Monday 8th December 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 November 2025 - large print - (25 Nov 2025)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I first extend my thanks to the many noble Lords with whom I have already spoken about this Bill. I am grateful for their engagement with this very important legislation. I know that a number of noble Lords have been closely engaged in delivering front-line services over the years, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those in this House who have taken part in that. We know that our residents greatly value the services that impact their daily lives. This whole Bill will bring that decision-making closer to the areas and communities that it impacts.
This Government were elected on a manifesto to deliver change. We are determined to transform our economy and our country through a decade of reform that delivers better public services and growth in every community and every corner of our country. Many hard-working communities that are the backbone of our economy have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappearing, their high streets in decline and the dream of a decent home pushed even further out of reach.
Rebuilding these foundations is central to this Government’s mission, but we will not achieve our goals unless we fundamentally change the way our country is run. That means handing power back to local people, who know their areas best, so they can make decisions on what really matters to their communities. This is what the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will do—drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. The Bill will make devolution the default setting. It will give mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration; rebuild local government so that it can, once again, deliver good local services that people can rely on; and empower local communities to have a bigger say in shaping their local area.
Strategic authorities are at the heart of this change. The Bill is creating strategic authorities as a new category of authority in law. They will make it easier for local leaders to work together over larger areas to drive through big, pro-growth projects such as integrated transport networks and housing. Crucially, the Bill will give new strategic authorities powers to pilot and request new functions, with government having a duty to respond to requests by established mayoral strategic authorities. Strategic authorities will operate at three levels: foundation, mayoral and established mayoral, and the Bill will define the powers and responsibilities of each of those levels.
Working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, mayors will drive forward the delivery of people’s priorities, igniting growth and unlocking opportunities for their local area. That is why the Bill will give them wide-ranging new powers in areas such as transport, planning and economic development, which have a real impact on people’s lives. For example, mayors will be able to intervene in strategic planning applications to unlock housing, and there will be powers for all strategic authorities to license shared cycle schemes so that they work for everyone and we do not see bikes strewn across all our pavements.
The Bill will also see more mayors take on police and crime commissioner functions and become responsible for fire and rescue authority functions, allowing them to take a joined-up approach to improving public safety. They will also be able to appoint commissioners to support them as their responsibilities grow, similar to the way this works in London.
The Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition and we have already demonstrated how seriously we take mayors’ rights to request new powers. We announced at the Budget that mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy, and we are consulting on whether to also grant this power to foundation strategic authorities. This is a ground-breaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy. This Government are committed to giving mayors the tools they need to drive growth and deliver for local people.
None of this reform can be achieved without strong local government. Councils are the bedrock of our state. They are critical to delivering local public services that people can rely on, but they have been neglected for too long. The Bill will help rebuild local government as a “fit, legal and decent” foundation of devolution. It will establish the local audit office to help fix the broken, fragmented local audit system—nobody who has been in local government over the last few years will pretend the audit system is working properly.
We will also reform local authority governance by requiring councils with a committee system to move to a leader and cabinet model or, otherwise, undertake and publish a review on the decision, while putting a stop to new local authority mayor roles being created. This change will streamline decision-making across all councils, making it easier for people to understand how their council is run, while also respecting local democratic mandates where the committee system was adopted more recently following either a council resolution or a public referendum. In those cases, we will allow them to continue for the period that was voted for.
The Bill will also give the Government the tools to deliver local government reorganisation across England, resulting in better outcomes for residents and savings which can be reinvested in public services. I know that noble Lords have raised concerns about the powers we are taking in the Bill to incentivise local government reorganisation. To be clear, reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government, creating unitary councils that can deliver the high-quality services that all our residents deserve.
I assure noble Lords that we are fully committed to working in partnership with local areas. Our long-standing position remains: we will always seek to work with local areas on proposals for reorganisation brought forward by local areas. This Bill will enable the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise, but this power will only be used as a last resort when areas have failed to make any progress following an invitation.
As I have previously laid out, we want to give mayors the tools and opportunity to unleash the potential of their area with a more ambitious role and deeper powers. Each mayor will serve millions of people and manage multimillion pound budgets. This role has to be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. The Bill will revert elections for mayors and police and crime commissioners to the supplementary vote system after the May 2026 elections to provide greater accountability and a strong personal mandate. This was the voting system in place when mayors were first established, and it is the best system for electing people to single executive positions. In addition, the Bill will bar mayors from also sitting as MPs, ensuring that local places benefit fully from having dedicated local leaders.
We are not just giving mayors more power; we are also handing more control directly to the communities they serve. This Bill will give local communities a bigger say in shaping their place, with councils required to make sure that effective neighbourhood governance is in place. Communities will also have the tools to transform their high streets and neighbourhoods through a new community right to buy to save much-loved community assets such as pubs and shops from being lost, and to protect sports grounds, which are at the heart of so many communities and a source of great local pride. The Bill will also support our high streets by banning the unfair practice of upwards-only rent reviews, preventing the blight of vacant shopfronts. Every community should have the opportunity to thrive, and these measures are fundamental steps in achieving this.
I will now turn to a few amendments we made to the Bill in the other place. We have listened to parliamentarians and the sector and have introduced a modest number of amendments to ensure that the Bill functions correctly and delivers for local people. First, on London’s strategic licensing, I am sure noble Lords will agree that London’s pubs and restaurants are the beating heart of London’s cultural life. They contribute to our capital’s world-class status and to the growth of the economy. Yet for too long, hospitality businesses have been held back by a licensing regime that lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. That is why we have brought forward amendments to establish a new licensing regime in London that will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London’s night-time economy to thrive.
These amendments will also introduce a call-in power for the Mayor of London to determine borough licensing applications of strategic importance. The policy direction of the call-in amendment is clear. However, to ensure we fully digest any wider changes to the operation of licensing as a result of the call for evidence from the licensing policy taskforce—which closed on 6 November—we will bring forward more detailed amendments at a later stage in the Bill and we will continue to engage with noble Lords on this.
To support this Government’s commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, we have taken steps to cut unnecessary and duplicative bureaucracy. Amendments have been introduced which will allow mayors to adopt a written representation procedure when determining certain planning applications of potential strategic importance and which remove the requirement that the local planning authority must consent to mayors of strategic authorities when making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. However, I assure noble Lords that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring them along as they will be crucial to delivering these orders. It is about empowering mayors so they can provide the strategic leadership that areas deserve.
We have also brought forward an amendment which will devolve the approval of lane rental schemes from the Secretary of State for Transport to mayors of strategic authorities, putting decisions in the hands of those with knowledge of their area.
On taxi and private hire vehicles, the Government recognise the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, including inconsistent standards across the country and the practice of “out-of-area” working, where drivers choose to license in one authority area but work wholly or predominantly in a different authority area. As highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, in her recent National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, out-of-area working creates concerns in some authorities about the safeguarding standards applied to some of the drivers operating in their area. The Bill therefore creates a power for the Secretary of State to set national minimum standards for the licensing of drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. Setting these licensing standards will help bring some consistency across licensing authorities.
Finally, we have taken concrete steps to ensure that local government members are able to perform their duties without fear for their own safety or that of their family. The world has changed a lot since I started being a councillor and this Government are clear that intimidation, harassment and abuse have no place in our democracy. This Bill puts it beyond doubt that a member’s, or co-opted member’s, home address should not be published by default. The amendment we introduced will also prevent the disclosure of home addresses when they are declared as interests at public meetings.
I know we all share a wish to set the sector on a firmer footing, ensure local government is fit, legal and decent, and empower communities to deliver real change and opportunities. We believe this Bill is a fundamental step in achieving this. By enabling the biggest shift of power from Whitehall to local areas in over a generation, this Bill will support the change residents expect and deserve: better joined-up delivery of public services, good jobs and politics being done with communities, not to them. I move the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association, and the National Association of Local Councils.
I hope the House will forgive me if I begin by noting a certain irony in the title of the Bill. It contains the words “community empowerment”, yet the measures before us would appear to do precisely the opposite, empowering the centre rather than the community. As we reflect on that, we cannot ignore the democratic chill cast by the Government’s decision to cancel the forthcoming local mayoral elections. When democratic participation is suspended for administrative convenience, it becomes difficult to sustain the claim that community consent lies at the heart of these reforms. Instead, what emerges is a model of compulsion over consent. These proposals risk leaving communities without a meaningful voice, enabling the Secretary of State to redraw local government boundaries, restructure authorities and compel mergers, against local wishes.
The introduction of sweeping powers under new Section 109B, and others, marks a striking departure from the voluntary, negotiated, deal-by-deal approach that has defined English devolution to date. That approach was rooted in respect for local identity, geography and choice. The Bill before us seems to move away from that principle with unsettling ease. Our discussions with colleagues and stakeholders underline something fundamental: that local consent is not an optional extra. It is the democratic foundation of any credible programme of localism, yet this Bill weakens that foundation at the very moment when it should be reinforced.
The Government claim that reforms empower localities, but too often we see the power devolved in name only, while genuine authority remains firmly centralised. Without clarity on what powers are truly being passed down, how responsibilities differ from those already held and how local leaders will be held to account, there is a real risk of creating an accountability gap at the very centre of the system.
These concerns are sharpened still further by the Bill’s uncertain financial implications. Community empowerment is impossible without financial empowerment. Local authorities cannot reasonably be asked to shoulder the burdens or the liabilities of their neighbours; nor can local taxpayers be expected to underwrite centrally imposed restructuring. Yet the Bill provides no assurance that council tax will not rise, no clarity on whether solvent councils may be required to absorb the debts of failing ones, and no explanation whatever of how these reforms will deliver value for money. Additionally, we are still in the dark as to how these new mayoralties will be paid for.
We hear much about synergies and efficiencies but nothing about what they are, how they will be realised, or what modelling, if any, underpins them. Rhetoric is not a substitute for a costed plan. The Government must commit to publishing a detailed cost-benefit assessment. Information available shows that the creation of more top-tier councils in place of the county councils may increase costs year on year, not reduce them. It reverses the economy of scale and offers no prospect of long-term savings.
Recent freedom of information disclosures reported by ITV Meridian indicate that the councils in Essex, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, and on the Isle of Wight have already set aside £11.22 million for 2025-26 to support this transition, with more than £1 million being spent in the current year alone. In Hampshire, over £500,000 has already been allocated to consultants for local government reorganisation. How can local taxpayers be assured that this represents value for money? Will there be a transparent framework, underpinned by evidence, to demonstrate whether these substantial outlays can genuinely be recovered through future efficiency gains?
This reorganisation will impose real costs on our constituents, at a time when many of them are already paying more in income tax and national insurance, whether through their earnings or their pension contributions, because of this Government’s choice to value welfare over work. We cannot in good conscience simply accept that reform must be expensive without being provided a credible vision for future savings and long-term fiscal stability.
Nowhere is that risk more acute than in social care. Adults’ and children’s social care are among the most vital, sensitive and fragile of all our local services, but the Bill is silent on how these functions will operate across new combined structures, how responsibilities will be shared and how accountability will be maintained. At a time when care systems are already stretched to their limit, reorganisation without clarity is not merely unwise but dangerous. Vulnerable people cannot be left to navigate the fog created by institutional reform.
This is not the only area where ambiguity prevails. The Bill creates new regulatory layers, including a local audit office, the relationship of which with existing bodies is left largely undefined in the Bill. We all agree on the importance of rigorous oversight, but the creation of new regulators must be justified by purpose, rather than just by preference. Likewise, spatial development strategies, critical tools for planning and housing, are referenced in a manner that leaves scope, governance and oversight uncertain. Without clarity, there is a real risk of slowing down the very growth and housebuilding the Government claim the Bill will accelerate.
I will touch on the significant alterations proposed to some of the Local Government Pension Scheme arrangements. When local government reorganisation occurs, and assets and liabilities are carved up, it is essential that independent assessments are undertaken, to allow proper oversight of what funds and actuaries in each region are doing. We must also explore the workability of the new duty requiring combined authorities to assist in identifying or developing LGPS investment opportunities. These are legitimate concerns that such a requirement will place authorities in direct conflict with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities, which must remain independent and focus solely on the interests of the scheme members.
Taken together, these examples illustrate a broad problem: the lack of clarity speaks to a wider issue in the Bill’s design. This is a substantial piece of legislation that is constitutionally significant in both scale and ambition, yet the Government have offered no clear explanation of what it is ultimately for. Is the goal efficiency, local empowerment, public service reform, fiscal consolidation, housebuilding or economic growth? A Bill of this breadth and consequence should be founded on a coherent purpose, yet the rationale before us is diffused, undefined and, at times, contradictory.
The Bill professes to empower communities but many of its consequences appear likely to impose costs on them instead. New mayoral precepts, expanding borrowing powers, increased parking charges and the creation of further layers of local bureaucracy, including mayoral commissioners, will all place additional burdens on our residents. If that is empowerment, it is of a kind that, we believe, comes with a higher council tax bill attached to it.
The House will recall that we have made the point previously that uncertainty, particularly in planning, is the enemy of delivery. If responsibilities for housing, infrastructure and spatial strategy are to shift, the transition must be clear, orderly and transparent. Developers, councils and communities need certainty, not disruption. Local authorities understand their housing needs, their land, their constraints and their potential better than anyone in Whitehall ever could; therefore, reform should strengthen that local knowledge, not sideline it, as the Bill does.
Consistent with that theme, I will address another important issue: local identity. Imposing reorganisation from above, drawing maps in Whitehall and instructing local people to accept new boundaries pose a genuine threat to the character and cohesion of the communities we represent. Local identity is the foundation on which trust, participation and civic pride are built. We must also reflect the role played by our town and parish councils. They should and could be custodians of our children’s parks, our green spaces and the amenities that give neighbourhoods their distinct character. If their powers are to be subsumed into larger unitaries, dominated by broader, macro-level concerns, how can we ensure that the priorities of those towns and parishes across our country will still be recognised and respected? These councils are not peripheral; they are central to the everyday life and well-being of our communities. In fact, we believe that we should be encouraging more towns and parish councils when representation is subsumed by a larger geographic area.
If the Bill is truly to live up to its title, it must move from the rhetoric of empowerment to the practice of it. It must restore local democracy, not dilute it. It must clarify responsibilities, not obscure them, and it must build trust, not central control. Communities do not require permission to have a voice; they require the power to use it. True devolution rests on partnership, consent and clarity, not on imposition or ambiguity.
In Committee, I will challenge the Government on whether the Bill meets that aim, not only in areas where reorganisation is already under way but in areas such as London and Greater Manchester, where devolution exists but we believe it could deliver better. If the Government wish to empower communities, let the Bill begin by listening to them; only then can they claim with any confidence to speak in their name. As drafted, the Bill takes power away, increases costs for working people and, most of all, leaves communities without a voice.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have much sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has said, but I am puzzled, because the Bill is very much in line with the direction in which the last Conservative Government were taking us, and I had thought that she was then a Minister. I have not forgiven the last Conservative Government for the artificial institutions they imposed on Yorkshire in the face of resistance from all the councils in Yorkshire. I have not forgiven the Conservatives either for starving local government of funds, without which it is impossible for local democracy to work.
The White Paper and the Explanatory Notes for the Bill set out the problem it was trying to address, saying that:
“England is one of the most centralised countries in the world”,
that there is a serious and “long-term decline” in public trust in politics, and that three-quarters of our citizens feel powerless to influence decisions affecting their local area. It states that Westminster politics faces a
“wider feeling of disempowerment and distrust at a local level”.
The Liberal Democrats fear that this alienation from democratic engagement feeds into a broader disillusionment with democratic politics and democratic parties as a whole.
The changes the Bill proposes will not meet these challenges. Strategic authorities are not local government, nor are many unitary authorities of 500,000 people or more. Local communities—the word “communities” is thrown around a great deal in the Bill—are found in our towns, villages and urban neighbourhoods. The White Paper promises that the Bill will
“empower communities to take back control from Westminster”.
Instead, it takes power and representation further away from local communities, giving it to mayors, who are responsible for several million people. It promises that the new authorities will cover
“areas that people recognise and work in”.
That may fit England’s metropolitan areas, but it creates unrecognisable and artificial authorities elsewhere. This is decentralisation, not devolution. The Secretary of State retains extensive powers to direct, intervene and alter the new arrangements. These are executive powers, without continuing scrutiny from Parliament—“elective dictatorship” is the charge that the late Lord Hailsham made about an earlier Labour Government.
The 1997 Labour Government, in co-operation with the Liberal Democrats, devolved powers to Scotland and Wales. Labour’s half-hearted plan to devolve some powers to regional authorities collapsed with the defeat in the north-east referendum, in which Dominic Cummings played as negative a role as he later did in Brexit. A Tory-Labour consensus has since emerged that fewer, larger local authorities are cheaper and easier for central government to work with, and that elected mayors are far more to be trusted than elected councillors. It became the conventional wisdom that these bodies should be as uniform as possible in size and functions, with a minimum of 500,000 people for unitary authorities, which is significantly larger than London boroughs—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne—for some unexplained reason, with subregional strategic authorities significantly smaller in population than London.
This does not reflect the complexity and distinctiveness of England’s different regions. What suits London and Manchester will not easily fit Devon and Cornwall. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, again that the last Conservative Government disregarded the overwhelming consensus of Yorkshire’s local leaders that we would prefer a regional framework to take powers back from London and imposed combined authorities and mayors on the moors and dales of North Yorkshire, as well as on the reluctant combination of urban Hull and rural East Yorkshire. The Bill will complete the imposition of the new strategic mayoral model across the country.
Moreover, it will ban the further introduction of mayors in unitary authorities on the spurious grounds that uninformed voters might be confused by the duplication of titles. French and American citizens manage all right with elected mayors at multiple levels, but English voters are clearly not able to understand.
The Bill is constitutionally incoherent and democratically deficient. Labour’s 2024 manifesto said almost nothing about English local democracy, except that:
“As recommended in the Report of the Commission on the UK’s future, we will establish a new Council of the Nations and Regions”,
and that, in the long term,
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.
We already know that serious reform of the Lords has been kicked into the long grass. The new Council of the Nations and Regions is a shadowy body, with the Mayoral Council for England tagged on as almost an afterthought.
We all agree that too much of our Civil Service is based in London. It is in London because that is where too many decisions about local policy and spending are made. The Bill does little to shift policy decisions out of London and nothing to ease the financial crisis of local government, nor to strengthen the ability of mayors or unitary authority leaders to negotiate fiscal priorities with the Treasury and central government. An alternative second chamber might well begin to rebalance UK politics away from overdependence on London, but that is far too radical an idea for Labour to pursue, for all that Gordon Brown recommended it.
The Bill’s answer to the problem of public mistrust and alienation is to offer an elected mayor for a distant strategic authority, accompanied by up to seven commissioners who will be
“independent appointees, made by and accountable to the mayor”,
who will
“act as extensions of the mayor”.
Once in office, strategic authority mayors will be almost as much elective dictators as Prime Ministers. This places excessive trust in mayors and excessive distrust in councillors.
Many of the most effective and useful Members of your Lordships’ House are former councillors. When I first joined the Lords, I rapidly learned to respect their experience and their understanding of how policies are implemented on the ground. Councillors are the elected representatives closest to our alienated and disillusioned citizens. The councillors I know in West Yorkshire, representing wards with 10,000 to 15,000 voters, struggle to get to know the different communities and issues within their enormous wards. This Bill will leave them with even less chance of representing the interests of their voters as it transfers powers upwards from local government to strategic authority mayors.
Clause 60 imposes a duty on local authorities to make
“appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance of any area of a specified description”,
which it calls a “neighbourhood area”. There is no mention of any direct elections here for neighbourhood representation. Presumably, it envisages area committees of councillors for several wards, roughly the size of a parliamentary constituency. Under that, the vast majority of our citizens will not personally know or recognise any elected representative. Repeated reductions in local authority budgets and programmes have left swathes of our cities without any significant contact with democratic institutions or public services. No wonder so many of them are distrustful and suspicious, and inclined to vote for those who tell them that democracy is a conspiracy.
Labour believes that it is delivery that matters, not participation in public life. Liberal Democrats believe in active citizenship as a fundamental part of democracy. We will press for really local councils to be an essential part of this new structure. It should be a matter of concern for Labour that town councils exist most often in prosperous communities and least often in inner city communities where discontent with democratic politics is at its strongest.
There is a glaring contradiction here between this assumption of passive citizens and the weight the strategic defence review places on mobilising all our citizens in their local communities to strengthen national resilience and respond to threats to national security. We discussed the SDR’s call for a whole-of-society approach in this afternoon’s Questions. The concept follows Swedish and Finnish models—two countries with strong local government and much higher levels of public trust in government. We will never manage to build a whole-of-society approach to national resilience and to the response to threats if most of our population feel left outside democratic life.
The proposal to reintroduce the supplementary vote is a classic example of the half-hearted Labour approach to democratic change. This was Jack Straw’s reluctant compromise for London mayoral elections. He intended it to help Labour by capturing Liberal Democrat votes, thus maintaining the two-party competition between Tories and Labour. Now—as I am sure we all know—we have a five-party system in England, as the polls have consistently shown since last year’s election, and we need to move to a system which reflects the diversity of electoral opinion rather than the conservatism of the current Labour Government.
There are of course proposals in the Bill that we welcome: the much-needed restoration of an effective system of local audit, and the powers to take buses into firmer local control, for example. My noble friends will speak further on these and other clauses. I welcome the Government’s willingness in the Commons to accept some reasoned criticisms and incorporate them in government amendments, and I hope we will see a similarly constructive dialogue here. We on these Benches will do our best to improve this ill-thought-through Bill, while maintaining our commitment to a structure for English governance which would be more democratic and more attuned to England’s local and regional diversity.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my contribution today addresses one ingredient in the Bill that is easily overlooked but which could prove of immense significance in achieving the quantity and quality of new homes the nation needs. I am referring to the measures in Part 2 that will facilitate strategic authorities—mayors and combined authorities—establishing mayoral development corporations and development corporations of combined authorities, including combined county authorities. These development corporations can take on planning powers, land acquisition and development powers. They will be single-minded and focused on achieving new housing and all the related infrastructure. This will create an alternative to the nation’s current total reliance on a small number of volume housebuilders who plan, design and provide most of this country’s new housing development but who so often fail us in what they produce.
Development corporations can trace their origins to the establishment of overarching planning and development bodies for the pre-war garden cities, and then for the 32 post-war new towns. The most recent example is the London Legacy Development Corporation, or LLDC, which has been doing such good work in the redevelopment of the Olympic site and its environs. Development corporations are already the chosen vehicle for delivery of the new generation of new towns, as set out in the excellent report from the New Towns Taskforce published in September. New town development corporations will follow the pattern of land acquisition and land value capture, creating a master plan, with private financing, and long-term, overarching control in the hands of a publicly accountable body. Now this Bill enables all strategic authorities to establish their own development corporations and assume the same roles as the new town development corporations.
For some years, I have championed the report by Sir Oliver Letwin which dates back to 2018. The Letwin review pointed out that the oligopoly of volume housebuilders will build only at the speed they can sell, without having to reduce their prices. This has ensured that there is always a gap between supply and demand, leading inexorably to growing housing shortages. Letwin recommended ending our dependency on developers that, entirely predictably, work at their own pace and negotiate down the standards and quotas of affordable housing to maximise their profits. In their place, Letwin advocated the establishment of development corporations that would acquire the land and capture the increase in its value when planning consent was subsequently granted. The development corporations’ master plans can then parcel out the site to different profit-making and non-profit-making bodies, covering the full range of types, tenures and uses: housing for sale but also for shared ownership, market rents and social rents; housing for older people and for students, with specialist and pioneering ingredients; plus the place-making green spaces, mixed uses and amenities needed for all new homes.
As an example of the potential of this approach, the Devon Housing Commission, formed by the local authorities in that county, pointed to the opportunity for a development corporation to develop strategic sites in Devon. This would ease pressure on the county’s 10 planning authorities, with the combined county authority taking a cross-boundary view for exemplary major developments. The danger here is that mayors and combined authorities have other important matters to handle, and this route to more and better housing provision may not lead to the strategic authorities taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the Bill.
I have three questions for the Minister, who has a deep understanding of these issues. First, will the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provide the necessary seed corn as a financial incentive for the strategic authorities to set up their own development corporations?
Secondly, will the MHCLG be drawing up guidance on the governance, funding and delivery of new development corporations? If so, I commend a new report from a distinguished group of architects and planners called Placemaking not Plotting, which provides a helpful basis for the key aspects of urban design to be adopted in place of current poor practice.
Thirdly, are the Government planning to support delivery by these new development corporations with grants or guarantees, perhaps via Homes England, for the initial land purchase on which so much will depend? Any news from the Minister on government support to get these development corporations off the ground would be greatly welcomed. With proper backing from the MHCLG, this component in the Bill, which streamlines the development corporation approach, could revolutionise the quality and quantity of tomorrow’s new homes and communities.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, first I declare an interest as a recipient of a local government pension. I also congratulate my noble friend; having been a Local Government Minister for four years, I know how difficult any local government legislation is, as is anything that talks about devolution of any sort.
I thought it interesting that the Liberal Benches concentrated on the very local—that is important—but there is also a need for bigger and wider authorities to do the really strategic stuff. I am reminded of the reason that we were able to attract inward investment in the north-east, at one time. It was precisely because of the amassing of land by the Tyne and Wear metropolitan authority, which was then demolished and disbanded by the then Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher, when we lost that strategic organisation in the region. I want to dwell on those more strategic things.
First, and very quickly, I really support the attention given to the transfer of community assets. As many Members know, I am chairing an independent commission on neighbourhoods. I have used most Fridays in the past year to have another look at difficult neighbourhoods. Those which have been working on neighbourhood development have really made a difference when they have been able to use community assets and had more control to use them as income generators too, so that they do not have to wait all the time for the public sector to have enough money to fund their youth work and activities with the elderly, the lonely and so on. I really support the Government for pushing this on both sporting facilities and community assets.
But I mainly want to talk about something that is also in the Bill that, again, I have spoken on in this House before: the need for better accountability and audit of the regional bodies and combined authorities. I know there are Members opposite who celebrate the end of the Audit Commission, but the reality is that that has left significant groups and areas in our society without any effective audit and accountability. In the north-east, we have particularly suffered from this. I know that when the first combined authorities elected their mayors, the then chair of the Public Accounts Committee brought in the—
Lord Gove (Con)
I note carefully what the noble Baroness is saying. I presume that on that basis she deprecates the decision by the current Government to abolish the Office for Local Government, which was established by the previous Government.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
I think the noble Lord needs to hear my arguments first and then, when he comes to speak and in Committee, he can challenge them. The reality is that in the north-east we have really suffered. The then chair of the PAC called the newly elected mayors to advise them of the challenges they faced because the normal auditing process was not available to them, and that they would therefore have to make sure that they brought in people who understood the challenge of auditing books for public and private co-operation events and projects.
Some of them took notice. Unfortunately, the Tees Valley mayor did not. Had there been robust arrangements then, we would not have had the difficult circumstances that people in the Tees Valley have faced since. We now have the totally unjustified position of an arrangement having been made behind closed doors, with nobody aware of it, between two individuals and their families—they now live in Dubai, so even the money going to them is not being spent in the region any more—where the 50% public and 50% private benefit from any investment made was changed to 90% private and 10% public. This means that any investment and any return on that investment does not now go to local people; it goes to two developers who now live in Dubai and do not even spend that money locally any more.
We also have the position where land in the Tees Valley is earmarked for the major investment of a data centre. The Government are faced with a data centre they need and the public not being able to get the advantage of that investment. The mayor should rethink and renegotiate. I hope that by introducing the measures in the Bill, the Government will be able to make sure the public in the north-east actually get some benefit from the Government’s investment in that area.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, we on this side oppose many aspects of the Bill, but that is not because we oppose the principles of devolution and greater local accountability; we strongly support both principles. In 2010, the only area of England with a devolution settlement was Greater London. Since then, Conservative Governments have introduced a number of devolution deals with local authorities, which now cover 64% of England. On this side, we have always believed that local people should be able to hold to account those who deliver local services.
This Bill seeks to standardise and restructure English devolution by creating strategic authorities with mayors across the country. But rather than putting more power into the hands of local people, as my noble friend Lady Scott has said, it gives the Secretary of State significant new powers at the centre—for example, creating new strategic authorities, adding councils to them or providing a mayor—without the consent of local councils. The Government will have the power to force two-tier council areas to become unitary authorities. Five new powers will allow legislation to be amended by statutory instrument without the agreement of local councils.
There will have to be close parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill in this House and in the other place. We need to examine the principles and procedures contained in it because of the great importance, to the whole population, of the services for which the new strategic authorities and mayors will be responsible. As has been briefly mentioned, those services include: transport and infrastructure; skills and employment support; housing, economic development and regeneration; environment and climate change; health and well-being—where social care is I do not know and I hope light may be cast on that—public safety; and the functions of police and crime commissioners. All these are extremely important policy areas that are close to local people.
Obviously, and despite disagreements and misgivings, it has been equally important at local level in the areas with mayoral elections announced for 2026—Norfolk and Suffolk, Essex, Hampshire and Solent—to prepare for the changes to come. Much work has been done. Mayoral candidates have been chosen; they are already campaigning. In some places, staff have been interviewed for the new authorities. Imagine, therefore, the disbelief with which local council leaders received phone calls from the Minister in the other place a few days ago to inform them that the local mayoral elections had been cancelled and would take place in 2028. No one was more shocked than the former Minister for Local Government in the other place, Jim McMahon MP, who said:
“Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same … The Government have a moral and a legal obligation to honour their side of the bargain”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/25; cols. 1166-67.]
I agree with those words. Some 5.4 million registered voters live in the areas affected by the changes and Norfolk, where I live, is one of them. In Norfolk, there are fears that the uncertainty caused by the delay will affect investment in large infrastructure projects and stifle growth in the local economy. There is also the question of uncertainty in all the policy areas that will be covered by the new strategic authorities. What are they meant to do? They cannot plan because they do not know what will happen. It is extraordinary.
Why have the Government taken this shock decision to delay the mayoral elections, after all they have said about the importance of devolved powers? They claim that the necessary local government reorganisation is not yet in place. That argument is rejected in all the affected areas. We are certainly 90% there in Norfolk. There have been critics who say that the Government have calculated that they might have more success in the mayoral elections under the new supplementary vote system they intend to introduce for mayors, which is not yet in place. Others claim—I am not claiming this, but there have been headlines—that the Government are running scared, given the current opinion polls. Whatever the reason, many of us in this House value and respect local government. I believe that the Minister does too. I look forward to her reply to this debate.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, as I rise to speak, I am reminded of 15 years ago, when four leaders from Greater Manchester stood outside the Cabinet Office in Whitehall awaiting an invitation in. I was one of those leaders. Greater Manchester had 10 local authorities in 2010: five Labour, three Liberal Democrat and two Conservative. We had already signed up to the first combined authority in the country—a legally binding agreement to serve the people of Greater Manchester—and that was running quite well. We therefore asked the Government for full devolution and full powers, and, more importantly, the funding to go with it.
We presented to the full Cabinet of the Government, including Nick Clegg and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Four of us sat there, facing them, with two jugs of water and four glasses. We did not expect that. We thought it would be a small number of people. My role was to explain the earn-back model, which was simply that the combined authority would provide, at no cost to government—they quite liked that—the infrastructure for major development schemes: motorway links, transport hubs and many other measures that would then enable development to take place. When successful, the Government would collect the subsequent gross value added tax from the businesses and we would earn a proportion of that tax back to reinvest to create more jobs and opportunities. We were successful, but it took four years to hammer out the financial details of that deal with the Treasury. It was eventually signed off in Manchester by the Chancellor himself, George Osborne, in 2014.
The obvious difference between that devolution deal and the devolution Bill we have today is elected mayors. We did not have elected mayors in those days. We, the 10 leaders, were responsible for our portfolios, directly accountable and directly elected—and that is the problem. We have an elected mayor in Manchester now, Andy Burnham, and he has been outstanding, working collaboratively with combined authorities, putting place before politics, with the first mayoral development corporation not in a Labour-run town but in Liberal Democrat Stockport. It has attracted over £300 million of private investment so far, including thousands of new homes, a fully integrated transport hub, now expanding further across Stockport town centre. Bringing the bus network back under public control was a masterstroke. He is also driving Greater Manchester to be the fastest-growing economy in the UK at present. Having said that, all is not well in Greater Manchester. The private hire cross-boundary issues are of great concern to us. My noble friend Lady Pidgeon, our transport spokesperson, will go into more detail later, but there are more private-hire drivers from Wolverhampton working in Greater Manchester than work in Wolverhampton itself, and that cannot be right.
Mayor Burnham might one day in the future leave us to do greater things in another place and reach higher office. We do not know that. What we do know is that the new Bill gives elected mayors sweeping new powers but is almost silent on democratic accountability. Removing planning powers from directly elected members does not sit well with this group, and future governance arrangements for fire and police will be high on my agenda as this Bill receives the full scrutiny it deserves. As I have said, Greater Manchester has a combined authority. However, there will be strategic authorities, and there must be stronger roles for their council leaders to ensure that potential mayors cannot override the views of three or four constituted local authority leaders. And is it right that the mayor has a casting vote where decision-making is tied? Where is the accountability and the honesty in that?
The Liberal Democrat party is the party of devolution. Talk of “empowerment” in the Bill is frankly laughable. It goes hand in glove with robust scrutiny, accountability and giving citizens the confidence that voting matters, their voices matter and their voices will be heard. That way, you get benefits for all of society, not only a few. If this Government listen and accept reasonable amendments, this Bill could begin to do what we all want: growth, investment, better transport and better qualities for all. But, if it does not, there will be opportunities lost. We delivered in Greater Manchester and continue to do so, because we increased scrutiny, embraced joint accountability and built confidence in the private and public sectors. I hope the Government take heed of that, because this Bill is too important to fail.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords can see, this is a doorstop of a Bill. I draw attention to my registered interests as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, and I support development forums in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cheshire as well—but of course anything I say is entirely my own view.
As a former Leader of the House of Commons with responsibility for parliamentary counsel, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that more than two-thirds of this Bill is to be found in its schedules. When parliamentary counsel published their most recent document on the drafting of Bills, they said that technical detail should not interrupt the narrative—the story one is trying to tell in the Bill—but that special attention should be paid to the question of whether material should be relegated to the back of the Bill. Well, virtually everything has been relegated to the back of the Bill. We have something like two dozen clauses that do not tell you what their intention is but simply tell you that there is a schedule to go and look at.
A rather effective example, referencing the interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is Homes England. The powers of Homes England in relation to the acquisition of land are to be found in Schedule 16, introduced by Clause 35, but it makes no reference to Homes England; it references only strategic authorities. So the uninitiated reader of the Bill would not find anything about Homes England in its contents at all, yet there are powers provided for it.
I will take only a couple of minutes, because there will be many opportunities in the Bill to take up many of the issues that I know the Minister understands very well. As we finish the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on Wednesday, we will start this Bill with some of the same issues in our minds: neighbourhood planning, how to relate local growth plans to spatial development strategies and, for that matter, what the spatial development strategies of strategic authorities should do in relation to the national land use framework when it is published.
On the principle of the Bill, I share the view that many have expressed that we want to see devolution achieved. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referenced the Localism Act 2011, but the then coalition Government, of which I was very proud to be a member, set us down this important path, which we wanted to see completed. I think our expectation was that, 15 years on, we would probably see devolution across the whole of England and Wales, but it is tough to do.
My own experience is in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which is interesting and instructive, because it is not one of the city mayoralties with a metro mayor. From the outset it illustrated the difficulty, because we had parish and town councils—actually, there was no town council in my own constituency, because we had nothing in those days as large as a town. But we had parish councils, a district council, a county council and a combined authority. That was too many, and in principle the Government are right that we should arrive at a simpler structure. If we are going to have a strategic authority, we should have beneath it unitary authorities, to which people can relate, that are responsible for the delivery of the great majority of those local government functions.
At the same time, as these authorities get bigger, we must have effective neighbourhood governance. I am interested that there does not appear to be a schedule that tells us the detail of what effective neighbourhood governance looks like. We just have Clause 60, which tells us that appropriate arrangements should be made for that, but that is something that the Minister in the other place told us would be set out by way of principles in statutory guidance. Well, noble Lords might well find that it would be instructive for us to set out what the principles for effective neighbourhood governance might look like, rather than leaving it to civil servants in the ministry to do so at a later stage.
The only other thing I want to draw attention to is the importance of pace. When we had a devolution priority programme, I thought it was a priority programme because we would get on with it. I declare that I live in Suffolk—we have had contributions already from Norfolk, and we will have at least one more. We thought that we would get on with it, and people in local government thought that we would get on with it and have responded on that basis. It feels a bit like that memorable occasion: being sent to the crease having had one’s bat broken. I am afraid that, after the Bill’s passage through another place, it feels like the Minister—for whom I know we all have the greatest respect—had her bat broken by that decision before she came here to stand at the crease, as it were, to look after the Bill.
I have to say that I am a cynic. My noble friend Lady Shephard talked about this decision and why it might be motivated. It may be to do with this Bill because it will allow those mayoral elections to be conducted under the supplementary vote system in the future, rather than the first past the post system next year. Cynical politics is not what we were looking for in the devolution priority programme; we were looking for the positive politics of devolving decisions to local government and seeing local government take up that mantle. I hope that we can see that principle through in the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the recipient of a small local government pension. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, which I welcome in so far as it sets us off on what will be a long road towards true devolution in England.
The aim of the Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall, which I strongly welcome. No Government can run England, with its population of 56 million, out of London, yet that is what Westminster and Whitehall try to do. The devolved nations get their block grant, and Ministers in Whitehall manage—indeed, micromanage—England.
However, despite its title, the Bill is not about devolution but decentralisation. Even then, the Bill creates a centralised structure through mayors, who, in practice, will be managed by Whitehall, and in particular by the Treasury, because mayors will be forced to compete against each other for resources. There is also a huge centralising power in mayors having the right to hire commissioners, as opposed to elected councillors, to drive policy and delivery. The terms of these appointments will need challenge in Committee.
Having said that, I want to work with the grain of the Bill, because it represents a start on which we can build. I see it as a staging post to direct elections to combined authorities in the course of time. Time will be needed anyway to build capacity at combined authority level to take on all the extra powers and responsibilities proposed.
I am content with the need for there to be a strategic planning tier, and I welcome local growth plans, but can the Minister confirm that all Whitehall departments are signed up to the Bill? Paragraph 15 of the Explanatory Notes confirms a long list of changes that will be delivered by the Bill, but these can be delivered only if all parts of Whitehall are committed to delivery of the Government’s ambition. Are they?
Will the Bill fix the foundations of local government, as Ministers suggest? I fear that it will not, for the reason that resources to do so are insufficient. We are told that mayors will be able to raise revenue, which is welcome, but in Committee we will need to explore what this really means. Fiscal policy is sadly lacking in the Bill; it is not just about the community infrastructure levy.
In terms of local growth, I hope that in Committee we can examine community banking. I want to see simplification of the regulatory requirements involved in establishing new banks to respond to local communities’ needs for access to banking in the face of branch closures. Such banks could be supported by local authorities in their duty to promote growth. There are many useful examples of success in this field in Germany and the USA that we can draw on.
I am pleased by the proposal to end the first past the post election system for mayors, but why stop there? Do we not need proportional representation across all local government in England to have effective governance?
I welcome the end to upwards-only rent review clauses for commercial leases to help regenerate our high streets, although I accept that we may need to review the detail of that carefully in Committee. I like the principle of micromobility schemes; I like the new health duty to be imposed on all strategic authorities; and I am strongly in favour of proposals for Local Government Pension Scheme funds to help drive growth.
I compliment the Minister and the Government on their proposals on local audit, which are hugely important. They matter because we cannot devolve power successfully if there is no audit system examining proposals and spending commitments alongside decision-making.
I have two negatives. First, I do not understand why culture, creativity and heritage are missing from the Bill. Secondly, it is wrong to enforce an end to the local government committee system. The Government claim:
“The committee system is a less effective form of governance for local authorities”.
I invite the Minister to publish the evidence for that assertion, because I have never seen any.
Finally, can the Minister say more about effective neighbourhood governance structures? It is easy to say but, as previous speakers have said, I fear that this ambition cannot be delivered given the current state of local authority budgets. Does the Minister really think it can?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I chair a seafront development and regeneration board on behalf of Brighton & Hove City Council.
I am delighted to speak in this debate for a number of reasons. First, I enjoy a discussion about local government almost as much as I enjoy watching Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club. Secondly, it is a genuine pleasure to speak on a Bill being fronted by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, whom I think we all admire and respect—we enjoy her passion for all things local government. Thirdly, I am a big supporter in principle of both devolution and unitary councils. Indeed, I have been arguing for these probably for the better part of the last 40 years. Like others in your Lordships’ House, I have served on district and unitary councils and was privileged to be successful in arguing for Brighton and Hove to become a unitary back in the 1990s. My experience from back then informs my comments and words of advice to the Government today.
Brighton and Hove was carved out of East Sussex, with the Brighton element, previously an old county borough, and the Hove district. My task as leader was to merge two organisations with different cultures and approaches, and to blend in county services of highways, education, social services, transport, et cetera—no easy task. We got most of the reorganisation right largely because we were well led in our officer core, because we settled the big decisions early and because we established a cabinet-style authority with clear lines of accountability. We also developed a vision for the city and a radical programme of change and service modernisation, behind the mantra of “M&S quality and First Direct banking service enthusiasm”.
Getting it right meant setting effective working structures early in the process. This gave us two and a half years before the authority was set up—the first in a sort of pre-shadow year and the second as a shadow authority. So on 1 April 1997 we hit the ground running. The lesson I took from this was to give authorities time. Do not try to do everything at once. To make unitaries successful, roll them out; do not just impose them. If I were to be critical of the Government’s approach to the combined mayoral authorities and unitaries, it would be on this point.
For understandable reasons, the Government want to crack on with change—they should not. They should pause and think about it, and do as their predecessors did. They should do it gradually and sensitively. Why? So much of a Government’s programme relies on getting councils to deliver, whether it is social care, new housing, stronger environmental programmes, the growth mission, nursery schools, getting people into work, retraining or meeting the challenges of the digital age. We cannot expect councils to do that and more while they are being set up from scratch. Councils that are unfamiliar with each other, having different systems and offering different organisational structures, will need time. We need to make sure that they are well resourced to do it, and we should not expect savings. In my experience, local government reviews rarely ever achieve a net saving.
For me, the Government made a wise decision last week in delaying the creation of the combined mayoral authorities for Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, Hampshire, and Sussex. The reason why the mayoral model has worked in the mets in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and so on is that they were built on a sound unitary council base. The councils need a strategic body for the bigger issues to be resolved. Sadly, that went in the 1980s and had to be reinvented in the last decade or so, and in London back in 1999. Additionally, the issues in Manchester, Merseyside and so on are very different from those in the south and East Anglia. Will the same structure work for Sussex and Hampshire as for South Yorkshire or Greater Manchester? A one-size-fits-all approach may not be best. The Government should use the time that has been provided to pause and think through some of the issues and some of the structures.
Finally, the Bill is strong on empowerment, which I approve of—I think we probably all do. The UK is far too centralised, with some of the biggest regional disparities and inequalities in Europe. We need to do more to help communities, so we should use and develop parish and town councils, let strong neighbourhoods emerge and ensure that they have the resource to run things close to people and places. On place-making, which I know a bit about, we should not create local government structures that people cannot identify with. We should not make the unitaries so big and disparate, with big divides between rural and urban. Place-making will be harder because it will get lost, which I think would be a great shame. The Bill provides us with an opportunity. If we want bottom-up governance with citizens in control, let us use neighbourhood funding as a way of empowering people in their communities.
To finish, I applaud the Government’s commitment, but they should not rush this, otherwise the objectives will get lost amid structures that are dysfunctional. They should not expect big savings, but should place an emphasis on creating renewed local government that is about responsive services based on quality and excellence. That is what the public want; they do not want more cuts and austerity. They want the improvement of the public realm and the higher quality of local service. If this reorganisation and the development of strategic combined mayoral authorities do one thing, they should focus on delivering that.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her opening speech. This is a significant Bill and has the potential to reshape the governance landscape of England in a profound and lasting way. The intention of the Bill—to bring decisions closer to communities, strengthen local leadership and enable greater public voice—is one that I support. But if we are to deliver those ambitions, we must ensure that the structures set out here are sufficiently whole, coherent and socially attuned to the challenges that local areas face.
We also need to be mindful that the process of devolution can lead to complex effects on national unity. While it can nurture a sense of identity, it can cultivate a sense of competition, rather than co-operation, and undermine social cohesion. Balancing local devolution with national cohesion is a critical challenge, particularly now when we are grappling with our sense of identity as a country, identity politics are rife and we are witnessing a fraying of social cohesion. The Bill provides an opportunity for deliberative engagement to foster social cohesion and inclusion.
For me, the Bill prompts an important question: what enables people to participate fully in the life of the communities of which they are part? Administrative efficiency alone cannot be the answer, and economic development alone will not do it either. True participation rests on something deeper: the capacity of communities to come together, to build trust, to form relationships across difference and to have shared spaces in which dialogue and collective problem-solving can take place.
We need to look beyond narrow service provision and towards the underlying social and cultural conditions that sustain inclusion. Culture, creativity and heritage are among the principal ways in which people make sense of the world around them. Throughout my work in public life for over five decades, I have seen how vital this can be for intercultural dialogue, which is not just a slogan but an ongoing practice of listening, understanding and negotiating difference. Again and again, it has proved essential for sustaining social cohesion, and it is much more than cultural expression or appreciation. It is a strategic means of enabling people to meet across boundaries, build trust and shape a shared sense of purpose.
As we begin to develop a robust regional tier of governance through the provisions in the Bill, we must ensure that these principles—the ability to communicate across diverse communities, to foster understanding and to strengthen social bonds—are woven into the strategic functions of the new authorities it will create. Without that, devolution risks becoming an administrative exercise rather than a genuinely community-building endeavour.
This is where the Bill, as drafted, is deficient. The area of culture, creativity and heritage has profound significance for social cohesion and civic participation, but it is entirely absent from the list and does not have a place within the statutory architecture. Organisations such as Culture Commons and the RSA have consistently shown how cultural ecosystems underpin community well-being and local agency. There are a lot of local examples; the one I am familiar with is in Southampton. The Southampton model is a culture-led, place-based impact initiative led by Southampton Forward and Southampton City Council. It is a successful model that has focused on unlocking prosperity and delivering impact for people and place. It is akin to the agenda of the Government’s Office for the Impact Economy, which, interestingly, sits within the Cabinet Office, not the Minister’s department.
I am aware that culture, creativity and heritage are often characterised as cut-across issues. But many of the functions already named here are, by their very nature, cross-cutting. Creative industries, seen as an important pillar of the industrial strategy, are sufficiently central to the life and cohesion of a place to merit explicit recognition within the governance structure before us. It is precisely because they sit across so many parts of people’s lives that they should be included purposefully, not by implication, in the strategic remit of the new authorities. Implicit powers are rarely sufficient when multiple departments, funding streams and accountability regimes are involved.
Previous devolution arrangements show that cultural or civic functions are often left orphaned, dependent on discretionary grants or short-term programmes, rather than treated as part of the strategic fabric of our governance. For that reason, culture, creativity and heritage should be included as a defined area of competence, consistent with the other functions named in the Bill.
Culture is not an adornment to governance but part of its foundation. In too many parts of the country, people do not feel heard, connected or part of a shared civic story. If devolution is to succeed, it must help rebuild that sense of belonging and inclusion that sustains social inclusion. The Bill is an opportunity to design a system that supports not only economic co-ordination but the deeper, often more fragile threads of social life: trust, dialogue, identity and belonging. If we neglect those, we risk building institutions that are technically capable but socially brittle.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, will reflect carefully on these issues and consider whether some measured adjustments can be made to strengthen the long-term sustainability, fairness and cohesion of England’s devolved governance landscape.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, when I saw the Title of this Bill, I thought that all the long years of deliberation and the many reports produced on the subject of local devolution were about to come to fruition. Experts such as Sir Michael Lyons, Tony Travers and the late Lord Kerslake are among the many luminaries and organisations that have advocated for the fundamental need to bring government closer to the governed. As a long-convinced supporter myself, I hoped that this Bill would empower local people, enabling their participation in matters that directly affect their lives and that they would be able to influence and see how their money was spent and hold directly accountable those who were responsible for governing their local area—an opportunity to address the present democratic deficit.
As the Bill says, we in England have one of the most centralised systems of government in the world, with citizens increasingly disaffected and scornful of those who govern—badly, as people are fond of telling us on their doorsteps—but the overall feeling is that it does not much matter how you vote or what you do as nothing changes. This powerlessness is expressed by many as a reason for not even going out to vote. Anyone who has ever canvassed as a prospective councillor must surely have struggled in trying to explain why people should vote in a local council election while at the same time explaining that local aspirations cannot be met because the Government in Westminster control all the money. Local councillors are bound by the stultifying financial constraints imposed by central government over popular local projects. This tramples on local ambition, demotivating communities and generating widespread cynicism.
The Bill’s Title raised our hopes, only to confound them as we read its woeful contents. Devolution is not the purpose of this Bill; empowering Ministers, not local people, is what we find here. If this Bill passes, the Secretary of State will have unfettered powers to bring about radical changes, such as merging or restructuring councils, without local input or consent and without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is the opposite of devolution.
The Bill seeks to create a distant elite of so-called strategic councils covering large geographical areas delegating government policy implementation to mayors. They will control these authorities on behalf of central government, supported by unelected members—some might say cronies—who will have real decision-making powers but no accountability. With district councils being abolished, there will not even be the means of holding mayors or authorities to account by the people they will purport to govern. Mayors will answer upward to Whitehall, not to their communities. In many areas, a regional mayor may cover vast, diverse counties and communities with very different priorities. Experience shows that top-down solutions rarely meet local needs.
My noble friend Lord Wallace talked about the regional assemblies. This is another attempt to shoehorn locally diverse areas into large amorphous bodies. I was a member of the South West Regional Assembly, and that august body sought to combine the counties not just of Devon and Cornwall—which would be a challenge on its own—but of Somerset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Bristol into one body. There was basically a huge conflict in that people who were members saw real dissonance between their local interests and priorities and those chosen by the RDAs, who, incidentally, were given most of the powers and the resources. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Wallace, the referendum in the north-east gave a firm thumbs down to these bodies, with 77.9% against the idea, and the entire policy was abandoned. Therefore, I hope the current Government will look back on what went wrong with those attempts to impose top-down solutions on an unwilling population. They will eventually take their revenge in the ballot box, as we all know and have found out in the past, I am sure.
Furthermore, the Bill ignores the councils that are actually closest to residents: our towns and parishes. These bodies are often the first port of call for communities. Parish and town councils understand the local identity, the civic history and the practical day-to-day realities of where people live. Yet, in this Bill, they are barely mentioned. There is no statutory role for them in the new stretches and no guarantee that larger authorities will have to work with them.
It also should be said here that mayors are not universally popular. In my own city of Bristol, the city mayor was removed as a result of a referendum in 2022. The West of England Combined Authority and mayor are a matter of complete apathy to the local population, with a 30% turnout for the mayoral vote and a complete lack of understanding of what this body is actually intended to do and how it affects local people. So, if this model were to be replicated in our area, it would be considered absolutely derisory by the local people.
I believe that this is a damaging Bill and that it will be deeply unpopular; it smacks of desperation and despotism. The Government are saying that, in the interests of delivering change, they will remove the rights of those who disagree with them; they will create distant bastions of government policy, remove means of dissent and discount the views of local people where they do not coincide with their own. Participation-influenced scrutiny and accountability of government by those who are governed are hard-fought basic rights in any democracy. This Government will ride roughshod over them at its peril.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I am slightly reluctant to follow such a position on the basis that I believe that the Government—if they stick to what they say in the Title of the Bill—are doing the right thing. Unfortunately, like some episodes of “Yes Minister”, this could be a case of “Get the hard bit out of the way” in the Title before you get to the detail.
Most noble Lords have expressed great joy in having the Minister lead this Bill because of her belief in the subject matter, but I hope she is truly in that space. Most Members of this House know that if you were to cut me right through the middle, I would have “localist” written through my core, which is why I stand awkwardly in your Lordships’ House to speak: it is not my natural space. However, I will put my signature to any amendment that anybody tables to make this Bill better. I obviously do not have the brains big enough to actually write any of the amendments that will be necessary to make it work, but I am quite prepared—now that I have mastered my new signature—to put my name to them and support them.
While I am standing, I also draw Members’ attention to the excellent briefing notes from the County Councils Network, which has got a position, and the District Councils’ Network, which has also got a position. Strangely enough, while they agree on some things, they do not agree on the detail nor the positions they agree on. They do agree, however, on constituent members having better scrutiny powers, but they are just not sure on who the constituent members should be. They both take on the hard challenge of accepting that they will disappear in the new world, but they are not agreed on what should replace them.
When we were first introduced to this Bill, we were told that London was going to be in scope, and that the number of councillors on councils would be fair across the whole country. Given that the last council the present Secretary of State ran was a 300,000 unitary, it would be interesting to know his position compared to the previous Secretaries of State on the numbers we should be aiming for. I am not advocating for one number over another, you understand, as the smallest council I have an interest in is 30,000-odd and the largest was a million, so I am quite comfortable someone will come up with the right number anywhere in between.
I have one technical question for the Minister. Where there is a proposition to take some power—not much—from central government and give it to a mayor, does that mean that central government will lose that power? I am thinking particularly about the ability to call in a planning decision from a council. If the mayor can call that decision in, does that denude the Secretary of State of also having that power? If that is the case, is there anywhere we can find it? If it is not the case, is there anywhere we can amend the Bill to make sure that it is the case? That is what devolution should really be about: it should be stripping powers out of Westminster and Whitehall and putting them into the local communities where we all live.
We know that, over about the last 14 years, Whitehall was grown by about a million employees and the town hall was shrunk by about a million employees. So, even in the devolution plan my noble friend Lord Gove saw through—which was the Osborne plan originally—the state centrally has managed to grow and not shrink. If devolution is going to be anything, it should be about a smaller centre and a bigger local. That is what I think most Members of this House would like to see.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, like my colleagues on these Benches, I am a strong supporter of devolution. I was therefore sadly disappointed to see in this Bill the number of areas where power is still to be with Whitehall and not local government, where opportunities for genuine devolution are missed, and where it risks adding to, rather than reducing, the legal complexity faced by local government. I will give brief examples of each and, in doing so, I hope to suggest some areas in which amendments may, in due course, help improve the Bill.
I start with the most fundamental of provisions: people’s right to elect those who govern them. We all recognise that in some exceptional circumstances it can be necessary to delay democracy. For example, I doubt few, if any, in this House would think it was a mistake to delay the general election during the Second World War. However, such delays should be the rare exceptions, at moments of major crisis when safety is at risk. Yet the Bill as it stands will continue the power of a central government, including any future Government of who knows what level of commitment to democracy, to cancel simply by order of the Minister elections that have been previously scheduled. That is far too low a bar. The postponing of democracy should require the full permission of Parliament, through primary legislation. I hope the Minister will say more about why the Government view local democracy as not being worthy of the protection that would come from requiring primary legislation to interfere with it.
I will give two examples of where powers could and should be devolved but are being kept within Whitehall’s grip. Here in this House, we let Members participate remotely. It is a carefully limited right but one that is used and works, whether or not we happen to agree with those remotely-contributed views. Personally, I would make the rules more permissive, but, even as they stand, they are more permissive than those Parliament allows local councils in England. If we think it is okay for us to decide these matters for ourselves, even though there is not the safeguard of elections for people to kick us out if we get it wrong, why should we withhold that right from democratic councils? Indeed, we have seen remote participation used successfully in local government around the UK, both during Covid and since, outside of England. To give credit where it is due, earlier this year the Government made positive noises about introducing new rights for remote participation in English local government, with the proviso of needing to find parliamentary time in due course. Well, here we are in Parliament and we have local government legislation in front of us, and a good chunk of time allocated. I hope the Minister can tell us more about why this opportunity to get on and act, and get this sorted, is not being taken.
Another example of how the Bill still holds so much power tightly at the centre is cattle-grids. For those of us who are collectors of examples of unusual centralisation, the grip of Whitehall on permission to install a new cattle-grid is, in its own way, a famous one. My hopes rose when I saw cattle-grids mentioned in the White Paper. However, looking through the Bill, I see that the decentralisation of those powers does not seem to have made it into the legislation. Indeed, the whole bundle of decentralisation mentioned alongside cattle-grids in the White Paper seems to have been watered down significantly. I hope this is not due to any change of mind by the Government, or to a sudden fear that, if the controlling, centralised hand of the Secretary of State is relaxed, we will have a sudden outbreak of mad cattle-grid disease sweeping the country. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister as to what has happened to those final two sentences in the section of the White Paper on local government taking back control.
On the third area I mentioned—the risks of adding to, rather than reducing, the legal burden on local government and the complexity in the Bill, as touched on earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—my point is that so much of the legislation passed by Parliament ends up never being commenced. We do all the work to legislate but the law then sits there, with different pieces buried in different places within it, never getting commenced. I appreciate that, for understandable and practical reasons, the commencement provisions in this Bill are not simple, stretching over three full pages. However, the way the commencement of different parts is left open, particularly in Clause 92(7), runs the risk of repeating what has happened to so much previous local government legislation, in that it never gets commenced. I hope the Minister will share where the Government’s thinking is on having a clear cut-off date, so that if parts of this legislation are not otherwise commenced sooner, there is a backstop that catches the remaining items and ensures that the Bill does not become just another addition to that huge sludge of bits and pieces of local government legislation that are passed but never enacted and hang around in limbo.
I hope that, as the Bill progresses, we will see from the Government more willingness to enact genuine devolution. I particularly look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s thinking on the right threshold for cancelling elections, why elected councillors should not have the same rights that we hold for ourselves in allowing remote participation in their proceedings, whether the Government are still committed to devolving power over cattle-grids, and what they will do to ensure that, whatever Parliament passes, it really does at some point come into force. If we can get those issues right, the Bill will be very much the better for it.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, this is the latest legislation in a long line of tinkering that has made our sub-national governance structures more fragmented, complicated, opaque and financially unsustainable. That the opening clauses enumerate 13 types of so-called strategic authority proves that point unambiguously. Such complexity has sown confusion among councils, voters and governments, preferring the wants of the administrative state over the people and taking power further away from residents and business to the dead hand of Marsham Street.
Over 20 years as a councillor, I have seen a mania from officials who live in the London borough bubble to tidy up things outside the M25 for their own bureaucratic convenience. This is just another attempt to lard on half-baked new structures in a half-done settlement that is already unwinding and unravelling before the legislation is even passed. For example, the Budget announced that mayors could raise a new tourism tax, and the Minister lauded that in her opening remarks. Surrey was promised a mayor to do so, but now that has been taken away in the same breath as the cancellation of the mayoral elections. The Bill asks mayors to write growth plans in pursuance of the urgency of driving economic growth. I thought this Government were all about growth and that the mayors were the key to unlocking it—it is clearly not that urgent, given that those mayors have been delayed for two years.
I have heard it all before: let us get rid of the districts and the 86 things that residents value the most, so that it can all be lost in a system where 70% of the money is spent on adult and children’s services, but somehow it will all be all right. It is nonsense. If we were really interested in community empowerment, the Government would sort out a system in which three-quarters of local government expenditure is spent on the 5% of the residents who need social care and those with special educational needs and disabilities. On this, the Bill is silent—another can kicked down the road.
Nowhere in the Bill do the Government set out what local government is for. There are lots of administrative functions listed, but none viewed through the lens that, if it is not foreign policy or defence, it is capable of being done locally. It is not hard to articulate a purpose. Local government exists to raise a family, grow a business, invest in local infrastructure and protect the local environment. On this, the Bill is silent. Instead, we get 380 pages of schedules and impenetrable processes so complex and convoluted that they come round to meet themselves in the opposite direction without working out whether they benefit either the resident or the firm.
As if to prove that point, whole parts of the Bill contain duplicative provisions for mayoral and non-mayoral authorities, with extra discriminations between London and everywhere else in a metropolitan apartheid that is all about shoring up Labour’s electoral heartland at the expense of everyone else. There are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. Some 3,108 electors get to choose a councillor in London but in the shire counties it is typically more than 10,000. That is a cynical dilution of democracy.
Schedule 26 is all about reorganisation everywhere apart from London and the mets in Birmingham and Manchester—funny, that. It is nothing less than a gerrymander to save Labour’s councillors in the city while pursuing Labour’s war on the countryside by other means.
The Bill’s title is a confidence trick that promises more structures, not fewer. There will be mayors able to raise unlimited taxes for things they have no control over, new combined authorities with dodgy decision-making provisions, and confusion between tiers. Even smaller-scale powers such as taxi licensing will be transferred up to strategic authorities without the systems, staff or experience to execute them. Proud city councils will be disbanded and relegated to parish council status with unconstrained council tax raising powers.
There will be a vandalisation of our historic county boroughs and cathedral cities, which will lose their identity and civic pride, including their lord mayors, sheriffs and lieutenants. County councils with their pension funds, which the Chancellor wants to control, will be split up. There will be destroying of the districts, which do the things that people value most, with net budgets of only around £10 million to £12 million but which scoop up the most vulnerable people Labour tells us they are most concerned about.
Worse, we now get a new war on the motorist, with new civil enforcement powers for traffic contraventions. This is not a Bill about empowerment; it is about disempowerment and centralisation. It is a disembowelment of local accountability, because part of community empowerment is all about helping people to stand for election, but the Bill actually makes it harder for single mums or community-minded businessmen to stand, with larger councils further away from people and relying more and more on the rich and retired motorist. That is the effect of Labour’s vision for devolution and empowerment: more layers taking powers further away from people while creating a new professionalised councillor class.
I have heard it said that this will save money, but the people who called for this in 2020 now say it will not save a bean. Look at Somerset, bankrupted by an LGR process that is now to be visited elsewhere, and pension strain costs of at least £1 billion, which we know will have to be factored in but have so far not been calculated, to be borne by the local ratepayer. As for the parishes, Salisbury council, for example, was converted from a city to a district, and council tax for a £383 band D is up 44% in four years—a stealth tax if ever there was one.
Fly-tipped right at the end of the Bill are some provisions on investment-sapping commercial rent reviews, as if that improves devolution or community empowerment. It is well-meaning but counterproductive. Let us pin the tail on the donkey: everyone affected will pay more for less. It is all about top down, not bottom up. We should send the Bill back under the Trade Descriptions Act: it is about neither devolution nor community empowerment.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I think I have just entered a parallel universe. The real clue to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill lies in its title. While I will touch on structures, my real interest in the Bill centres upon community empowerment. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s commitment to devolution, and the Act will be the most significant step forward for a decade. The statement that powers and funding are the floor and not the ceiling of where we want to get to is most welcome.
The newly announced ability for metro mayors to implement the overnight visitor levy is another significant step forward and will help English cities such as Liverpool compete on a more equal footing for international events and visitors.
In my view, there is no one better placed to lead on the Bill than my noble friend the Minister. Having served as the leader of Stevenage Council from 2006 to 2022, she fully understands the complexities of different tiers of local government and is demonstrably committed to effective, devolved local governance and its truly important role in delivering quality public services as close as possible to the needs of local citizens, especially in deprived communities.
Having had the privilege of representing the north-west of England, with a population of 6.8 million and over 40 local authorities—including Stockport—I came from a region of largely unitaries, combined local authorities and city regions. When my mum got ill, I moved back to the West Midlands, where we currently have town, district and county local government. While we have excellent local councillors, many of whom I am proud to call my friends, it has taken me two years, with some experience of having been a local councillor in Liverpool myself, to truly decipher which layer of government is responsible for what.
I truly believe in the role of local government to understand the possibilities of local regeneration and strategic planning; effective landlord licensing schemes; unlocking resources in, for instance, pension schemes, to regenerate local communities and town and city centres; joined-up, affordable, accessible public transport; and, most importantly, understanding that physical regeneration alone does not work, but that it has to be accompanied by innovative training, apprenticeships and lifelong learning, to ensure that local people are equipped to maximise local job opportunities.
It also has to embrace a just transition to ensure that workers are equipped with the skills to move from declining industries to the high-GDP jobs in the emerging industries of the future. Every three year-old girl should be given the creative education to set her on the path to shape her own future. We know where growth is coming from: the creative industries and clean, green energy, for example. Who better to plan for growth than locally accountable strategic authorities?
I firmly believe that Manchester, for instance, is better placed to seize the opportunities for Manchester than Whitehall, and that having only national standards for taxis and private hire cannot work. Bury knows the needs of Bury rather than out of area licensing, which, in my view, should be stopped. There are more taxis licensed in Wolverhampton operating in Manchester than in Wolverhampton. This is potentially dangerous. I also strongly welcome the proposed creation of a strong local audit office to ensure effective delivery of local plans.
In the clean energy Bill in the EU, we proposed local energy communities to enable local people to plan and benefit from the creation and delivery of local energy. However, I say to the Minister that we argued that in order to be effective, these had to be resourced and financed.
My noble friend the Minister knows that a key challenge is how devolving funding and powers to neighbourhoods can really and effectively get local people involved. In my view, this requires resources. Accountability of any resourcing is key. We must also seize this opportunity to achieve the joined-up delivery of public services: politics being done with, not to communities.
We also have to embrace the fact that different areas are at different starting points and may need additional help. We must enable the exchange of good practice and support between regions. Before the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, we had the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, AGMA, so there was a history of the 10 local authorities working together and cofinancing innovative initiatives in culture, for example. Greater Manchester CA therefore had a head start. No such model existed in Merseyside. I am, however, very proud of how GMCA and Liverpool City Region have worked together to support one another. In resourcing, we have to be cognisant of different starting points and regional differences and needs, especially in rural communities. Having represented Liverpool, European Capital of Culture in 2008, I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider adding culture, creativity and heritage as defined areas of competence.
In strengthening our ties with partners in Europe, the role of elected mayors is key. Carlos Zorrinho, a newly elected mayor in Portugal with a proven track record of delivering digital skills, is working with mayors in the UK. I worked closely with the EU Covenant of Mayors but was acutely aware that while Manchester and Liverpool were prominent, Carlisle was not. How do we achieve a more level playing field? Using the Covenant of Mayors as a convenient consultation tool excluded swathes of my region. How do we achieve consultation that is profound and reaches all areas?
Having a lifelong commitment to local governance, I am delighted to welcome the objectives of the Bill. The question to my noble friend the Minister is how we work to achieve them.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin.
I note my interest as the Earl of Devon and—perhaps unsurprisingly—will speak to the impact of the Bill on that county, where I co-chair the Exeter Partnership, promoting the interface between the city and its rural hinterland. I am a programme board member for the Great South West, and I liaised with Devon County Council and Exeter City Council on their respective—but regrettably conflicting—local government review proposals. I sat on the recent Devon Housing Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I am a partner in a law firm originating in Devon that practises in many areas impacted by the Bill. I also operate a Devon-based heritage, land and farming business, which interacts with various tiers of local government, not least in licensing, economic development and planning.
Despite so many touchpoints, I am not a politician, so, like the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, I remain somewhat mystified by the workings of local government and its many levels. I am therefore benefiting immensely from the wisdom of this informed and erudite debate. If I remain ignorant of local government after a decade of involvement, I am concerned about how we educate and inform those who might be less engaged. Many people—the typical local resident; the consumer of local public services who is due to elect their local leadership after the passage of this Bill; the new strategic mayors; and the new unitary local councillors—must be bemused by the complexities of local governance, with its various and changing boundaries and tiers. Perhaps this explains the lack of participation in local authority elections, about which we have heard. Voters simply do not know what they are asked to vote for.
To the extent that the Bill simplifies matters and creates a consistent and level playing field across England, it therefore has my tentative support. But can the Minister outline what plans are in place to provide an education for the nation on the reforms that are taking place, so that we decrease the disenfranchisement that arises from our collective ignorance?
As a feudalist who owes his presence here to the regional autonomy of the south-west during the 13th and 14th centuries, I can only applaud the Government’s efforts to return us to the status quo ante. It is ironic that, as we are banished from Westminster due to our antiquated nature, the Government seek to return to the regionalism that typified the Plantagenet era. That was before the trauma of the Wars of the Roses, which caused the Tudors to centralise authority, thereby creating one of the most centralised countries in the world, which now has some of the highest levels of geographic inequality in Europe.
Historical context aside, given the poverty suffered by once-prosperous rural and coastal communities in the south-west, the peninsula’s best bet for economic and social development stems from greater regional autonomy, so that it can look to its strengths—the traditions of trade, innovation and exploration—to chart a path to a sustainable and better future. I therefore support the broad ambitions of the Bill, but I reserve judgment until I understand how it will impact the south-west. Specifically, what form of strategic authority does His Majesty’s Government foresee for the region? Was Luke Pollard correct when he told the Great South West conference that Cornwall cannot go it alone and must combine with its neighbours to form a strategic mayoralty? That would necessarily mix the cream with the jam, I say with a nod to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Equally, what does local government reorganisation look like for Devon? I understand that the closing date for LGR submissions saw a smorgasbord of proposals from Plymouth, Torbay, Exeter and Devon councils, and maybe more—indicative perhaps of the county’s long-standing tradition of political diversity. How will those different proposals be resolved? Was it really wise to invite existing local governments to propose their own reorganisation, when their response will necessarily be informed by their own political interests? Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas.
Perhaps a more pressing concern is what will happen in the interim while local government is reshaped. Looking specifically at housing and the target of 1.5 million new homes, planning departments surely need to be focused on nothing but delivery. However, with recent amendments to the NPPF and the upheavals due to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the landscape for local planning is in great flux. Add to that the promise of wholesale local government reorganisation—some 10 planning authorities in Devon are due to be rationalised to two, three or maybe four unitary authorities—and we can only pity the local departments, which are generally understaffed and overworked and may not even have a job in a few years’ time. The Devon Housing Commission found that one of the major challenges to the delivery of affordable housing was uncertainty in the planning process, and that will only get worse.
Also of concern is the status of rural communities. The Government must be aware of the productivity gap between rural and urban, as well as the terrible poverty that exists, often unnoticed, in rural and coastal communities. As an advocate for the interdependence between rural and urban societies, I believe that we should seek, wherever possible, better integration of the two for the benefit of both. However, there is a danger that the specific challenges of rural communities will be ignored and even exacerbated where they are governed by a leadership that has a predominantly urban interest. The expansion of strategic authority coverage will include large swathes of rural England for the first time, and steps must be taken to ensure that rural residents are protected and able to thrive. There is not a single mention of “rural” in the Bill’s 360 pages, so I invite the Government to consider amendments to establish a rural commissioner as well as duties to consider rural needs.
There are multiple further aspects of the Bill that are of interest, including the environmental and climate change competences. With my tech lawyer hat on, I note that the future-proofing of local private hire vehicles is of some interest, particularly having spent time in California, where Waymo autonomous vehicles are predominant. With my property barrister hat on, I will be interested to understand the policy behind the abolition of upwards-only rent reviews. On assets of community value, I recommend to the House the tireless work of the Plunkett Foundation; I look to forward to sharing with noble Lords its insightful work in this space.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am not sure that I entirely concur with his view of Plantagenet governance, although I note that the Angevin Empire was distinctly a European structure.
I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and of the NALC. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said.
Democracy is at the foundation of Green political philosophy. Democracy means decisions being made locally by the people affected and referred upwards only when absolutely necessary. Despite its thoroughly misleading title, the Bill involves not devolution of power but Westminster directing what should happen in local areas, communities being disempowered by the loss of local representatives, and the imposition of a single “strong leader” model of a mayor, without any deep responsibilities for local engagement. More than that, those mayors will be subject to little local scrutiny and oversight. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, just how wrongly that can go, through her example of the Teesworks project.
There has been much hand-wringing about the apparent loss of trust, particularly among young people, in democracy. But democracy should be about much more than an election of a single person every four years—and, as we have seen in the postponement of four of next year’s scheduled local mayoral elections, at the whim of the Government in far-off Westminster. Before we give up on democracy, we should try it.
To take one example, I will discuss Clause 59 and Schedule 25, which saw a hard-fought win by Greens and others in the other place. Those provisions will enable Sheffield and other communities—Sheffield is particularly close to my heart, as I was part of the campaign—to allow councils currently operating a committee system to keep it for varying renewable periods. That is great—a concession from Westminster for local power—but why was it necessary to fight so hard to keep local decisions in place, particularly in Sheffield, where a local referendum secured huge community support for this far more democratic model of local governance?
Why are this Government, as with previous ones, so opposed to democracy? Do they not understand what damage centralised control and direction are doing? Do they not understand that 29 councils are already in financial crisis, with a fresh warning today that more will fall into this position after the new funding settlement is announced this month? As the LGA explained today, cost and demand pressures are unrelenting, particularly in children’s and adult social care, homelessness and SEND, all areas where councils are forced, in effect, to be the agents of central government-determined statutory responsibilities. That is not local empowerment but local desperation and rightful anger at the failure of local government to deliver local priorities because it simply does not have the cash.
There is one area of positivity in local government, in town and parish councils, which, under a decade and a half of austerity, have often been forced—sometimes gladly—to pick up many of the responsibilities previously carried out by larger authorities. Many of them have done it extremely well, efficiently and democratically. But there is a problem: it tends to be the more privileged communities with longer histories—a market town, say—that have these structures, while a large, relatively new council or other estate, where representation is most urgently needed, is now further away from it than ever.
There is little time and so much in the Bill, so I will tick off some further issues that I am going to be picking up on Report. On community wealth building, rather than allowing a few to profit while the rest of us pay for privatised and outsourced services, seeing community facilities sold into developers’ hands—so often for luxury apartments, it appears—and lost as community spaces for ever, why does the Bill not take steps to allow an inclusive and democratically owned economy? That is a question for the Minister.
The environment is such a crucial issue for community health and well-being on these islands that are some of the most nature-depleted on this battered planet. I note the extensive briefings received from Peers for the Planet and the Wildlife Trusts, which stress how out of date and how very mid-2000s the Bill and the Government’s approach are.
The 2025 council climate action scorecards found that progress improved by only 5% between 2023 and 2025. We can all see, in the floods, droughts and heatwaves, how much faster we have to go. As the LGA consultation concluded,
“local authorities need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding, and robust support to lead on climate action”.
I note that more than 500 councillors, including Andy Burnham, have signed an open letter calling for more statutory responsibilities. In Committee I will bring forward amendments, I suspect with others, to seek to address these issues.
To pick up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the Better Planning Coalition, the Bill is urban-focused, as are this Government. Adding rural affairs as an area of competence and, where relevant, providing for a rural affairs commissioner—if we have to have the undemocratic structure of commissioner at all—would certainly aid local democracy and ensure some catering to desperately underconsidered communities.
Finally, and briefly, resilience is a crucial issue in this age of hybrid warfare, climate, nature and health shocks, and the dreadfully fragile for-profit infrastructure on which oligopolistic multinational companies have forced us all to rely. We need to see democracy to build local resilience. The Bill will not deliver that.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I also declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As a passionate localist, someone who strongly believes in devolving power to the lowest possible level, I was rather excited to hear that there was a devolution White Paper and subsequent Bill. But sadly, as for many of my noble friends, the excitement evaporated pretty quickly. The Bill is not about subsidiarity; it is Whitehall giving out a few goodies but with strings and budgets very much attached and controlled from the centre. This is not devolution in my book.
Compared with other OECD countries, the UK remains one of the most fiscally centralised countries. Data from the OECD’s revenue statistics shows that in recent years, no more than 6% of the UK’s total tax revenue has been raised locally. This is about half the OECD average. Whitehall needs to let go and devolve far more funding and services to local and regional government. Fiscal devolution—as we see in cities and localities around the world—alongside a fairer voting system, would allow local innovation and creativity and would help reset politics. Sadly, these are all absent from the Bill.
I will focus my concerns on a few specific areas. The Bill provides insufficient scrutiny of strategic mayors and authorities. The mayoral model is being rolled out across the country without the strong check and balance that is needed. In the Commons, the Minister said:
“I assure the Cttee we will consider how to strengthen the scrutiny of strategic authorities, because I completely agree that as they acquire more powers, it is right we have accountability and scrutiny frameworks that are robust and fit for purpose, to ensure they are held to account for how they use the powers we confer on them”.—[Official Report, Commons, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, 28/10/25; col. 521.]
Perhaps the Minister could update us on the work to strengthen the scrutiny of these new mayors.
There is also an assumption that London has had devolution through the 1999 Act and the amendment Act—tick, job done—but that is not the case. The reality is that the mayor has been given increasing areas to oversee over many years and now has a budget well over £21 billion. Yet the London Assembly, the other half of the Greater London Authority, has not seen an appropriate increase in its powers, and the Bill proposes even more powers to the mayor.
Having been an assembly member for 16 years, I know at first hand that some additional powers are needed to strengthen the scrutiny of the Mayor of London and partner agencies, and ensure that services are being delivered effectively and efficiently. I therefore ask the Minister: what engagement did the Government have with the London Assembly ahead of the Bill? It is clear that the assembly needs stronger powers, such as a wider power of summons and a change to the threshold for the budget. I will bring forward amendments in Committee to address these concerns.
The other areas to which I wish to draw attention at this stage are related to transport. Over recent years we have seen the explosion in micromobility, e-bikes and scooters, covering our pavements and streets. They are a lifeline for many who use them to get about our cities at pace and convenience but are a nightmare for those with mobility issues or visual impairments or for young families having to negotiate routes around these obstacles dumped all over the pavements. Local authorities are unable to license or manage these bikes or set safety standards for them.
While it is welcome that the Bill covers this area, neither the Bill nor the accompanying guidance includes explicit requirements on mayors or strategic authorities to engage with constituent authorities on the development of micromobility schemes. An upfront duty would ensure that engagement at all stages is robust and covers all instances. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on this matter.
My final issue, which has been raised a number of times, relates to private hire and taxi licensing and regulation. While welcome, the amendment introducing national minimum standards does not go far enough, and it feels as if this issue is being kicked into the long grass.
I have been talking to transport authorities across the country; they are all concerned about out-of-area licensing. This is a safeguarding issue. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her June 2025 report on group-based child sexual exploitation, as the Minister mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that the Government
“should take immediate action to put a stop to ‘out of area taxis’”.
Noble Lords might be wondering why this is an issue. Different authorities have different standards in their licensing regimes, and if you want to operate in an area, you should be licensed for that area.
As we have heard several times, in Manchester 49% of drivers are currently licensed in Wolverhampton. This means that Manchester local authorities have no say over the standards of drivers and vehicles in the city, nor the resource and right to carry out inspections. This is a huge safeguarding issue and a loophole that needs closing. Will the Minister work with me and Members across the House to close this dangerous safeguarding gap?
I look forward to working to improve the Bill to ensure local empowerment, genuine devolution and safer transport for all.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill and I welcome the Minister to her place. Just when she thought she was going to have a quiet life, another Bill comes along.
We heard earlier that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall by giving local leaders the tools to deliver growth, fix the foundations of local government and empower communities. How precisely will this work in rural communities?
I spoke against the orders for the combined authority and the mayor for York and North Yorkshire and I think that my concerns have been proven right. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I shared similar views at the time. The population of North Yorkshire and York combined is 768,000. The area is too big geographically but not big enough numerically to make this worthwhile. For the last five years, I was in the most rural part of the constituency that I represented. If I drove 200 miles in one day, I would barely touch the sides of the constituency. How a mayor is expected to get round, meet people and represent that area is a challenge for anybody and I wish him well.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It is a him.
I believe that democracy is grass-roots, certainly in rural areas. The building blocks are parish councils, districts, boroughs and counties. It is very confusing. I was three times subject to Boundary Commission reviews in my parliamentary career—once as a European MP and twice as an MP. When we keep meddling and making more mysteries to local government, as we are doing in this Bill, it discourages people from going out to vote, because they do not know which area of government or which authority they are living in. We were promised that, if we got rid of the districts and boroughs in North Yorkshire, we would save money. We then had a metro mayor imposed on us, and most of the rural dwellers stayed at home. Politically, it was not a riotous success for us in North Yorkshire. We lost our overall majority. So it is going to be a challenge as successive elections take place. The lowest turnout was for the police commissioner election—something that was imported from the States. It might work well there, but it certainly did not work well in rural parts of North Yorkshire.
I share common cause with noble Lords who have spoken in favour of rural commissioners. There is a great case for saying that in deeply rural areas we must have a rural commissioner in place. Better still, could we go back to having rural-proofing of all policy across the piece? That would help very much. I look forward to working with the Minister and others in the House when we move to Committee to make the Bill work in this regard.
When it comes to funding, if I have understood correctly, there is going to be a levy for transport. How are the Government going to square the extra responsibilities on combined authorities, particularly when it comes to solar farms and battery storage plants, both of which are highly flammable? If the fire service has to attend to these, it will put an extra call and extra resource implications on them. I would be interested to know how the Government expect to fund this if it cannot be met out of general funding at this time.
There are areas which I support. I support the provisions on out-of-area services. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, did the House and the country a great service by showing how that was part of how grooming gangs were able to target their victims. It is not just in Wolverhampton and Manchester. There are problems right across North Yorkshire and the north-east. I think there are still problems with Uber and it is right and proper that these services should be brought under the Bill.
I am grateful to Guide Dogs for its briefing. There is still the issue that about 58% of guide dog owners are reportedly turned away by taxi or private hire vehicles, despite this being a criminal offence. Will the Government address this as part of the Bill to make sure that there is a better understanding? I am very proud that it was a Conservative Government under my noble friend Lord Hague who introduced what became the Disability Discrimination Act, which made enormous strides in this field. I hope this issue can be addressed as part of this Bill.
The Bill sounds excellent in theory. How it will be delivered in practice, particularly in rural areas, will be a real challenge. I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. There is a key issue to be addressed of funding drainage boards where they do exist to make sure that they have the means to do their excellent work in keeping us all safe from floods.
I welcome the Bill as it stands but hope to improve it and to reintroduce the agent of change principle, this time successfully.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet.
I welcome this Bill, but I feel for the Minister. She has just about finished the Herculean task of taking the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Renters’ Rights Act through this House. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, this is another doorstop of a Bill for her to take through.
This is a very important Bill on something that many Governments have grappled with over many years. So far, it has been tackled in quite a piecemeal way. There is a real need for that strategic-level approach to complete that process and seize all the benefits of comprehensive devolution across the UK.
I have worked for many years on regional issues in the Midlands. Noble Lords have mentioned many areas of the UK in this evening’s debate, but not yet the Midlands. The Midlands is a great test bed or case study for the issues we are talking about. When I came into Parliament, we had a single combined authority in the Midlands—the West Midlands Combined Authority—but there was nothing across the rest of the region. Where I was, in Derby, in the East Midlands, we looked on the west with a little envy. At the time, Andy Street had huge levels of success in being that voice and in bringing large levels of public and private investment into the West Midlands, while we in the East Midlands were lagging far behind. Now things have moved on. We have the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the Lincolnshire Combined County Authority as well.
There are issues with the way in which this devolution is being approached. I go back to something that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, brought out. He made a very perceptive comment on what was then the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill, earlier in the Session, which was looking at Skills England. The noble Lord said that devolution was something we could all get behind as a concept but, in doing so, we create joins and barriers that were not present before, and we have to learn how to get through those barriers that we have created.
From observing a lot of the legislation that has gone through the House in this Session, I have noted many areas where that is a problem. For example, I have talked about skills. The Government’s approach to skills in Skills England has been driven through combined authorities. Even though we now have three combined authorities in the Midlands, more than half the population lives in areas outside a combined authority, so they cannot take the benefits of some of these initiatives.
We have seen the same in the Social Mobility Committee, which has just reported on the approach to social mobility. The Youth Guarantee Trailblazers are being driven through combined authorities. Of course, that will be resolved in time through the Government’s plans but, even when we move to a model of strategic authorities that cover the whole country, we will need to break down those barriers and I suggest that a pan-regional level is the best place to do that: to look at investment into regions, skills, energy and social mobility. These are areas which require this broader, pan-regional approach. So I look forward to working with noble Lords in Committee to think about how we can put more of a broader—perhaps a pan-regional—structure into this, which is something that was brought out strongly in the Government’s White Paper as well.
My second point is that the Bill is surprisingly silent on energy. If we look at the areas of competence in Clause 2, a number of areas are brought out—transport, skills, housing, et cetera—but energy is conspicuous by its absence. There is a need for clarity here on how these strategic authorities are going, for example, to work with Great British Energy, and on the role of regional energy strategic plans and local area energy plans. We will need some discussion in Committee on how energy will be factored into the role of these new strategic authorities.
On the environment as well, we are retreading some of the discussion that we had on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but the planning role of these strategic authorities needs to align with the strategic priorities of the country: environment and net zero. This carries on from our earlier discussion. I want to bring back in Committee how the planning system can better align with these strategic priorities to ensure that what gets built by strategic authorities aligns with those goals, and to empower the strategic authorities to deliver on those goals.
To finish, the vision is there. Many of the issues that the country has faced in recent decades can be traced back to that centralisation of power and opportunity. The regions have been left behind—the geographic inequality that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned—and the way to resolve that is to devolve power and resources and use all that local knowledge to revive the regions and, not least, deliver the Government’s economic growth agenda.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Devon: I will speak about Cornwall, but I will also mention our brothers and sisters in Devon at a certain point.
I start with a serious point. As Members will know, Cornwall is in the far south-west of the United Kingdom: only the Isles of Scilly are further south-west. It is a Celtic nation that is surrounded by the ocean, primarily, and a little bit of the River Tamar as well. It is also an area of the country, together with parts of Devon and the Tamar Valley, that was part of the first industrial revolution, not just in this country but globally, in terms of its extraction of minerals, tin and copper, and international trade with the Phoenicians way back in classical history, and it is a nation that is now looking at providing the nation with the mineral lithium so that, in Somerset, our first and only gigafactory can produce its output with British raw materials. It is also a nation that is surely one of the first sources of quality food and drink and all of that area.
Culturally—culture has been mentioned a great deal in this debate—it is the only part of the realm outside of Ireland, Wales and Scotland that has its own language, Cornish, which is recognised by the Council of Europe through the charter for minority languages and recognised by the Government as well. So it is an important part of the United Kingdom.
Although most of my colleagues here have been very critical of the Government and their proposals at the moment, the one thing I will definitely congratulate them on is Steve Reed’s announcement two weeks ago that Cornwall should have—let me get it exactly right—a “single foundation strategic authority”. That has been very much welcomed through the work of Cornwall’s six Members of Parliament—four Labour and two Liberal Democrat—and indeed the leadership of Cornwall Council under its Liberal Democrat and Independent leadership. So I want to thank the Minister for that move forward and the clarity that there is, and its importance for the people of Cornwall. I should explain that I am not Cornish myself. My family were migrants from Denmark into Suffolk in the 10th century. But residents in Cornwall feel that the personality of the land they live in and its culture are of importance to them, not just to those who were born and have long traditions there.
With those congratulations, my questions to the Minister are the following. First, will all strategic authorities be able to become members of the Council of the Nations and Regions? At the moment, that is quite an exclusive club in terms of authorities and, in the past, Cornwall has been excluded, even though the terms of reference make it sound as if it is for all authorities with “devolved responsibilities”. Clearly, all strategic authorities would have that.
Secondly, Clause 51 allows the established strategic authorities to come back to the Secretary of State and ask for extra powers. We do not want to see a caste system of strategic authorities, which would be very dangerous for the future. Could that ability to ask for further devolution be moved out to all strategic authorities?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. I am sure my colleagues would hope that a similar thing could be extended elsewhere, but I welcome it for Cornwall. I stress that we are not anti the rest of the south-west at all: we work very closely with other local authorities in the south-west. Although the noble Earl, Lord Devon, may put his clotted cream on his scones before the jam, we do not hold that against our brothers in Devon, even though we have a different culture ourselves.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to raise a particular issue at this Second Reading debate on a Bill which I am very pleased to support. The issue is the need for legislative change to address out-of-area taxi licensing, which has been raised several times in the debate today. This is part of a campaign led by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham—who, by the way, is quite popular—and council leaders in the devolved Greater Manchester Authority, entitled “Backing Our Taxis: Local. Licenced. Trusted”, which calls for more local accountability to drive higher taxi standards and stronger public safety, and to safeguard the livelihoods of drivers. As a former chair of the licensing committee on Manchester City Council, I welcome that initiative.
On Report in the other place, as we have heard already today from the Minister, the Government introduced an amendment to the Bill that would provide the Secretary of State for Transport with the power to introduce national minimum standards for the licensing arrangements for drivers, operators and vehicles. This should present a valuable opportunity for greater consistency, improve public confidence and improve support across the sector. However, its success will depend on the reasonableness and appropriateness of these standards and, most importantly, on their implementation and ensuring compliance with them. The Bill does not yet set out what these national standards would be, but this can be further debated as it progresses in this House.
However, while it is very positive that the Government are willing to add taxi and private hire services into the scope of the Bill, a key concern remains, as we have heard on several occasions tonight, that out-of-area operations remain unaddressed. This was particularly highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her contribution. As the Minister referenced, the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted the challenges that out-of-area taxis have presented to local authorities trying to enforce standards to protect children at the risk of child sexual exploitation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, noted, the report recommended that the Government take immediate action to put a stop to out-of-area taxis and bring in more rigorous statutory standards for local authority licensing and regulation of taxi drivers.
The Government accepted the report’s recommendations, including for the Department for Transport to take immediate action to stop out-of-area practices, as we have heard. We have also noted that many licensees operate predominantly outside the district in which they have been licensed. As a resident of Manchester, I see numerous licence plates from Wolverhampton every time I walk into my local village.
Mayor Andy Burnham and Greater Manchester leaders have supported Elsie Blundell MP, who has been championing the out-of-area issue in the other place. She tabled a new clause for an optional “license where you operate” model, which will give mayoral strategic authorities power to require that journeys wholly within their strategic area are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. There may be other options than this proposed amendment, which I am sure we can debate at a later stage, as the Bill progresses.
What is most important today is that there is no clear government stance on advancing the Casey recommendation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will clarify the Government’s position on this when she responds to the debate, so that we can clearly determine whether further legislative change will be required during the passage of the Bill.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing this 371-page Bill. I declare an interest as a deputy lieutenant of Hertfordshire. I am well aware of the high regard in which the Minister is rightly held in our county, across the political spectrum.
Noble Lords may wonder why the Government are pushing for more elected mayors while, at the same time, forcing areas that still operate under a two-tier system to switch to a single-tier system. This move involves dismantling traditional counties and creating new unitary councils. On the one hand, the Government claim that two-tier local governments are bad, because people feel remote from decision-making—hence the push for unitary councils; on the other, they seek to impose new second-tier authorities in the form of strategic mayoral authorities through a top-down approach.
The closest level of local government to communities are town and parish councils, which deserve more attention, especially after the abolition of district councils. If the aim to replace county councils with smaller unitary councils is to bring decision-making closer to communities, why are the Government transferring powers to larger strategic authorities? Moreover, the Bill grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers, including the authority to create new strategic authorities and mayors without local councils’ consent.
I know that the Minister loves Hertfordshire, but I am concerned that the implications of unitarisation and the break-up of counties are not fully understood. The word “unitary” is horrible. I regret the destruction of our historic counties. Philip Larkin wrote in his 1972 poem “Going, Going”:
“And that will be England gone,
The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,
The guildhalls, the carved choirs”.
The guildhalls are going, including the magnificent County Hall in Hertford, where I recently attended a mayor-making ceremony. I wonder what Larkin would say about the ongoing local government reorganisation.
The Minister argues that the identity of traditional counties will not be affected by the move to unitaries. I am far from convinced. As a child, I remember that Sussex was thought of as one county but, after the Local Government Act 1972, even the lord-lieutenant’s and high sheriff’s offices were replaced by appointments for East and West Sussex. The historic counties of England were established by the Normans for administrative purposes. They have also helped to define local culture and identity. Stripped of any relevance to local government, the so-called ceremonial counties will gradually be confined to the history books and lose their practical relevance. If counties such as Wiltshire, Dorset and Buckinghamshire can basically remain as single counties, why cannot Hertfordshire and Essex?
Aside from the significant extra costs involved in setting up a new tier of local government, I am sceptical that there will be any savings from this reorganisation. Many councillors who support it do so for political not administrative reasons. Hertfordshire has been well managed as a county and the old adage—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it—should apply in this case. The Government seem to lack understanding of the importance of community identity or of the function of history and political geography. I believe that we proceed with this compulsory reorganisation at our peril.
The argument that people do not understand where decisions are made between county and district councils is not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water. The new strategic authorities created by the Bill will control most of the funding and services, such as police, fire, social care and NHS. This means that decisions affecting residents will be taken further away from communities, not closer, as the Government claim. Does the Minister believe that people will understand the complex web of new authorities—CAs, CCAs, SAs, MSAs, FSAs, EMSAs, et cetera? Most people could understand the difference between district and county councils, but the confusion began when districts stopped calling themselves district councils. I suspect that, in the future, people will have much less understanding of where crucial decisions are made.
Councillor Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, has stated that mayors should not undermine the role of councils but work with them to drive growth, build infrastructure and deliver better local services. However, it is clear that the creation of mayors will significantly diminish the role of councils, which are undergoing expensive and unwanted restructuring at the same time. This has the makings of a disaster, particularly in the absence of strong leadership to manage such a large-scale reorganisation.
A recent headline from the Bishop’s Stortford Independent about the “dog’s dinner” of the plans for new authorities sums up the situation well. The Conservative group at Hertfordshire County Council staged a walkout on 19 November, because it was given no option to vote against all three proposed options for unitary councils. I agree with Councillor Nick Cox of the Green Party, who said that Labour’s plans are
“a coup against local democracy delivered with a smile and a flow chart … We are asked to choose between two, three, or four unitaries. That’s like asking the passengers to vote on the band’s encore when the Titanic is already sinking”.
There is a credible alternative—a single county-wide unitary authority, with as much power devolved to local town and parish councils as possible. Even in districts where the majority of councillors support one of the three proposed options, there is widespread doubt about any savings and concern about the disruption that this will cause to vital services such as social care. Some councillors fear years of chaos as new structures bed in. Anyone who believes that breaking up the county’s £1.7 billion highways deal into smaller contracts will lead to savings is mistaken.
In conclusion, the Government’s plans for local government reorganisation are fraught with risks. They undermine both local identity and efficient governance, and they add unnecessary complexity and costs without delivering any clear benefits. I look forward to working with others to persuade the Government to reconsider their approach before it is too late.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I speak today with some fear in my soul because, unusually for a Liberal Democrat, I have very little grounding in local government—or, as one of my colleagues said to me, “not yet”. So, fearing that candidate selection with my arm jacked up behind my back will follow, I will say one or two things about the Bill in front of us.
One thing on which I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is that most people do not understand local government. But I disagree with another. I did a little service for the RFU a few years ago explaining local government planning issues and it was quite clear that most of the people involved did not know the difference between a district council and a county council. They had no knowledge of it, because they were a group of people who were committed to a bit of the public service—in this case sport—and who went training, played, manned their committees and even went to work and had love lives. They did not have time to understand the structure of local government and did not realise that until they bumped into it when something was going wrong and said, “Oh, do we have to do that?” The Local Government Association helped me with that.
We then went and spoke to other sports and—guess what—it was the same there. These local structures, which are often designed on historical county lines, have been there for a long time and have ignored the changes in local government whenever they could, have not spoken to each other because they are doing their own thing in their own time. Local governments, often run on local political structures by local volunteers, have exactly the same problems—they do not meet very often and until something goes wrong. Will the Minister undertake to make sure that, when these local government changes come through, there is an active programme of integrating them with these large voluntary groups across the country? Sports should be one of the first, but it goes through. How do they interact? By local transport. If you do not have a bus stop, you do not have a junior team because they do not have cars. That is a problem you will have when you are explaining to somebody who wants to move their club outside the area to a wonderful new site. The developer who has offered you the sun probably cannot offer you a bus service. All these things have to be explained and integrated. If we are going to make these changes, please can the Minister go in and talk to these groups? That should also catch other cultural groups who should be mentioned in this.
What is the relationship between these bodies and public health? Establishing an exercise habit for reasons other than the fact you are told to by your doctor is a very good way of keeping going. You are also involved in the cultural interactions of a group, which is very good for mental health as well. It is also an informal job market and something that allows you to meet people outside your normal group, which helps understanding. Why do we not help them more? These are self-sustaining groups that are probably struggling to get by. Government, particularly local government, really should be reaching out. Please can we do that? This Bill is an opportunity to start doing this. Try to reach out and find out what is going on. We could expand on this into minute detail, but I am at the edge of absurdity here, so I will stop very soon.
What are the Government going to do to reach voluntary groups? Sporting groups would be a good place to start, but they are not the end of it. How will the changes happen? How will you reach out and change their lives for the better? If you do not, the wall of ignorance that exists—it is not even a wall; it is a pit that you fall into—is there. These bodies do not interact; they have their own politics and agendas. They do not have time to get in touch with yours on a casual basis. You need to form bridges in a regional structure. Even unitary authorities might be a good way to start.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I think I might have discovered why Governments of all flavours make their legislation so heavy and long—in the case of this Bill, 371 pages, 93 clauses and 34 schedules. It is to enable any Peer to speak about the one subject they know about at Second Reading. That is very generous, because several clauses are to solve long-term problems in the taxi industry and that is what I want to talk about.
I must first declare my interests. I have been connected with the taxi trade for about 45 years and I own my own wheelchair-accessible licensed taxi. Historically, I was the group CEO of Manganese Bronze Holdings plc, which voluntarily introduced the first production wheelchair-accessible London taxi in 1997.
I want to mention the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Thirty years ago may seem to the young people in the transport department to be legislative archaeology, but the wonderful Library here has dug out the history of this legislation. Section 32 of the 1995 Act says that the department
“may make regulations … for the purpose of securing that it is possible … for disabled persons … to get into and out of taxis in safety”
and
“to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort”.
The Government did not actually make the regulations, and the DDA Act was repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. The same clauses were carried through in Section 160 of that Act, but the same inactivity was carried through too. The House of Lords did post-legislative scrutiny on the Equality Act and disability, and the Liaison Committee did so again in 2021. I think that both said the provision should be commenced without further delay. The Government leaped into action, agreed with the committees, and did nothing. So, I believe that the words in Section 32 are still relevant 30 years later. The department “may make regulations”, but has not bothered to do so, and still disabled people with flat batteries are pushing their wheelchairs uphill.
These words pose an obvious question: why have they not been actioned? Is it because there has not been the time in 30 years to action them? The Conservative Party was in power for 16 years, the Labour Party for 14 years, and the Liberal Democrats in coalition for 5 years. All of them have had the power to do something, but nobody has actually done anything. The blame should be shared among the parties represented here; there is ample obloquy for everyone other than the Cross-Benchers to take their fair share.
This is a shameful history, and it should stop. Essentially, Parliament decided to do something and the department decided not to do it but did not have the courage to repeal the legislation. Thirty years is enough. In those 30 years, the number of people who use wheelchairs has grown enormously as longevity has increased. Indeed, I can point out that all of us have used a wheelchair; it is called a baby buggy, and we are very fortunate if it is only at the beginning of our lives when we use a wheelchair.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a speech on 4 March 2022 that impressed me. She mentioned that she had arrived at her local station, Watford, after 11 pm in sleet and snow, and only a very few of the taxis were wheelchair accessible. She had a flat battery, so she had to push her heavy wheelchair because there was not an accessible taxi available. Why did any party in power not do the small work required to get the statutory instrument in place?
I have enormous respect for the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who I know is enthusiastic to solve this wheelchair accessibility problem. I ask the Government two questions: has the department already drafted the statutory instrument needed by the previous Section 32? I presume that that was 30 years ago. When can we see it proposed?
On the Bill itself, where there are new clauses on the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, I ask: why not set a timetable for these excellent clauses, which I thoroughly support? Why does it say “may” and not “must”? Are we debating a 30-year timetable to get these changes done?
The largest problem in the taxi industry is cross-border hiring, which was mentioned earlier. It was a problem mentioned in the Casey report. If a taxi driver can be caught in a crime and lose his licence but carry on working the same place with a new licence from somewhere else, this change to enlarge licensing areas should be made.
There is clearly something suboptimal about the knowledge in London. Butter boys—the London trade’s name for newly qualified drivers—spend three to five years memorising knowledge which is inherently computable. It can be done better on an iPhone than in a brain, because the answer to the question, “How do I get from the House of Lords to Carey Street?”, changes from day to day, depending on who is digging up which road and then staring at the hole.
There may well be significant problems with the rest of the legislation, but I support the taxi clauses. I will propose amendments to compel the Government to bring forward the inclusion of wheelchair accessibility to taxis—a matter agreed no less than 30 years ago.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
My Lords, I will reflect on the journey that has led to the Bill before us. English devolution has not arrived all at once; it has been shaped over time by successive Governments of different political parties, each building on what came before—from the championing by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, of local leadership in economic regeneration, to my late noble friend Lord Prescott, whose Northern Way set out the economic opportunity of stronger regions, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, who worked with George Osborne to translate that economic logic into the modern mayoral model. Although their contributions were informed by different political traditions, they were bound by a shared belief that this country succeeds when power is closer to the people it serves and reflects their needs and aspirations.
Because of that shared endeavour, the landscape has changed dramatically. Eight years ago, there were no metro mayors in the north. Today, we have nine, representing several different political parties. I welcome the Bill’s ambition, building on that cross-party progress, to standardise and strengthen the powers available to mayors and combined authorities that are made up of council leaders. It offers a clearer framework for how devolution should operate, moves us beyond the ad hoc deal-making of the past, and sets a strong direction for the future: that devolution is not a patchwork experiment but a permanent and essential part of how we govern.
The powers in the Bill over skills, transport, housing, regeneration, health and well-being cover exactly the areas where local leadership can make the biggest difference because, out there in the real world, the challenges people face are not neatly divided into departments but intrinsically connected and overlap varying government departments. That is why decisions taken locally and regionally better reflect need. A lack of affordable housing affects employment, poor transportation limits access to training, and health outcomes are shaped by all of the above. The mayor in my region, Kim McGuinness, is using her formal powers and wider convening role to help address child poverty. She strongly supports the ending of the two-child limit to benefits announced by the Chancellor recently in the Budget.
If we do not give our mayors powers to address all those challenges, we should not be surprised when the same problems persist. The Bill gives them a more complete toolkit, and I hope we continue to build on this as devolution evolves, but tools alone will not get the job done if they do not come with the resources to deliver that change. Too often, mayors with clear mandates have to return to Whitehall to bid or make the case for funding when they want to act. That is neither a good use of their time nor consistent with the spirit of devolution, so I welcome the move towards longer-term, more flexible funding settlements. I hope this becomes the standard across all devolved areas. Fundamentally, if we want accountable mayors who are actually responsible for the destiny of their localities, we must go further by allowing them to raise and retain revenue. That is why I was pleased to hear the Chancellor announce a discretionary visitor levy in last month’s Budget, which I hope will be a first step towards a new era of fiscal devolution.
Ultimately, politics is about achieving outcomes, not changing governmental structures, but should we really be surprised that when decisions are made at a distance from the people they affect, they often lead to worse outcomes? Devolution gives local leaders the ability to act on the priorities that matter to their communities: to create jobs, improve public services and ensure that growth is felt more widely. I support the Bill because it moves us further along that path, and I hope we continue to build on it.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, in that I am a contributor to the Local Government Pension Scheme. Sadly, I am not able to take any money out of it as yet, but I know that it is in good hands.
I am particularly pleased to follow the contribution by my noble friend Lord Borwick, whose wife, Victoria, I served with on the London Assembly for two terms. She was a wonderful deputy mayor of London and set a very high standard for the rest of us to follow. I particularly agreed with my noble friend’s comments on disabled access to taxis. If he brings forward that amendment, I would be delighted to support it and help it, because it is about time.
I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, had to say about out-of-area licensing. While I was in London, I visited cab drivers and would go out with them to see some of the challenges they faced around London. I was often dismayed to see the number of out-of-area plates from towns around London that were plying in the centre of town, seemingly with no enforcement, even though we knew that the standard they had to pass was far lower than the London cab standard. That was in the days before the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, made her report on the grooming gangs, which makes that type of licensing only even more urgent. I am pleased to see the Government bring that forward.
It is 25 years since the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and I arrived at Romney House, just down the road from here, to take up our role as founder members of the London Assembly, which celebrated its 25th anniversary this year. I will confine most of my other comments to London issues, because that is the area I know a bit about. I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the London-wide licensing strategy, which was added to the Bill at a fairly late stage. I note that, in the other place, Dame Meg Hillier, another former colleague of mine now representing Hackney South and Shoreditch, had some very technical questions to raise about the licensing strategy. I will be interested to see how it develops as the legislation moves forward.
I have some questions about London-wide entertainment and alcohol licensing, largely on the basis of why it is being done, why it was asked for, what the objectives are and how we will be able to judge whether this trial is successful before it is rolled out to the rest of the country. Local communities guard their decisions on licensing fiercely. There needs to be a very obvious benefit for taking them away or making that decision at a higher level further up the ladder.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her comments on the assembly’s powers and, perhaps, improving them. I suspect many people here will not know that there has been no occasion at any time in the 25 years that the assembly has existed when the assembly or its committees have been able to amend or overturn the mayor’s budgets or strategic powers, despite the fact that that power was put into the legislation. That is because those committees and the assembly require a two-thirds majority to do that. Linked with proportional representation, that is almost mathematically impossible.
There has only ever been one term in which that might have happened, which was the second term of Ken Livingstone’s office, when the Labour Party was reduced to seven assembly members, which was not enough to provide a one-third blocking number. On that occasion, a number of deals were done with colleagues in the Green Party: I think the mayor’s conversion to green policies was dragged along partly by the political necessity of having to get his budget through. Perhaps the solution to that is to allow the assembly and its committees to amend the budget by simple majority rather than by a two-thirds majority. An amendment to that effect was introduced by Peter Fortune, the honourable Member in the other place who represents Bromley and Biggin Hill, another former assembly member. I think it was defeated, but we might see it again here.
I also believe that another look at the way the assembly is described in legislation may be overdue. The assembly has been in existence now for 25 years. In that time, the population of London has increased by over 1 million people. That is an increase in the size of the population of London of over 10%. Yet the assembly is still made up of 25 members: it has not grown to reflect that. The reason is that the legislation says that the assembly should be made up of 25 members, so some legislative change is required to enable a boundary review to take place. Perhaps the Minister will consider that, while we are going over London matters. It has been an asymmetric growth in numbers. Two particular constituencies in London—North East, which covers the Lea Valley, and City and East, which covers the Barking Riverside development—have grown much faster than others and therefore the people in those constituencies are possibly underrepresented.
I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Porter, who mentioned “Yes Minister”. There has been a lot of discussion about the title of this legislation. I dug the quote out from the first episode of “Yes Minister”. Sir Humphrey Appleby’s advice to Ministers on drafting legislation was, “Dispose of the difficult bit in the title. It does much less harm there than on the statute books”. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that is not the case.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Like my noble friend Lady Pidgeon, when I looked at this Bill, I was excited by the possibilities. I thought, “Here is a real opportunity”. Sadly, I do not think we have seized all the opportunities that we could have done. But maybe, as somebody said, it is a first foot in the door.
I have been a local councillor in Liverpool for 38 years and was leader of the council for eight years. I was reflecting, as various people talked, scribbling and changing things on my notes, on what have been the real changes that I have seen during that time and whether there is such a thing as civic pride. Well, I think there was at the beginning. I felt truly that people were proud of the city. Perhaps they still are. I hope they are, but it is difficult to be proud when finances are constantly being cut. I do not know how Liverpool survived when it lost a third of its budget. Imagine your own family losing a third of your income. With the huge costs of adult social care, special educational needs and school transport, what is left is just about managing to keep statutory services going. There is little left for those things that might help to regenerate civic pride.
It took the Toxteth riot to get the then Prime Minister to come to Liverpool. It took a Liberal Democrat-controlled council to get the Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to come to Liverpool. He came willingly. He came in my first year as leader of the council. He came to a breakfast. He arrived late and Alastair Campbell told me I could not speak because the Prime Minister had to speak and go on to his next engagement. I was not allowing that to happen and we created a good relationship. One of the hallmarks of a successful Government in terms of working with local authorities—this is not in the Bill, of course—is the relationships that are created. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, is not in her place, because she helped us enormously with our cabinet model. Tessa Jowell helped us with winning Capital of Culture, although she remained impartial. The relationships that you have with Ministers are hugely important. Of course, Michael Heseltine almost became a Scouser: he changed his views completely.
In Merseyside now we have a combined authority that, I have to say, is remote from the people. You cannot access that. The cabinet or the group that advises them are all the leaders of the local authorities in Merseyside. And guess what—they are all Labour. Can you, as a citizen, find out what is happening? When it is decided, yes. Can you ask to see an agenda of what is being discussed? No. Can you go to a meeting and petition the meeting? No, you cannot. So, when we talk about devolution and opening up local government, it is not just about structures: it is about people themselves.
The former Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, at Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, said:
“I know that I will not achieve our goals unless we fundamentally change the way that our country is run. That means handing power back to where it belongs—to local people”—
Hallelujah. We all agree with that, do we not?
“so that they can make decisions on what really matters to their communities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 180.]
However, this Bill sees power remain at the centre. The Secretary of State will retain sweeping powers to merge authorities and extend functions without local consent or parliamentary oversight.
Place is important to people, whether it be a village, a town or a city. Regional identity is hugely important to people. When it comes to strategic elected mayors who have a real vision for their communities and the energy to drive forward that vision, two names come to mind, both with the same first name: Andy Street in Birmingham and Andy Burnham in Manchester, who are real, visionary champions for their combined authorities. Others have quite frankly been rather dull and not had the vision or the determination, and that is to the detriment of local government.
The Bill needs to ensure that all elected mayors are on equal footing and given the same responsibilities: as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, equal financial security, not the drip, drip, drip of responsibilities and finance favoured by the previous Government. We on these Benches have always believed that decision-making should start at the lowest level, at the grass roots, and not become remote and removed from citizens. Elected mayors must always be accountable, and local government at all levels should be open and accessible to the electorate.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, a lot of good points have already been made in this debate and it is clear that the principle of devolution is supported across all of our Benches. I have personally seen really good results from devolution in the Midlands, where I have lived for most of my life. There, we have had serious and meaningful devolution that has already delivered real progress under the leadership of former Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Sir Andy Street. It is quite telling that people from across this House have mentioned him in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just talked about pride, and Andy made us feel proud of our region and my home city of Birmingham for the first time in a very long time. That was truly precious, after a lifetime of being laughed at for being from Birmingham.
Nothing in the Bill, I am afraid, resembles that successful model. Instead, we are presented with a measure that centralises power and concentrates authority in the hands of a few individuals. It sidelines councillors and weakens scrutiny, and I am afraid that, against the backdrop of cancelling mayoral elections, it makes a mockery of the Government’s claim that they want to strengthen democracy.
I shall bring in some concerns that have been raised directly with me by councillors in my former constituency in Redditch and in the county of Worcestershire. These are people who actually deliver services and understand their communities. I pay tribute to them and to everybody else who steps up to serve their local area. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, it is far from clear how an area such as Worcestershire will be affected. It is too small a county to be a large strategic authority, but lumping it in with Birmingham or combining it with Herefordshire or Gloucestershire just would not work. It would be a million miles from the wishes of local communities, so I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how Worcestershire, and Redditch specifically, will be affected by the plans to combine those two tiers of government into one authority.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard is right to highlight the deep roots of counties. I am old enough to remember when my hometown of Solihull was kicked out of Warwickshire and put into the West Midlands. That caused everyone to go into a frightful tizzy and to vote against all the local councillors who had done it.
I have also heard concerns expressed about the concentration of power into the hands of a small number of individuals, and that really is a danger. To have good governance, you need a robust group on a committee challenging each other and making sure that alternative points of view are presented. I can see that we are creating a situation where influence can be captured by targeting a handful of individuals. We could find a small number of mayors who could create a cabal distant from the people that they serve, rather than the current model we have of ward councillors deeply embedded in their local areas, living and breathing those day-to-day problems affecting people every day. Without proper checks, a mayor can simply ignore scrutiny panels. There is no equivalent to parliamentary votes. If a mayor just says, “Well, it’s my way or the highway”, what can those local representatives do? Absolutely nothing.
As I am speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, I follow him in talking about the Midlands. I was fortunate enough to work very closely with Sir Andy Street as he started out as the first mayor of that combined authority. The reason he was successful is that he was able to navigate relationships with other local authorities of different political colours. He was able to deliver significant benefits for the region and put that authority on a path to being an outstanding authority, and he did it just through relationship building and developing trust, despite their different political colours. I genuinely do not think it would have worked if the then Conservative Government had just said, “You have to do it this way. We’re dictating from MHCLG”—as it was at that time. That would not have worked; they would all have dug in and refused, as Labour authorities, to work with a Conservative mayor, but Andy Street was able to bring them together and deliver something. The Government would do well to reflect on successful models of devolution that have worked well and delivered benefits for those areas.
Reorganisation, if done properly, could potentially save millions of pounds, and I think the Government are planning to do that. My worry is that any cost saving could get swallowed up into more bureaucracy. I fear, and I think many of us share this concern, that it looks as though the Government are potentially using this to do their favourite thing, which is put up taxes. When I listen to the Government Front Bench, at no time do they say they have the aspiration of lowering council taxes on hard-pressed council taxpayers. They talk instead about more taxes for tourism, which will cost money to administer and collect and might well have the opposite effect to the one that they imagine.
Real devolution means trusting local people, not bypassing them, but the Bill does none of that. Local government, in the words of one of our noble Peers who I was just having a cup of tea with, is one of those things that is boring but really important because it touches the lives of so many people. It is vital that we get this right, and I hope the Minister will take on board the suggestions of noble Lords to improve it throughout its passage.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire, which is a large unitary authority with both a metro mayor and a combined authority, I have both an interest to declare and experience to share.
This has been a great debate to be part of and to listen to, because the passion for local governance and local democratic government has been apparent throughout the afternoon. Many issues have been raised that are important locally, such as cattle grids—who knew?—and taxi and private hire licensing, which is vital for safeguarding. We have heard about different parts of the country, from Cornwall and even Devon to Lincolnshire, Norfolk, the West Midlands and now Yorkshire.
This has been an important debate, but it has had rather a mixed response from various Members across the House. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are completely in favour of the principle of devolution. It is fundamental to our values, as is community empowerment, which should naturally flow from devolution. Unfortunately, the Bill being debated neither encompasses real devolution nor, unfortunately, empowers communities. We on these Benches will strongly support proposals that enable either or both.
At the heart of the chasm that exists between the Liberal Democrat and the Government’s approach to devolution is an understanding of the essential purpose of local government. Successive Governments have viewed local government as simply a necessary local service delivery function. Perhaps that notion has its beginnings in the statement made by Sir Keith Joseph, when he was a Cabinet Minister in the early Thatcher Government, that local government should outsource all its service delivery, and the council would therefore only need to meet once a year to agree the contracts. Since then, there has been a persistent trend of central government viewing the purpose of local government through that lens.
Nearly 20 years ago, the Lyons report into local government expressed a more positive purpose for local government as being one of place shaping in order to use powers and influence to promote the well-being of a community. Lyons said that that approach was crucial to improving satisfaction through greater local choice and flexibility. It is that wider, more inclusive place-shaping role that we on these Benches support. It follows the long line of great local government reformers and indeed the Localism Act 2011, which introduced the concept of subsidiarity.
It is in that context that Liberal Democrats challenge the basis of the Bill. We support a strategic authority, but it should have greater democratic accountability and not be at the expense of local decisions made locally, where they belong. During this debate, there have been many contributions on Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which establish strategic authorities and the role of mayors. Strategic authorities have an important role to play in place shaping, as we have heard, and both Manchester and the West Midlands have been trailblazers in doing that, but what is not acceptable to those of us who cherish local democratic decision-making is the powers given to a single person over a large area with minimal accountability, minimal community engagement and little involvement of elected local councillors.
The Mayor of West Yorkshire, for example, serves 2.5 million people, and the combined authority consists of, in effect, the five council leaders. Under the Bill, the mayor will have very wide powers to determine a strategy for land use, for example, that will have a significant impact on local communities who will have been denied a genuine opportunity to have their voice heard. Where is the community empowerment in that? Where is the local accountability and local democratic decision-making?
My noble friend Lord Pack has rightly criticised the change to the mayoral electoral system. A supplementary vote fails the test of enabling the candidate with the widest support to be elected. Why has this system been chosen when others, which are more effective at ensuring the election of a candidate with the widest support, have been rejected?
A further undermining of transparency is the power the Bill provides for a mayor to appoint up to seven unelected commissioners. As it stands, this enables a mayor to appoint their mates to these roles—as has apparently already happened in some mayoral authorities, including one not far from where I live. At the very least, there need to be requirements in the Bill for an open process of appointment through a selection panel.
The extension of mayoral powers is far remote from the notion of community empowerment. For example, the potential for civil enforcement powers to be undertaken by the mayor removes them from local involvement. Further, the power of a mayor to take a planning decision away from the local planning authority is at complete odds with local democracy. I have read nothing in the Bill that explains how a strategic planning decision will be defined. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.
Part 3 is a further attack on local democracy and accountability as it provides powers to the Secretary of State to merge councils into unitary ones. What is not sufficiently discussed is that the key criteria for a unitary council is to be its population. The number of people will determine the geography of the new unitary councils, not whether places coexist and work well with each other, or whether it is the will of the people. Forced amalgamations fail. The council on which I served is a prime example. Even after 50 years, there are regular heartfelt calls for its abolition, because it forced together the great towns of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley, when they do not have much in common. That is the danger of forcing councils together in this way.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that there are elements of the Bill that are welcome, such as the creation of the local audit office. That is a very important move. Since the Audit Commission was abolished, there has been a lack of oversight and guidance for local audit, so I welcome that clause. Clause 58 is important, because it gives a nod towards neighbourhood governance, although there is no clarity about what that might mean. In any case, Clause 58 provides a power for the Secretary of State, for crying out loud, to make the decision on what constitutes a neighbourhood unit.
If we really believe in devolution, neighbourhood governance should be decided by the local council area, not the Secretary of State. If there is one thing that I hope the Minister will help us to change, it is that. That is at the heart of what devolution should be: local people determining what neighbourhood governance should look like and what the area should be, not the Secretary of State, who surely has better things to decide on. That is just one example of a ministerial power to override local decisions, which are unfortunately peppered throughout the Bill.
This is not real devolution. There is no fiscal devolution in the Bill either, which, as many Members have said in their contributions, makes devolution a rather empty promise, given that mayors will probably have to compete for resources from the Treasury.
At its best, local government is greater than the sum of its parts. It is what matters most to the daily lives of people. The plea from these Benches is for the Government to start appreciating the power of vibrant, well-funded local government that enhances the lives of the people who live there and the place in which they live. During the next stages of the Bill, we on these Benches will challenge the Government to look through a local lens and provide real devolution and real community empowerment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire and a local government pensioner. I extend my thanks to the Minister for the time that she has given noble Lords today, as well as for the many constructive meetings that she has kindly hosted outside your Lordships’ House. I am likewise grateful to the many organisations and individuals who have written to us all and provided many submissions to and analyses of the Bill.
One question troubles me: what is the true purpose of the Bill? I remain far from certain. Over many years, we have seen a consistent trend of centralisation in the UK. As a councillor and an ex-chair of the LGA, I am a huge advocate of devolution, and I was looking forward to the Bill delivering real devolution. We have heard support across this House for genuine devolution. But—and there is a but—while “Devolution” is in the Bill’s title, as hard as I try, I find very little devolution in the Bill. Yes, the Bill devolves licensing of micro electric vehicles and removes outdated Secretary of State consent for things such as special event notices, the conversion of footpaths to cycle paths, and the construction of cattle-grids. Given our previous discussion on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I am pleased to see the partial removal of the need for Secretary of State approval for lane rental schemes. While these are all very helpful, they can hardly be described as real devolution, and would certainly not justify a Bill of this size—well over 300 pages.
In fact, the reality is the reverse, with the Bill seeking to centralise powers in Whitehall. Reading the Bill, there are 43 mentions of “must have regard to”, including regard to guidance from the Secretary of State; 76 mentions of “duty” in relation to local government; and 105 mentions of the “Secretary of State may”. With all this new guidance and new duties that have to be followed, there is no mention of transferring funding for fiscal devolution in relation to, for instance, new duties for health, housing and education. Instead, there is an ability for mayors to increase taxes on hard-working residents, who are already suffering from a £68 billion increase in taxes over the last two Budgets. The Bill clearly risks substantial increases in local taxation from uncapped mayoral precepts that can be used for almost any purpose, no doubt to fulfil new duties and guidance as dictated by Whitehall.
Had the title of the Bill been “local government reorganisation”, this would have been more understandable. The Bill’s focus is on the establishment of mayors and strategic authorities and the transfer to them of powers currently held by existing county, district and borough councils. I ask the Minister: what is the purpose of the reorganisation? In the Bill, it is clearly not about devolving powers from Whitehall.
I will reflect on some comments that were made across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised development corporations, and I have a lot of sympathy with that, but do we really need mayors to create development corporations? The existing structures could do that. Taxis have been raised by many noble Lords, as has safeguarding—and the alarming statistic on the number of Manchester taxi drivers from Wolverhampton. These issues need to be addressed.
Why is there a delay to the mayoral elections? Why could they not have carried on? The Minister said that these strategic authorities would carry their formation, so why not have a mayor to help that? Also, the issue of town and parish councils is critical, and the Bill is rather reticent on that.
On devolution, there were some interesting quotes. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, called the Bill “constitutionally incoherent”. My noble friends Lady Shephard and Lord Trenchard spoke eloquently on local democracy and local identity. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said the Government should “pause and think” before rolling out. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, called it a “woeful” Bill. My noble friend Lord Porter made an interesting comment: should we be judging this on how small Whitehall gets? Our suspicion is that it will not get smaller. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, made important comments on commencement, and I ask: why are we having a Bill when many powers that already exist on the statute paper have not been commenced? This should be about local identity, local democracy and real devolution. We should be trusting local people, as my noble friend Lady Maclean said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it should be about place-shaping, which is best done at the local level.
I will reiterate the important questions posed by my noble friend Lady Scott regarding cost and economies of scale. Both my noble friend and I have led councils through reorganisation, and we know the difficulties and the upfront costs involved, as well as the need for scale in certain services, such as social care. How will the Government ensure that any projected savings, potentially in the tens of millions, are actually realised and not frittered away by consequent changes? If such savings do materialise, will they be used to ease the burden on local taxpayers, who are already under considerable pressure? In Committee we will wish to probe in detail the areas of competence that the Government seek to shift, and, crucially, the rationale for doing so.
I must also raise what I consider to be a fundamental issue: what powers are actually coming down from government to local government—local councils and mayors? The Minister suggested that future powers will depend on what mayors demand, but how will these demands be made? Who decides which powers are devolved and which remain tightly controlled from the centre? As drafted, there is no clear pathway by which a mayor may secure the genuine authority needed to effect meaningful change—and, as importantly, funding for the services involved. Annual bidding for funds is not the same as having a guaranteed revenue stream against which you can plan. In this regard, the Government already have form, removing the incentive for growth provided by retained business rates, which are set to be removed by a business rates reset. The Bill does not devolve power; it simply rearranges administrative functions through Whitehall diktat.
Devolution has huge potential. Whitehall does not know and cannot implement holistically at the local level. If we as a nation are to address the issues of social care, health, economic growth and inactivity, it cannot be done centrally; it needs to be done by local partners working together at the local level to get the best outcomes for their communities. As we have heard across the House, whether it is Cornwall and Devon—there is a bit of a dispute about cream and scones, but hey—or Kirklees, Yorkshire or elsewhere in the country, they are all different and need to be looked at separately.
I hope that in Committee the Government will provide the clarity that is presently lacking and explain how they intend to bridge the gap between nominal competence and real power. Only then can we properly assess whether this legislation truly serves the interests of local communities or simply strengthens the hand of central government. For these reasons, I fear the Bill does nothing to empower local communities. Instead, it reduces local democracy through government-imposed restructuring, irrespective of local opinion, local geography or local identity—bureaucratic reorganisation that will cost money, distract from housing delivery and offer no evidential basis for improved services. It risks higher costs for residents through the new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, higher parking charges and the creation of further layers of mayor-appointed officials. Can the Minister assure the House that this will not lead to higher bills for hard-pressed residents while services are disrupted through reorganisation? These are serious concerns and I look forward to returning to them in more detail at the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their excellent contributions. It has been an engaging and constructive debate and, for someone as passionate about devolution and local government as I am, it is heartening to hear that passion echoed around the Chamber. We may have different views on how we do things, but that passion for moving some of the powers and funding that are currently held in this little bit of London to local areas has been echoed today. We all know the pressure that the current system is under. It is not working in many places now, and it certainly is not sustainable for the future. We can see the signs of the system cracking all around us, and we need to move forward with this.
I will answer a couple of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, before I start picking up particular detailed points in the Bill. The noble Baroness spoke about respect for local identity. These proposals have come from local government. We have not devised them in the office—there is no map-drawing going on in Marsham Street. That has been done by local people in their own areas. I will not take any lessons from the Tories, who dithered and delayed on local government review and devolution. They did some devolution, but they left huge areas of the country stranded from the increased powers and funding that some areas have benefited from. That cannot be right, and we need to address that now.
The accountability gap that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned is there now; what we are doing is introducing locally elected mayors to provide local accountability for local decision-making. With the powers that will be devolved from Whitehall to those local mayors, they will have a powerful democratic mandate to take decisions on behalf of their residents. With the strong local authorities that will sit alongside them and the neighbourhood governance that will take that accountability to the very local level, this is an empowering Bill in terms of accountability, not the other way around.
The noble Baroness asked about funding. There is £200 billion of funding being devoted to this mayoral project, and that gives areas a real chance to make decisions on their own behalf. There are other powers, which I will come to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned fiscal stability. Fiscal stability comes from having growth and investment in every part of our country, not just in the bits of it where it is decided that it will be. We will get that fiscal stability only where we are making decisions on growth and investment at local level. It is therefore very important that we take these steps now.
Just briefly on the noble Baroness’s point about adult social care—which is well made; we know that there are huge problems with adult social care—each of the proposals for local government reorganisation contains the area’s ideas of how to do the transformation to adult care services. With that local input and the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is doing, I think that we have a chance to make a real step forward on adult social care after a long time of waiting for that to happen.
I will endeavour to respond to different points in turn, but I would be happy to discuss topics of interest in detail in advance of Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked an important question about other government departments and how they are reacting to the Bill. I simply point to the huge amount of co-operation that we have had from other government departments on, for example, skills, transport, public health and prevention, policing and the fire service. There has been a great cross-governmental project to work on this. I have some of my fellow Ministers sitting on the Front Bench with me and I know that they will be working in their own departments on how we devolve these powers to the local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also asked whether this devolution can really be delivered with local government finances in the state that they are. I very much regret that they are in that state, and we need to move that on. The answer to that question is that we simply cannot deliver the public services that people deserve and the growth that people need to see without making these changes. To the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I say that we absolutely understand the pressures: many of us have been very close to those pressures over the years, but we need to move this on now.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, that mayors will have powers devolved from Whitehall, not upwards from local government. That is very important. We will have stronger, more sustainable unitary local authorities delivering services to local people. As my noble friend Lady Griffin very articulately pointed out, that will instead create the opportunities and growth that we need to see across our country. Of course, people are worried about change, but I point to the success that we have seen right across mayoral areas already. Those areas that already have mayors are making great strides forward with economic growth, housebuilding, skills, transport and infrastructure.
Let me be clear, particularly to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who I have spoken to on many occasions at Hertfordshire events as well as in this House, that the historic institutions, such as lords-lieutenant and high sheriffs, remain a fundamental part of local life and will continue to do so.
A number of noble Lords raised issues about the functions of local government. As I said, no one is drawing maps in Whitehall; they are being devised and owned by local people. This place-shaping goes right to the heart of the local government reform that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to. Devolution by default is the principle right at the heart of the Bill. As mayoral authorities grow and get more established, they can request more powers, as we have already seen our colleagues in Manchester and other mayoral authorities doing. The Bill sees our system of devolution move away from an ad hoc and inconsistent model, replaced with a model where it is clear what places can access, when they can access it and under what conditions. Our new system of conferring functions on levels of strategic authority is devolution by default, which will streamline the devolution of functions. All areas can be confident about the functions they will receive and, as the framework deepens over time, they will know that they will have access to the new powers as they are introduced.
I am very grateful for the examples of great local action that we have heard. My noble friend Lady Elliott is right that accountable responsible mayors must have the funding that they need to deliver local outcomes and the right framework to demand further powers when they are ready to take them. The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Shephard, Lady Bennett and Lady Maclean, and the noble Lord, Viscount Trenchard, all spoke about issues relating to the establishment and the expansion of functions. The Government have been clear that devolution can deliver growth, unlock investment and deliver the change that the public want to see. That is why we want to see more parts of England benefit from devolution. Our engagement with councils to date has demonstrated that there is real appetite for this devolution across England, and the Bill will streamline the process for establishing new strategic authorities. It is our strong preference for devolution to be locally led.
However—and I hope this addresses some of the points about the powers that we have put into the Bill to deal with issues through ministerial-led routes—there are powers providing those routes to establish or expand strategic authorities or provide a strategic authority with a mayor. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and others who have raised this issue that these powers will be used only where no local agreement can be reached, where this cannot be moved forward at a local level. We much prefer this to be done at a local level, and this measure will definitely be a last resort. The powers will be subject to conditions and statutory tests and will not be commenced automatically. Instead, they will be commenced by regulations only when Ministers consider it necessary and we will ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to engage further on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Bassam’s points on pace are noted. I thank him for all the work that he did in Brighton. I agree that we need to establish stable unitary authorities as the foundation for devolution, and I am grateful for his comments.
As it has been mentioned in the debate many times, I will briefly refer to the devolution priority programme mayoral elections. Although we had a Question on it earlier, it is important to reiterate those comments, as they were questioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Shephard, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about the importance of pace in the devolution priority programme associated with this, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, mentioned this as well. Of course, we are committed to this extension of devolution and, for Cumbria, Cheshire and Warrington, the first mayoral elections for the new strategic authorities will take place in 2027, as those local authorities had already requested that that be the date for them. For Norfolk and Suffolk, Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, and Hampshire and the Solent, which are all areas that currently have two tiers of local government, we have announced that we are minded to hold the first mayoral elections for those areas in May 2028, because we know mayoral devolution is most successful when mayoral strategic authorities are underpinned by strong unitary councils. Therefore, holding elections for new mayors in 2028 will allow enough time for the reorganisation process to conclude and unitary councils to be well established.
On the issue of why culture and heritage are not included in the competence list—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and my noble friend Lady Griffin mentioned this—the current list of thematic policy areas is deliberately broad and is intended to allow a wide range of activities to fall within the scope of the areas of competence. Many initiatives relating to culture, heritage and tourism would naturally be encompassed within the economic development and regeneration area of competence. Strategic authorities will remain key players in supporting culture and heritage initiatives locally. Many are already using their existing powers to support culture, heritage and tourism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised important points about the ability of local government, confidence in its institutions and how that can drive community cohesion. She is absolutely right to raise that, which is why it is important that these institutions are stable and people have confidence in them. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, mentioned the environment, which is the specific competence of mayors, and energy, which is the subject of new powers over local growth plans and strategic planning.
The issue of the appointment of commissioners was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I think that the noble Lord asked why they are not local government leaders. They can be local government leaders if that is the way that the mayor decides to take this. Local authorities will have critical new functions to undertake. They require representation on national bodies and joint working. It is not realistic to expect a mayor to do all this on their own. That is why mayors will be able to appoint and remunerate commissioners to lead on one of seven areas of competence, helping to increase the capacity in their strategic authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about rural communities in this respect. Mayors can set an expectation that one or all of their commissioners should focus on rural issues. This is rightly a local decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and many other noble Peers raised issues around local government funding. We are making good now on long-overdue promises to fundamentally update the outdated funding system and its decades-old data. We are targeting money where it is needed most by properly accounting for local need and equalising local income. We are giving local authorities greater flexibility and certainty as we simplify the more than 30 funding streams that were there when we came into office, worth almost £47 billion through the first multi-year settlement in a decade. Giving local authorities that certainty over funding, and over multi-year settlements, is critical here. We will publish the local authority allocations later in December and they will be subject to consultation and the usual parliamentary process.
On mayoral combined authority precepts, to empower mayors to deliver change in their communities, they need to be able to spend money effectively. Previously, mayors could use their precept only to raise money for mayoral functions. This did not cover some areas vital to growth, such as adult skills provision. The Bill will allow mayors to spend money raised through the mayoral precept across the whole of an authority’s function. The introduction of a precept will need to be approved through the budget voting process within each strategic authority.
On council tax, we are committed to empowering local leaders to drive growth and deliver for their communities, without placing excessive tax burdens on people. We are delivering the long-awaited local government funding reforms and the multi-year settlements, and we are consulting on modernising and improving the administration of council tax, to make the system fairer, more efficient and more transparent. That package builds a more sustainable, accountable and locally empowered system that focuses on the needs of communities.
There has been a broad agreement that local audit reform was needed. I agree with my noble friend Lady Armstrong that audit is essential for public confidence. When the whole-government accounts cannot be cleared because of the issues with local government funding, something has to change. Local audit is vital for ensuring trust and confidence that taxpayers’ money is being used wisely. We have acted decisively to clear the backlog, but significant further reform is needed. Last December, we published a strategy and consultation on measures to outline a road to recovery and set the system up for long-term, sustainable success. The Bill delivers core elements of this strategy, creating a clear statutory remit for the local audit office to oversee and streamline the system. I hope that picks up the points that noble Lords mentioned.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Pidgeon, my noble friend Lady Armstrong and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, all mentioned the scrutiny of combined authorities and local public accounts committees. All combined authorities will be required to establish both overview and scrutiny committees, and audit committees. Beyond these structures, the current system of accountability and scrutiny is guided by the English Devolution Accountability Framework and scrutiny protocol. We are reviewing both documents to reflect the changes brought forward by the integrated settlement and the Bill. We recognise that there is scope to further strengthen the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities. That is why we committed in the White Paper to exploring models for local public accounts committees and local accounting officers. We are committed to strengthening accountability alongside the strengthened devolution offer, and we will confirm our policy approach in due course.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Janke, Lady Bennett and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, among others, mentioned the important issue of our parish and town councils. The Government value the role that town and parish councils play; they are an important part of local democracy. There are no plans to abolish town and parish councils or to change their powers. Our plans on neighbourhood governance in the Bill are about hardwiring community engagement into local authorities themselves. Parish councils will be an important partner in creating stronger, more responsive neighbourhood governance, as will the whole range of grass-roots groups that support community empowerment. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about community groups and their engagement in this. It is for local authorities to determine whether new parish and town councils are needed, and this is done through the community governance review process.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Griffin, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised issues around community empowerment. Of course, communities need power returned to them. We want to empower local leaders so that they can better affect the decisions impacting on their areas. That is why we are giving communities stronger tools to shape the future of their local areas, such as the new community right to buy, to help protect against the loss of cherished local assets. Some 350 of the most deprived communities are receiving funding from the Government. This includes the 75 plan for neighbourhoods areas and 25 new trailblazer areas, which will receive £20 million in funding over the next decade, including the pride in place funding. There is a clear ambition to hardwire that community engagement into this new system.
On the neighbourhood governance plans, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about removing powers from local areas. It is the opposite of that; we are creating a clear neighbourhood governance system for local authorities to hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working into their governance. The goal of that neighbourhood governance is to move decision-making closer to residents. Decisions about local communities should be made by people who understand local needs. That is why we are introducing a new requirement for all local authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the effective governance of local neighbourhood areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised issues about rural versus urban. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I will not get involved in the cream and jam debate. I am afraid the planning Bill and the English devolution Bill are quite controversial enough for me; I will not get involved in a debate about scones. The Government recognise that neighbourhoods across England are diverse, and that rural and urban communities have different needs and characteristics. Through the review of existing council-led neighbourhood governance models, we are working closely with local authorities and the community sector to understand what works best in different contexts.
The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley, raised important issues around mayoral development corporations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the value of the New Towns Taskforce report and Sir Oliver Letwin’s report relating to master planning and development corporations. That is why the Bill extends to all mayors the power to create mayoral development corporations, to drive economic growth and regeneration. Mayoral development corporations will benefit residents by delivering new homes, better transport and economic opportunities, revitalising areas for future generations.
I can see I have run out of time. I am sorry; I knew I would not get through all this, but I will respond in writing to any noble Lords whose questions I did not get to. I will conclude my remarks now. I reiterate my thanks to your Lordships for their engagement with the Bill to this point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for raising the issue of the District Councils’ Network and the County Councils Network, which have contributed hugely to the work going forward and to briefing noble Lords.
As the Bill progresses, I am happy to accommodate any requests from noble Lords for meetings or additional briefings wherever helpful. As I have set out earlier today, this ambitious legislation will deliver top to bottom redistribution of power, putting decision-making in the hands of local areas and delivering real change for working people. With this Bill, the Government will deliver on our manifesto commitment to empower local leaders and mayors to unlock growth and opportunities right across our country by making the right decisions for the communities they serve. I look forward to working with your Lordships during the passage of this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 to 23, Schedule 5, Clause 24, Schedule 6, Clause 25, Schedule 7, Clause 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 9, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 10, Clause 31, Schedule 11, Clause 32, Schedule 12, Clause 33, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 34, Schedule 15, Clause 35, Schedule 16, Clause 36, Schedule 17, Clause 37, Schedule 18, Clause 38, Schedule 19, Clause 39, Schedule 20, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 21, Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 22, Clause 47, Schedule 23, Clauses 48 to 50, Schedule 24, Clauses 51 and 52, Schedule 25, Clauses 53 to 57, Schedule 26, Clauses 58 and 59, Schedule 27, Clauses 60 and 61, Schedule 28, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 29, Clauses 64 to 73, Schedule 30, Clause 74, Schedule 31, Clause 75, Schedule 32, Clauses 76 to 84, Schedule 33, Clause 85, Schedule 34, Clauses 86 to 93, Title.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand that there has been no agreement in the usual channels for the Bill to be committed to a Grand Committee. I put on record that it is very disappointing that the Government have tabled this Motion without the agreement of the usual channels.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip consulted the usual channels in the usual manner. I am also aware that he spoke to some key Peers with an interest in the Bill.