Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 28 and 29 in this group and will make some brief comments on the other amendments. We completely understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in Amendment 26 that the current way that combined authorities are brought together means that they could very well not be subject to any political balance mechanisms and the power structures could be centralised, as the noble Lord outlined.

The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provisions are designed to deal with, for example, political proportionality on council committees. Of course, the political balance of combined authorities will vary across the country depending on the make-up of the constituent members, who will have been selected by dint of local elections. Although it is not impossible to put a balancing mechanism in place, it is difficult to see how that could be addressed without introducing a considerable level of complexity. It may result in some areas being represented by members who were not leaders in their own council, for example, which might bring its own difficulties. We need to think about how we get a sense of political proportionality in these combined authorities.

My Amendments 28 and 29 and Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek similar objectives. In Committee, as far back as March, we had long discussions about the composition of combined authorities and the role of the respective councils on them in two-tier areas. I will not repeat all the points I made then but will focus on the key issues. First, the presumption in the Bill that only county councils deal with strategic issues is based on an outdated idea of district councils and is entirely wrong. As a brief example, the workstreams on the Hertfordshire growth board planning for the future of the whole county consist of town centre development, growing our economy, housing growth, tackling climate change, et cetera, and are all led by district leaders. It is hard to see how willing they would be to do that if they did not then play a full part in the work of the full growth board and were not allowed voting rights at its meetings.

In response to the point I made on this in Committee on 15 March, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, responded that district councils

“cannot be a constituent member of a co-operative local government grouping whose membership is determined by reference to strategic functions and powers which are the primary province of upper-tier and unitary authorities. That is the logic”. —[Official Report, 15/3/23; col. 1342.]

I do not see the logic of excluding the strategic leaders of 183 councils that not only run services but are responsible for the planning, housing and economic development of 68% of the land in the UK from taking part in strategic functions and powers.

My noble friend Lord Hunt has set out his concerns about the proposals relating to boundaries. He rightly points to the dangers of these being used for gerrymandering. It is simply not acceptable to use primary legislation for that purpose; it is the very opposite of devolution. My noble friend used the example of Wiltshire the other day and Shropshire today. I think also of Hertfordshire, right on the borders of London, and the idea of it being scooped into a huge authority without leaders in those areas having a say is unthinkable.

The Government’s proposal in the Bill that combined authorities may give their associate members a vote but do not have to give that same ability to district council members or leaders leaves combined authorities in the unprecedented and very unwelcome situation of having democratically elected representatives on their body who cannot vote and appointed members who can. That is surely not tenable. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, recognises this issue and would restrict associate members from voting. We urge the Government to consider that, if other amendments in this group are not successful. If the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is minded to test the opinion of the House then he will certainly have our support on that.

My Amendment 28 would automatically confer voting rights on non-constituent members, but we would prefer that that was in the hands of the combined authorities themselves. Amendment 29 would establish a process for the Minister to introduce a mechanism that could allow combined authorities to give non-constituent members full member status. We feel strongly that this decision should absolutely rest with the combined authorities themselves. It is the opposite of devolution for the Government to determine which locally elected representatives should be permitted to take part in local decision-making and which should not. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has outlined clearly that weighted voting systems are perfectly possible. Therefore, unless we hear from the Minister that there has been a change to the Government’s view on this issue, we would like to test the opinion of the House.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 26, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would prevent the executive of a combined county authority being able to represent the political make-up of its members. As I made clear in Committee, that is not something that the Government can agree to. A CCA will be made up of members from each constituent council on a basis agreed by those councils through their consent to the establishing regulations, which will provide for the make-up of the CCA’s executive. It is essential that the CCA’s executive properly reflects the local political membership of that CCA, which this amendment would prohibit. It would also place the CCA’s executive in a different position from those of a local and combined authority, which do not require political balance under existing legislation. I do not believe I can say any more but I hope the noble Lord will see why I cannot accept his amendment and that, on reflection, he will agree to withdraw it.

Amendments 28 and 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seek to allow a combined county authority’s non-constituent members to be able to be made full constituent members and to give non-constituent members the same voting rights as full constituent members. Conversely, Amendment 30 from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would prevent associate members being given any voting rights, and his Amendment 31 would make planning authorities constituent members.

A key underlying factor of the CCA model is that only upper-tier local authorities can be constituent members and have the associated responsibilities. That is the key difference between it and the existing combined authority model, which, I remind the House, remains available to areas. A non-constituent member of a CCA is a representative of a local organisation; it will not necessarily represent a local authority. I make that point because, since a CCA is a local government institution, it would be inappropriate for any organisation other than an upper-tier local authority to be a constituent member. Constituent members are those who collectively take the decisions of the CCA and are responsible for funding it.

It would also be inappropriate for the same voting rights to be conferred on all non-constituent members, given the range of potential bodies. The CCA should have flexibility to vary voting rights to reflect its membership. We want there to be genuine localism in this area, as in others. Depending on the decision of the combined county authority, its non-constituent members can be given voting rights on the majority of matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make two points. The Minister said that this is not about gerrymandering. I suspect he would say that, wouldn’t he? I am a resident of Birmingham, and Birmingham City Council is a huge local authority—a member of the West Midlands Combined Authority. Do we not get any say at all in whether the boundaries should be extended to Warwickshire? Surely the current constituent authorities have a legitimate role in consenting to the boundaries being extended.

The second point is that the amendment I referred to, government Amendment 34, allows work to be done in relation to this in advance of Royal Assent—which is a highly unusual move, I suggest.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I simply remind the noble Lord, in answer to his first point, that there has to be a public consultation. That is when the views of all interested parties can be taken into account. Retaining the present arrangements, which I guess the noble Lord would like to do, could mean that the expansion of a combined authority—where the evidence shows that would be likely to improve outcomes across the proposed whole new area—could end up being vetoed by one existing constituent council if the combined authority’s local constitution requires unanimous agreement from its members on this matter. That could happen, irrespective of support from the potential new member, the mayor and the great majority of constituent councils.

I hope the noble Lord appreciates why these provisions are framed as they are. I know that he believes there is an underlying malign motive. Again, I emphatically repudiate that idea. The current regime acts as a barrier to the expansion of an existing combined authority, even when there is a clear economic rationale in favour of it. The Bill will make it less difficult for combined authorities to expand into more complete and stronger economic geographies. For that reason, I ask him not to press his amendment when it is reached.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has not allayed my concerns about the dangers of greater centralisation of power in a CCA, and I am unconvinced by his argument about local planning authorities. I still think that a district council which is a local planning authority ought to have an absolute right to membership of a CCA. It should not be at the discretion of existing members of a combined authority. We may come to that issue in a moment, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 26.

--- Later in debate ---

12:25

Division 1

Ayes: 162

Noes: 157

--- Later in debate ---

12:35

Division 2

Ayes: 164

Noes: 155

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I want to express our support for the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and to reiterate our concerns around audit and Oflog and how that will operate within its responsibilities. We need to ensure that there is a sufficient set-up to deal with the huge problems facing local authorities regarding audit. We know that some authorities have not had an audit for years, so this is clearly a real problem. We thank the noble Lord for tabling the amendments and hope that the Minister and the department will look carefully at his concerns and constructive suggestions, as we really need to resolve this issue.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 32 and 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to increase the transparency of CCAs. Greater functions and funding must come with strong accountability, but that must go hand in hand with decisions being made at the most local level possible. I can deal with this quite briefly and, I hope, to the noble Lord’s satisfaction.

As the Bill is drafted, a CCA’s audit committee can appoint three independent members, should it wish to, but it should be a matter for the CCA to decide exactly how many above one. The regulations that will establish the combined county authorities will set out the audit committee arrangements. They will provide that, where practicable, the membership of the audit committee reflects the political balance of the constituent councils of the combined county authority. Membership may not include any officer from the combined county authority or the combined county authority’s constituent councils. The regulations will provide for audit committees to appoint at least one independent person.

As regards transparency, in addition, Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 provides powers to require the publication of reports of a committee or sub-committee of a principal council, including audit committees. Schedule 4 to this Bill already includes a consequential amendment to apply Part VA to CCAs.

I hope that that is helpful. The noble Lord has already kindly said that he will not press his amendment, but I hope that what I have said will reassure him.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his assurances. I think there may be a way forward here—I hope very much that, at the very least, we will have strong guidance. When the statutory instruments come before the House—assuming that they do—I hope they will ensure that the ability to have three members is translated into having three, as opposed to having at least one person. There has recently been developing concern among the public as to what has happened in some local authorities whose audit systems simply do not seem to be strong enough to prevent capital investment going wrong. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

34: Schedule 2, page 286, line 39, at end insert—
“(5A) The requirements in sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) may be satisfied by things done before the coming into force of this paragraph.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the consultation and recommendation requirements relating to regulations made under paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 to the Bill (conduct and questioning of elections for the return of mayors) to be met by steps taken before those provisions come into force on Royal Assent.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 34, I shall also speak to Amendments 40 to 42, 44 to 50, 55 to 57, 290, 297 and 306.

Amendments 34 and 306 give those preparing for and running the proposed east Midlands CCA mayoral elections in May 2024 early clarity as to the rules. Amendment 306 commences Clause 25 and Schedule 2, which contain the relevant powers upon Royal Assent. Amendment 34 enables the statutory consultation with the Electoral Commission, and the commission’s recommendations as to candidate expense limits, to occur before commencement in the east Midlands.

Amendment 50 amends Schedule 4, the current drafting of which provides only for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to input on local skills improvement plans covering any of their area. However, the devolution framework in the levelling up White Paper states that this will be available to all CAs and CCAs and individual local authorities with a devolution deal. This amendment will allow all CAs and CCAs, including those without mayors, as well as local authorities with devolved adult education functions, to have their views on the relevant local skills improvement plans considered by the Secretary of State. These alterations will allow devolution deals in areas with devolved adult education functions to be fully implemented.

Amendments 55, 56, 57, 290 and 297 seek to amend Clauses 65 and 231. In its 24th report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that any regulations regarding the membership of CAs and CCAs, as made through powers confirmed by Sections 104C and 107K of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or this Bill should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the existing mixed resolution procedure, whereby only the initial statutory instruments made are subject to the affirmative process. I thank the committee for its work in relation to the powers in the Bill. These amendments accept that recommendation and will ensure that an appropriate level of scrutiny is achieved for regulations relating to membership of CAs and CCAs.

The remaining government amendments in this group are all consequential, amending the Equality Act 2010 and the Localism Act 2011 to apply provisions in these Acts to CCAs to allow the model to work in practice. Given their importance in allowing CCAs to operate as a local government institution, and to enable the first CCA mayoral election, I hope that noble Lords can support these amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I begin, as I generally do, by reminding the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I wish particularly to speak to government Amendment 34. I was quite astonished when I read it; it brings to the Bill a new issue that has not been discussed previously either at Second Reading or in Committee. I was also astonished because the amendment attempts to bypass the independence of the Electoral Commission. The commission was established to improve trust in our electoral arrangements. That is its function, and we rely on it to provide its stamp of approval for the arrangements made for elections.

To use a strong word, this is quite a pernicious amendment because it attempts to bypass the independent consultation of the Electoral Commission. I will tell the House what it says. The Bill, in its Schedule 2, currently expects the Electoral Commission to be involved in setting the arrangements for mayoral elections. On page 286, paragraph 12(4) states that

“the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”

and in sub-paragraph (5) that

“the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations … is exercisable only on, and in accordance with, a recommendation of the Electoral Commission”.

Government Amendment 34 states that the requirements in the two sub-paragraphs I have just quoted

“may be satisfied by things done before the coming into force of this paragraph”.

In other words, the Government are going to bypass those requirements. That cannot be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, most of these amendments are technical and non-controversial, so I would love to have repeated the famous 10-word speech given by my noble friend Lady Hayman on Tuesday and simply agreed with them. However, we share with others on these Benches some concerns with government Amendment 34. The Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for the conduct of mayoral elections, such as regulations relating to the registration of electors and election expenses. While we do not oppose this power and see it as an inevitable part of the process for mayoral elections, the Government should absolutely involve the Electoral Commission as part of this.

We therefore welcome that sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) state that before making these regulations

“the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”.

It was widely assumed that such consultations would take place following Royal Assent, but Amendment 34 means that the consultation can begin prior to commencement. Can the Minister explain why this is necessary and confirm that it will not reduce the Electoral Commission’s vital role in this process, as rightly set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock?

It would also be helpful if the Minister could make clear exactly how the Secretary of State intends to exercise these powers. I hope she will understand the concerns that the expedited process is being introduced to facilitate a certain mayoral election—I am not referring to the east Midlands. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their input on these government amendments. These amendments, particularly Amendments 34 and 306, will ensure that those tasks we are planning for in running the May 2024 election for the east Midlands combined county authority mayor have real early clarity as to the rules for the conduct of the election.

The Government are absolutely clear about the role of the Electoral Commission. It has an important role in scrutinising all draft electoral legislation. It is therefore essential that it has sufficient time to undertake this role without causing unnecessary delay to the legislation itself. I will make it very clear: consultation with the Electoral Commission will still take place in full, and will still bind the regulation making. This amendment is just changing the timings for that.

Amendment 34 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for outlining her rationale for tabling Amendment 36: to clarify the relationship between PCCs and mayors, and their respective roles and responsibilities. She asked if the Government want to phase out PCCs. There is no intention to do so. The intention is to allow mayors only in some areas to exercise PCC functions. Some areas will never have mayors who do so because only in coterminous areas can mayors take those functions.

The levelling up White Paper set out the Government’s aspirations for—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The noble Baroness said that you could have a combined police and crime commissioner and mayor only where there is coterminosity. If combined authorities are now able to expand, will that undo that requirement?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. I hate to bring up the West Midlands—I know the noble Lord opposite will be very pleased that I am—but the Mayor of the West Midlands has a choice: he can either agree to pursue the expansion to include Warwickshire, which has its own PCC, so he could no longer take the PCC role, or he can take the PCC role and therefore not Warwickshire. That is the reality of what we are doing. I hope I have explained that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I think that is right, because you cannot be PCC over two police forces; I fully understand that. What I would say is that if I were in Warwickshire, I would think, “At some point, they will merge West Midlands Police with Warwickshire”. That is just an option for the future, but the Minister is absolutely right about the fact that the mayor cannot oversee two forces.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I hope I have clarified that point. What happens in the future happens in the future; we are talking about this Bill, and the Bill does not change that at all. As I said, the levelling up White Paper set out the Government’s aspiration for, where policing and combined authority boundaries align, combined authority mayors to take the lead on public safety and take on the role of the PCC—and to take steps to remove the barriers to more CA mayors taking on PCC functions.

In an area where a devolution deal is agreed and the policing and CA boundaries are not coterminous, the Government wish to encourage close co-operation between the combined authority mayor and the PCC. While it is important for the area to shape exactly what strong partnership looks like in practice, one way of achieving this would be to use the non-constituent or associate membership model being established via provisions in the Bill. This could allow the PCC a seat at the table and allow the combined authority to confer voting rights on the PCC on matters relevant to public safety. The information and clarifications sought by this amendment are, we believe, already available, and we do not agree that there is any need for a further statement.

I turn to Amendment 54. Clause 59 amends the existing provisions concerning the local consent requirements for the combined authority mayors to take on the functions of a PCC. This reflects that this transfer is merely a process whereby functions are transferred from one directly elected person to another, without any implications for the local authorities in the area. Clause 59 maintains the triple-lock model for conferring functions. That triple lock is that any transfer or conferral of powers needs local consent, the agreement of the Secretary of State and approval by Parliament.

The change which Clause 59 makes is that in future, local consent will be given simply by the mayor, who is democratically accountable across the whole area. The transfer of PCC functions to a mayor in no way diminishes the role of local government in community safety. The local authority’s role in community safety partnerships remains the same and the police and crime panel will still exist, being responsible for scrutinising the mayor as the PCC in the same way it scrutinised the PCC.

A mayor having PCC functions will, we believe, be able more successfully to pursue their other ambitions and secure better overall outcomes for their community. A deputy mayor for policing and crime is appointed who can take on certain day-to-day responsibilities for this role, ensuring that the mayor can continue to focus on all their other priorities. The Government are clear that we expect mayors to discuss any proposal seeking a transfer of a PCC function with their combined authority in advance of submitting a request for such a transfer to government. This is in line with the existing expectation that mayors seek the views of the relevant PCC, whose consent is not required in legislation.

There is evidence of the considerable benefits that a mayor having PCC functions brings. For example, in Greater Manchester, following Greater Manchester Police’s escalation to “Engage” by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, and the resignation of its former chief constable, the mayor appointed a new chief constable to develop and lead the force’s transformation programme, the result of which has been to ensure that the force focuses on getting the basics right and improving outcomes for the region. Under the leadership of the chief constable and with oversight and support from the mayor, Greater Manchester Police is now responding faster to emergency calls, and the number of open investigations has halved since 2021, and the inspectorate released the force from “Engage” in October 2022 on the strength of the confidence in its improvement trajectory. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was clear that he, as the PCC for Greater Manchester, was accountable if things did not improve and that he should be held to account at the ballot box.

And finally, my Lords—although I think that says it all—government Amendment 307 provides for early commencement of Clause 59, which would allow for the statutory requirements that enable a transfer of PCC functions to CA mayors to be undertaken from the date of Royal Assent. This will enable the timely implementation of secondary legislation required for PCC function transfers to mayors to take place in time for the May 2024 elections.

The Government’s intention is to align as far as possible with the Gould principle relating to electoral management, which would suggest that any statutory instruments transferring PCC functions to mayors for May 2024 should be laid six months ahead of the elections in early November to provide notice to candidates, the electorate and the electoral administrations of any changes. It is for these reasons that the Government are unable to accept Amendment 307A proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It would time out any PCC transfers in time for mayoral combined authority elections in 2024 where there is a local desire for this.

I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept the early commencement amendment for Clause 59 and that, following these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

40: Clause 43, page 39, line 27, leave out subsection (9)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes Clause 43(9) on the basis that it overlaps with the power in Clause 231(1)(c) for regulations under the Bill to make consequential etc provision.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

41: Clause 44, page 40, line 23, leave out “Part” and insert “Chapter”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that the definition of “local government area” in Clause 44(6) has effect for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 2 rather than Part 2 as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

42: Clause 45, page 41, line 28, leave out subsection (10)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes Clause 45(10) on the basis that it overlaps with the power in Clause 231(1)(c) for regulations under the Bill to make consequential etc provision.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

44: Schedule 4, page 296, line 6, leave out “(1)” and insert “(1F)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendments corrects a cross-reference in the amendment to insert subsection (1G) into section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.

--- Later in debate ---

13:28

Division 3

Ayes: 162

Noes: 157

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

55: Clause 65, page 63, leave out lines 4 and 5
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 65 in the Minister’s name which provides for any regulations made under section 104C(1) or (4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (as inserted by Clause 61 of the Bill) to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, one thing that we have heard in the debates in Committee and today is that councillors are a vital part of our local democracy; they represent the needs of their residents and they work to improve outcomes for their local communities. But it is also important that any good decision-making is done by people who reflect their local communities and bring a range of experience, backgrounds and insight. As we have heard, by law, councillors have to attend meetings in person at the moment. We have also heard how important Zoom and Teams were for councils to continue to meet and the public to continue to take part during lockdown and the pandemic. It also brought people together and involved more people than previously in many cases.

We debated at length in Committee the benefits of continuing to allow virtual attendance at council meetings. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, thoroughly introduced that when she spoke to her amendment, and I am very happy to support her in what she is trying to do. Unfortunately, the Government withdrew this ability. We know that it supports a large range of people, as the noble Baroness laid out: the parents of young children, carers, disabled people and people with long-term illnesses. It enables them to come forward and represent their communities and encourages wider public participation, which is surely a good thing.

When we think about access to participation, why would the Government not lower barriers to that participation? Why can we not have virtual participation in council meetings as an option? We think that councils should have the flexibility to decide for themselves whether this is a useful tool that they can use. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also mentioned, as have others, the option that we have in this House for virtual participation by those with disabilities and health issues. As others have asked, why at the very least can we not have the same dispensation for local councils that we have here in this House? The Government need to look at this again. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to replicate the situation created by the time-limited regulations that the Government made during the pandemic using powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that gave local authorities the flexibility to meet remotely or in hybrid form. Those regulations expired on 7 May 2021, and since that date all councils have reverted to in-person meetings. The Covid regulations, if I may refer to them in that way, were welcomed when they were issued for very good reasons, but they were nevertheless reflective of a unique moment in time, when a response to exceptional circumstances was needed. That moment has now passed, and the Government are firmly of the view that democracy must continue to be conducted face to face, as it has been for the last two years and for most of history prior to the pandemic.

Noble Lords have argued with some force as to the benefits of meeting remotely, and I completely understand why those arguments should be put forward. In the end, however, they are arguments based on one thing alone—expediency. With great respect, those arguments miss the point.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

That is only from the perspective of the councillors. What about the public? They have the right to listen in to the council meetings without travelling, and they are losing that right. Of course, it was left to Mrs Thatcher to get the council meetings open anyway, with her Private Member’s Bill. This is an opportunity for the public not to participate but at least to be part of it and to listen without the need to travel.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I greatly respect the noble Lord, but it is Report and I hope he will understand that point—but I am also coming on to the very point that he has raised. He is absolutely right about the expectations of the public.

I suggest that the point at the heart of this issue lies in one of the core principles of local democracy, which is that citizens are able to attend council meetings in person and to interact in person with their local representatives. To allow for a mechanism that denies citizens the ability to do this, ostensibly on grounds of convenience, is in fact to allow for a dilution of good governance and hence a dilution of democracy in its fullest sense.

Councils take decisions that can fundamentally alter the lives of people. Where an elected authority comes together to impose such changes, it should be prepared to meet in the presence of those whose lives are affected. I shall exaggerate a little to make a point, and I do not mean to cause offence to anyone—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have talked about having the same as here. We all meet together, but other people can come in.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

With great respect, I hope that the noble Baroness will hear me out. I will address that point.

I was going to exaggerate a little to make a point; I will do so. I do not mean to cause offence to anybody, but someone whose life is directly affected by a planning decision, let us imagine, would not wish to find that the councillors concerned had taken the decision from their respective living rooms with test match coverage playing in the background. The same principle applies to the interaction between local councillors. If a council meets either in committee or in full session—especially if it meets to take decisions—councillors are entitled to expect that they will be able to deal with their fellow councillors face to face, debating with them, challenging them and taking decisions in the same room.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will my noble friend give way?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

No, I will not give way, I am sorry. To put that another way, anyone who has chaired a remote online meeting—whether in a local council or any other context—will know that the internet, accessible as it is to most of us, is nevertheless, by its very nature, a barrier between people. To chair a council meeting online is therefore to experience the considerable responsibility of trying to ensure that debate is both reactive and interactive, that the right balance between different arguments is achieved and that decisions are taken in the light of arguments that have been presented to those assembled in the most effective fashion.

I do not for a minute deny that the ability to conduct virtual meetings during Covid served a useful purpose—but we were making do. We have only to think of how things were in this Chamber during that time. Did we really think that a succession of prepared speeches transmitted from noble Lords’ kitchens or armchairs constituted the kind of effective debating that we experience in Committee or on Report for a Bill?

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I am trying to follow the Minister’s logic, but I am afraid that my intellectual capacity prevents me doing so. I therefore ask a simple question. By all logic of his argument, there should be no hybrid Select Committee meetings in this House, yet there are. Does he think that that therefore devalues those Select Committee meetings?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That point is very similar to one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend about an option of virtual attendance in case of illness or disability—as we have in this Chamber—but that option is on an exceptional basis. With great respect, that is a far cry from the terms of the amendment that my noble friend has tabled. We know what effective debating looks like: it is when we can stand in this Chamber and look each other in the eye—as at present—as active participants.

No limits are placed on authorities broadcasting their meetings online, and I would encourage them to do so to reach as wide an audience as possible. However, I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh and other noble Lords who have aligned themselves with her position will understand why I am coming at this from the point of view of a principle: that it is our duty to safeguard democracy as fully as we can and not to short-change it. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not feel compelled to oppose that principle by dividing the House today.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that I have had no reassurance whatever, and my noble friend did not even repeat the assurance we got that the Government would keep this matter under review. I find it unacceptable that, under legislation other than the Local Government Act, licensing hearings, school admission panels and regional flood and coastal committees can meet and take decisions that affect people’s lives. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made the very valid point: why should it be acceptable for the public to access physical meetings remotely but not those who are temporarily or permanently unable to travel because they cannot get access to public transport? I also find it unacceptable that we have established a very good principle that we can meet remotely in Select Committees of this House but we are not extending the same right to democratically elected councils. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

14:05

Division 4

Ayes: 169

Noes: 156

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. I will not repeat the arguments that she has laid out before your Lordships.

I have not spoken before, so I apologise to your Lordships, but I have been motivated to do so by what I believe is potentially an unfair subsidy to one of the wealthiest landowners in the country, the Church of England, with, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, outlined, assets that are currently valued at £23 billion. I also believe it is discriminatory. If we are going to do this for churches, can we equally support mosques, the rather beautiful Buddhist temples around the country, the amazing synagogues and, equally, the Quaker meeting rooms? What applies to one should apply throughout.

If, as we have heard and has been accounted through the recent census, church attendance has diminished severely and churches are not being used, the parishes should be conserved as local hubs and the churches handed over to local authorities. There is a really good model that I know personally: St Matthias, the oldest church in Poplar, east London. It was deconsecrated and handed over to the local community. I am a trustee. Neighbours in Poplar and others have turned it into a thriving hub that serves those of all religions and none. That is a really good model, and it is why I am speaking against government Amendment 60. This is a potentially unfair subsidy that discriminates, and there should be no place for that in a Bill that is about levelling up.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to allow parish councils to pay allowances for dependants’ care costs to their councillors. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue again, and I recognise the admirable aim of her amendment.

It is important that local communities are properly represented by their local authorities at all levels, including parish councils. Giving parish councils the option of paying these allowances, though, would create an expectation that they would be available to all their members, and that would place an unknown, unfunded and potentially significant burden on the modest finances of parish councils. It is not the policy of the Government to place such burdens on local authorities at any level, and we believe it would be irresponsible to do so.

We do not have, and have not been provided with, any evidence of the scale of the demand for care allowances by parish councillors, nor of the likely costs to their councils, and we cannot be confident that the benefits here would outweigh the costs to the local taxpayer. We have a responsibility to ensure that we take action that could increase council tax further, and put extra pressures on residents, only where absolutely necessary. But I am happy to have further discussions with any noble Lords or noble Baronesses and to consider any evidence that they may have at a later date. However, until we understand this issue better, the Government cannot support the amendment.

Weymouth was brought up. Weymouth council came to the Government, as was said, but there was insufficient information for Ministers to make an informed and substantive decision at the time. Our concerns about the impact on parish councils’ finances remain, and we will respond shortly to Weymouth town council’s proposal.

Moving to government Amendments 60 and 308, we have listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed in Committee that some parish councils believe that they are prohibited from providing funding to churches —to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cashman—and other religious buildings. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing this issue to the House’s attention. I am pleased to say that the Government wish to move this amendment to clarify that there is no such prohibition.

We have heard that stakeholders’ confusion comes from the Local Government Act 1894. That Act set out a clear separation of powers between the newly created civil parishes, which exercised secular functions, and what are now parochial church councils, which exercise ecclesiastical functions. In setting out the scope of the powers conferred on civil parishes, the Act gave parish councils powers over

“parish property, not being property related to the affairs of the church or being held for an ecclesiastical charity”.

Some stakeholders appear to see this wording as a general prohibition which prevents parish councils doing anything in relation to church or religious property, even under their powers in other legislation. The Government did not agree with this interpretation. Their view was that this wording simply sets out what is and is not a parish property for the purposes of the powers of the 1894 Act. This is supported by the Hansard record for 1 February 1894, when the then right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London explained why he had proposed including this wording by way of amendment.

The Government do not think that there is any general or specific provision in the 1894 Act which prohibits parish councils funding the maintenance and upkeep of churches and other religious buildings. Therefore, this amendment does not seek to make any substantive changes to the existing legal provision. Instead, it clarifies that the 1894 Act does not affect the powers, duties or liabilities of parish councils in England under any other legislation. This will give councils the comfort that, even if they disagree with the Government’s interpretation of the 1894 Act, it cannot prohibit them using their other powers to fund repairs or improvements to local places of worship, if they choose to do so. Government Amendment 308 makes provision for this new clause to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. In reality, this is going to allow something that in many areas is happening already, and we have heard examples of that. In churches and other religious buildings across this country many community activities are taking place, from coffee mornings to luncheon clubs, knitting circles and toddler groups. I think it is correct that we make it very clear as a Government that parish and town councils are legally able to support those sorts of activities and can help such facilities along a bit—often the only community facility is the church or another religious building—if the parish council or the town council agrees that it is the right thing to do on behalf of that community.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her considered response. However, it saddens me that the Government feel that this is not a decision that a parish council can make for itself. I will be blunt and say that it is stunningly patronising. It has been dressed up as an overwhelming regard for a parish council’s budget when, on a daily and weekly basis, the Government take decisions that increase council tax. That is another debate for another day. We are just asking for parish councils to have the power to make their own decisions.

What evidence do the Government feel would be acceptable? Lots of parish councillors might say, “We can’t get people unless we do this”, or, “Actually, there’s only one or two that ever need this but they’re really good people and we’d like to be able to give it to them”. Can I reverse that and ask the Government what evidence they feel would be needed? The bottom line is this: why can parish councils not make the decision for themselves? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

60: After Clause 78, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers of parish councilsAfter section 19 of the Local Government Act 1894 (provisions as to small parishes), insert—“19A Powers under other enactments(1) Nothing in this Part affects any powers, duties or liabilities conferred on a parish council by or under any other enactment (whenever passed or made).(2) This section does not apply in relation to community councils (see section 179(4) of the Local Government Act 1972).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new section into the Local Government Act 1894 to clarify that the powers conferred on parish councils under Part 1 of that Act do not affect any powers, duties or liabilities of parish councils conferred by or under any other enactment (whenever passed or made).