English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates 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—