for specific types of development on specific sites through mayoral development orders. We want to ensure that the legislation is flexible enough to allow mayors to use these orders for a range of different uses across different types of land, reflecting the mayor’s plans to support the growth of their area.
Paragraph 125 of the current National Planning Policy Framework states:
“Planning policies and decisions should … give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs”.
Following the revision in December 2024, this paragraph has been strengthened further. It now states that proposals for such brownfield sites
“should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused”.
It is of course right that we promote the effective use of previously developed land, but we should avoid creating overly inflexible legal requirements that may not work in every situation and would serve only to inhibit the growth that this country needs; my noble friend Lady Dacres referred to these issues. Although I appreciate the intent behind this amendment, I do not think that it is necessary or proportionate.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. The key issue here is the one to which I referred. We have had guidance for many years. I appreciate that there is potentially to be some mild strengthening of that guidance but the fact is that it is not working, as I illustrated with the very low number of houses that are being built in the large urban area of London. We therefore need to step up. This is not about preventing development elsewhere or slowing development down. This is a strategic plan. It is about facilitating development and putting a greater onus on mayors to find brownfield land because we know that, as we have illustrated, it is more difficult to develop on brownfield land, whether or not it is contaminated. This is not a slowing mechanism but a mechanism that will create more sites and get more development done—and with more of it being in urban and brownfield areas, protecting some of our greenfield land. It is not about slowing; it is actually about the reverse.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand what the noble Lord says. I do not have the statistics in front of me but I have visited a number of very good brownfield sites in London. The issue of building on brownfield is not the only issue preventing building in London; there are viability issues that are quite unrelated to that. I accept that viability can be an issue on brownfield land. Indeed, we are very much taking into account some of the issues around viability in the new packages that we are developing with London in order to encourage London boroughs and the Mayor of London to think about how we can work further to deliver against the housing demand in London.
This is a key issue, but it is not as simple as a lack of use of brownfield sites. Nearly all the housing sites that I have visited right across the country have been, to one extent or another, developments on brownfield sites. That is the right way to go. We will of course continue to monitor this, but I do not want to create an inflexible requirement that will mean that people who are in a situation where they cannot use brownfield sites cannot develop anything. We must be very careful about this, but I understand the points being made.
I turn to Amendment 131. I am glad to see that the House of Lords is taking our environmental responsibilities very seriously, because we have a number of amendments to this Bill that have been recycled from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, of which Amendment 131 is an early contender. However, I appreciate that this amendment is slightly different in that it relates specifically to strategic development strategies. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. His amendment seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment. As we discussed during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I share the view that it is very important for planners to have a presence within the leadership structures of local authorities. As I have said previously, it is our mission to try and make sure that we highlight the role and importance of planning for all local authorities, whichever level of planning they are operating at.
However, I do not believe that this is an issue that should be addressed through legislation at this stage. The Government consider it essential that each authority should retain the flexibility to determine the most effective way to organise its own planning functions, particularly because, in England, they vary widely in scale and nature. In practice, many already operate with a chief planner, as I think the noble Lord said, or the equivalent senior role, although what that role entails varies widely between, for example, a county authority focused mainly on minerals and waste, a small district council and a large London borough.
As I promised to do during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I will continue to keep this matter under review as we take forward further reforms to the planning system. This is something that I am happy to explore further with local authorities and the sector as part of that work. I will aim to expedite that work, but it would not be appropriate to introduce this into legislation without doing that first. I therefore want to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 132, which would require strategic authorities to prepare sustainable drainage assessments. I admire her persistence on the issue of sustainable drainage systems; she has a great deal of knowledge on this that I greatly appreciate her bringing to planning matters. I reassure her that the Government are committed to taking a systemic approach to tackling drainage issues and , in particular, improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. Through this Bill, we are giving mayors of strategic authorities outside London the ability to call in planning applications of potential strategic importance. Where a planning application is called in, the mayor must consider the application in accordance with the development plan for the area and national planning policy.
In December 2024, we revised the National Planning Policy Framework to require all developments that may have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are proposing to go further through the current consultation on the new framework, which proposes that all sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with new national standards introduced by the Government last year. The consultation also includes proposals for clearer engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies when plans are being made, taking into account the impacts of planned growth. This is to provide a clearer understanding of capacity and any additional infrastructure needs.
Against this background, I am concerned that the noble Baroness’s amendment would impose a burden on strategic authorities without being effective. Mayors of strategic authorities will deal with only a small number of planning applications themselves, so it would be disproportionate to expect them to produce a statutory drainage assessment, which would likely be very partial, as they would not be able to look holistically at all potential development coming forward in their area. Nor should this amendment be necessary, given the steps that we are taking to improve the assessment of drainage needs and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems and the clear requirement for drainage matters to be addressed when individual development proposals are being considered.
I will take back the issue that the noble Baroness raised on the specific legal case. That is as a relatively new court decision, so I am sure that the MHCLG team are reviewing any impact on the Bill. I will respond in writing to her and other Members of the Committee on that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister said that the judgment was on 15 January. If she and her department consider that their policy is being set aside by very clever planning barristers, would she perhaps bring forward an amendment from the department that would be much better worded than my humble effort in this regard? It is completely inappropriate for the sequential test to be set aside in the way that it has been, and it is contrary to what she is trying to do in her department.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think it would be best if we look at the legal judgment and come back to the noble Baroness on that issue. I undertake to do that.
Amendment 196E was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is in the Chamber. It relates to the definition of planning data as set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. I recognise the intention to expand the data standards provision to ensure that it covers other types of plans produced by strategic authorities, such as local growth plans and local transport plans. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards. Given that data standards can evolve, the Secretary of State has the power to define those standards. The types of plans referred to in this amendment are intended to be considered as part of plan-making and in determining planning applications, both of which are relevant planning functions under the existing planning data provisions. Further, the Secretary of State has the power to specify the organisations and planning legislation that the data standards provisions apply to, providing flexibility to data provision powers as needed. We are confident that the current provisions are sufficiently broad and flexible to cover the plans specified in this amendment, but I welcome further details on the amendment’s intentions and objectives.
Amendment 222B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to add fire and rescue authorities as statutory consultees for planning applications involving energy projects, such as battery energy storage systems. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I refer to them as BESS in future—I have a granddaughter called Bess, so that feels a bit weird to me, but never mind about it. Let me emphasise that the Government take fire and safety extremely seriously, but we do not consider this amendment to be necessary or proportionate, and we are concerned that it may create unintended consequences. On 26 January last year, the Chancellor announced a moratorium on the creation of any new statutory consultees within the planning process together with a wider review of the statutory consultee framework to ensure that it supports the Government’s ambitions for growth. A Written Ministerial Statement issued on 10 March 2025 set out a package of measures to reform statutory consultees, ensuring that they provide high-quality expert advice swiftly to support well-designed development and timely decision-making. The Government have now consulted on statutory consultee reform, and we are currently analysing the responses. No decisions will be taken until that analysis is complete. Adding fire and rescue services to the list of statutory consultees would pre-empt that review and place additional burdens on them.
I know that battery energy storage system sites are of particular interest. These sites are already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under a robust framework that requires designers, installers and operators to maintain high safety standards. Planning practice guidance also encourages developers promoting these developments on a larger scale to engage with local fire and rescue services, and local planning authorities are encouraged to consider guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council. I repeat what I said in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill discussions: because someone is not a statutory consultee does not mean that they cannot contribute to a planning application discussion if they feel they need to. The Government are also considering further measures to strengthen oversight of environmental and safety risks associated with BESS. Proposals were recently included in Defra’s consultation on modernising environmental permitting for industry which proposed adding BESS sites to the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is currently considering the responses to that consultation and will publish its response in due course.
I turn to Amendment 241E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, which seeks to change the role of national park authorities in the preparation of a spatial development strategy where it covers a national park or is likely to have a significant effect on the purposes of a national park. Although I agree absolutely with the need to ensure that national parks remain protected—we had much discussion on that during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—the existing arrangements already provide national park authorities with opportunities to have input into the preparation of a spatial development strategy and, more generally, to shape development.
Under Section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, strategic planning authorities must consult
“any local planning authority for an area that is wholly or partly within, or adjoins, the strategy area and is affected by the strategy”.
This includes national park authorities. More generally, we will expect strategic planning authorities to engage closely with national park authorities where relevant, and we intend to provide guidance to support early and effective engagement. Finally, as local planning authorities, national park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas, which will set out more detailed policies on the use and development of land in the national park.
With the assurances that I have given this afternoon, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Bennett, Lady McIntosh and Lady Freeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Forgive me, but I wish to speak before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, responds to the debate. Her Amendment 127 raises an interesting question on Schedule 16. When mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities are compulsorily acquiring land, they do not require the consent of constituent councils at all, whereas non-mayoral combined authorities and single foundation strategic authorities do require the consent of constituent councils. Can the Minister explain why one route requires consent and the other does not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I am out of time, may I respond to the noble Lord in writing? I am happy to do that.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been quite a long debate on a number of issues regarding strategic planning and its consequences.
Amendment 126 in particular referred to the new strategic powers that mayors—not just combined county authority mayors but existing metro mayors—will acquire and how those will knit with local plans. Perhaps I should have said at the beginning that I am a councillor currently serving on a large met authority in Yorkshire. It is clear to me that greater thought must be given to how strategic plans by the mayor and local plans by the local authority will work together and not come into conflict. Those who come from the London experience do not understand, perhaps, that the new mayoral authorities will not have the equivalent of a London Assembly where these things can be debated. They will consist of the leaders of the constituent authorities in West Yorkshire, which is five people. If that is deemed sufficient, it is not devolution.
I thank the Minister for her reply, which, as always, went into substantial detail on the probing questions that were asked; I am sure that some of them will be asked again when we get to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Support for Mayoral Development Corporations
4A (1) Section 198 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) The Secretary of State may—(a) provide financial assistance for the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations;(b) provide financial assistance for the acquisition of land or property by Mayoral Development Corporations;(c) provide guidance to Mayoral Development Corporations on any aspect of governance, land acquisition, development and regeneration, and ongoing management.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 133, which has the heading
“Support for Mayoral Development Corporations”.
The amendment concerns the measures in Part 2 of the Bill that will facilitate strategic authorities establishing mayoral development corporations and development corporations of combined authorities, including combined county authorities. These development corporations can take on planning powers and land acquisition and development powers.
I believe that these development corporations could create the real alternative that we need to the current reliance of government on a small number of volume housebuilders, on which we all depend for the delivery of most of the 1.5 million homes planned for this Parliament. The hope is that these developers will plan, design and construct the majority of new housing development, achieving high housing standards and a good quantum of affordable accommodation for local communities. But these companies have often failed to achieve the speed or quality of development, let alone to include a fair proportion of affordable homes.
An alternative is badly needed and the development corporations could be that alternative. Development corporations can trace their origins to the establishment of planning and development bodies for the pre-war garden cities and then for the post-war new towns. The London Docklands Development Corporation utterly transformed that part of east London and, more recently, the London Legacy Development Corporation —the LLDC—has been doing great work in the redevelopment of the 2012 Olympic Games site and its environs.
The excellent 2018 Letwin review recommended ending our dependency on the oligopoly of developers that, entirely predictably, work at their own pace and negotiate down the standards and quotas of affordable housing to maximise their profits. In their place, Letwin advocated the establishment of development corporations that would acquire the land and capture the increase in its value when planning consent was subsequently granted. The corporation’s master plan can then parcel out the site to different profit-making and non-profit-making bodies, incorporating a mix of house types, green space, play areas and a mix of providers—housing associations, SME builders, specialist players et cetera. Development corporations will be the chosen vehicle for the delivery—
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, development corporations will be the chosen vehicle for the delivery of the new generation of new towns. I was delighted to hear today the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, announcing a consultation on the details of creating a development corporation for greater Cambridge. This model can be used far more widely, for other developments and area regeneration as well. But my worry is that this does not happen elsewhere, that new development corporations do not appear and that this part of the Bill—unless amended by Amendment 133—turns out to be a damp squib. Mayors and combined authorities have other important matters to handle and may fail to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Bill to create the development corporations that really can achieve more and better new homes and communities.
Amendment 133 is intended to enable government to engage with the strategic authorities to incentivise and support the setting up of development corporations and sometimes to provide them with financial assistance, perhaps via Homes England, as well as ongoing advice on their governance, on land acquisition—including through compulsory purchase—on the creation of the masterplan and on the subsequent oversight of the management of the new development. The measures in this amendment could help to radically change the way housing and infrastructure are currently delivered. Publicly accountable bodies empowered to work for the common good could dramatically improve the speed of build-out, ensure more affordable homes and achieve the benefits of great place-making for the communities destined to live there.
Amendments 240 and 242 in my name have been grouped with my amendment on development corporations. These two additional amendments would insert a new clause with the heading
“Duty to optimise the use of public land”.
The amendments attempt to ensure that the precious asset of land owned by local authorities, including strategic authorities and development corporations, is put to best—“optimal”—use. The amendments seek to resolve long-standing complexities and arguments over the treatment of land holdings by public bodies. I pay tribute to the land economist, Stephen Hill, supported by leading real estate experts and a large number of public interest institutions, for his help in preparing these two amendments.
The amendments address the barrier of land prices being too high to allow for new developments to embrace important social purposes. The amendments would bring down the value of land by requiring public bodies to make available their own land holdings and redundant buildings on terms that make possible their best use. They would have to follow the 2018 principle of law set out by Mr Justice Holgate, which holds that true market value must reflect compliance with public policy. So this amendment would ensure that the market value of land must take account of the cost of abiding by the obligations both set out in the local plan and contained in central government’s requirements. Local authorities would have a duty to create a land use management plan for sites in their ownership to ensure that developments are ultimately for the public good.
Since the duty to optimise the use of public land would very often be of relevance when it is planned to dispose of land to others, the amendment also provides clarification on the meaning of the phrase “best consideration reasonably obtainable”, which governs the sale of publicly owned land at present. Public bodies believe that this means that they must accept the highest price offered, irrespective of the effects of this on their local community. Taking this line can prevent efforts to improve the quality of life for local citizens for generations to come.
I will illustrate this by reference to negotiations in which I was involved to acquire a redundant hospital building for an extra care housing development for older people. This use of the old building and surrounding land would provide a service that meant substantial annual savings for the NHS and care services as a result of the housing with care provision. But the NHS trust was adamant that the sale must be to the highest bidder—in this case to a developer of luxury flats, principally for overseas buyers, forfeiting the gains to the community in return for a short-term financial receipt.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a word in support of Amendment 133 from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about creating a statutory provision to enable financial assistance to be given to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation—and also, perhaps, just to note that my former constituency lies within the area where the Government have announced today a consultation on the establishment of a centrally led development corporation for the whole area of the city council and South Cambridgeshire.
Noble Lords on all sides might like to stop and examine this substantial issue. All decisions relating to sites of strategic importance in two council areas will, according to the proposal, from 2029 at least be decided by a development corporation and not the councils themselves. That is quite a substantial change. I am not saying that I am for or against it; we were always expecting it and had been expecting it for quite a long time. It is relevant to this debate because the reason why, in greater Cambridge, people not only expected this to happen but, by and large, supported it—I remind noble Lords of my registered interest in the Cambridgeshire development corporation—is that it comes, as announced, with £400 million in investment and infrastructure, and development corporations need to be driven by an infrastructure-first approach.
That is relevant to this debate because, if this were a mayoral development corporation—we have a mayor, so it is not inconsiderable that it could have been—it does not follow that anything like those resources would have been available to a mayoral development corporation in the way that they are for the centrally led development corporation. That is not to say that mayoral development corporations cannot get financial assistance from the Government. For example, in London the Old Oak development corporation has had money from the Government through the Homes England housing investment fund and some capital grants for land acquisition. But I do not think that is quite what the noble Lord, Lord Best, is looking for.
We are looking for two things: first, the ability for the Government to provide resources for the establishment of a mayoral development corporation, rather than for financial support for some of its activities. Secondly, we may be looking at mayoral development corporations, particularly in some of the new towns, where the funding requirement is at scale and is particular to that development corporation and not simply a subset of the grant-making powers that are available to the relevant government department for other purposes.
I remember the days when I was a financial officer for a government department. Having the statutory power is necessary if you are going to have substantial resources devoted to something over a significant period of time. It is not good enough simply to regard it as an extension of other powers that were devised not for that purpose. Giving specific statutory powers to fund the establishment of mayoral development corporations and to enable long-term funding from the Government potentially seems to be an essential part of the new towns programme. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I was involved in the London Olympics for 19 years, from day one. Our first meeting was at the Bromley by Bow Centre, with three of us, in 1999. These projects take a long time, and it was only after that first meeting that I dared to go and see the architect Richard Rogers at his house. When he heard our vision and thought about it, he decided to be part of the team as well, and one thing led to another.
It was a very long journey, and it did not begin as a development corporation. The ideas for what eventually became the legacy company grew up among a small group of leaders, including Sir Robin Wales, the Labour leader of Newham at that time, who focused, over many years, on the place, the history of the place and a vision for the future. It was a long journey.
When, eventually, we won the bid, lessons were learned and it did not begin as a development corporation. It became known as the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which was a social business—for those of us who remember it in detail—which wanted to make sure we had the right people around the table who could begin to drive the legacy programme and not do what had happened in so many Olympic projects around the world, many of which I went to see, which had no legacy and ended in wastelands.
As we gained competence, what began to happen is that politicians and the system began to realise that we needed to be given planning powers. It was only after a number of years, as we grew as a company in skills and had a clear vision, that we became the London Legacy Development Corporation. The wise thing at that time was that the directors were not changed and moved on, and we did not have the usual churn that goes on; we were encouraged to stay as a group of people to follow through on this development.
What are the lessons learned over that very long period of time around this development corporation process? Our first lesson was to have a clear vision that is deeply rooted in the history of the place and the people who live in the place. That is absolutely critical.
Secondly, bring together the right people with the right skills and ensure that you have the right business skills on the board. It is not about having boards—if I am honest—that are just council representatives; it is about the right individuals from the public sector, the business sector and the social sector who come together.
Thirdly, good leadership with the right business skills is absolutely essential.
Fourthly, a development corporation has to take the long view. It will pass through different Governments and different local councils. It is really important that continuity is seen as an essential element of any development corporation.
Fifthly, create a learning-by-doing culture focused on quality, not a tick-box culture.
Sixthly, create integrated environments wherever you operate, bring people together and resist silos.
Seventhly, focus on people and relationships, not just process.
Eighthly, government needs to get interested in the detail. This is my thought at the moment. There are real lessons out there, but development corporations across the country are not all good and all the same thing. Get interested in the detail and what works.
Finally, if you look out there at what is going on, you will find that some development corporations are far better than others, some have had some successes and some have failed to learn the lessons.
This amendment is important, and I certainly want to support it, but the detail on this and the practice really matter.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. I support all three of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The contributions so far have been very helpful; I hope that the Minister will take due notice of them.
I particularly support the optimal use of land. Amendment 240 talks about placing
“a statutory duty on English local authorities and all forms of development corporation, to secure the optimal uses of their land, including when disposing of it, to achieve public policy objectives and requirements”.
This really matters. It is fundamental to achieving the housing growth objective that the Government have set themselves. I very much hope that the Minister will be very positive when she replies; if not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Best, wants to return to this issue on Report, he will have our support in so doing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised with these three amendments.
First, Amendment 133
“would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations”.
Noble Lords have already outlined why development corporations are a good idea, so I will not repeat that. The one thing I will say is that, in getting things done quickly, there may be some issues with the wording; there is still a role for local councils, too, and we want to make sure that they are not forgotten.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, how will the Bill directly strengthen the role of development corporations, both improving their effectiveness and ensuring that they are readily used to support strategic plan-making? Secondly, do the Government believe that the powers currently available to development corporations are sufficient to meet their ambitions on large-scale housing development and regeneration in mayoral areas? Finally, do the Government see development corporations as a central delivery vehicle for the future mayoral growth strategy? If so, why is that intent not reflected more clearly in the Bill?
If I understand them correctly, Amendments 240 and 242 are similar in effect, but one applies to public land and one to local authority land. They aim to secure the optimal use of public land,
“including when disposing of it”,
in pursuit of wider policy objectives. The intent behind these amendments is plainly sound. Numerous Governments have sought over the years to ensure that public land is used strategically, transparently and in a way that supports the long-term social and economic outcomes we all desire. The Government may have some issues with the drafting—in particular, taking into account whole council objectives, not just the specific objectives mentioned—but I hope that, in that spirit, they will reflect carefully on whether the Bill, as currently drafted, goes far enough to meet these ambitions, as well as whether there is scope for the legislation to do more to embed those principles in practice.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his keen interest in and support for the Government’s intentions on mayoral development corporations. I can announce that earlier today, Minister Pennycook announced a consultation on a development corporation for Greater Cambridgeshire.
I begin with Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Clause 37 and Schedule 18 extend the ability to establish mayoral development corporations to all mayoral strategic authorities. They are powerful delivery vehicles that let mayors bring together private and public sector expertise to tackle strategic spatial challenges in their area. However, it remains the decision of each mayoral strategic authority as to whether a mayoral development corporation is the right vehicle in its area and for each challenge.
Lord Best (CB)
I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is as experienced as anybody in this field and my noble friend Lord Mawson brings community-based experience as well. They are heavyweights in support of my amendments, and I am most grateful for that. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for not only supporting the amendment on mayoral development corporations but for his amendment on the optimum use of land.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who rightly pointed to the role that councils must play within a development corporation set up by a mayoralty or a strategic authority of any kind. Local authorities must continue to play their part within that. He asked some important questions which I am not sure we have had very full answers to from the Minister. He basically said that central government has the power to support local initiatives and local development corporations and has strategic funds available to those mayoralties that could be used to promote new development corporations. My problem is that in a lot of cases, this will not be a priority. It will be something put to one side. Some incentive is needed to unlock that opportunity for the mayors and the strategic bodies, something that enables priority to be given to this way of producing homes that will end our dependence on that oligopoly of volume housebuilders and bring in a new way of doing things.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported these two amendments, and we live to fight another day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that local growth plans explicitly take account of the statutory health duty and the proposed Health Inequalities Strategy. It strengthens the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the government’s intention that devolution should support inclusive growth and stronger communities, while maintaining local flexibility.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 140 would strengthen the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the Government’s intention for devolution to support inclusive growth in stronger communities while maintaining local flexibility.
Devolution should give local leaders the tools to make a tangible difference to the lives of their citizens. However, if poor health and widening health inequalities continue to constrain economic participation and the effectiveness of public services, and if local growth plans are not used to drive better health, devolved leaders will fail to deliver real change to their communities. I believe that this Bill is a hugely significant moment for regional governance, with its explicit expectation that devolution should support improved outcomes, including health outcomes, for communities.
In many UK regions, long-term illness is now the single largest driver of economic inactivity. This can be seen most clearly in areas of historically high deprivation. The economic impact of poor health is stark. The Health Foundation’s independent Commission for Healthier Working Lives found that
“8.2 million working-age people report a long-term health condition that limits their ability to work … Poor workforce health is estimated to cost UK employers up to £150bn a year through lost productivity, sickness absence and recruitment costs”.
I warmly welcome the Government’s ambition to address regional economic inequality. Improving health and reducing inequalities are prerequisites for economic success. However, health currently remains largely absent from most local growth strategies, although not all. In the Oxfordshire strategic plan—the plan that I know best—health inequalities are a primary focus. The plan explicitly integrates social well-being with economic growth to address the county’s stark internal disparities. It pays specific attention to the foundational economy, which is to say the sectors providing basic goods and services, such as health and education, and identifies these as providential elements on which well-being depends.
Without considering health as a core objective and precondition for growth, local growth plans are less likely to be effective in delivering long-term sustainable growth. Some places in the UK are pioneering new approaches, including the West Midlands, which has implemented the inclusive growth framework. This aims to ensure that everyone benefits from growth by focusing on all types of investment, such as public, private, capital, revenue and time, which are all given attention. However, practice is uneven and lacks a consistent understanding of impact. This amendment aims to recognise the relationship between health and local growth so that further devolution reduces rather than widens inequalities.
I recognise that the number of co-operatives and mutuals is expanding and that the Government are calling for new growth plans across the mutual sector. That is very welcome—I am a Co-operative Member of the House of Lords. My amendment therefore dovetails with the current policy. It is right that local growth plans should promote co-operatives, mutuals and community wealth building—the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. This puts people before private equity profits and champions the kind of economic development activity that gets overlooked by industrial strategies. Instead, it focuses on the everyday economy where most people work.
In Preston, for example, community wealth building is changing lives and has been linked to an incredible 9% increase in life satisfaction and an 11% rise in median wages. This has led to a reduction in daily antidepressant prescriptions of 1.3 units per person and a drop in depression prevalence compared to similar areas of 2.4 per thousand. I am sure that the Government would agree that these results should be replicated across the whole country.
I suggest that community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of all citizens, everywhere. Scotland already has a community wealth building Bill passing through its Parliament and I hope that this amendment ensures that England does not fall behind. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take these things into account. Economic growth will be the lifeblood of mayoral combined authorities, but their ability to achieve that growth will be diminished if health and health inequalities are not an integral part of their plans. I beg to move.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 141B in my name. This amendment is designed to help address perceptions that economic growth and environmental growth are in competition with each other. Tony Juniper of Natural England said it as eloquently as anyone could:
“we need to ensure that Nature and the economy are partners rather than seen as choices. That means weaving Nature recovery into the growth planning up front—the cheapest point at which to invest in Nature, and the one that also yields the biggest returns”.
In essence, this amendment calls for the Secretary of State to publish a local authority guide to constructing a win-win: best practice in growing the natural economy as part of the growth plans, and how nature-based solutions and easy mitigations to protect wildlife can help local economics.
The amendment covers a range starting with responsibilities to individual wild animals and birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was picked up by the Animal Sentience Committee as something that was slightly missing when we discussed the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I cannot help mentioning my beloved bird-safe design of buildings as a specific example of something that might be covered. Just as a reminder to those who might have missed the fun and games on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, buildings that are poorly designed in their use of glass and light can pose a serious threat to birds and are thought to kill around 30 million a year in the UK. Simple tweaks to the design of buildings in the planning stages can make them much safer to birds at no cost at all. But not many people know this, so guidance is necessary. Local authorities can use that guidance as they wish.
The amendment goes on to cover broader responsibilities to the environment and natural world. It would carry best practice advice on all the environmental services that can be harnessed to reduce flooding and pollution and to provide green spaces—all opportunities that can help local authorities to reach environmental as well as economic targets. So many developments that have gone badly wrong at the interface between economic and environmental growth could have been entirely turned around if, at the very outset of planning, the right expertise had been applied. It could make all the difference if a guide to best practice was a necessary part of the pack given to support local authorities. Without it, more avoidable issues might arise to the detriment of both the economics and the environment.
I completely recognise that I am not a drafter of legislation and that this amendment is very roughly worded. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the schedule already allows the Secretary of State to publish any guidance that they want, but I hope that the Government grasp this opportunity to put forward their own amendment to the Bill that commits to publishing a best practice guide that shows that they do not believe that protecting wildlife and helping nature is an opposing aim to wanting economic growth and that helps local authorities to see how both can be done together in a virtuous circle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and to recollect with great fondness the debate on bird-safe buildings. The Committee will probably be pleased to hear that I will not go further, but please, if noble Lords were not there, they should read it—is really important.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to speak in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Royall, which is great, but I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, wearing my ex-energy hat.
There are sometimes tensions between growth and environmental protections. I pray in aid the saga of Hinkley Point C and the waste of years and millions of pounds spent in relation to acoustic fish deterrence. There are many examples of very bad practice by some of the environmental authorities in the way they deal with these issues. The history of major infrastructure projects in this country is so appalling in relation to the length of time taken that we need to look at this very carefully.
The noble Baroness is probably aware of the Fingleton review into the regulation of nuclear power stations, which was commissioned by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and came out in the autumn. Broadly, they have accepted it, but at the end of this month they have to respond in detail. What Fingleton recommended is controversial. He basically said that there needs to be one overriding regulator. This is subject to pushback from environmental lobbies at the moment, but people interested in growth are saying that we really have to go with Fingleton. All it illustrates is that sometimes there are tensions and I am not sure that we have yet found a way through them. Clearly, we all want to protect the environment and our habitats, but we also need to have growth. It will be interesting to see how the Minister responds to this.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
This is supposed to be a guide to best practice. The noble Lord has noted some of the poor practices. A guide would help to avoid some of those. That is important. I totally agree that there has been some terrible practice and it is usually done through ignorance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
We also have a terrible risk-averse culture among regulators in this country, which we need to tackle as well—but I really rose to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I have a later Clause 53 stand part notice, which partly covers the same ground.
Nye Bevan is a great hero of mine. He founded the NHS, but he made one mistake. He beat Morrison in Cabinet in 1947 in terms of the role of local government. Morrison of course had been leader of the London County Council, which, pre-war, had certainly been the largest hospital authority in the world. He argued that local government should be at the centre of the National Health Service. That was rejected, which was a great pity.
I have always believed that local government should play a much larger role, not just in health service provision, but also in health as a whole. My noble friend illustrated why that is important. She mentioned the Health Foundation’s report, which is stark in making clear that health outcomes in the UK are falling far behind those in other countries now. The country that we are most aligned with now is the US, whose health outcomes are pretty disastrous.
We know that we need a co-ordinated, system-wide approach, but what we have is fragmentation. The health service is outwith a lot of the discussions that noble Lords have been having in this Committee. It is very centrally driven. I had some happy years driving it from the centre, but I have concluded that it just does not work like that. We have seriously got to devolve. Local government deals with so many issues that relate to poor health, including transport, low incomes and poor-quality housing—all the things that noble Lords have been discussing. What I am doing, basically, is encouraging my noble friend the Minister to say that her department recognises that it has a bigger role to play in health than it may think.
Clause 44 is welcome. What we are trying to do is urge the Minister’s department to be as ambitious as possible and to do everything that it can to ensure that local government as a whole takes advantage of this. Mr Osborne’s agreement with the leader of Manchester City Council and its chief executive—in 2014 or 2015, I think—led to Devo Manc, which embraced health; it was the responsibility of the combined authorities rather than the mayor. There is enough evidence there to suggest that this is a good thing and that we need to build on it. My disappointment is that nothing has happened since then. The moment Mr Osborne left, no one in government was interested any more. I hope that we can resurrect it and say to local government, “We’re not going to improve our health without you being really important partners in this”.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just shared with us.
Earlier, I mentioned “learning by doing” cultures. What do they actually look like? We have been engaging in depth in east London for 42 years. We have pioneered a lot of the things that we now take for granted across the country in parts of the health service, including social prescribing. We have the long view. We spent time looking up the telescope, not down the telescope from government. When you engage in a local community in depth, you soon start to discover that health and wealth are absolutely connected—they are fundamental —yet the siloed systems of the state absolutely miss what all of this might mean and the opportunities that are there in practice.
The Bromley by Bow Centre, which I founded and of which I am now president, has pioneered wide-ranging approaches to these precise issues over the years. Today, we are responsible for 55,000 patients and we have built 97 businesses with local people. If they were here, our integrated health team would tell you that, on a vulnerable housing estate in the East End of London, getting a job has more of an impact on your health than anything that doctors can do in our health centre. All of them would tell noble Lords this. Yet, despite hosting 70 Government Ministers from different parties coming to see us over the past 30-odd years, when we share all this, they all say, “Yes, yes”, then go away. Nothing changes. In Bromley-by-Bow, we are still grappling with 62 different funding sources coming from the Treasury, all of which go down into different silos. We then spend a lot of money, with our staff, on putting things together around the same families. It is ludicrous. I share this with noble Lords: lessons are not being learned. In my view, the fundamental question that is being asked in this amendment is absolutely critical.
This Government are starting to talk about prevention and getting upstream. I agree with all of that but, if you talk to our GPs and our team—we have 2,000 visitors a year, from all over the country, looking at our work—they will tell you that the jury is out on whether this Government are serious about joining the dots around these issues. We will go not on what they say but on what they do. As far as we can see, at the moment there is little evidence that these dots are being joined up, but, if the Government get interested in practice, there is a great opportunity for this Administration and future Administrations coming down the line. This is not a party-political matter; it is a matter for us all and for the health of the nation.
In the 1990s, we realised, through practice actually, that the only way to gain scale with these kinds of issues is to start to partner with the private sector. We took these relationships seriously and today, both in east London and in a programme I lead nationally, we work with the private sector around place-making, and I declare my interests. The private sector is also concerned and interested in these questions. People in the private sector have children and families. Get to know them, dig under the carpet and create learning-by-doing cultures with them, and you will find opportunities to take these kinds of questions to scale. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I hope that we will move beyond amendments and yet more talk into practice and detail and get curious about what this actually looks like for local people.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his salutary warnings. It is very real when you have the experience of somebody in a particular local area who can say that the dots are not joined and that the funding streams are too many and are simply not joined together. There is a huge opportunity here if the Government can take it. This amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, seems to me to be central. I hope that the Minister is going to be helpful in her response. Local growth plans should take account of statutory health duties, and they should be brought together. There is a clear link between economic growth and health improvement. There should be that clear link. Health improvement has to be integral to growth plans. This seems to be unanswerable as a proposal, so I hope the Government will be in full listening mode.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, is important. It is helpful that she has proposed a way forward through statutory guidance. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. There is a serious danger that growth plans will lead to competition between economic growth and environmental growth responsibilities. I think the Government can help here by publishing guidance on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about the nuclear industry. I can think of other examples where there is a conflict between an environmental consideration and a growth consideration. Given the new world that we are about to enter with mayors and strategic authorities, clear guidance would be a big help in this area. I hope the Government will be in a positively responsive mood.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Freeman of Steventon, for tabling these amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 140 would ensure that local growth plans take into account statutory health duties and health inequalities strategies prepared by the strategic authorities. Councils have a crucial role to play and are often well placed to better understand and address local health issues, but I still bear the scars from trying to do this locally many years ago. It requires the NHS to devolve powers—and, as importantly, money—down. I tried. It was very positive to begin with —that is what they wanted us to do—but when push came to shove, acute hospitals always kept the money.
Until government can sort things out between the NHS and local authorities, that will not happen, which is a great shame. As we have heard, local authorities can create really safe environments that are more conducive to community well-being, promote healthy lifestyles and collaborate with other organisations to make really targeted interventions on the issues in their communities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
It is interesting that at the moment the Government are trying to get the NHS to have an additional allocation to community health services in the planning guidelines. But all indications are that it is not happening, because the integrated care boards are saying that they have to protect acute services first. So community health services are not getting real additional funding. Before 1974, community health was of course run by local government and, with the suggestion to take it out again, I am beginning to wonder whether we do not need to be much more imaginative—basically to ring-fence resources.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I absolutely feel the pain of the noble Baroness, because we also feel the pain from the other end of the telescope. It is really difficult, and a lot of these systems are profoundly broken. However, this is an opportunity for this Government. The reason why practitioners like me are suggesting that the Government need to create learning-by-doing innovation platforms at place, in real communities, is because that is where the social sector, GPs, the local authority and the NHS can come together to do this stuff and then really learn the practical lessons. That is the only way; it is not through academic papers at 60,000 feet or policy people who have never built anything. It is about practice. Through practice, you will learn where the real blockages are, and what you then need to do is share the lessons learned. Until we get to that place and learn from the micro, I fear that we will keep talking and very little will change.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the two noble Lords for their interventions. I will just say that I do not believe it is about anything but power and money coming down—that was my experience. I tried to go to the full endgame; I tried to join the local director of children’s and adult care services with the local director of the NHS. I tried, but it did not work because health would not give up its power and its money.
Amendment 141B would add environmental responsibilities and opportunities to the local growth plan guidance published by the Secretary of State. While this is a well-intentioned amendment to help ensure that local growth plans balance environmental and economic considerations, which all local authorities have to do, we recognise that councils have to take into account a range of factors when drafting their local growth plans.
Indeed, councillors will be aware of their local area’s precious habitats and the places where nature is valued most. In my opinion, local communities are best placed to evaluate trade-offs between those environmental opportunities and economic growth, so we believe that this should be left to local councillors rather than for the Secretary of State to set out a potentially one-size-fits-all approach to this.
I am grateful for the contributions to this thoughtful and interesting debate and I am really looking forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that this has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate. I am grateful to all contributors and for the amendments to Schedule 20 on local growth plans.
I will start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, which draws our attention to the important role of mayors in addressing health inequalities in their areas. Through Clause 44, we are introducing a new legal requirement for combined and combined county authorities to have regard to the need to improve the health of people in their areas, and to reduce health inequalities between people living in their areas. This will reinforce our ambition to ensure that health is considered in all policies and will support our health mission in England.
I add that the mayoral competencies set out in the Bill specifically include health, well-being and public service reform, so that means that that should be taken into consideration in all the work that the mayor and the strategic authority do. It is the Government’s intention that mayors should sit on ICBs, which I hope will start to address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Royall about how we get that linkage between what is going on in the national health and what is going on at local level.
There are some great examples across the country of what is happening—obviously, Manchester is the best known because it has specific powers to tackle health, and I really welcome that, but in a district council like my own, we took great interest in tackling some of the key health challenges in our area to help the economy, such as tackling obesity, smoking and some of the big, long-standing mental health challenges that we faced, and we worked closely with partners in doing that. Of course, there is no better example of the contribution that local authorities can make to public health than the response of local authorities to the Covid pandemic, in those very unique circumstances, so we know it can be done.
Although I recognise that it is not explicitly stated in relation to local growth plans, I can reassure the Committee that this new duty will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan. Indeed, as I said, many places are already demonstrating this awareness.
I know that many of my noble friends will be very sympathetic to the benefits of co-operative and mutual models in addressing these challenges—I know they are aware of my history in the co-operative movement. I hope they will also recognise that a key principle behind local growth plans is that they must be locally owned, in line with the fundamental principles of devolution.
I recognise the community wealth-building principles so clearly articulated by my noble friend Lady Royall, and the example that she gave of Preston, which has been a leading proponent of using the power of public procurement and provision of infrastructure and services to tackle inequalities in its local area. That has been very important, and Matthew Brown and his colleagues have done a very significant piece of work on that. However, while we may commend those local examples, we must afford local growth plans the flexibility for local challenges to be addressed in response to the local context.
I hope my noble friend feels reassured that mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities are already considering health as part of their plans, and that the new health improvement and health inequalities duty will achieve the desired effect. On that basis, I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 141B is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and I thank her for all the discussions we have had around her environmental issues, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act and recently. The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to set out in guidance how mayoral combined authorities should align growth measures in their local growth plan with considerations of nature, wildlife and the environment.
I want to reassure the Committee on two points. First, this is already possible. We have set out that the guidance on local growth plans can cover a range of matters. That includes the information to be included in a plan—that is to say, its content—and the ways in which the authority may have regard to the plan when exercising other functions. But the guidance is not limited to just these matters; it can cover additional matters not explicitly set out in the primary legislation. I reassure the Committee that this enables us to set out the matters included in this amendment, should that be needed.
Secondly, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities are already subject to several requirements linked to this amendment. This includes the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets, as well as statutory duties related to air quality. Local growth plans will provide an important framework for economic growth, but they will sit alongside a range of other statutory plans, strategies and duties. Decisions that impact protected species, nature recovery and the environment will still need to consider relevant policy frameworks—for example, local nature recovery strategies, about which we had much discussion during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for setting out so clearly how important it is to ensure that in our planning process, whether it is local growth plans or spatial planning, we aim to create that win- win for development and the environment. We made some significant steps with that in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, and I hope that local growth plans will contribute to that as well.
That said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will feel reassured that the matters in her amendment must already be considered by mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. I hope she will feel reassured that, should further guidance be necessary, it remains possible to set this out in the guidance on local growth plans. I therefore ask that her amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her response, because she clearly understands the issues. I am super-grateful for all the contributions from noble Lords around the Room.
We are all absolutely in agreement that good health is a prerequisite for economic growth in our country. I realise that the Bill takes more account than ever before of the need for these new strategic authorities to act in relation to health and health inequalities. I hear all the frustrations around the Room about the fact that it has not really worked before. Manchester is working really well, and that is brilliant, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out, the dots simply are not joined, either in funding or in services terms. I know that a lot of that is because of the siloed way in which each of our public services receives its money. For it to work really well, we need to have properly funded local authorities and a well-funded health service.
This is a great opportunity, and I am sure that the Bill as it stands will take us a long way. Still, if we could have a statutory health duty in the Bill, it might be a catalyst for further action; it might be a real catalyst for discussion between the Treasury, the NHS and the MHCLG. I would really like to discuss this further with my noble friend before Report. I do not know how far we will get, but this is a great opportunity to make the system work better. I do not want to give up just yet, but I do not want to make her life a complete pain. I would like to come back to this matter before Report and have a discussion with my noble friend the Minister and her team but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, seeks to ensure that local growth plans include provision about cultural venues.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the amendments in this group. I thank my noble friends—I call them that—Lord Clancarty and Lord Freyberg for supporting them. I support Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I will speak particularly on Amendments 141, 146 and 222.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be fairly brief, because last week we had a considerable discussion on cultural concerns. I support all the amendments in this group and have put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
The noble Baroness rightly points to cultural infrastructure. I would go further than venues. We should also be thinking about rehearsal spaces, artists’ studios, recording studios and ways of developing opportunities for the artists themselves, technicians and arts organisations, such as theatre companies, bands, orchestras and so on. There should be a consideration of public access to cultural services, such as museums and libraries. Indeed, every area of arts, culture and heritage should be considered to the extent that a separate cultural plan should be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan, and my Amendment 147 would put that in place.
As with the local growth plan, there are clearly different ways in which an area can develop its own arts and culture. No area is going to be the same. Every area will have its own individual plan, as it should do.
I am grateful for the discussions I have had with Culture Commons about this. I am also very grateful to the Minister for the very constructive discussions some of us had with her about this area yesterday.
Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is on the agent of change principle. We have had extensive discussions about this during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Nevertheless, this is an important amendment.
The grass roots music venues are very grateful for the 15% reduction in business rates, but this is not an either/or. A venue that is doing well can fold because the agent of change principle is not being properly or effectively applied.
The guidance alone is not working, as the Music Venue Trust is so clear about. As I said in the discussions on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it points to the significant difference between Scotland, which has a statutory requirement and where the system works well, and England, which does not have a statutory requirement and where it does not work well at all. The Music Venue Trust has intimate knowledge of this, because it deals with cases.
I believe the amendment would make a significant difference. I fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I also support Amendments 141, 146 and 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to all of which I have added my name.
Taken together, these amendments recognise that culture does not operate in isolation but as an interconnected ecosystem with different parts depending on one another, as the noble Earl has said. That is why Amendments 141 and 146 would strengthen the place of culture in planning and strategic decision-making, while Amendment 147 rightly promotes a more systemic approach across the culture sector.
While I do not wish to repeat the arguments that I made at length during the passage of the planning Bill on the agent of change principle—this is another recycled amendment from that Bill—I want to underline the central point here and echo much of what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, namely that the agent of change principle is now widely accepted. Few would argue that new residential or commercial developments should be able to externalise their impacts on existing cultural venues, forcing those venues to absorb the cost of mitigation or, too often, close altogether. The Government have acknowledged this and announced their intention to implement agent of change through policy. However, the difficulty is that policy alone, whether in planning guidance or licensing frameworks, has consistently proved insufficient. Non-statutory approaches are applied unevenly, interpreted narrowly and too easily overridden when competing pressures arise. Guidance can be ignored, policy can be diluted, and, without a clear, legislative footing, enforcement becomes discretionary rather than expected. For cultural venues operating on tight margins, that uncertainty is, in itself, deeply damaging.
If the Government accept that the agent of change is necessary at all, and their own statements suggest that they do, it surely follows that it must be implemented in a form that is effective, durable and legally robust. That is precisely what Amendment 222 seeks to do. It would not create a new principle but give statutory force to an existing one, moving us from aspiration to assurance. For that reason, and for the coherence it brings alongside Amendments 141, 146 and 147, I strongly support Amendment 222 and urge the Government to look favourably upon it.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I wholly welcome the Bill, and I am delighted to hear Preston and Manchester being cited as examples of good practice, because, as the Committee knows, the north-west was my region. However, I rise to support the principle that local growth plans should include provision for cultural venues, especially live grass-roots venues.
If we look to music and the recent success that we have had at the Grammys, we see young women from disadvantaged backgrounds who came through the BRIT School, a free school, and worked in local live venues. If we look to the recent UK success at the BAFTAs and the Oscars, we see young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have been able to come through theatres and other live performance spaces, as the noble Earl said. We have, for instance, wonderful scripts, workshopped by local young people in local spaces, that then have huge success.
I particularly want to talk about youth theatre. People will be aware of the success of Liverpool’s Everyman Youth Theatre—I will stop talking about the north-west in a minute. I was born in Coventry. I have to say that youth theatre and youth education, which was provided in a joined-up way by the youth service at that point, gave me a pathway forward, and it gave a lot of my contemporaries an opportunity to have a way forward, as well as hope and participation, when a lot of our fathers were being made redundant from car factories in Coventry. I therefore hope that my noble friend will consider including in local growth plans the provision of live cultural venues and the development of local cultural plans.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the four amendments in this group should be supported in principle. We had a lengthy discussion on cultural and heritage issues last week during earlier Committee days considering the Bill.
Amendment 147, on cultural ecosystem plans, really matters. I support this amendment because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what, particularly the funding of local cultural assets and support.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments that relate to culture. I again welcome the good work of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on culture, and we welcome the spirit of Amendment 147, which seeks to have a cultural ecosystem plan and to protect cultural assets.
Culture is not always easily defined, and decisions about the forms or expression of culture that should be prioritised can be the subject of significant debate. Nevertheless, we often recognise culture when we encounter it. It is the old adage, “Try describing an elephant, but you sure as hell know what it is when you see it”. Much of it is often taken for granted, whether that is historic buildings, works of art, cultural events or long-standing traditions, such as choral music in our churches. Mayoral combined authorities and local councils should recognise the cultural assets that exist in their communities and do what they can to support them. That said, I have some reservations about this amendment as currently drafted; it needs careful thought on that drafting just to ensure that it does not end up encouraging either vanity projects or leading to a more rigid and formalised definition of a cultural asset. That potentially risks some limiting. It is drafting that we feel we need to think through. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his commitment and for this amendment.
Amendments 141 and 146 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering seek to ensure that local growth plans make provision for cultural venues. My noble friend raises several important points, and I hope the Minister will address them directly.
Finally, Amendment 222 would place a duty on local authorities to have regard to the agent of change principle, and I will not recycle all the arguments we went through in the last session of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. While the drafting may need a little refining, I hope that this amendment serves as a useful nudge to the Government to reflect further on how best to protect cultural venues from unintended consequences of development.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering —who never tests my patience, she has so much knowledge and experience—and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their amendments on the role of culture in local growth plans and on the agent of change principle.
On Amendments 141, 146 and 147, the Government are committed to ensuring that arts and culture thrive in every part of the country. In January, the Government announced an investment package of £1.5 billion, of which £1.2 billion is new, to support arts, culture, museums, libraries and heritage. Noble Lords have made a very powerful case for the inclusion of culture, heritage and arts to be included in mayoral competences, which is still under active consideration. We have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector.
We know that mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities recognise the role of culture and the creative sector in supporting thriving communities. I also mention the cohesion role that they play, which was mentioned so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in an earlier debate on this subject. Indeed, many of them are raising culture in their local growth plans. Many places are taking this further, such as Greater Manchester with its dedicated culture strategy and the West Midlands—for the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin—establishing a partnership programme with the industry. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave other powerful examples. I take this opportunity to congratulate those two absolutely brilliant young women from the BRIT School who won Grammy awards. They absolutely stormed it at the Grammy awards the other day—so congratulations to them.
Introducing an additional duty would be burdensome and, as demonstrated, is not necessary to achieve the desired effect. In December, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, published her independent review of Arts Council England. Following that, the Government are considering how to ensure that culture is supported by strategic authorities. As part of this, we are considering how it relates to all strategic authorities, not just the mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities that are developing local growth plans.
Specifically on the amendments from noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which relate to the pipeline of investment projects that must be set out as part of local growth plans, I point out that our guidance sets an expectation that this pipeline should be a shortlist of projects that are critical for unlocking growth, with the potential to crowd in private investment, and capable of unlocking significant returns. It is our view that, ultimately, it must be up to local areas to determine which projects fit that bill. These amendments would run counter to that principle and would require a one-size-fits-all approach that I know many Members are wary of. Rather than being mutually reinforcing for local growth, and the arts and culture, these amendments could cause confusion over the types of projects to include as part of that investment pipeline.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her Amendment 222, and share her desire to ensure that new housing does not constrain the operation of existing facilities in the surrounding area. I think that the music trust makes a very powerful case in this regard. However, new legislation would be duplicative of existing policy and is also less flexible, as it gives authorities less ability to weigh important considerations when making planning decisions. The agent of change principle is firmly established in the planning system as a relevant policy consideration. The current National Planning Policy Framework is clear that businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established.
Local planning authorities can request noise impact assessments when they consider it necessary; when making decisions, they have the ability to consider factors such as the type of development and how close it is to major sources of noise. The planning process can help to reduce adverse impacts by using measures such as careful layout and good design to limit noise transmission. The licensing regime also already enables local authorities to consider the agent of change principle when making decisions. The legislation is designed to recognise that different communities face different challenges, and local licensing authorities are able to incorporate the principle into their statements of licensing policy if they consider it necessary or useful to do so.
Furthermore, local authorities can consider a range of factors when deciding whether a complaint amounts to a statutory nuisance. They have a legal duty to investigate each case individually, taking into account relevant circumstances and their knowledge of the local area. I recognise the importance of safeguarding key cultural establishments from new residential development, and we are already taking a number of steps to improve the implementation of the agent of change principle. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about this being in place. We want to toughen it up, and I will talk now about some of those steps.
In planning, we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses, such as licensed music and cultural venues. As I pointed out before, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself—it cannot be because it needs to be flexible as circumstances change—it sits in the statutory planning process and carries substantial weight because of that.
In licensing, we recently conducted a call for evidence as part of the licensing reforms programme, which included a question on the application of the agent of change principle within the licensing regime. Detailed analysis covering responses to this will be published in due course.
For all these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken; it goes to show the breadth of knowledge we have, both in the Committee and in the House, among those involved. I was particularly taken by the reference that the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, made to the BRIT School. It is outstanding that we had two clear winners at that time.
On the venues, I think it is important that we continue to stress these, but on the principle of agent of change, I am afraid I have to say that I am not content with the Minister’s response. I should have known, being a non-practising Scottish advocate, that we have a statutory basis for this in Scots law. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has proven very eloquently how we are operating under an inferior system here. Certainly, it is the wish of all those who gave evidence to the inquiry on the reform of the Licensing Act 2003, albeit in 2016-17, that it could operate better. We are still in a position where we do not have statutory guidelines.
I simply do not accept, for the same reasons I gave in the earlier debate on SUDS, that planning guidance is planning guidance. You can have a legal basis in an Act such as the Licensing Act, which we recommended be reformed, or this would be the ideal Bill in which to put it. If that is what licensing and planning practitioners are asking us to do, I feel honour-bound that we should do this. I wish to bring this back on Report and would welcome a meeting with the Minister and others who are concerned by this before that time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to understand why the provision is limited solely to current employees of a constituent council of a combined authority, and does not extend to other employers participating in the LGPS. It aims to explore the rationale for excluding staff of housing associations, admitted bodies, and other local employers who play a significant role in the community, and to question whether this distinction is justified or creates unnecessary inconsistency within the scheme.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook.
Noble Lords from across the Grand Committee and indeed the House will be aware that the pensions Bill is currently in Committee and that the first two days of scrutiny were marked by a substantial number of amendments probing the Government’s approach to the Local Government Pension Scheme. We tabled numerous amendments on the technical detail of the valuation methodology, contribution rates, consultation requirements and interim reviews. I am sure the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to rehearse those matters again today.
Likewise, I do not wish to upset the Minister in any way, but I note that it was disappointing that no Minister from the MHCLG was present during the discussions. The LGPS sits squarely across the responsibilities of both the DWP and the MHCLG. While long-standing, this overlap too often creates complexity and tension, and I fear that it could result in policy that is not always well aligned with the realities on the ground.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief because we ought to hear from the Minister on the range of questions that have been produced, and I do not want to simply restate them. I have always supported greater investment by local government pension schemes. I should declare an interest, since I have a very small local government pension from the days when councillors were able to be part of the scheme. I just make that absolutely clear, even though the sum I receive is really very small.
I have always wanted local government pension schemes to invest more in their areas to drive growth in their areas. It seems an entirely laudable objective, but it has to be consistent with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made clear in their explanatory statements, scheme managers have to remain independent and focused solely on the interests of scheme members. There are those two competing requirements.
I want to support the Government’s objectives here. This has to be the right thing to promote, although one has to be extremely careful. At this stage, that statement of principle from me is probably sufficient, and it would be useful to hear the Government’s response.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendments 148, 149, 150 and 153. I will try to clarify the questions that she asked and, if I cannot, I am more than willing to write to her. Some of these pension aspects are very technical.
These amendments relate to the important requirement that strategic authorities work with the Local Government Pension Scheme funds in their area. This mirrors the duty to co-operate with strategic authorities placed on LGPS funds in the Pension Schemes Bill. The aim is to help strategic authorities to identify local projects that are appropriate for pensions investment and drive growth.
I recognise the noble Baroness’s intention, in tabling Amendment 148, to seek to broaden the provisions to include other employers participating in the scheme. The clause requires the strategic authority itself, rather than its constituent authorities, to co-operate with the relevant pension fund. In my view, this is the correct approach. Strategic authorities are responsible for driving local growth; as such, they should be aware of the interests of housing associations, admitted bodies and other local employers. An additional requirement for multiple other organisations to collaborate with the LGPS would place an unnecessary burden on those employers.
I turn to Amendments 149 and 153. I recognise the intentions to preserve the independence of LGPS-administering authorities and to reduce the burden of regulation on their functions. I assure noble Lords that the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duties of local pension funds in any way. The decision on whether or not to invest in a particular asset will be made by the asset pool, not the fund. This will help protect the fund against potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that all investments are made in the interests of the fund. Supporting guidance will be clear that investments should only ever be made where that investment helps the investing pension fund to meet pension liabilities.
The Government want to see funds and asset pools working closely with combined authorities, including corporate joint committees in Wales, in order to identify and develop appropriate investment opportunities so that the investment might of the Local Government Pension Scheme can drive local growth. I share the view of the noble Baroness that this requirement must be workable. For this reason, the high-level requirement does not put a restrictive framework on exactly how strategic authorities must work with the scheme. It will be up to strategic authorities to establish a system that is workable for them. Further, I point your Lordships to the existing guidance for strategic authorities on the development of local growth plans, which supports strategic authorities in establishing a productive relationship with investors.
I turn now to Amendment 150. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for asking important questions regarding a requirement for funds to participate in an asset pool. Asset pooling is the cornerstone of the Government’s investment reforms for the LGPS, bringing significant benefits of scale and expertise. As I have said, the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duty of local pension funds in any way. The responsibility to set an investment strategy—the key driver of investment returns—will remain with funds, ensuring that they retain local accountability and decision-making and that they can drive performance. The duty in this clause is complementary to the duty that will be placed on LGPS funds through regulations made under the Pension Schemes Bill. It will work effectively only if the concept of participation is defined in the same way in both pieces of legislation. That is why the Government are tabling amendments to this clause to reflect changes that have been made to the Pension Schemes Bill.
A question was asked about pooling. Integrated models in which strategic advice and investment management are both delivered by the same fiduciary manager are commonly used in private sector schemes and internationally. These models can deliver greater value for money and economies of scale. Asset pool companies will be required to have robust policies and procedures to identify and manage conflicts of interest. In contrast to external advisers, asset pools owned solely by LGPS AAs are expected to provide services in their interest. They do not stand to gain financially from the partner fund taking their advice or from providing poor-quality advice. I will look again at the noble Baroness’s speech in Hansard to make sure that we have covered all her questions and so that she has what we are doing in writing.
I turn now to government Amendments 151, 152, 154, 155, 156 and 157. These minor and technical amendments correct the definition of participating in an asset pool company. They will accommodate a pool company structure where the pool is owned by a holding company, thereby allowing an existing pool—the Local Pensions Partnership—to be included in the definition. This is not a change in policy but a correction.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the Government have now confirmed a substantial programme of reform of the Local Government Pension Scheme through this Bill and the wider pensions Bill. Taken together, these measures represent a significant moment in the evolution of LGPS asset pooling and governance.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am intervening as the Whip just to say that this is rather a large group, which will probably take us to the time at which we should finish, at 8.15 pm. It is in the hands of noble Lords whether we complete the group or whether we have to split it and end up discussing it again in the next session.
Clause 44: Health improvement and health inequalities duty
Amendment 158
Lord Addington
Lord Addington (LD)
That is a challenge that the Committee should probably face more often.
The amendment calls on the function here of strategic authorities. It talks about sport and recreation and comes under the heading of health. There is a general consensus that exercise is the wonder drug. If you make your body exercise correctly, it has huge health benefits, physically and psychologically. This is about making sure that the strategic authorities allow these activities to take place. When I drafted this amendment, I was thinking about it on two levels. One was grass-roots sports—that is, are you allowing organised sport to take place and are you providing enough pitches for your football and rugby teams, and so on? Are you allowing enough recreational spaces for people to be able to take part in sport?
I look at the rest of the group, and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, is the only person to mention physical activity in her amendments, so I may be ploughing a lonely furrow—but I hope that it is not an inappropriate one. Unless we know that this is being taken on board and something is being done about it, it will get forgotten. Much of the structure here, especially in grass-roots sports, is under pressure anyway. The school structure is largely in individual academies, and public parks are difficult and expensive to maintain, if you want a flat, even surface to run around on. Very few sports do not have that basic requirement. It means keeping them drained and at least clean enough for you to go on them without risking injury or illness. It is a big ask.
Most noble Lords here are much more experienced in local government than me, but we do not do things like tennis courts that well and they are easy to cut. Can the Government give us some idea of what they are going to do here to make sure these facilities are kept available? They are preventative health, they maintain your health and they are a community asset. I have not even started to talk about sports centres and swimming pools—maybe we will take those as read—but what is the Government’s activity here and with how much seriousness do we address this? Sport is often regarded as not being important or anything to do with public health. That is the way it can seem to many of us, but it is actually a key component.
I have spoken enough so, bearing in mind the words of the Government Whip on this, I will curtail my comments here and beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to Amendment 159 and a number of other amendments in this group. I begin by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that he is not ploughing a lonely furrow. I would have signed his amendment if I could have caught up with myself, among many other things. Last night—or this morning; I have lost track—we were talking about these issues in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. As was evident there, I am sure we can get a similar head of steam for this Bill, and I am we can build up a head of steam when we get to Report, if it is necessary.
In the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I was pushing very hard for England to have a play sufficiency strategy at the national level, focused not so much on the formal team sports arrangement, like the noble Lord, but on the places where young people can simply go out, run around, climb a tree and all those sorts of things. That is something I am certainly very keen to pursue.
However, I am now going to make the Whip very happy. It is not something I say very often, so I hope the Whip has noticed. Although this is a very large list of amendments, many of them have the same intention as Amendment 159, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, has kindly attached her name. As the explanatory statement says, this
“broadens the list of health determinants and health outcomes”.
There is a large number of amendments here, and I will leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, to explain the technicalities, rather than us going through all this twice—because she is definitely the expert in this space.
I tabled this amendment because health experts came to me and said that the Government’s wording is not right, and that they are not up to date with the latest ways of approaching and talking about these issues to make sure that they are not missing anything out. I very much hope the Minister will be prepared to work with interested people to make sure that the Bill is up to date with the latest thinking about public health, because it is surely important to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities start from the right place on public health.
I will devote most of my time to Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to which I have attached my name, giving mayors the ability to carry out their functions regarding the display of advertising, transferring the powers under Section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act to mayors and local authorities so they consider the impact of advertising on public health, and enabling them to regulate the content of advertisements deemed to have an adverse impact on local health and likely to exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes. This is an underconsidered area in which so much of the rest of the world is progressing, while we are not.
I have spoken before about how Sheffield, for example, with a visionary public health leader, has taken real steps to control the advertising occurring on council-owned billboards, et cetera. But, as I said, we are way behind. The excellent campaign group, Adfree Cities, charts how there are now 1,300 towns and cities around the world that have banned billboard advertising. Most recently, Amsterdam banned adverts for fossil fuels, flights, meat, and other harmful and high-carbon products.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 159, to which I have added my name, and a series of amendments in my name. I apologise to the Committee that they had to be put in individually for procedural reasons, but essentially they would add to the list in Clause 44, and they all have to be done twice because it appears twice. I hope to keep this as short as possible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, these amendments were all suggested by researchers into the determinants of health to bring the clause into closer alignment with current research on the subject, as well as definitions, such as those used by the World Health Organization.
Everyone is delighted to see Clause 44 because there is good evidence that structural changes without changes in resourcing can make measurable differences to people’s health. I hope I can delight the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, further by picking on Manchester as another well-studied, brilliant example of the effects of devolution. The results showed higher life expectancy in the lower income areas, which researchers think are related to improved collaborations between different services rather than more money being spent. If this is a causal effect and can be replicated elsewhere, it would obviously be great, and it would be great to measure it. This is why the researchers want to get right the things being measured and being taken account of by a mayor.
This is where my little list comes in. First, it is important to take account of the right health outcomes. Researchers suggested the list of health outcomes in Amendment 159, which I did not prepare to speak about, but I think they are self-explanatory, so we can leave that there. The series of amendments in my name alter the list of determinants of these outcomes. They are things that we know might affect someone’s health, so we have to keep an eye on them. Some that are known from research are missing in the current draft of Clause 44. Amendment 167A would add the availability of housing to standards of housing in new Section 24A(5)(a) because homelessness and housing security, which are known to affect physical and mental health, would not technically fall under standards of housing.
Amendment 167B would add noise pollution as one of the environmental factors in new paragraph (b). It is well recognised by those who study public health that exposure to noise pollution can contribute to cardiovascular risks and poorer mental health, so we need to take it into account like we do other forms of pollution.
Amendment 167C would put educational opportunities and attainment alongside employment and earning prospects in new paragraph (c). In the WHO’s report, A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health, education is a key underlying structural determinant that can affect jobs, income and all the other downstream aspects. So improving access to educational opportunities is key to reducing inequalities, including in health.
Amendment 167D is more specific on the sorts of public services referred to in new paragraph (d), making it clear that they should include retail and health and leisure facilities—they can, therefore, include the negative effect of retailers of less healthy foods, for example, or the absence of active transport facilities—as well as education, employment and access to health and leisure facilities, encompassing all the key services that are known to shape people’s health.
Amendments 167E and 167F would modify new paragraph (e). As drafted, it is about the use of tobacco, alcohol and other lifestyle factors that may be harmful to health. Amendment 167F would explicitly add diet and physical activity as important determinants to be considered. Of course, we know how much these can positively or negatively affect health. Amendment 167E would therefore add “exposure to”, as well as “the use of”, to recognise that some people are passively exposed to not just tobacco but advertising for tobacco, alcohol and less healthy foods; this is a known determinant of health and driver of inequalities.
Finally, Amendment 167G would specify that
“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”
should include
“social and structural conditions, including social class, gender, race, ethnicity and any other characteristics or forms of social inequality that influence exposure to advantage or disadvantage”.
That would better cover the remainder of other determinants of health that are well recognised and to which we would want mayors to have regard.
I hope that the Minister will consider the substance of these amendments because, although they are not professionally drafted, they are based on professional research in the field and, I think, get at exactly what the Government hope to achieve: a great step forward in public health.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. What I have to add is that my Amendments 160, 161, 163, 164, 165 and 169 would bring a more climate change-related and environmental aspect to the asks of the Government. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Bennett, said, we are really pleased that this is here; I very much feel that we can work together to build on it. Here, I note the work of Leeds University and the Yorkshire and Humber Climate Commission.
My first amendment is on energy. A 2023 European scoping review found that energy poverty and fuel poverty are significantly linked to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, excess winter mortality and poor mental health, with older people and children among the most vulnerable. A 2022 UCL Institute of Health Equity report found the same facts. It impacts population health at a structural level. In addition, I stress the low-carbon part of this amendment. Since the introduction of the ULEZ in London, gas boilers have somehow managed to become the largest source of nitrous oxide pollution. Air quality is listed in the Bill, but it is important to emphasise the interlinked nature: one impacts on the other.
My second amendment is on water pollution. Recent storms have highlighted—in fact, we were talking about this last night—the number of learning hours lost because of the fact that schools are flooded. We are extremely vulnerable to this, and we have very poor flood defences in our schools. I will not bore the Committee at length about the state of our waterways—every Peer in the place has already done this; I expect a Bill in the next Session—but, between 2010 and 2022, there was a 60% rise in hospital admissions for waterborne diseases in England. This is serious, as they are associated with gastrointestinal illnesses and reproductive and developmental issues.
On resilience, excess heat affects deprived communities more than wealthy ones due to the quality of buildings. A simple thing such as having leafy streets provides proper cooling.
I included my third amendment, on participation in democracy, because studies have shown that increased community involvement can have a really positive impact on health. Personally, I am very excited that, from this month, the National Lottery will devote either 20% or 25% of its entire funding to community engagement, such as community gardening and things like that. It makes a great statement about what really matters to people.
On food and diet, I very much support Amendment 168 on advertising. We know how bad food deserts are and how access to healthy food really affects poorer communities. Last week, I raised the issue of PFAS in a debate on the schools Bill. That is a Defra issue, of course, but it is relevant here because one of the prominent forms of exposure comes through our diet, particularly heating food in a plastic container in a microwave; that is, I am afraid, what lower-income families end up doing—so there is a double whammy.
Amendment 169 proposes a duty relating to allotments and nature-rich spaces. Again, this is something I have talked about a lot. I know that it is difficult for councils to create allotments because they are forever spaces, in a sense, but it is not difficult for councils to grant the right to grow in their communities and to issue meanwhile leases, which is what we did with capital growth in London; we created 2,500 spaces that are still going on now. These really make a big difference to communities. As I say, I am very pleased that the National Lottery is going in this direction on funding, because it will work with the Government and make a substantial difference to people’s real, lived experience.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 165A is in my name. It seeks to
“include wheelchair and community equipment provision in the list of ‘general health determinants’ that authorities need to have regard to as a cause of health inequality”.
My intention is to highlight to noble Lords that the provision of wheelchairs and community equipment for disabled people is, to put it bluntly, a disgrace. I urge the Government to look at the outcomes at the moment for those who depend on wheelchairs and disability equipment and, basically, to ensure that local authorities and the NHS play their part in putting things right.
As the Wheelchair Alliance has said, at the moment, there are no consistent national standards, there is no independent regulation and there are few clear paths for users seeking repairs, reporting faults or making complaints. As a result, many disabled people face long waiting times, delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation and, tragically, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being. It is the same dismal picture with community equipment, embracing hoists, hospital beds, pressure-related mattresses, grab rails, bathing aids, harnesses and all of the other essential items that we need.
The All-Party Group for Access to Disability Equipment recently reported on the systemic crisis in this sector. Carers think that things are getting worse, and the system is inconsistent, underinvested, fragmented and lacking leadership. What is tragic is that this is easily sortable. I am convinced that, if we sorted this out, we would provide a better service at less cost, because the current system is just a complete and utter mess.
The reason why the Bill is suitable is because local authorities and integrated care boards share responsibility for community equipment. Wheelchair services and community equipment often reach the same individual; they should operate in tandem, but they are two distinct systems. In welcoming this very good clause, I would like an assurance that combined authorities, in collaboration with the NHS, will take their responsibilities in relation to wheelchair and community equipment services seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point about the difficulties that local authorities sometimes have in working with the health service and in the release of budget. Here we have a situation where both types of authority spend money inefficiently. I am suggesting that we could provide a much better service. Either the quality will be much better or we will have consistent quality, at least; I do not think that it will cost a lot of extra money as well.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 166 would provide a clear mechanism for implementation and accountability of the proposed health duty, while maintaining local flexibility. It would require strategic authorities to produce a health inequality strategy and report on progress every five years.
In many ways, this follows the debate we had on earlier amendments. It is intended to provide a minimum standard and accountability for strategic authorities to adhere to, ensuring that they are meeting their new health duty. The requirement to report every five years was deliberately designed to be the same length of time as the proposed local growth plans will cover, to ensure that they better support one another in strengthening local economies and improving health. The amendment would also ensure that new strategic authorities will mirror existing practice in London, ensuring that health and well-being are embedded across all strategic functions.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 165A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I thank him for tabling it. As a wheelchair user, I know from first-hand experience that if you cannot move around your own home or get out, to socialise with friends, go shopping or go to work, for example, that will inevitably have a negative impact on your health, both physical and mental.
Of course, each of these negative health impacts will also have an inevitable negative impact on the NHS, whether that is additional out-patient treatment or hospitalisation; on the retail sector, given that the purple pound—the spending power of households containing one or more disabled people—is estimated to be worth £274 billion; on the disability benefits bill, which, in October 2024, the OBR estimated to be £48 billion; and on the disability employment gap, which continues to hover at around 30%. Does the Minister therefore accept that access to wheelchair and community equipment services is, as his noble friend argued, a health inequality issue? Does he also accept that, while not purporting to be a panacea, the approach proposed by his noble friend’s amendment does at least seek to put this issue on the radar? I fear that it is not currently on the radar—if it is, it is only an obscure blip at the edge of a screen.
The neglect of wheelchair and community equipment services by successive Governments has consequences. I do not propose to repeat the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, but I add that, if weak regulation and limited transparency are not a recipe for success anywhere else, why should NHS wheelchair and community equipment services be the exception? This fragmented system makes it hard to challenge poor performance. Without national direction, inequality has become normalised.
To finish, fragmentation may make for better ICB balance sheets in the short term, but history shows that, in the medium term, it is a very costly false economy. In short, we are cutting our nose to spite our face. This amendment invites us to look at the bigger picture. I hope very much that the Minister will agree, and I look forward to his response.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 165A. One in three eligible disabled people are still waiting for approved community equipment; one in five wait more than two months and 74% of delayed hospital discharges are linked to equipment delays. This amendment would include wheelchair and community equipment provision in the list of general health determinants that authorities need to have regard to as a cause of health inequality. I hope that my noble friend can include this important equality provision for disabled people, which is both economically and socially relevant.