English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, The Funding and Sustainability of Local Government Finance, HC 514, and the Government response, HC 1355; Oral evidence taken before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 25 February and 28 January, on English Devolution, HC 600.]

New Clause 45

Publication of addresses of members etc in authority registers

“(1) In section 100G (principal councils to publish additional information) of LGA 1972, in subsection (5), omit “, in relation to a principal council in Wales,”.

(2) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.

(3) In section 29 (register of interests), in subsection (8), for “section 32(2)” substitute “sections 32(2) and 32A”.

(4) In section 31 (pecuniary interests in matters considered at meetings or by a single member), in subsection (2), for “section 32(3)” substitute “sections 32(3) and 32A(9)”.

(5) After section 32 (sensitive interests) insert—

“32A Residential addresses

(1) This section applies where a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority notifies the authority’s monitoring officer of a disclosable pecuniary interest that includes their usual residential address.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (7), the relevant authority’s public register must not include that address.

(3) The member or co-opted member may request that their usual residential address be included in that public register.

(4) The member or co-opted member may withdraw a request made under subsection (3).

(5) A request under subsection (3) or a withdrawal of a request under subsection (4) must be made by written notice to the relevant authority’s monitoring officer.

(6) Where the member or co-opted member withdraws a request under subsection (4), the monitoring officer must remove the member or co-opted member’s usual residential address from the public register.

(7) Withdrawal of a request under subsection (4) does not affect the power of the member or co-opted member to make another request under subsection (3).

(8) Where a member or co-opted member’s usual residential address is excluded from a public register under this section, that public register must state that the member or co-opted member has an interest the address of which is withheld under this section.

(9) If section 31(2) applies in relation to the interest, that provision is to be read as requiring the member or co-opted member to disclose not the interest but merely the fact that the member or co-opted member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter concerned.

(10) For the purposes of this section, a person has no more than one usual residential address.

(11) In this section “public register”, in relation to a relevant authority, means—

(a) a copy of its register that is made available for inspection, and

(b) any published version of its register.””— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would stop the automatic publication of local government members’ and co-opted members’ home addresses. Members’ home addresses would no longer appear in published registers of interests unless a member explicitly requests inclusion in writing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:37

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 46—Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.

Government new clause 49—“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”.

Government new clause 50—Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 51—Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 52—Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 53—Further provision about standards.

Government new clause 54—Guidance.

Government new clause 55—Relationship with existing licensing legislation.

Government new clause 56—Regulations.

Government new clause 57—Interpretation.

New clause 1—Consent for local government restructuring—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all 6 constituent councils.

(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.’

This new clause would mean local government restructuring could not take place without the consent of the constituent councils.

New clause 6—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value—

‘(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area.

(2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may—

(a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or

(b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.’

This new clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement.

New clause 10—Community ownership fund—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—

(a) voluntary and community organisation, or

(b) parish or town council,

to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.

Amendment (a) to new clause 10, at end insert—

‘(4) On the day on which regulations are first made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) how a strategic authority can apply to the community ownership fund;

(b) how the community ownership fund is governed and administered;

(c) any other information which in the opinion of the Secretary of State assists strategic authorities and other persons in understanding the purposes of and application process for the community ownership fund; and

(d) a timetable for when applications to the fund may be submitted, and by when they should be responded to.’

New clause 11—Local public accounts committees—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment of a public accounts committee in each mayoral strategic authority area (“a local public accounts committee”).

(2) Regulations made under this section must—

(a) make provision relating to the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment; tenure; and arrangements for chairing of committees;

(b) make provision about support for local public accounts committees by the relevant local audit services;

(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services in the mayoral strategic authority area;

(d) make provision about the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power of the committees to report on—

(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;

(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the strategic mayoral authority.

(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).”’

This new clause would require the introduction of Local Public Accounts Committees within one year of this Act coming into force. LPACs would ensure scrutiny and accountability across the whole of the local public service spending and activity.

New clause 12—Assets of negative community value—

‘In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert—

“92A Assets of negative community value

(1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset—

(a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality,

(b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or

(c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use.

(2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area.

(3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may—

(a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset;

(b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship;

(c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value;

(b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets;

(c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets;

(d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph “community group” has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”’

This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation.

New clause 13—Duty relating to community empowerment—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment).

(2) The report must—

(a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and

(b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision.

(3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England—

(a) access to a clean and healthy environment;

(b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim;

(c) access to land for food growing;

(d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level;

(e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value.

(4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report.

(5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.’

This new clause would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. It requires that Ministers assess how well communities can access land, green space, and local decision-making mechanisms. The report must include plans to strengthen these rights, including potential new legislation.

New clause 16—Funding for local authority governance reorganisation—

‘The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.

New clause 17—Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.

(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.’

This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.

New clause 18—Councillors: proportional representation vote system—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors.

(2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.’

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors.

New clause 19—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system—

‘(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months.

New clause 20—Training for councillors—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require a strategic authority to provide training for councillors following the designation, creation, or merger of any class of strategic authority.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) make provision for training within six months of any designation, creation or merger, and every four years thereafter.

(b) make provision for training to apply to all levels of local government within the area of the newly designated strategic authority,

(c) provide that training under addresses any changes to the strategic authority’s governance practice, and

(d) specify a period during which councillors must complete the training under subsection (2)(a).

(3) The Secretary of State may create guidance for strategic authorities regarding the content of the training in subsection (2)(a).’

This new clause would create a requirement for councillors to receive training following the designation, creation or merging of any class of strategic authority. It allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the content of this training.

New clause 26—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.

(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—

(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously,

(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),

(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and

(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).

(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

New clause 27—Community right to challenge: duty to undertake joint reviews—

‘(1) In Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011, omit Chapter 2 and insert—

“80A Duty to undertake joint reviews

(1) A relevant authority must conduct a joint review if a request is submitted by a relevant body.

(2) A joint review under subsection (1) must—

(a) enable the relevant body to shape the provision, commissioning, or design of the service through a set period of consultation with the relevant authority;

(b) be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, as prescribed in statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with community organisations and public bodies;

(c) produce outcomes that, following the conclusion of the review, should be enacted by the relevant authority through any necessary changes to the provision, commissioning or design of the service.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the form and conduct of consultation under paragraph (2)(a), which must include measures to ensure that a relevant body can participate meaningfully in the decision-making process.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“relevant authority” means any public body responsible for delivering a local service;

“relevant body” means—

(a) a voluntary or community body;

(b) a body, person, or trust which is established solely for a charitable purpose;

(c) a parish council;

(d) a group of at least ten users of a local service;

(e) two or more persons who are employed by a relevant authority;

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause replaces the duty to consider an expression of interest in the Localism Act 2011 with a duty triggering a joint review and requiring local authorities to work collaboratively with communities and service users to shape local services.

New clause 34—Councillor standards—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a recall process for Councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.

New clause 35—Consideration of impact on local elections—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure a relevant activity does not—

(a) delay,

(b) postpone, or

(c) lead to the cancellation of,

any election of members to any local authority affected by the relevant activity.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant activity” means the making of an order or regulations, or any other exercise of power, relating to the reorganisation or restructuring of one or more local authorities under this Act.’

New clause 38—Land quality assessments—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable a local authority to facilitate an assessment of the quality of an area of land within its area where the conditions in subsection (2) apply.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) an application has been made to a local planning authority for planning permission for development on the area of land,

(b) the area of land has not been allocated for development in a local plan or any Land Use Framework,

(c) the area of land has been used for agricultural purposes,

(d) two or more Agricultural Land Classification assessments have been undertaken in the last 10 years, and

(e) the planning applicant and the current owner of the area of land are in disagreement regarding the quality of the area of land.

(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must—

(a) be conducted by an independent surveying organisation, and

(b) determine the area of land’s suitability for development.

(4) The costs of an assessment under subsection (1) must be divided equally between the planning applicant and current owner of the area of land.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

New clause 42—Procedure relating to postponement of elections—

‘(1) Section 105 (Orders and regulations) of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (6), after “9N” insert “87”.’.

This new clause would require any order postponing a local election to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

New clause 47—Rutland: status as ceremonial county—

(1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row—

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is my pleasure to open the debate on day two of Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Today we are concerned with parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill, which cover provisions relating to local government, community right to buy, local audit and the ending of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. As with yesterday’s debate, I will focus on the substantive changes made in Committee and those we have brought forward on Report.

Before I turn to the amendments, I would like to address some of the comments made in yesterday’s debate. Opposition Members suggested that this Government have not taken on board any of their suggestions. Today I am delighted to demonstrate that the Government have been listening to the points raised by Members in the House and by our mayors. We have today announced the next big step in our path to devolution. Mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy. We are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.

Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver, from the Mayor of London using business rate supplements to deliver the Elizabeth line to the Mayor of Greater Manchester using his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services. Making places more attractive to visit, live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience, so I am proposing that constituent authorities within a strategic authority that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of the revenue raised for growth-related spending. Tomorrow, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will publish a consultation with the details of the proposed levy. We recognise that businesses and potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and we will take those concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear those concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I am interested in this proposal, but I wonder whether it will be applicable to council areas that do not yet have a mayor and may not have a mayor for some time. Will they still have the power to impose an overnight visitor levy?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will consult on whether that power should be extended to foundational strategic authorities that do not have a mayor, and we will see the responses to that consultation.

I said yesterday that the Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of this Government’s ambition. Today’s announcement shows just how seriously we take the mayor’s right to request new powers, and our commitment to give them the tools they need to drive growth for the area. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for raising that issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his contribution to yesterday’s debate.

I turn now to the changes made in Committee. The Government recognise how much communities value their local sports grounds as spaces that foster local pride, belonging and identity. The Bill will automatically designate grounds across England as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that those essential local spaces are protected. We have introduced a new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. That amendment is about putting processes in place to safeguard the long-term sustainability of larger sports grounds, ensuring communities have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively.

The Bill delivers fully on our commitment to fix the broken local audit system that we inherited, and will set local government on a firmer financial footing. In Committee, we inserted new provisions relating to financial penalties, sanctions and criminal offences. They will ensure that the local audit system has the right levers in place to deter and sanction improper behaviour. The new local audit office will be established as the regulatory authority for that system, and will be given further powers to conduct assurance reviews.

The Bill will ban upwards-only rent review clauses in new and renewed commercial leases. Such reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties, from high street shops to empty office floors. Our amendment will close loopholes in the ban, ensuring that tenants who vacate or have not occupied properties are still caught by the ban. It will allow tenants to trigger a rent review in all leases, preventing landlords from avoiding rent reviews during times of rental decline

I turn now to the amendments tabled on Report. New clause 46 will confer the general power of competence on England’s national park authorities and the Broads Authority. The legislation underpinning our national parks currently limits their powers to activities directly related to their statutory functions, creating uncertainty and stifling their ability to innovate. Providing them with the general power of competence will enable them to be more innovative and agile in delivering their statutory functions, and to contribute towards the Government’s wider agenda.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In addition to that very welcome general power of competence for the national park authorities, will the Minister consider tabling amendments to ensure that the new unitary authorities surrounding those park authorities do not dominate the membership of the board with a majority?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and for advocating for our national park authorities. We are clear that, as we go through the process of reforming local government, we want strong and effective collaboration between all the institutions that need to drive services for local people. We will look to ensure that we are strengthening those partnerships and collaborations as local government reforms and the general power of competence for those authorities bed in.

I turn to taxi and private hire vehicles. Let me be clear: the current legislative framework for regulating the taxi and private hire vehicle trades across England is complex, fragmented and archaic; some legislation dates back to Victorian times. The Government recognise the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, including the inconsistency of licensing standards throughout the country and the practice of out-of-area working, where drivers choose to license in one authority area but work wholly or predominantly in a different authority area.

15:45

We know that out-of-area working creates concerns in some authorities about the safeguarding standards applied to some of the drivers operating in their area. That problem was highlighted by Baroness Casey in her recent national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. By taking a power for the Secretary of State to set national minimum standards for the licensing of drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles, we can begin to tackle some of these inconsistencies. The powers sought are necessarily broad, so that we can make sure that they catch all the complexities of the current legislative framework.

National minimum standards will set a high but proportionate standard for licensing that is focused on safeguarding passengers and improving the accessibility of services for everyone. That means that people—particularly those who rely on these services the most, such as women, girls and people with disabilities—can be reassured that the drivers of such services have undergone rigorous vetting wherever they are in the country. This is an important first step to tackling some of the issues that have arisen from the practice of out-of-area working.

In addition, we will consult shortly on making local transport authorities responsible for taxi and private hire vehicles, further strengthening the regulation of the sector. We will continue to build on these reforms in the weeks and months ahead, and I know that the Minister for Local Transport is looking forward to meeting Unite, other unions and our mayors to discuss options for wider reforms. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their engagement on this issue, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for her work with the Mayor of Greater Manchester to push forward this important issue.

I turn to safeguards for local government. Local government members should be able to perform their duties without fear for their own safety or that of their families. Intimidation, harassment and abuse have no place in our democracy, and I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for raising this important issue in Committee. The Government agree that making a change to ensure the safety of local government members is timely and necessary. We have listened and responded.

New clause 45 makes this important change. The amendment puts it beyond doubt that a member or co-opted member’s home address should not be published by default. Our provisions will ensure that when a member or co-opted member’s home address is entered in an authority’s register of interests, public copies of the register must not include those details, unless the member requests it in writing.

Our provisions to protect local government members go further. They will also prevent the disclosure of home addresses when they are declared as interests at public meetings. These provisions consider the need to balance the safety of members with requirements for high standards and transparency. Local authorities will continue to have access to full address details, to prevent conflicts of interest, and these interests will remain openly listed to the public, with the detail of a member’s home address withheld.

In Committee, I committed to reflect on the Government’s policy on local authority governance and executives. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) for the constructive and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with the Government, in particular on how our policy applies to councils such as Sheffield city council.

Following careful consideration of the issue, the Government have brought forward their own amendments to schedule 25 to the Bill, which in turn amends relevant sections of the Local Government Act 2000. These amendments will affect those councils that have adopted the committee system more recently, following either a council resolution or a public referendum. Those councils will be permitted to continue to operate that governance model until the end of their existing moratorium period.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

My constituency covers two local authorities: the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames and the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. For a number of years, they have both operated a committee system that works extremely well; it is well accepted by the local community and both local authorities function extremely well. Why are the Government proposing to put in place additional hurdles for both my local authorities to continue to operate effectively and efficiently in this way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear that our strong preference remains for executive models of government, because we believe that that model provides clearer and more easily understood governance structures, and leads to more efficient decision making. However, we recognise the genuine concerns held in particular constituencies where committee systems have been adopted recently, particularly where public referendums have been held. That is why we are moving forward with this amendment.

We believe that we are striking the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England that will ensure better decision making, while also respecting recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations, as well as reducing disruptions where councils are operating a committee system and are within their moratorium periods. If a council is within its moratorium period, we will allow the transition, but our strong preference is to move towards the cabinet system.

[Sarah Olney]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make some progress.

Finally, we have built on the amendments made in Committee to the local audit provisions. Our further amendments contain technical provisions that broaden the existing regulation-making powers relating to the payment of allowances to audit committee members to include expenses, gratuities or pensions to members of audit committees across all local bodies within the audit framework. Broadening this power will give clarity to the sector that remuneration can apply to all audit committee members, whether they are independent or not, across all relevant authorities, including the Greater London Authority.

The Bill originally required that the Mayor of London and the Assembly jointly appointed an audit committee. However, following discussions on its particular governance arrangements, it has become clear that it would be more appropriate for this power to rest solely with the Mayor of London, consistent with other audit provisions in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. This change will enable the mayor to appoint an audit committee that includes at least one independent member, in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. I thank the GLA for its constructive engagement with my officials on these important audit measures in the Bill. It is vital that our reforms work in practice for all authorities within the local audit framework.

The Bill will help to build and rebuild local government, fix our broken local audit system and truly empower communities. Our amendments build on these ambitions and ensure that the Bill works as we intended. I commend them to the House.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I know that this issue has been exercising Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at topical questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about a tourism tax, we were told by the Secretary of State:

“My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 19.]

During debate on the Bill yesterday, when asked the same question by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), replied:

“They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 155.]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you and Mr Speaker have been very exercised by the number of leaks, which the former chief economist at the Bank of England described as

“the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined”.

You will therefore be concerned, as the Conservatives are, that a short while ago the Government put out a press release on their website saying that mayors will be given these new powers, before that was briefed to the House and after repeated comments to the House that Ministers would not answer that question. What further measures are open to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker to ensure that these kinds of damaging leaks, which are undermining our economy and particularly hitting our tourism and hospitality businesses hard, can stop?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am inclined to the view that there are two separate issues here. He will have heard my earlier comments about statements being made to this House first and how deeply regrettable it is when statements are made to the media ahead of being announced to the House. However, with specific reference to the Minister’s comments yesterday, I believe they would far better be addressed as a point of debate. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to raise that later on in this afternoon’s debate.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Today I will continue to highlight our concerns on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Labour Government spend a great deal of time telling the country that they are putting power back into the hands of communities and say they are on the side of local leaders and delivering locally led renewal, but when we examine the powers that the Bill actually grants, it is clear very quickly that they risk doing the opposite.

Through this Bill, power is being snatched upwards and away from local voices. It strengthens combined authorities and concentrates power with a statutory authority mayor at the expense of constituent, unitary, parish and town councils. It enables key planning decisions to bypass local authorities and gives Ministers sweeping powers to redraw governance arrangements without genuine local engagement. Local leaders, parish councillors and residents see that, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly see that.

If we are to empower our communities, as this Government promise, this legislation needs to be improved. That is what we seek to do with the amendments we bring forward today, just as we did yesterday. Let me begin with our primary measure, new clause 17. The Government really cannot keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that they want locally led delivery while creating legislation that puts responsibilities on councils without giving them money or support to do the job. That just does not add up. The truth is that without even considering devolution, councils are currently not funded properly. Every single one, regardless of political leadership, is under unprecedented strain, and many are on the brink of effective bankruptcy. Some have declared section 114 notices, and others are warning that they may not last the financial year. Even more are raiding reserves, cutting services to the bone and desperately firefighting rising demand in social care, temporary accommodation and children’s services.

Instead of addressing this crisis with the urgent, national level of investment for which local government was calling out for years under the Conservatives and now this Government, the Government seem committed to perpetuating this problem, albeit now with a different approach of giving to one council by taking from another. We see that clearly in the rather inaptly named fair funding review, which does not increase funding from central Government, but simply redistributes an already insufficient pot. It is a winless exercise dressed up as equality.

Council leaders from across the political spectrum are all deeply worried that this Bill is a continuation of that same approach. It asks councils to do more, take on more and deliver more, all without serious new funding models, and nowhere is that clearer than in west Surrey. This Government have imposed a new local governance model that local leaders have warned will be financially unstable and structurally incoherent. Instead of listening to local authority leaders and residents, the Government pressed ahead with a structure that groups multiple councils facing extreme financial pressure—the legacy of current and former Conservative Administrations—leaving the new West Surrey council with roughly five times the debt of neighbouring East Surrey council.

What is the Government’s answer to the question of how West Surrey council is to manage its significant debt and financial instability? Their answer is that West Surrey should pool its budgets, sell its assets and harmonise council tax. They may as well have suggested tackling the debt with hopes and prayers. We simply cannot redistribute a crisis. We cannot create a strong structure on foundations that are already breaking under debt, demand and chronic underfunding, and that is exactly why our new clause 17 is so vital. If we ignore local leaders and refuse to fund local government properly, we do not empower councils; we set them up to fail. I call on MPs from across this House to back new clause 17 and back our local councils.

Funding alone is not enough; devolution relies on democratic legitimacy. That brings me to new clause 35, which would safeguard the integrity of local democracy by ensuring that residents could hold their leaders to account at the ballot box. Our new clause would ensure that when Government restructure local governance, shift power or redraw boundaries, they must explicitly consider the impact on local elections.

In Surrey this year, as in many places, we have seen clearly what happens when elections are cancelled or postponed. The failing Conservative Administration has been allowed to remain in office not because residents have endorsed them, but because the Government and the local Conservative leadership came together to deny residents their chance to remove them. Based on local by-election results, it is clear that the Administration would have been removed, had the elections taken place in May.

16:03

In a Bill that hands new powers to mayors and enables large strategic authorities to override local processes, the risk of democratic disruption grows unless protections are built into this legislation. That is why new clause 35 is essential. It would ensure that no restructured devolution deal or ministerial directive can deny residents the right to vote and choose their representatives.

New clause 18 would introduce the alternative vote system for relevant local elections. The mayoral election results this year highlighted the need for a fairer voting system, with one mayor winning on just 25% of the vote. We no longer work in a two-party system. The supplementary vote system, as proposed in the Bill, is designed to force people to vote for one of the two biggest local parties. People want real choice, and AV provides real choice and real representation. If first past the post is not fit for mayoral elections, why should it be fit for any other kind of election? It is time for the Government to finally introduce fair votes via proportional representation for electing MPs and local councillors in England. We will be watching closely as the Government bring forward the forthcoming elections Bill.

I hope that everyone here will recognise that democracy only works when people who are elected have the tools, training and support to govern effectively. This Bill expands duties for councillors. It reshapes scrutiny. It places heavier burdens on local oversight and it strengthens audit requirements significantly, yet nowhere in this Bill does it guarantee that councillors or auditors will be given the skills training they need to carry out these responsibilities. That is why we have tabled new clause 20, which would ensure training for councillors, which is the foundation of good governance. Ministers claim that they want stronger, more capable local government, so supporting new clause 20 is a test of whether they really mean it.

[Martin Wrigley]

There is another aspect in which this Bill is lacking. In Devon, where we have a county and district system, the city of Exeter is ruled by a district council, which will be absorbed into the unitary council, leaving Exeter—unlike the rest of Devon—without a town or parish council. The same thing would happen in Torbay, should Torbay unitary be changed and moved to cover a wider area. That would leave Torquay and Paignton without town councils, while Brixham has one. Does my hon. Friend agree that my new clause 63, which would require re-parishing or the introduction of town or parish councils in those areas that lose them in this way, is a good thing that would prevent far-off unitary councils being overwhelmed by the minutiae and issues of an individual city?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We have a lot of speakers this afternoon. If Members make long interventions, we will simply not get through everybody.

[Zöe Franklin]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause.

We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex?

[Zöe Franklin]

The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which returns us to the theme that we need to allow local communities a say in their own destinies. I will leave it to my wonderful colleagues in local government to continue that thought.

We Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the many gaps that we see in the Bill, and they are what our new clauses attempt to plug. Every single one is designed to strengthen the democratic, localist, community-led principles that Ministers say they support. With our new clauses, this English devolution Bill might finally seem to provide the devolution that the Government keep promising us. I urge Members across the House to support these vital amendments, and to give local democracy the respect, the voice and the power that it deserves.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 83, which stands in my name. I thank colleagues for their support for the new clause. I also sincerely thank the Minister and her team for their consistent engagement with me on this landmark piece of legislation—a Bill that will be game-changing for my constituents.

Before I speak to my new clause, which would forge a fairer, safer and better regulated private hire vehicle sector, I want to express my full support for the steps that the Government are taking by introducing national minimum standards. We need to rebuild confidence in a system that so many view as broken. This is about giving local leaders power to decide which drivers operate in their areas, and, most crucially, it is about the safety and wellbeing of passengers and drivers.

Let me deal first with the problem we face. Many Members will have heard from constituents who have raised legitimate concerns that the taxis or private hire vehicles that they see operating in their local areas are actually licensed hundreds of miles away. That is because since 2015 operators have been permitted to contract bookings to another vehicle that could be licensed in a different area. It has coincided with the meteoric rise of national operators such as Uber and Bolt, which are permitted to be licensed in multiple areas. The stark absence of any regulation has led to certain local authorities becoming, as the GMB union has put it,

“a licence factory…creaking at the seams”.

No example underscores that more vividly than the activities of City of Wolverhampton Council. In the first five months of last year alone, the council granted more than 8,500 new taxi licences, which is 30 times more than any other licensing authority in the midlands. This has a real and tangible impact across the whole country. Indeed, in Greater Manchester nearly half of all private hire vehicles are now licensed by local authorities outside its 10 councils, and the city region’s “out of area” figure of more than 12,000 has risen sharply from just under 7,000 in 2023. In my own borough of Rochdale, about 40% of private hire vehicles and taxis are licensed out of area.

This is not just an issue of public perception; it is also about safety and enforcement. For as long as the status quo persists and scores of vehicles are operating out of area, far from the authority that licensed them in the first instance, there will remain a deficit in terms of accountability when incidents take place.

Let me add a caveat by saying, unequivocally, that the vast majority of drivers are law-abiding people. They are integral to our economy and to our society as a whole, and I have been delighted to engage with a great number of them since being elected to this place. However, situations arise in which enforcement becomes necessary, and at present licensing authorities such as my own are unable to take action because of the proliferation of out-of-area operation.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is good news that the Government have now proposed national minimum standards, her new clause represents the other part of the Casey review’s recommendations, without which the House would have failed to act on the licensing requirements specified in the review?

[Mrs Blundell]

I truly support and welcome the Government’s commitment to national minimum standards, but I believe that they must be complemented by a restriction on out-of-area operations so that they can be enforced locally where necessary.

At a recent meeting of the Transport Committee, which is currently holding an inquiry on the private hire vehicle sector, we heard from a licensing officer from Blackpool council. When I asked whether his authority was able to keep track of the drivers operating within it, he stated:

“We are now at a stage where provisions on where an operator can operate vehicles do not seem to matter. We are not even in a position where an operator has to have a licence everywhere it operates; it does not.”

He went on to say:

“I know the limitations of my operational enforcement resource…chasing vehicles all over the country is not something we could deal or cope with.”

I know from conversations with Rochdale borough council’s licensing department that those sentiments are shared there, too. Standards are one thing, but without proper means of enforcement, they will not have the maximum impact on public safety.

I will now move to the substance of my new clause 83. Under the new clause, strategic authorities would have the power to require that journeys that start and end there are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. It would give local leaders power and the choice to adopt that as a solution. Considered together, new clause 83 and the Government amendments would encourage drivers to license locally and would ensure that if things go wrong, both drivers and passengers have the confidence that enforcement measures will be swift, considered and legitimate in the eyes of local authorities and local people. If reinforced by implementing national minimum standards, these two changes could revitalise the sector, and give both drivers and passengers the confidence and certainty they deserve.

I believe that there are no Members present today, no corner of society and, indeed, no drivers out there in the sector who believe the system as it stands is working well. It is oversaturated, with a lack of local accountability and an erosion of the ties between drivers and the communities they serve. The private hire and taxi sector is critical to our economy and for filling gaps in the local transport network, but for too long the safety of passengers and the ability of licensing authorities to do their job have been undermined for the sake of a model that is unfit for purpose. We must bring an end to out-of-area licensing and offer the sector the change for which it has been calling out for decades.

The Bill is about granting power to local people to make their own decisions that will change their communities for the better. This is one such a decision—one that we can no longer afford to avoid.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I rise to speak in support of my new clauses 85 and 86. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for supporting both new clauses.

New clause 85 seeks to ensure that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex are once again aligned with the historic county, as they were for many hundreds of years—in fact, for well over a millennium. It was only in 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, that that changed. The entire history of the constituency that I represent has, except for in the past few decades, been a part of the historic county of Essex. New clause 85 would combine the historic Essex with the ceremonial Essex, which I believe would end the confusion and allow the people of my fine county to once again fully celebrate the rich heritage of the county in its entirety.

Let me explain a little further. Across the entire country, the identity of each county is very important to all our constituents. People are proud of their historic county identity, and it is reflected in so many ways—whether it is through sport, social activities, church or the local regiment. Whatever it may be, we are proud of our county identity, and it should not be muddled up with administrative councils, which chop and change, as we are now seeing again today. Historic and ceremonial counties are for cultural celebration and for historic purposes, so the lord lieutenants of the different historic counties and ceremonial counties really should be as one. That would end the confusion.

In my borough, which is the so-called London borough of Havering—everyone who comes to Havering knows that it is really Essex, not London at all—we are constantly confused about where we are. The people of my borough are tired of this, and they want the muddle and confusion, which was caused by bureaucrats in the 1960s, to end. It is a very simple thing to resolve. I say to the Minister that it would not affect any of the local government changes the Government are proposing. It is nothing to do with local government; this is purely ceremonial and historical.

16:15

We cannot have three definitions of counties—administrative, ceremonial and historic. The muddle is a nonsense, and we have to end that muddle. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider this matter seriously. I have raised it with Ministers over and over again in my 25 years as a Member of this House. She should consider putting the historic counties and the ceremonial counties together. That would deal with the historical and ceremonial side of things, which is part of our identity, and it would be completely divorced from any local government boundaries, which may change from time to time.

Essex was founded way back in AD 527 by the East Saxons, so there have been one and a half millennia of Essex. Members can therefore understand why people in Romford in Havering—and, indeed, in other boroughs to the east of the River Lea—frankly do not understand why their identity has been taken away from them. That does need to be resolved, and I really hope that the Government will use this opportunity to deal with the ceremonial and historical boundaries, which would mean that the lieutenancies were reconfigured to make sense, and to give people back their local identity, especially, as my new clause 85 says, in Essex. Essex could lead the way, so that other counties can do the same.

My second amendment, new clause 86, is completely separate. It is about local government, not about identity, counties or anything I spoke about in relation to new clause 85. It is purely about local and regional government, so it is administrative. In the 1960s—once again, because of the Local Government Act 1963—without the consent of my borough, we were taken out of the Essex county council area and placed under what was called Greater London.

As I have said, we are not really London; we are Essex. We are close to London, we travel to London and we go to London for lots of reasons, but our identity and our heritage are really Essex. I have to say that the mayoralty of London in the last period has not worked for boroughs such as Havering. It may work for inner London, but it really does not work for boroughs on the very edge of Greater London, which pay in colossal sums of money and do not get the services that we are funding.

If Members come to my constituency, they will not see the police stations we used to have. Indeed, they will barely see a policeman. They will pay the ultra low emission zone charge, even though we have clean air quality. We have the freedom pass for our pensioners, and rightly so, but we pay extra for it. We do not get it free from the Mayor of London. My borough pays into the scheme, so we buy into that system. To address that issue, I have a Bill about Transport for London concessionary schemes before Parliament at the moment.

With new clause 86, I propose to give a right to the people of Havering. We believe in democracy and devolution, so will the Minister please give the residents of my borough of Havering the right to decide in a referendum whether they would like to withdraw from the Greater London Authority, and instead have the option of joining the new Greater Essex combined county authority? I do not deny that this needs negotiation and would mean reconfiguration, but it is a serious prospect. We cannot be part of Essex for hundreds and hundreds of years, and suddenly be taken out of it without repercussions, particularly given that, as I have explained, it appears that my borough is in effect subsidising inner London. We have had enough, and we want the choice.

If we truly believe in democracy and if this Government are genuine about devolution, my borough could easily change and become part of the Greater Essex combined county authority. All I am asking is for us to have that debate, and to be given a choice. There are differences of opinion: some people think we are better off in Greater London, and others would prefer to be part of an Essex authority. Surely every Member of this House believes in democracy—I hope they do—and every Member of this House should allow boroughs such as mine, right on the extremities of Greater London, to at least have that choice. I am asking for a referendum to be considered, and I am asking for my constituents to have the democratic right to make the decision about where we truly belong and what best suits our local borough.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

My constituency is on the outskirts of London—we are not in London; we are very much in Surrey—but we suffer from the fact that many decisions that affect my constituents on a daily basis are made in London, often to our detriment, and we have absolutely no control over them. I recognise the strong point my hon. Friend is making, but even if he is able to withdraw from the administrative unit of London, he will not escape negative decision making by the current Mayor of London.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am interested in how far the hon. Gentleman would propose to go. Would he advocate the abolition for the Mayor of London?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible.

The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I think some of those points might have been stretching my patience on scope somewhat. I do not intend to put on a fixed time limit. However, Members might like to consider whether they can stay within the bounds of about six minutes, so that I can get everyone in.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to argue the case for Wessex. [Laughter.] No, I don’t.

I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject.

Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment.

I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.

[Peter Lamb]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to move these provisions forward. I will relay the key points of our agreement on this issue. The key challenge is that since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have a system in which councils no longer know who is operating in their area, on what basis they are operating, and what standards they are operating on. I am directly familiar with how the system has shifted as I was a member of the licensing committee from 2010 onwards. Most significantly, councils have no power to enforce or investigate when things go wrong. City of Wolverhampton council really needs to go and investigate the entire country because of the way in which the systems are operating.

If we are not going to have a national system, the only way we can get back to a system where someone has the confidence that if their daughter gets into an Uber tonight, the council will know who she is, can intervene if she is in danger and will investigate if something goes wrong, is by returning to national standards, and by having a situation where local licensing authorities can once again control who is starting or ending in their patch—not having people coasting in from out of area.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns.

My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century.

The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency. Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty.

New clause 13, which some of my hon. Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked.

I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place.

16:30

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I rise primarily to speak to new clause 26 and amendment 82, tabled in my name, which are related to the changes the Government propose to the assets of community value system.

Members across the House will know from their own communities that playing field space is at a premium, and my constituency is no different. We have fantastic local grassroots sports clubs run by dedicated local volunteers, including our local football clubs, the Cygnets—which has more than 300 girls on its books regularly playing football, and now adult women, too—the Twickenham Tigers and the Hearts of Teddlothians, as well as Thamesians rugby club, among others, all of which are desperate for pitch space. These groups are struggling to meet growing demand because they simply cannot find the space to train and play matches. At a time when we face the twin public health crises of obesity and poor mental health, we must do everything we can to promote and support young people, in particular, and adults to play sport for the immense physical and mental health benefits that it brings.

Yet sitting in my constituency are the much-loved Udney Park playing fields—a 13-acre war memorial playing field—which have, scandalously, lain derelict for more than a decade. Sadly, I do not have the time to bore the House with the long and sorry tale of how we ended up with prime playing field space, which was donated in 1919 under a covenant for the playing of amateur sport, going to rack and ruin. However, since Imperial College decided to sell the site in 2015, successive developers have purchased it at overinflated prices and have, quite rightly, been unable to develop the site due to the various important protections afforded to it. The site has been designated an asset of community value, and despite huge efforts by the local community to buy the land whenever it has been put up for sale by its owners, the two successive owners have refused to agree a price and sell to the community, meaning that the precious playing fields and pavilion have degraded over time.

I warmly welcome the new community right-to-buy provision in the Bill, but it does not go far enough in actually empowering communities to buy precious sites such as Udney Park. New clause 26 would further strengthen the proposed powers where dormant assets are concerned. While the Bill introduces a mechanism for independent valuation where a price cannot be agreed between the seller and a community group buyer, it remains silent on both how that valuation is achieved and what can be done if the seller repeatedly refuses to sell at what is determined to be market value. On the point of independent valuation, I would like to have seen written into the Bill an explicit clause that removed hope value where an existing playing field has been purchased by a community group to continue using it as playing field space; alas, I was told by the Clerks that this was firmly out of scope, and the Government refused to back a similar amendment that I tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

New clause 26, however, provides a mechanism to enable a local authority to engage the compulsory purchase function in the event of an asset of community value lying dormant for five years or more and a market value offer—as determined through independent valuation as set out in proposed new section 86T to the Localism Act 2011—from a community group being rejected, and if the seller has been unable to agree a sale with an alternative buyer.

Extending the right-to-buy power in this way would prevent developers from land banking in the hope of a change in legislation and prevent precious, desperately needed sites like Udney Park playing fields from lying derelict and unused when hundreds, if not thousands, of local residents, young and old, could benefit from them. It would focus minds and encourage the owner to sell when it gets a fair market value offer from a community group.

Together with amendment 82, new clause 26 would help to boost access to more green spaces and grassroots sports facilities at a time when demand is growing, not least following the amazing successes of the Lionesses and the Red Roses this summer. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been concerned by the Government’s removal of Sport England’s role in national policy. Amendment 82 would support local authorities by ensuring that they have the funding necessary to assess land in their area for eligibility as a sporting asset of community value. As I said at the outset, sport is such an important tool in the fight against the mental and physical health crises facing our young people and adults, and amendment 82 would simply ensure that lack of funding will not be an obstacle to protecting what will be vital sporting assets of community value. I hope that Ministers will take these measures seriously, and I look forward to hearing their response.

Finally, I will touch briefly on amendment 94 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and consequential amendments to it, as well as amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). They both seek to achieve the same objective.

My council in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is run through the committee system, and it has been run extremely effectively in this way since 2019, in line with its commitment to democracy and transparency. I completely refute the Minister’s earlier comments that a committee system means that a council will not be run efficiently or transparently. Not once in the last six years that we have had a Liberal Democrat council running on a committee system have I ever heard a member of the public say to me, “I don’t understand how decisions are made.” We are actually running so efficiently that the Government have decided to punish our council by cutting its core Government funding in a devastating way that will have a massive impact on services. So I completely refute her suggestion that a cabinet executive model is the way to go.

All elected councillors in Richmond are involved in the decision-making process. Our council does not have the cabinet executive and back-bench structure that the Government feel is their prerogative to dictate out from Whitehall, overriding democratically elected councils. It is a blatant misuse of Ministers’ authority to do that. I hope that this Government will think again on this, if not today when the Bill goes to the other place, because it is absolutely outrageous to override local authorities in this way. They should be given the power and freedom necessary to shape and provide local services the way that they choose to. After all, that is what they were elected by our residents to do.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

I would like to speak to new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who rightly raises the issue of councillor standards and whose new clause calls for regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who breach their codes of conduct. Although a poignant point, having served as a town councillor and deputy mayor myself before being elected to this House, I believe that we must go further.

I strongly support this Bill’s aim to standardise the structure of local government. In particular, I welcome the reform of our local audit system, as outlined in the provisions. I also commend the Government’s recent announcement regarding new powers to suspend councillors for up to six months for serious misconduct and the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct across all types of local authority in England. These are essential first steps that I wholeheartedly welcome and know from my experience are much needed.

However, I urge us to go further by introducing a dedicated local council standards Bill that addresses the full breadth of the accountability challenges that residents face with town and parish councils—known as very local councils. The Localism Act 2011 created a legislative vacuum by abolishing the standards boards for England and repealing powers to suspend councillors who breach standards. As very local councils are to play an increasingly larger role in the devolution of local services, it is essential that councils are held to the same high standards and that this critical issue receives the detailed parliamentary scrutiny it deserves.

As one of my constituents and a former parish councillor put it, councillors have “little incentive” and “no mandatory training requirements”. Having witnessed at first hand these challenges in local and very local councils, I believe that we must robustly tackle those who bring the reputations of councils into disrepute, undermining the already fragile trust in local politics and doing a profound disservice to the overwhelming majority of councillors who serve their communities with integrity and dedication.

The ongoing recruitment crisis for both town and parish clerks and potential councillors is directly linked to the lack of effective recourse against unacceptable behaviour. There are councils that have gained a local, in some cases national, reputation for dysfunction. The result is that some councils are resorting to offering wildly increased salaries, representing what amounts to danger money for staff for having to deal with toxic behaviours. Experienced, qualified clerks who serve as impartial legal advisers tasked with ensuring that councils operate lawfully are subjected to behaviour that would not be tolerated in any professional environment. The loss of those valuable professionals weakens governance and standards across the entire sector.

To that end, I propose that we should create a dedicated local standards Bill that establishes a comprehensive framework for local council accountability. It should include professional regulation for councillors, with robust oversight mechanisms beyond the mandatory code of conduct. It should establish a properly funded model for monitoring officers through professional regulation fees paid by councils, similar to the current mandatory external audit fees, ensuring that those vital guardians of standards have the capacity to perform their function effectively and consistently across all local authorities.

A compliance scoring system would provide the public with transparent indicators about whether their elected representatives are undertaking best practice and demonstrating financial competence with taxpayers’ money. National internal audit parameters, building on the audit reforms outlined in the Bill, would ensure transparency and consistency of Government standards across all very local councils, regardless of their size or location.

Additionally, the annual governance and accountability statement should include a proper officer declaration confirming where councils have chosen to ignore or disregard professional legal advice, particularly where that represents a breach of their legal obligations. Such accountability made visible and measurable would help to restore public confidence in local governance.

Although the announced reforms begin to address that issue, the complexity and importance of comprehensively rebuilding the standards infrastructure merits dedicated legislation. We cannot allow the minority who tarnish the sector’s reputation to continue creating disparities in community benefit or to drive experienced professionals from their roles.

I emphasise that many local councils across the country and in North Somerset are governed extremely well and genuinely enrich their communities, but as we move forward with devolution we must ensure that town and parish councils are functioning effectively, operating in line with legislation, delivering value for money for their residents and taking heed of legal advice given to them by their proper officers.

We have the opportunity to rebuild trust in local and very local politics, ensuring impeccable standards and levels of accountability. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government on developing such legislation so that the standards in our very local councils mean a better deal for residents.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Yesterday, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), asked the Minister whether Surrey will get a mayor. He did not get much of an answer—we can only imagine what has led the Government over the past year to get cold feet on the election of mayors going forwards. I want to talk about new clause 1 and amendment 2, on consent for change, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on behalf of the official Opposition.

Surrey and others have been working with the Government to maximise the opportunities of devolution locally. As part of that, there has been quite a debate over the unitary model and whether there should be two, three or one unitary authorities. On the face of it, ideally, going for one unitary would mean savings, but the Government have decided that is not possible, so, through various processes, the decision has been made to have two unitaries. That has all been done in pursuit of a mayor.

A mayor would make a big difference in ensuring that Surrey can, as the Government put it, unlock devolution. It is frustrating that we have got to this stage—all this work has been done—but there has still been no firm commitment that Surrey will get a mayor, particularly when a unitary model is being adopted purely to seek a mayor when, actually, a better model locally would be a single unitary. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure she can see that conundrum and how there is frustration about the fact that a mayor has not yet been announced.

A mayor would bring huge benefits in leading on strategic projects such as the River Thames scheme that I have been trying to push to be built as soon as possible. It would also bring benefits in health, with accountability for integrated care boards—again, I have been calling for that—and on transport locally. I have been calling for a duty to co-ordinate, which I think a mayor with powers would also be able to deliver for Surrey. In housing, I am calling for the prevention of inappropriate local development, which is blighting areas across Runnymede and Weybridge and which will affect both the east and west unitaries when they are set up. In policing, given that the Government have announced that they will wrap up the police and crime commissioners, we need a mayor to take on the role at the cut-off date of 2028.

I beg the Minister to announce, either in winding up, via a written ministerial statement or otherwise the confirmation of a mayor for Surrey and a guarantee that next year’s elections will go ahead. Will she also explain how my constituents can be shielded from other councils’ debt as part of the unitary reforms that are going ahead?

16:45

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I strongly support this Bill and was proud to serve on the Committee. The Bill will deliver an enormous transfer of power out of this place and into our local communities. As a former councillor, I know that trusting local representatives to make decisions about local services and issues leads to much stronger outcomes.

I want to speak strongly in favour of the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57, which provide for the introduction of national minimum standards for taxi licensing. I am delighted to see the Government bringing forward those measures, which I and others, many of whom have spoken today, have proposed to tackle the huge problem with cross-border licensing, which is an issue for both taxi drivers and passengers. Right now, local councils have significant flexibility around taxi licensing policy, without a baseline, which means there is huge variance between councils. Yet drivers can operate anywhere once licensed. Unsurprisingly, that creates huge demand for licensing from councils with laxer standards.

Wolverhampton has become the UK’s taxi licensing hub. In the first five months of last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) mentioned, the council issued over 8,500 licences, which is more than 30 times any other council in the midlands. From April 2023 to March 2024, 96% of licences went to people living elsewhere. Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems.

First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with. There is a real democratic deficit: local authorities cannot regulate their own standards effectively and they lose control, as seen in Peterborough in my area, where plans for CCTV in taxis had to be dropped because locally licensed drivers would pay more while others would avoid the cost by licensing elsewhere.

Secondly, climate and emissions aims are undermined too. Peterborough city council will not license a vehicle that is over nine years old, but Wolverhampton allows cars up to 12 years old. There is a lot of variance on that.

[John McDonnell]

We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault.

[Sam Carling]

I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.

Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.

That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.

At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.

Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best.

New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly.

To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked.

[Alison Bennett]

My amendment 34 is simple but vital. It would strengthen the ability of all our communities not only to bid for assets of community value but to make informed, responsible decisions when doing so. At present, communities have a right to bid, yet, absurdly, no guaranteed right to view. We ask our town and parish councils to act as prudent stewards of public money, to conduct surveys, to secure financing and to follow proper decision-making processes, yet we deny them the basic opportunity to inspect the very asset they may be committing taxpayer funds to purchase. This is impractical, illogical and unreasonable.

A recent case in my constituency of Mid Sussex illustrates the problem well. Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common parish council sought to bid for a former church building listed as an asset of community value. I can attest to the value that this building had for the community, because when my children were tiny, they went there during the week. It served as their pre-school and I must say that Cottis pre-school was and still is a wonderful facility, led by Sam. I am still grateful to the staff there for their support and the best start they gave my children.

Throughout the six-month moratorium, despite repeated requests, the parish council was refused access to the building. Only after the moratorium ended, when the property was placed in an auction, did the auction house permit inspections. This left the council with just two weeks to carry out surveys, complete its internal procedures and secure public works loan board financing. No responsible authority could compress such due diligence into that timeframe. Predictably, the parish council was unable to bid, and the building—an asset that it could have afforded, based on the eventual sale price—has now passed into private ownership and been converted into flats, removing a much-needed community venue from village ownership.

My amendment 34 would correct that oversight. It would simply guarantee that community buyers had an early and fair opportunity to view an asset so that they could undertake proper due diligence. It would impose no unreasonable burden on vendors. It would merely ensure a level playing field. If we believe in empowering communities, and if we believe that assets of community value should genuinely remain available to those communities, we must give them the practical tools to act. A right to bid without a right to view is a hollow promise. I urge the Minister to support this amendment and give our councils and the communities they serve a fair chance to preserve the places that matter most to them.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this devolution Bill, and today I speak in support of Government new clause 45 and amendments 153 and 107 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher).

New clause 45 and amendment 153 relate to the essential role of our local councillors. As a recent councillor and leader of Worthing borough council, I can attest to how hard my fellow councillors work for very little remuneration—contrary to public perception—and how much they contribute to the health and wellbeing of our local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) alluded to, as the temperature has risen in politics in recent years, these local residents who have put themselves forward with the aim of contributing positively to their communities have increasingly found themselves the target of online and in-person abuse. While it is no more acceptable for them than it is for us in national politics, we must do all we can to ensure that they and their families are safe. It is therefore good to see that recognised in new clause 45 proposing that council members’ home addresses will no longer appear in published registers of interests.

Amendment 153 acknowledges the different forms of council structure, and there has already been some debate on this matter today. My constituency of Worthing West houses two councils—Worthing borough council is a leader and cabinet system; Arun district council is a committee system. Again, as a former council leader, my preference and experience tells me that the leader and cabinet system is highly effective, but I acknowledge that the committee system can potentially allow greater involvement in decision making across the councillor groupings. With that in mind, I am supportive of the intent stated in amendment 153 that if the local authority’s committee system is protected, a review should be undertaken to see whether it is in the best interests of that local authority to move to the leader and cabinet system.

For my constituency, which is also undergoing local government reform alongside moving to a devolution model, our councillors in Worthing and Arun will need to consider the best option for the area as part of our new unitary authority when these footprints are agreed.

Amendment 107 asks that environmental interests be considered as criteria for community right to buy, provided that the land is not allocated in the local development plan. It is positive to hear already from the Minister today about the protections for local sports grounds. The environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits, is an area close to my heart as a public health consultant living on the south coast. Worthing has the smallest amount of green land per head of population in the UK—less than a snooker table per person. We have limited green land left in our constituency’s urban areas, and even though we are undoubtedly blessed with the English channel to the south and the south downs to the north, people do not live in the sea and very few of us live in our national park. Our wellbeing is therefore determined by our densely populated urban strip bordering the coastline.

Our remaining green spaces in this area are incredibly precious for our mental and physical health, air quality and climate mitigation measures. Green spaces can help to reduce our ever-increasing flood risk. I therefore would welcome any additional guidance from the Minister in this area for our current and soon-to-be devolved regions, such as my own in Sussex. The health of our population should be our No. 1 priority, and devolved government is ideally placed to help deliver those much-needed protections and improvements for our communities.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I will speak to new clause 10(a) in my name. Devolution may be in the title of the Bill, but not everything in it lives up to that name. In many respects, the Bill actually takes power further away from the people back towards the centre.

When I look at my constituency, which will be affected by both devolution and local government reorganisation, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), I am particularly concerned about the fate of key community assets. Across Horsham district, parish councils run much-loved services including parks, village halls, allotments and sports fields. For the town itself, the jewels in the crown are the council-run Capitol theatre and Horsham park. Why do we still have a theatre when so many others have closed down? It is because Horsham’s theatre is owned and run by the Horsham people and their local council.

The two-tier local government system was never designed as a means of protecting community assets, but in practice, that is how it worked out, because as a side effect it separated and saved at least some local services from the bottomless pit that is the adult social care and special educational needs and disabilities budgets. Upper-tier authorities’ un-ringfenced budgets, such as those for leisure and culture, have been put to the sword over the years. If Horsham had been run entirely out of West Sussex county council for the past decade, with no district council, we would surely have lost our theatre years ago—it would have been sold off to plug ever-growing holes in the county budget. That sacrifice would have been for nothing, because in reality the SEND and social care deficits can never be met by council tax contributions alone. One day soon, the Government will have to recognise that.

16:59

How can we protect our much-loved community assets in this devolved new world? Access to secure funding will always be a key part of it. The Bill is a key opportunity to ensure that town and parish councils can access a simplified funding pipeline at a time when community assets most need protection. Smaller councils have not had ready access to Government growth funds such as the community renewal fund, the levelling-up fund, the towns fund, the UK shared prosperity fund or the community ownership fund. There is no clear replacement now.

As it stands, town and parish councils have their hands tied when it comes to supporting community assets. Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives a power of last resort for councils to act when no other statutory power applies. However, there are strict controls around it, including a spending cap of just £11.10 per elector—a serious limit on councils’ ability to intervene usefully. I am delighted that Horsham people and councillors have just voted to set up a new town council, ready to take on and protect community assets, but they will have to do so with a much smaller tax base than currently, which is a challenge.

A community asset could be a pub, a community hall, an allotment or a village green. Only local people know what really matters to them, and only local people can be trusted to keep the faith. The democratic gap that has been opened up between town and parish councils and unitary councils is vast. The new unitary system will leave English people with arguably the lowest percentage of local representatives per head of any western European country. That is the opposite of devolution. I therefore urge the Minister to support new clause 10, to strengthen access to community ownership funds. That needs active thought, or we will see much-loved assets vanish as mere collateral damage of wider reform. It takes decades to create those oases of local culture, but just a few short years to destroy them.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I will address Government amendments 152 and 153. I thank the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for responding to our concerns at the outset of proceedings on the Bill.

As we reach the end of debate on the Bill, I am struck by how significant this moment is for local democracy and for communities like mine in Sheffield, where residents won a referendum on how the city will be run. They chose to adopt the committee system of governance, and secured a democratic mandate to change the culture of the council. When the Bill was introduced, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), along with the leaders of Sheffield council and grassroots campaigners, made the case for our constituents’ decision to be respected through the inclusion of Sheffield’s example in legislation. As a result, Government amendments 152 and 153 now provide the legal basis for what Sheffield has decided, and will, in turn, protect the democratic process.

Amendment 152 clarifies that the committee system can operate where it already exists, while amendment 153 sets out how a council such as Sheffield can continue that operation through a review and a resolution to confirm that it should remain. Those amendments mean that our system of governance is both recognised and protected. For Sheffield, it means confirming that our referendum result was not just symbolic but an expression of democratic choice. It also means that that choice is honoured, not overwritten, and recognised in law.

I acknowledge the collaborative work that has brought us here. We have spoken constructively for many months with campaigners from It’s Our City Sheffield, which has been instrumental in ensuring that Sheffield’s voice was heard; with local government leaders who have taken on the mantle of embedding a culture of inclusivity and opening up decision making; and with Ministers, to ensure that the Bill protects the system chosen by our residents, and offers the legal clarity needed to support effective local government. For Sheffield, that is the right outcome.

Finally, I would like to express my support for new clauses 67 and 68 and amendment 168, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), and new clause 83 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), on the issue of cross-border taxi licensing. I declare my interest, as a member of two unions—GMB and Unite—that have been actively campaigning on this issue.

Those amendments would strengthen the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57 on setting national minimum standards for private hire, but they go further in explicitly ending out-of-area taxi licensing—an issue that is repeatedly raised by my constituents and has been raised by the Transport Committee, as well as Baroness Casey’s recent review. However, constituents have contacted me to urge slight caution on some of the wording in new clause 83, especially in proposed new section 55C of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to ensure that it does not lead to the prevention of legitimate cross-border journeys such as airport journeys. To echo the words of Sheffield residents, this is a decisive moment with the potential to resolve a problem that has undermined public safety and the integrity of our licence system for far too long.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I am pleased to speak to several amendments, tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, that relate to community assets, planning and local democratic engagement. These are practical proposals designed to strengthen the community empowerment provisions in the Bill and make them work in our communities.

The Bill removes the long-standing duty for councils to publish notices in printed local newspapers. In a constituency like Stratford-on-Avon, that is a serious concern. Not everyone is online, especially in our rural villages, where digital connectivity is still patchy, and many older residents rely on the local newspaper for essential information. Printed notices remain one of the clearest ways that residents hear about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and council decisions that affect their daily lives. They also support a local press sector that has played a vital role in maintaining transparency and scrutiny and informing citizens. I have tabled amendment 28 to keep that requirement in place. It is a simple safeguard to ensure that residents are not excluded from the democratic process because they happen to live in an area with poor broadband or simply prefer print.

Turning to community assets, I have tabled amendments 30 and 32 because the current system contains a glaring flaw. Once listed, an asset of community value drops off the register automatically after five years, regardless of whether it is still important to the community. For many villages and towns, the asset might be the local pub, the village green, the village hall or a community shop. These remain part of the fabric of local life for decades, yet community groups often discover only after the fact that the listing has expired, and they have lost the right to bid.

Amendments 30 and 32 would remove the automatic expiry so that protection does not vanish simply because a bureaucratic deadline has passed. It shifts the burden away from volunteers and neighbourhood groups and ensures continuity for assets that people rely on. It is exactly what the community value regime was meant to achieve.

Linked to that is amendment 33, which concerns planning decisions affecting assets of community value. At present, even if an asset is listed, there is no obligation for planning authorities to give that status special weight. Communities see treasured buildings or spaces demolished or redeveloped despite having taken the trouble to secure recognition. Amendment 33 would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring planning authorities to consider community value properly and give this weight when determining applications.

New clause 6 goes one step further in safeguarding these community assets once listed. It gives local councils a clear duty to oversee how land of community value is managed. If an owner lets the land fall into neglect or deliberately runs it down to justify redevelopment, councils would have the tools to intervene, including compulsory purchase where necessary. It creates real accountability for absentee owners and ensures that assets meant for community benefit remain so in practice.

Taken together, these amendments reflect a simple principle: devolution cannot just be about shifting powers upwards to remote large combined authorities; it must also strengthen the tools available to people and places at the most local level. Communities know best what matters in their area. They should not have to fight to keep their village hall or their community green space because of arbitrary deadlines or loopholes in planning policy.

Local people have the ability to revive and strengthen the places that they call home, but they can only do that if power is shared with them, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few distant mayors. If Ministers are committed to meaningful community empowerment, they should take these proposals seriously and accept them, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Olivia Blake.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I place on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State and Ministers for the constructive, open and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), as well as local leaders from the council in Sheffield, throughout the passage of the Bill, to solve an issue of great importance to my constituents.

More broadly, the Bill and the amendment before us today mark a significant step forward for local democracy in Sheffield and beyond. The Bill strengthens community voice, empowers local leaders and brings decisions closer to the people that they affect. We can all celebrate its commitment to clearer, more responsive pathways for devolution. It also tackles big issues, such as the national standards that we need in taxi licensing. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which has been campaigning on the issue for many years. I am glad that the Minister has grasped the nettle on the tricky issues relating to local government audit, which those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee know has been an issue for many years.

I am especially pleased that the Government have tabled amendments 152 and 153, which will allow Sheffield to retain its committee system, and not just for a protected period but beyond that. The amendments reflect a core principle of effective devolution: to enable local areas to shape the governance structures that best suit their needs and democratic traditions, especially when there has been a referendum, as in Sheffield. I pay tribute to the residents who tirelessly advocated for that and worked alongside us to find the best possible outcome.

For Sheffield, the committee system, agreed to by referendum, is rooted in transparency, co-operation and collective decision making, and embodies the values that our residents strongly support. This is a particularly important moment as it highlights the positive partnership that can be built between central Government and local people. It shows what meaningful devolution can achieve, focusing on shared goals and delivering the best outcomes for communities, and that the Government have listened and Sheffield’s voice has been heard.

The Bill is transformational and I am confident that it will help local leaders to deliver our values and priorities, and the aspirations of the people that they serve. I thank all the campaigners, including those involved in It’s Our City, for campaigning on the issue for many years, including in response to the Bill.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I want to talk first about public engagement. Fellow members of the Bill Committee know that I am not convinced that the Bill delivers the public involvement and community empowerment stated in its title, as that is not properly facilitated by the proposed measures set out in the Bill.

In Committee, I gave the Government many options to consider, including citizens assemblies, community wealth building strategies and a national public engagement commission. France has had its “Commission nationale du débat public” for 30 years, which makes real its citizens’ rights to be involved in decisions that affect their environment. It links together the environment and human rights, as set out in the excellent Aarhus convention. At this stage, I am happy to support the new option put forward by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) in relation to community empowerment. It asks the Government to undertake a review and come up with a better plan of the Government’s own choosing, which is quite reasonable and I support it.

I do not have time to go through the many other amendments that I support, but I feel like consensus around many issues is breaking out in the Chamber, as it sometimes did in Committee. However, I want to single out new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), which proposes a community ownership fund, and new clause 19, which asks for the alternative vote system to be used for mayoral elections, not the supplementary vote. In single member elections, the alternative vote gives real choice: people simply choose their candidate and rank them, so there is no second guessing about who might be in the second round. It means a guaranteed consensus-driven majority for the winning candidate, so the Government should consider that.

More broadly, as some Members have noted, I have talked many times about being a member of the London Assembly and holding the Mayor of London to account with a dedicated, funded scrutiny body. The Government should pay much more attention to scrutiny in this Bill at the next stage.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Hear, hear!

[Siân Berry]

I thank my former colleague for his “Hear, hear!”

Let me talk about governance systems and the committee system. My No. 1 goal in all this has been to try to keep the committee systems, as the Conservatives’ amendment 4 would do. My amendments 94 to 102 mirror amendments that I tabled in Committee and seek to protect existing committee systems, particularly those chosen by people in a petition and referendum process, as happened in Sheffield. That was driven by people power.

17:15

I know that the hon. Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) have put forward the strong cross-party views of Sheffield’s councillors, who approve of and accept the committee system. In their evidence to the Bill Committee and the House, they talked about how much they value it. I am very pleased that Government amendments 152 to 155 do the same; they are grouped with my amendments for debate.

The case for protecting committee systems is so clear, and the Local Government Association stood up for them in its statements too. I am pleased that the Government have accepted that councils operating committee systems now and those that resolve to renew or maintain them in the period before the Bill commences can keep the model for good. That is a very big change, and I am happy to voice good appreciation when good scrutiny leads to good outcomes on things such as this.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, who is not in her place, for taking the time to meet me to discuss my amendments 107 and 108, which concern the community right to buy.

This Bill is one of the most exciting and empowering pieces of legislation to come from this Government. For the first time, communities will be given a genuine first opportunity to buy and own the places that matter most to them. Instead of seeing valued community assets sold off to the highest bidder, residents will be able to step in, organise and take ownership for themselves. That is truly transformative.

In Stroud, community ownership is essential for maintaining services and the environment for rural villages and towns. Community-owned village shops, such as those in Horsley and Coaley—and, indeed, my favourite shop in the world, which is in my village of Uley and is run by fabulous volunteers—keep the villages alive and provide access for older people and those without transport.

Village pubs are dying off. There are campaigns in my area to keep the Rose & Crown in Nympsfield open and, in fact, people have succeeded in making a community pub at the Red Lion in Arlingham. There are also community rooms such as the Trinity Rooms in Stroud, which the community is fundraising to buy, hopefully by Christmas. That is all very exciting. Land in Stroud aptly named the Heavens is being purchased by the community, as is Rodborough fields. This Bill will finally give legal backing to those campaigns, but I believe that we can make one important improvement.

As drafted, the Bill refers to “economic or social interests” when defining assets of community value, but it leaves out environmental interests. That means that wildlife-rich spaces cannot be protected, even when they provide major community benefits, including access to nature and improvements to wellbeing.

My amendments simply would extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, granting them the ability to buy and, importantly, safeguard nature-rich areas if they come up for sale. I am a GP, and I use social prescribing extensively. Walking in nature is a proven way of getting better without using pills, so I very much urge the Minister to listen to what we are saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) quite rightly said that this is about public health.

I know some Members are concerned that these powers could block the house building that we all want so much. That is why my amendments provide a safeguard in restricting the eligibility to land that has not been allocated for development in the local plan.

This Bill represents the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster for a century. It will give communities the right to shape, to buy and to rebuild. In Stroud, we are ready to embrace that opportunity, but we must ensure that the law properly recognises environmental value alongside social and economic wellbeing. That is why I urge the Government to support my amendments to ensure that the Bill delivers the fullest possible benefits for communities up and down the country.

[Caroline Voaden]

New clause 10, which I tabled, would require the Secretary of State to re-establish the community ownership fund, to which strategic authorities can apply for funding. We have heard from lots of Members in the House today about the value of their local community-owned businesses.

Community-owned spaces are of immense economic and social value to their local area. Businesses across the country under the community ownership model are defying the odds, when small businesses in retail and hospitality in particular are struggling to survive. According to Plunkett UK—I commend its work in this area—business survival rates for community businesses remain exceptional, with a five-year survival rate of 97%. That is radically higher than the 39% survival rate of private small and medium enterprises over the same period. These thriving local enterprises reinvest back into their communities, creating a positive cycle. They also provide exponential benefits to local areas and the people who live there. They tend to source goods and services locally, creating a circular economy in the places where they exist. They support charitable activity, provide fundraising for local causes and improve the aesthetics of our towns and villages through gardening initiatives, improving the quality of our green spaces, encouraging more people to get outdoors and improving arts and culture.

From pubs and shops to community centres and hubs, these spaces are the pillars of their communities, bringing people together and nurturing a shared pride in their town or village. They are the difference between a bunch of houses and a genuine community. At a time when community cohesion is frayed, division is commonplace and we are being pulled apart by dangerous individuals seeking to widen the cracks that are showing in our society, these community spaces offer a way to reunite communities. Through something as simple as providing a place for people to meet and talk to each other, community spaces combat this increase in division with social interaction, enabling communities to come together to celebrate where they live.

Community-owned spaces provide a wide array of volunteering opportunities, employing more than 20,000 volunteers across this country, from young people right through to older people. In a recent survey by Plunkett, 58% of these businesses stated that older people benefit most from their presence. In rural areas such as South Devon, that is especially important. Isolation can happen when people live far from neighbours in rural areas, and in many ways these places help to strengthen the very fabric of rural life for those people.

It is not easy for a community to buy a building or space that is at risk of closure or has been left unused. That is why the community ownership fund is vital, as Government funding is desperately needed to enable a sustained increase in community ownership. A community ownership fund would develop a larger pipeline of start-up groups and build the capacity and confidence of those groups to progress to the trading stage. If it were reopened, it would have a transformational impact by enabling the spread of community spaces and the extensive benefits they bring.

In the three years that the community ownership fund was in place, it saved thousands of cherished community sites at risk of closure. Thanks to the fund, community groups could generate income, build financial sustainability and strengthen community ties. It is the Government’s mission to double the size of the co-operative sector, as set out in their manifesto. It is time, therefore, for them to correct their mistake, to fulfil their promise and to seize the opportunity that this Bill presents by backing my new clause 10 and reopening the community ownership fund.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I come once more to this discussion with a huge passion for devolving power to local areas. The northern powerhouse promise encouraged me to move back home to the north from London in my 20s, and I am so proud to have spent most of my career since then working to grow the local economies in Manchester and Lancashire. The city of Preston, part of which is in my constituency, has the telltale cranes all over the sky and grade-A office space being built at pace. Growth is best when it has local inputs and local impact, and with a two-hour train journey to London, there is no reason that Preston and cities like it should not become a key and critical spoke in our national growth story.

I am hugely grateful for the incredible energy of the Minister and for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who poured himself into this Bill for the past year, ensuring that areas such as Lancashire can get the powers they need to turbocharge their growth in the way that only Lancastrians know how.

Today, I will speak about new clauses 63 and amendments 42 and 150, which pertain to neighbourhood governance. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the Bill Committee, during which I sat through lengthy debates on all these clauses. I have not directly supported the range of amendments concerning neighbourhood governance arrangements and parish and town councils, and on the whole I understand and largely support the Government’s argument against them—namely, that if we are intent on devolving power, we should allow local areas to manage that power as well, rather than dictating from Westminster how it must be managed. However, I wish to mention a number of instances in which I agree with the intent behind the amendments and to say something about the issues that they raise, in the hope that the Government can add helpful secondary legislation or strong guidance to help local areas make these changes a success.

As I observed during the development of plans for devolution in Lancashire, too many residents and organisations told me that their part in the consultation on the process felt tokenistic at best, if it was there at all. I think there is still a broad question for the Government to answer: how will we ensure that the interests of all residents and local groups have been properly fed into local changes, and how will we continue to hold local areas to account for maintaining that engagement?

My constituency contains many parished areas, while in other parts of it local community groups come together ad hoc, so I see the strengths of both formal and informal community leadership. I have been a proud member of my local parish council for many years, and it is often the place where I feel most connected to my community. The Minister has made clear throughout the Bill’s development that town and parish councils will not be affected, and indeed will have every right and opportunity to take on more responsibilities through the Bill. I commend that, and I thank her for protecting this vital part of our democracy.

While I recognise that there is plenty of public sentiment against mandating areas to become parished—which is why I cannot support new clause 63 directly—there is certainly public support for simplified, easily understood structures of government that the public can more clearly hold to account. Indeed, the Government’s own White Paper on the Bill said that its aim was to simplify local government and make it more consistent. We need only look around us to see what happens when people do not understand how our governing structures work and do not feel connected to them. People are increasingly disillusioned, and at a time when our economy is relying on people to come together with new ideas to create growth, despondency is our biggest enemy. While we need to allow flexibility, might the Government be able to show a clear preference for a town or parish council structure in their guidance, and/or ensure or require that any proposed solution involves clear democratic accountability?

I am so grateful to this Labour Government for being brave enough to push this Bill as one of their first priorities. Done is better than perfect for sure, and any devolution is better than none. However, in my decades of working with all types of communities, often hearing things that challenge some of my progressive dreams for and assumptions about this country I love, I have learned that progress and tradition can work hand in hand if we take the best from both. I therefore urge the Government to make the most of the powerful structures we have—town and parish councils, which already run 90% of this great country—part of our future, and to ensure that we truly have accountable democracy at every level so that every person has a voice, as has always been the Labour way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The time limit for speeches is now three minutes.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I will speak in favour of new clause 38, which I tabled. It seeks to introduce measures to prevent developers from using their own surveyors who have a vested interest in downgrading agricultural land in order to secure planning permission—particularly for solar farms—to build all over our countryside, taking farmers’ land and livelihoods.

The new clause was born out of a specific issue that was raised with me in my constituency. In Washford, a farmer called Mr Dibble—no kidding—has a farm in his family’s name. They have been there for generations. Some time ago, developers came to see him with a plan for development on the farm, and he refused. His lease is guaranteed for another generation, but the solar farm developers did not seem to care. He reached out to me because of the unfairness of the situation. I was shocked to find out that the developers had organised a surveyor to visit his property, who had deemed it sub-par agricultural land. Anyone with eyes can see that that is not the case. Farmer Dibble would not have been able to grow the crops that he has on that land had it been of the quality that the developers claimed it was. His land is grade 1 or 2 at the very least, yet surveyors are coming in, paid for by the developers, to say that—surprise, surprise—it is grade 3 at best.

At present, local authorities’ hands are tied. They have no powers to order independent assessments of land quality, nor the ability to pass judgment on the assessments made by others. My new clause seeks to give them that power. It also seeks to enshrine the employment of a land use framework for planning and development decisions. Along with many others in this place, I am sure, I am still waiting to hear the results of the land use framework consultation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I hope that it follows the principles set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). If a development is proposed for agricultural land that falls outside the land use framework and there are competing assessments of the agricultural grade of that land, then new clause 38 would give local authorities the power to demand that a new, independent assessment of land quality be undertaken. That would stop the railroading of farmers and help to preserve good agricultural land, rather than seeing it built over.

Our farmers are our future. I call on hon. Members to back new clause 38 and new clause 17, which has been tabled in the name of my party.

17:30

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I have tabled new clause 13 to address a slight oversight in this Bill—namely, that despite its title, it does not give communities any substantially new powers. The strengthening of the tools that local people have at their disposal to purchase assets of community value is certainly very welcome—yes, it is progress—but it is not fundamentally new. New clause 13 is intended to fill in this minor, accidental absence with a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards, and set out plans to deliver, a new charter of community rights containing seven key elements: a right to a clean and healthy environment; a right to a healthy home; a right to play; a right to grow food on public sector land; a right to roam and swim; a right to participate in decisions shaping communities; and a right to challenge local decisions.

Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter offers a starting point to restore popular agency in our democracy. Each of the seven rights contained within it is based on clear legal proposals, and each builds on long-standing demands that stretch back into England’s history. I will briefly take them in turn. After years of scandals, with ordinary people powerless to stop sewage being pumped into local rivers or their children being poisoned by the air they breathe, the right to a clean environment would give every community the power to challenge proposals that threaten to impose pollution on them.

Similarly, the right to a healthy home would put an end to an era in which permitted development rights have been used to create the slums of the future by housing the most vulnerable in society without adequate space, security, fire safety or proper ventilation. With this right, communities could require that new housing delivers the basics of a happy, healthy life, with plenty of natural light, access to green space and comfort in all weathers.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that housing is a key determinant of public health, and that we should see a right to decent housing as a crucial part of any civilised society?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I absolutely agree.

The freedom to go out the front door and play in the street or near home is no longer part of many children’s lives, as it used to be. The right to play would reverse the trend of estates being full of signs shouting, “No” and “Do not”, with more space given to car parking than to playgrounds for kids. It would empower communities to ensure that streets are designed to be safe for children, so that they are no longer stuck indoors.

Ever since landowners in the 18th and 19th centuries privatised 7 million hectares of common land that was once shared by ordinary people, the ability to grow one’s own healthy food has been a distant dream for the millions. The right to grow food on public land would unleash the power of grassroots growers, who are currently held back by bureaucracy, to turn parcels of unloved land across our communities into oases of food and wildlife.

Similarly, while most of England is still owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and corporations, the vast majority of people are prevented from enjoying the glories of vast swathes of England’s countryside. The right to roam and swim would finally recognise that this land is our land, and give everyone the confidence to reconnect with nature by enjoying a responsible ramble or a dip in their local river.

Finally, the right to participate in and challenge decisions would level the playing field between communities, who care deeply about their local area, and the interests of profit-seeking developers. This right would ensure that the voices of ordinary people are properly heard and that they can appeal decisions, just as developers can, so that local councils always listen seriously to both sides, rather than acceding to the whims of overmighty corporations.

I hope the Minister will see that new clause 13 would help ensure that this Bill goes as far as possible in restoring power, hope and optimism to our communities. I look forward to hearing her response.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

When people get in a taxi or a cab, they want to know that they will be safe, that the vehicle is safe, that the driver has had training in a range of different situations, that their specific access needs or disabilities will be recognised and supported, and that they will be treated with respect. Of course, the vast majority of drivers treat their passengers with respect and their vehicles are safe, but passengers want to know that should they have any concerns or complaints, there is a transparent and accountable method for these to be dealt with, and that they know the name and unique number of the taxi operator and the driver, should they need it.

[Sam Carling]

Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that cross-border licensing is causing huge enforcement problems, because authorities that are miles away cannot properly investigate such issues?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is another issue that has come up in our inquiry, and I do hope that the Government are addressing the cross-border issue. I will come back briefly to that shortly.

Passengers want to know that the same standards apply across the country, but there are no common standards. In fact, in England there are 270 different licensing offices and the more than 300,000 drivers operate under about 230 different sets of conditions and standards. The Transport Committee is in the middle of an inquiry on taxis and private hire vehicles. We have heard from drivers, their unions, operators, licensing officers, the Local Government Association, disability organisations, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and others. The single most common message we have heard in our inquiry is the need for common standards across England, and not basic minimum standards, but high and absolute standards.

That is why I am delighted that the Government have brought forward new clauses 49 to 57 to be added to part 3 of the Bill. This will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards for granting, renewing, suspending and revoking driver and operator licences. It enables actions such as on what is included in driver training, what requires the installation of specific equipment such as CCTV and what level of background checks on drivers is used. By the way, such actions, particularly CCTV, protect drivers as well as passengers.

I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the calls of many, and not least to the issues raised in Baroness Casey’s report. The last Government set up a task and finish group, but they only published guidance on a set of standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, and they ignored the recommendations of the group, saying only that licensing authorities should “have regard to” standards. That Government ignored the calls, but this Government are delivering.

One of the main issues raised during our Committee’s inquiry is that the current variation in standards encourages licence shopping, which refers to drivers or operators choosing to be licensed in local authorities that have the least onerous standards or the cheapest or fastest processes, even if most, if not all, of their work takes place elsewhere. That happens thanks to the 2015 deregulation brought in by the Conservative Government. According to one taxi firm that submitted evidence:

“The lack of a national standard undermines passenger safety, fair competition and public confidence in the industry.”

On the role of councillors in licensing decisions, we have been told that the councillors responsible for individual decisions on who gets, retains or loses their licence may be put under pressure to make a decision contrary to the recommendations of officers.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to lift our eyes to the bigger picture of what a better, fairer country might look like. New clause 13 on the charter for community rights, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), does exactly that, and it represents the sort of change my constituents in Poole are crying out for. It rests on two simple, but transformative principles: first, that communities in England deserve a real say in the places where they live, with a legally enshrined right to challenge local decisions that shape their lives; and, secondly, that people should enjoy basic rights, including the right to a clean, healthy environment and the right to a decent home.

A legal right to a quality home in a healthy environment may not sound like a lot to ask in the sixth richest country in the world, but it is a million miles from the lived reality of so many of our constituents. Poor housing, alongside access to decent healthcare, stable incomes and healthy food, is one of the core social determinants of ill health. Enshrining the rights to a healthy environment and a quality home in law would support the kind of cross-government approach we urgently need to reduce health inequalities. Those rights can be seen in the same vein as the long-awaited socioeconomic duty, which requires public authorities to consider how their policies and decisions can reduce inequalities. Properly implemented, it could help address structured, avoidable disparities in housing and health. I urge the Government to introduce that duty as a matter of urgency.

A Labour Government must raise the bar: not simply building more housing, but building better homes in decent communities at a price that people can afford. That should be our legacy to future generations and it can start now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds]

I open by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hold some voluntary roles in local government. I place on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who served with such distinction on the Bill Committee.

Local government is the most efficient part of the public sector. It is uniquely democratically accountable among our public services. It is also uniquely financial constrained by the requirement for council budgets to balance in-year. We know that the average local authority delivers over 800 different services, which range from public health and child protection to housing the most vulnerable, trading standards, markets, parking and road maintenance. Councils empty the bins, recycle the waste, lend books and care for the elderly, but Governments rarely rise or fall based on what happens in the local government sector. It is not the most dramatic or glamorous part of our state, but day to day, as contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber have reflected, it probably has the most important impact in our constituents’ lives.

As we heard in Committee, and as we have heard in the amendments and in this debate, our local government is under unprecedented pressure due to this Government’s poor decisions. On the track record of my party in office, we saw local authorities using their discretion but for the most part seeking to keep council tax low, with the additional revenue from projects such as the new homes bonus, council tax freeze grant and the approach to business rate grant being implemented to support local businesses and local communities.

Today, with few exceptions across the sector, we see local authorities facing the maximum possible council tax rises, the maximum possible business rate increases and the maximum possible increases in fees and charges, against a backdrop where housing delivery, supposedly the Government’s top priority, has collapsed, despite a legacy of 1.5 million new homes—their target for the whole of the Parliament—with planning permission already granted. All this green belt-grey belt nonsense, which has caused such concern and anxiety to Members and our constituents, is entirely irrelevant. They already have an entire Parliament’s supply of homes with planning consent ready to build. The jobs tax has left our local authorities worse off by £1.5 billion net. It has driven up the cost of almost every local government service, from the care of the elderly and vulnerable children to the day-to-day maintenance of our roads and our environment.

Tonight, what we have before us is this Government’s botched and incoherent restructuring, with no clear vision of what local government in England is even for. When we consider the matters that we will press to a Division, new clause 69 on election cancellations and new clause 80 on statutory notices are among a very extensive list of options. We have heard from one or two Members that the retention of the committee system was democratically approved locally. Although measures adopting the Opposition’s proposals on councillors’ addresses make some minor improvements to the Bill, the cancellation of local elections is a clear example of a mess of the Government’s making.We support our local colleagues in making the best of the very difficult set of decisions that they have to take. However, having been told by Ministers—as the Opposition did when in office—that elections to local authorities that were due to be abolished would be cancelled, that was not what the Government then did. They simply deferred those elections for 12 months, making the waste of taxpayers’ money and the concern of local residents even greater, while raising the prospect of a lack of accountability as this important process goes through.

17:45

Let me be clear that it is the position of the Opposition that those local elections should go ahead, and we will support our colleagues in doing the very best they can for their local constituents with the mess that has been created by this Government. On statutory notices, we continue to support the existence of a vigorous and democratic local media that is able to hold local authorities to account and ask the right questions.

Those are just a few among the many provisions that we could seek to press to a vote this evening. Even if all of the amendments were accepted, the Bill would still fall very far short of a vision for the renewal of local democracy in England. It is a Bill that undermines local leadership and opens the door for Ministers to foist tax rises on local taxpayers to bail out their failures on things such as asylum and housing. The Bill fails to grasp the many opportunities to unleash house building and growth led by local people, who know their areas best.

I turn briefly to the issue of the tourist levy, which has been the subject of a point of order. It is a serious question for this House, as we are seeking to rely on the information that we are presented with on matters that are relevant to the Bill. It had been raised in debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House yesterday, and we were told by both the Secretary of State and the Minister that they could not answer questions on it—they could not tell this House what the Government’s policy is, because it had to be left for the Chancellor. We then discover a whole set of Labour mayors who appear to have been briefed in advance that the policy was to be announced, and who then go on the record saying what a wonderful idea it is.

As with local elections, where what the Government actually did is quite different from what they promised, on the issue of the tourist tax—where the Minister at the time said that he did not support it because he felt that the sector was already over taxed—the Government are now implementing it without even having the courtesy to tell the House it was coming. It is a policy that is even supported by Reform Members, and businesses in the hospitality and tourism sector will doubtless be looking to see which if any party in this Chamber is willing to stand up for their businesses.

[Siân Berry]

The Minister failed to tell us how the tourist tax would be brought forward in legislation. With the announcement coming yesterday, and after all the opportunities they had in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House, does the hon. Gentleman think that this was merely a case of failing to get the Chancellor’s attention?

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member puts to me whether it was simply a failure to get the Chancellor’s attention, but clearly the Chancellor has been busy at every possible opportunity briefing the press about things that may or may not be in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the impact that that has had: driving up Government borrowing costs; driving down business confidence; and driving unemployment up, every single month since this Government took office. Those political briefings have real-world consequences for our constituents’ livelihoods.

For all of those businessowners in the hospitality and tourism sector who have been seeking to make decisions, relying on what they have heard Minsters tell the House, to discover in a press release that this new tax is due to be imposed on them despite the previous assurances of the Tourism Minister, is just one of the many nails in the coffin of the British economy represented by the Bill and this Government’s actions.

In conclusion, when we look at the Bill, we see legislation that makes a complete mess of local democracy: elections cancelled and then deferred; announcements of new mayors that do not make it through to the final announcements about new structures. The Bill takes powers away from communities and gives them to mayors who, as we heard earlier in the case of Surrey, may not materialise at all. It devolves nothing of any significance closer to our constituents and seeks to make our elected local councillor brethren simply the hosts of talking shops, rather than decision makers for their local community. Worst of all, despite the Government’s occasionally lofty rhetoric, the Bill abolishes 90% of the representation of shire England at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. Where is the voice for our constituents in local government under this centralising Labour Government?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the thoughtful, constructive and robust interventions from hon. Members across the House.

I will start with a theme that has been raised once again by the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —that this is a centralising Bill that seeks to take power away from communities and impose on them. I completely and utterly reject that idea. I made this point yesterday, and I will labour it again today: this Bill represents the biggest transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to our regions, local authorities and communities. The Government believe that we change the country by putting power in the hands of people who know their patch. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is what we are determined to deliver.

Let me address the point on local election delays, which has been raised head-on in new clause 69. We understand the democratic necessity to hold elections. People have the right to vote—a right that we absolutely support and will absolutely protect. Labour is up for elections as much as any other party, and our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and was not taken lightly when it was made. It is a decision that we will always take with great caution, as it is one that we want to avoid.

However, we cannot accept the new clause, because it is neither rational nor reasonable. It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally that create a challenge for holding elections. While we are keen and determined to press ahead with elections, we are the Government of the day, so we will always take a considered and reasonable approach to this matter.

I turn to the point raised in new clause 17 by the hon. Member for Guildford on the funding of strategic authorities. The hon. Lady was right to highlight the pressure that local government is under. However, I would point out—again, I note the complete cheek of the Opposition here—that that is a consequence of 14 years of austerity and under-investment. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talks about the plight of local government, yet fails to recognise the terrible inheritance that his party left—the huge legacy of denuding and undermining local government that we are now trying to rectify. In 2025-26, the local government finance settlement provided £69 billion for councils—a 6.8% increase in the core spending power for local government. We are moving to multi-year budgets, consolidated funding and a fair funding review, all in order to reverse the decline and under-investment of the previous Government.

[Alison Bennett]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress, as we are almost out of time.

On the key question of funding our strategic authorities, we absolutely recognise the vital role that strategic authorities and mayors can play. We are seeing this across the country—that is why we support devolution to mayors and strategic authorities.

On the point about Surrey made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we want to see strategic authorities and mayors across the country, including in Surrey. However, we are also clear that if we want them to drive the change that we believe they can drive, we must equip them with the resources and powers to do the job that is required of them.

I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 17. However, as I said yesterday, there is a new burdens assessment, which will always apply. When new responsibilities are placed on strategic authorities and mayors, the new burdens assessment will be applied to ensure that they are funded appropriately. Indeed, for the priority areas in which we are moving forward with devolution, we are providing capacity funding up front to make sure that they have the capability and resources to do the job at hand. This basic principle will always hold: when we give out responsibility, we will ensure that the resources are there to take on that responsibility well.

Members spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that we are providing strong neighbourhood governance, and we share that ambition. Some Members talked about town and parish councils, and others talked about neighbourhood committees. We are clear that it is down to communities to decide the form and function of neighbourhood governance. We want to see neighbourhood governance in every part of the country, and we will provide regulations that set out the principle of neighbourhood governance and what it should look like. In addition, we will provide non-statutory guidance to support communities as they embark on neighbourhood guidance.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) that we must have strong community engagement is one that we absolutely believe in. We will continue to learn from what we see on the ground and draw on insights as to how we can strengthen community engagement as we move forward.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) raised points about assets of community value and the environment. I thank them for speaking so knowledgably and eloquently about the value that environmental assets can provide. I can reassure them that environmental assets will be captured within assets of community value. Green spaces, parks, woodlands and community parks will all be captured within assets of community value. We will set this out in guidance, as we share the determination that environmental assets are captured within the provision.

More broadly, in terms of community right to buy, we have heard the argument that it is an absolute right. There is a huge opportunity with it, and we will continue to learn from insights on the ground about how it is working and how well communities are able to exercise the power. We will look to strengthen it as we move forward.

Let me address the points raised about local media. We completely agree with Opposition parties that we need transparency and public engagement when it comes to local governance changes, and we are committed to the cornerstone role that the local press plays in our democracy. The Bill makes a small, proportionate change to the publication of local authority governance changes, which is to be communicated to give local authorities flexibility and to allow them to use a range of different mechanisms. The change does not apply to wider publications on subjects such as planning. It is a very specific change to bring about greater flexibility.

Finally, I turn to the point that was made over and over again by Members across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), for Crawley (Peter Lamb), for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I recognise their contribution to the debate and their advocacy on the important issue of how we regulate our taxi and private hire vehicle system. I am glad to see that Members welcome the steps we are taking to put in place minimum standards. The minimum standards are an important first step, and we will build on them. We will consult on licensing becoming the responsibility of local transport authorities in order to improve regulation, and we are committed to engaging with our unions, including Unite, and with local authorities and operators to discuss how we can build on this step. We absolutely hear the point that this is urgent and we need to act.

I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments so that we can drive forward the biggest transfer of power in a generation. This is an exciting moment for the Government. We believe that we need to drive change, but in order to do that we must equip every level—from our regions to our local authorities and communities—to drive the change that they want to see in their places. We believe that this Bill is an important first step. We will continue to engage with Members from across the House to ensure that the regulations and provisions in the Bill are matched by tangible change on the ground. I know that hon. Members across the House support our endeavour. We must drive the change that we want to see in our places. [Interruption.] I will keep going. We will continue to engage constructively to ensure that we are playing our part. I hope hon. Members can see that we have engaged with the Bill constructively.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister on her fantastic closing remarks. I emphasise the points made by my hon. Friends—[Interruption.]

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend—

18:00

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 24 November).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 45 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 46

Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority

“Schedule (Extension of the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) amends the Localism Act 2011 to extend the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would introduce the new Schedule in NS3 which would amend the Localism Act 2011 to confer the general power of competence on English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority. This new Clause is intended to form a new Chapter 4 of Part of the Bill.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 49

“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”

“(1) A “national minimum standard” is a standard prescribed by the Secretary of State under any of sections (Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence) to (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence).

(2) A licence is “regulated” if—

(a) the licence is—

(i) a taxi driver licence,

(ii) a taxi vehicle licence,

(iii) a PHV driver licence,

(iv) a PHV vehicle licence, or

a PHV operator licence, and

(b) the licensing authority is in England.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment would define the terms “national minimum standards” and “regulated licence” used in new Sections NC50 to NC57. This new section and new Sections NC50 to NC57 are intended to form a new Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 50

Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence

“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a regulated licence to be granted.

(2) For each national minimum standard prescribed under this section, the Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for whether the licensing authority—

(a) is required to refuse to grant the licence, or

(b) has a power to refuse to grant the licence,

if the licensing authority is not satisfied that the standard is met.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) which relate to a standard may include provision—

(a) for the licensing authority—

(i) to be required to give an opportunity to remedy the failure to meet the standard, or

(ii) to have a power to give such an opportunity, and

(b) for the requirement or power to refuse the grant of the licence to cease to apply if the failure is remedied.

(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular, provide for an existing power of refusal to be extended so that the existing power is used, or is treated as being used, to refuse the grant of a licence where the licensing authority is not satisfied that a national minimum standard is met.

(5) In this section “existing power of refusal” means a power to refuse to grant a licence (whenever conferred) which arises otherwise than under regulations under this section.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a “regulated licence” to be granted.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 51

Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence

“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a regulated licence to continue in force.

(2) For each national minimum standard prescribed under this section, the Secretary of State may, by regulations—

(a) provide for when, or the circumstances in which, a licensing authority must determine whether the standard is met;

(b) provide for which permitted response or responses will be available if the licensing authority is not satisfied that the standard is met;

(c) provide, if both permitted responses are available, for the circumstances in which a particular permitted response is to be made;

(d) provide for whether the licensing authority—

(i) is required to make a permitted response, or

(ii) has a power to make a permitted response,

if the licensing authority is not satisfied that the standard is met;

(e) provide for when, or the circumstances in which, the suspension of a regulated licence is to end, including provision under which the licensing authority has a discretion.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) which relate to a standard may include provision—

(a) for the licensing authority—

(i) to be required to give an opportunity to remedy the failure to meet the standard, or

(ii) to have a power to give such an opportunity, and

(b) for the requirement or power to make a permitted response to cease to apply if the failure is remedied.

(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular, provide for an existing power of suspension or revocation to be extended so that the existing power is used, or is treated as being used, to suspend or revoke a licence where the licensing authority is not satisfied that a national minimum standard is met.

(5) In this section—

“existing power of suspension or revocation” means a power to suspend or revoke a licence (whenever conferred) which arises otherwise than under regulations under this section;

“permitted response” means—

(a) suspending a regulated licence, or

(b) revoking a regulated licence;

and a reference to making a permitted response is to be read accordingly.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a “regulated licence” to continue in force.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 52

Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence

“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a regulated licence to be renewed.

(2) For each national minimum standard prescribed under this section, the Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for whether the licensing authority—

(a) is required to refuse to renew the licence, or

(b) has a power to refuse to renew the licence,

if the licensing authority is not satisfied that the standard is met.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) which relate to a standard may include provision—

(a) for the licensing authority—

(i) to be required to give an opportunity to remedy the failure to meet the standard, or

(ii) to have a power to give such an opportunity, and

(b) for the requirement or power to refuse the renewal of the licence to cease to apply if the failure is remedied.

(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular, provide for an existing power of refusal to be extended so that the existing power is used, or is treated as being used, to refuse the renewal of a licence where the licensing authority is not satisfied that a national minimum standard is met.

(5) In this section “existing power of refusal” means a power to refuse to renew a licence (whenever conferred) which arises otherwise than under regulations under this section.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards which are relevant to whether it is appropriate for a “regulated licence” to be renewed.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 53

Further provision about standards

“(1) National minimum standards may relate to any of the following—

(a) persons applying for or holding regulated licences;

(b) other persons;

(c) vehicles;

(d) the types of services provided using taxis or private hire vehicles;

(e) premises;

(f) any other matters which appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

(2) National minimum standards may require action to be taken (for example undertaking training, or installing or using equipment, technology or services).

(3) National minimum standards prescribed under section (Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence) or (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence) may (in particular) relate to regulated licences granted before the regulations come into force.

(4) This section does not limit the kinds of national minimum standards that may be prescribed.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make further provision about the sorts of standards that can be prescribed under new Sections NC50 to NC52.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 54

Guidance

“(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to licensing authorities in connection with the exercise of their functions in accordance with this Chapter.

(2) The Secretary of State may revise or revoke guidance issued under this section.

(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for guidance under this section, and any revision of it, to be published.

(4) A licensing authority must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would enable the Secretary of State to issue guidance to licensing authorities in connection with the exercise of their functions in accordance with new Sections NC49 to NC57.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 55

Relationship with existing licensing legislation

“(1) Sections (Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence) to (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence) do not prevent the exercise of any other power or duty of a licensing authority to—

(a) grant,

(b) suspend,

(c) revoke, or

(d) renew,

a regulated licence in a way that is consistent with provision made by regulations under those sections (which includes refusing to grant, suspending, revoking, or refusing to renew a licence when not required or authorised to do so by that provision).

(2) Before section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 insert—

“36A National minimum standards for licensing

The provisions of this Act relating to the licensing of hackney carriages are subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(3) After section 45 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 insert—

“45A National minimum standards for licensing

This Part is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(4) After section 2 of the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 insert—

“2A National minimum standards for licensing

This Act is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(5) After section 2 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 insert—

“2A National minimum standards for licensing

This Act is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(6) After section 1 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 insert—

“1A National minimum standards for licensing

This Act is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).”

(7) After section 1 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975 insert—

“1A National minimum standards for licensing

This Act is subject to sections (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”) to (Interpretation) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing).””—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make provision about the relationship between new Sections NC49 to NC57 and existing legislation.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 56

Regulations

“(1) Before making regulations under sections (Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence) to (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) Regulations under this Chapter may amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament (whenever passed).

(3) The first regulations under sections (Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence) to (Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

(4) Regulations under this Chapter which amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament (whether or not they also contain other provision) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

(5) Any other regulations under this Chapter are subject to negative resolution procedure.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make provision about regulations under new Sections NC49 to NC57.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 57

Interpretation

“In this Chapter—

“licensing authority” , in relation to a regulated licence, means a public authority which has licensing functions under—

(a) sections 37 to 68 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847;

(b) the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869;

(c) the Plymouth City Council Act 1975;

(d) Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976;

(e) the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998;

“national minimum standards” has the meaning given in section (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”);

“PHV driver licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976,

(b) section 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, or

(c) section 9 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975;

“PHV operator licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976,

(b) section 3 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, or

(c) section 13 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975;

“PHV vehicle licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 48 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976,

(b) section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, or

(c) section 5 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975;

“regulated licence” has the meaning given in section (“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”);

“standard” includes—

(a) a requirement, and

(b) a condition;

“taxi driver licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 8 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869;

“taxi vehicle licence” is a licence under—

(a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.”

This would define certain expressions used in new Sections NC49 to NC57.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act

“(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.

(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.”—(Zöe Franklin.)

This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:01

Division 366

Ayes: 87

Noes: 321

New Clause 69

Limitation on delay to elections resulting from local government reorganisation

“(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order or regulations to delay the ordinary elections of councillors of any specified authority if—

(a) the order or regulations result from any change to local government organisation under or by virtue of this Act,

(b) the effect of the order or regulations is to delay any such election by a period exceeding 53 weeks from the date on which it was originally scheduled to be held.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “any order or regulations” includes—

(a) an order under section 87 (Power to change years in which elections held) of the Local Government Act 2000;

(b) an order under sections 7 (Implementation of proposals by order), 10 (Implementation of recommendations by order of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; or

(c) any other delegated power exercisable by order or by regulations in relation to the scheduling of ordinary elections of councillors.”—(David Simmonds.)

This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying by more than one year any local government election, if the delay results from local government reorganisation under this Act.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause added to the Bill.

18:14

Division 367

Ayes: 189

Noes: 320

New Clause 80

Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000—

(a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and

(b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority).

(2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters—

(a) the economic viability of local newspapers,

(b) access to information for local authority residents, and

(c) local democracy and accountability.

(3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:25

Division 368

Ayes: 187

Noes: 320

Clause 66

Audit committees

Amendments made: 119, page 71, line 31, at end insert—

“(c) payment to the members of allowances, expenses, gratuities or pensions.”

This amendment and Amendment 120 would give the Secretary of State a broader power to make regulations about allowances and other sums payable to audit committee members, in place of the current power limited to combined authorities and combined county authorities.

Amendment 120, page 71, line 35, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—

“(7) Regulations under subsection (5)(c) may, in particular, make provision applying provision made, or corresponding to any provision that could be made, under section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 or section 100 of the Local Government Act 2000.

(7A) Subsection (5)(c) does not affect the application of the enactments referred to in subsection (7), or provision made under them, in relation to members of an audit committee.

(7B) In the case of a relevant authority within subsection (2)(a), the powers of the authority in relation to its committees are to be taken to include (so far as they would otherwise not)—

(a) the powers necessary to give effect to regulations under subsection (5), and

(b) the power to appoint to its audit committee persons who are not members of the authority (even where not required by regulations under subsection (5)).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 119. This amendment would also clarify that audit committee regulations can make provision different from that applicable to other committees of a relevant authority, and that audit committees can always include independent members.

Amendment 121, page 72, line 12, leave out subsection (11).—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment would make the Mayor of London alone responsible for appointing an audit committee for the Greater London Authority.

Clause 79

Commencement

Amendments made: 112, page 78, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) Section (Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways) (and Schedule (Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways)) do not come into force in accordance with subsection (1)(c).”

This would exclude new Clause NC43 and new Schedule NS1 from the scope of clause 79(1)(c) (which provides for royal assent commencement for provisions which confer powers to make subordinate legislation. As a result the Clause and Schedule would come into force by commencement regulations, in accordance with clause 79(5).

Amendment 158, page 78, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) No provision of sections (“National minimum standards” and “regulated licences”) to (Interpretation) comes into force in accordance with subsection (1)(c).”.

This would exclude new Clauses NC49 to NC57 from the scope of clause 79(1)(c) (which provides for royal assent commencement for provisions which confer powers to make subordinate legislation. As a result, the Clauses would come into force by commencement regulations, in accordance with clause 79(5).

Amendment 135, page 78, line 33, after “authorities)” insert

“so far as they relate to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs”.

This would limit the royal assent commencement of section 20 and Schedule 4 to those provisions so far as they relate to mayoral combined authorities/CCAs. Those provisions would commence otherwise 2 months after royal assent (see Amendment 136).

Amendment 114, page 79, line 12, at end insert—

“(z2) section (publication of addresses of members etc in authority registers).”.

This would provide for Amendment NC45 to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 115, page 79, line 12, at end insert—

“(z2) section (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) (and Schedule (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority)) (extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority).”.

This would provide for Amendment NC46 and Amendment NS3 to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 136, page 79, line 28, at end insert—

“(ga) section 20 (and Schedule 4) (extension of general power of competence to strategic authorities), except so far as they relate to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs;”.

This would provide for section 20 and Schedule 4 to commence 2 months after royal assent so far as they do not relate to mayoral combined authorities/CCAs. Those provisions would commence on royal assent so far as they relate to such authorities (see Amendment 135).

Amendment 113, page 79, line 36, at end insert—

“(oa) section (Licensing functions of the Mayor of London) (licensing functions of the Mayor of London);”.

This provides for new clause NC44 to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 157, page 80, line 5, leave out from beginning to “(local” in line 6 and insert

“section 57 (and Schedule 25)”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would be consequential on Amendment 156.

New Schedule 3

Extension of the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority

“Introduction

1 The Localism Act 2011 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.

Amendment of section 1

2 In section 1 (local authority’s general power of competence), in subsection (1), after “CCA” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authority, and the Broads Authority,”.

Amendment of section 2

3 (1) Section 2 (boundaries of the general power) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2B) (inserted by Schedule 4) insert—

“(2C) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of an English National Park authority, or of the Broads Authority, is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the general power so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power.

(2D) The general power does not enable an English National Park authority, or the Broads Authority, to do—

(a) anything which the authority is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, or

(b) anything which the authority is unable to do by virtue of a post-commencement limitation which is expressed to apply—

(i) to the general power,

(ii) to all of the authority's powers, or

(iii) to all of the authority's powers but with exceptions that do not include the general power.”.

(3) After subsection (5) (inserted by Schedule 4) insert—

“(6) In this section, in relation to an English National Park authority or the Broads Authority—

“post-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation expressly imposed by a statutory provision that—

(a) is contained in an Act passed after the end of the Session in which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed, or

(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force on or after the commencement of section (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;

“pre-commencement limitation” means a prohibition, restriction or other limitation expressly imposed by a statutory provision that—

(a) is contained in this Act, or in any other Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed, or

(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;

“pre-commencement power” means power conferred by a statutory provision that—

(a) is contained in this Act, or in any other Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed, or

(b) is contained in an instrument made under an Act and comes into force before the commencement of section (Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025.”

Amendment of section 3

4 In section 3 (limits on charging in exercise of general power), in subsection (1)(a), after “CCA” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authority, or the Broads Authority,”.

Amendment of section 4

5 (1) Section 4 (limits on doing things for commercial purpose in exercise of general power) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In subsections (1), (2) and (3), after “CCA” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authority, or the Broads Authority,”.

Amendment of section 5

6 (1) Section 5 (powers to make supplemental provision) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In subsections (1), (3) and (4) after “CCAs” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authorities, or the Broads Authority,”.

(3) In subsections (5)(a) and (b) and (7)(a) after “CCAs” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authorities”.

(4) In subsection (5)(c), after “CCA” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert “, or English National Park authority”.

(5) After subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) Before making an order under subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) in relation to the Broads Authority, the Secretary of State must consult the Authority if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate.”

Amendment of section 8

7 In section 8 (interpretation), after the definition of “combined authority” (inserted by Schedule 4) insert—

““English National Park authority” means a National Park authority for a National Park in England;”.”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would amend the Localism Act 2011 to confer the general power of competence on English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 25

Local authority governance and executives

Amendments made: 152, page 266, line 2, after “But” insert “—

(a) a local authority may operate a committee system only—

(i) if it is operating a committee system immediately before section 57 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 comes into force, and

(ii) for as long as the operation of a committee system is consistent with the provisions of section 9K; and

(b)”.

This would amend section 9B LGA 2000 to make clear that a committee system can only be operated by a local authority that is already operating that system and where the new section 9K (in Amendment 153) allows it to continue to operate it.

Amendment 153, page 266, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

“(2) For section 9K (changing from one form of governance to another) substitute—

“9K Committee system: change to leader and cabinet executive (England)

Introduction

(1) This section sets out the circumstances in which a local authority that is operating a committee system must or may move to a leader and cabinet executive.

Committee system not protected

(2) If the local authority’s committee system is not protected, it must move to a leader and cabinet executive; and no resolution is needed and no referendum is to be held (despite any other provision of this Chapter which would otherwise require or authorise a resolution or referendum).

The local authority must comply with that duty so that it moves to a leader and cabinet executive before the end of the period of one year beginning with the commencement day.

Protected committee system

(3) If the local authority’s committee system is protected, it must undertake and publish a review of whether the local authority should move to a leader and cabinet executive.

(4) The review—

(a) must be undertaken and published before the end of the 1 year decision period;

(b) must have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government for the area of the local authority;

(c) if it concludes that the local authority should not move to a leader and cabinet executive, must include the reasons why the committee system is an appropriate form of governance for the local authority.

(5) After the review is published, the local authority must act in accordance with subsection (6), (7) or (8).

The local authority must have regard to the review when choosing how to act.

(6) The local authority may pass a resolution to continue to operate the committee system.

Any such resolution must be passed before the end of the 1 year decision period.

(7) The local authority may act in accordance with this Chapter to hold a referendum on moving to a leader and cabinet executive (and then, following the referendum, must act in accordance with this Chapter).

Any such action must be taken so that—

(a) the referendum is held before the end of the 1 year decision period, and

(b) if the result of the referendum approves the move, the local authority moves to a leader and cabinet executive before the end of the period of 1 year beginning with the day of the referendum.

(8) The local authority may act in accordance with this Chapter to move to a leader and cabinet executive without holding a referendum (despite any other provision of this Chapter which would otherwise require a referendum).

Any such action must be taken so that—

(a) the resolution to move to a leader and cabinet executive is passed before the end of the 1 year decision period, and

(b) the local authority moves to a leader and cabinet executive before the end of the period of one year beginning with the date of the resolution.

(9) If a local authority’s committee system is protected, a petition cannot require a local authority to hold a referendum in accordance with regulations under section 9MC until both—

(a) the relevant protection period has ended, and

(b) the local authority has—

(i) passed a resolution in accordance with subsection (6),

(ii) acted in accordance with subsection (7) by holding a referendum which does not approve the move to a leader and cabinet executive, or

(iii) acted in accordance with subsection (7) or (8) by completing the move to a leader and cabinet executive.

Subsequent move to leader and cabinet executive

(10) If the local authority’s committee system is protected, and it retains the committee system after acting in accordance with subsections (3) to (8), it may subsequently move to a leader and cabinet executive in accordance with this Chapter.

Local authority subject to dissolution

(11) This section—

(a) does not apply to a local authority if a dissolution order has been made in relation to the local authority before the commencement day;

(b) ceases to apply to a local authority if a dissolution order is made in relation to the local authority on or after the commencement day.

Accordingly the local authority is not to move to a leader and cabinet executive in accordance with any provision of this section after the commencement day or (as the case may be) on or after the day when the dissolution order is made.

Interpretation

(12) For the purposes of this section, a local authority’s committee system is “protected” if the committee system—

(a) became or remained the local authority’s governance arrangements following a referendum, and the 10 year referendum protection period has not ended on the commencement day, or

(b) became or remained the local authority’s governance arrangements by virtue of a resolution (but not following a referendum), and the 5 year resolution protection period has not ended on the commencement day.

(13) In this section—

“commencement day” means the day on which section 57 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 comes into force;

“dissolution order” means an order under section 7 or 10 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 providing for the dissolution of a local authority;

“move to a leader and cabinet executive” means—

(a) cease to operate the committee system, and

(b) start to operate a leader and cabinet executive (England);

and related expressions are to be construed accordingly;

“protected” has the meaning given in subsection (12);

“relevant protection period” , in relation to a local authority whose committee system is protected, means whichever of the—

(a) 5 year resolution protection period, and

(b) 10 year referendum protection period,

applies to the local authority;

“1 year decision period” means the period of one year beginning with the day immediately after the last day of the relevant protection period;

“5 year resolution protection period” , in relation to a resolution by virtue of which the committee system became or remained the local authority’s governance arrangements, means the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which the resolution was passed;

“10 year referendum protection period” , in relation to a referendum following which the committee system became or remained the local authority’s governance arrangements, means the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which the referendum was held.””.

This would enable a local authority to continue to operate the committee system if it has been adopted by resolution within the five years before commencement, or following a referendum within the 10 years before commencement.

Amendment 154, page 267, line 17, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 9KC (resolution of local authority), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) Subsection (4) also applies if a local authority passes a resolution to continue to operate the committee system in accordance with section 9K(6); and, in such a case, “Resolution A” means the resolution to continue to operate the committee system.””.

This would ensure that a resolution under new section 9K(6) LGA 2000 (in Amendment 153) would trigger the application of section 9KC(4) LGA 2000.

Amendment 155, page 267, line 21, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 22 and insert

““(Committee system: change to leader and cabinet executive (England))””.

This is consequential on Amendment 153.

Amendment 156, page 270, line 4, leave out paragraph 7.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

Amendment 153 would enable certain local authorities to continue to operate the committee system and so paragraph 7 (which repeals legislation about the committee system) is no longer needed.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified.

18:38

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am privileged to be able to open this Third Reading debate following constructive debates on Report. Let me first reiterate my thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions during the Bill’s passage.

The Bill cements the Government’s commitment to powering up our regions, rebuilding local government and empowering our communities, which is fundamental to achieving the changes that our constituents expect and deserve: better living standards, improved public services and politics being done with communities, not to them. This Government’s ambition is to bring power and decision making closer to the people who know their areas best. The Bill will truly empower residents to shape the places where they live and work, and from fixing our broken local audit system to empowering mayors to unlock the economic potential of their places, it will set local government on a firmer footing and enable local leaders to deliver a decade of national renewal. These changes are long overdue, and we are now taking ambitious action where previous Governments have failed.

I extend my thanks to everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for his dedication and commitment to this agenda. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for his leadership, and for the huge amount of work that he put into developing this impressive piece of legislation. I thank the Members on both sides of the House who scrutinised the Bill in such detail in Committee, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his constructive and, for the most part, collaborative approach.

Let me also put on record my thanks to representatives of the wider local government sector, especially those who gave evidence earlier this year. They are critical actors in providing the frontline services that residents need and deserve, and, whether they are councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners or third sector representatives, the House thanks them for their service. I hope that colleagues in the other place continue to take the same collaborative approach that has been taken in this House, and I wish Baroness Taylor of Stevenage the best with moving the Bill forward. I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

18:41

[David Simmonds]

I will speak briefly. There is a high degree of consensus on some of the objectives that the Government have set out. We share the ambition to deliver more homes, and we share the ambition on economic growth and devolution. However, the alternative stimulants that the Government have chosen essentially involve more bureaucracy, more centralisation and new taxes, all of which will stand in the way of the delivery of those ambitions.

We, as an Opposition, are very clear about this. The things that our communities, our constituents and our local businesses want and need are not contained in the Bill. It cancels elections, it reduces local democracy, it centralises power with a swathe of new ministerial diktats, it raises taxes through an unwanted, unbriefed new tourism tax, and it opens the door to new unlimited mayoral levies that can be used at ministerial fiat, not on the say-so of local residents. It is a let-down for those who hoped to support it and a betrayal of the ambition of those who support our local democracy. We will oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

18:42

Division 369

Ayes: 322

Noes: 179

Bill read the Third time and passed.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister said something that was inaccurate during his statement on the G20 summit and Ukraine, when he wrongly said:

“The Green party…says that we should pull out of NATO”.

That is not correct. Our party policy explicitly says that we recognise that NATO, while imperfect and in need of reform, has an important role in ensuring the ability of member states to respond to threats to their security. We support the principle of international solidarity, whereby nations support one another through mutual defence alliances and multilateral security frameworks. Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you provide on the Prime Minister correcting the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but she has most definitely put her point on the record.