Lords Chamber

Tuesday 24th March 2026

(began 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
None Portrait Lord Speaker
-

Well done. Paper.
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
So my noble friend makes a very good point. The variation in orders for railway rolling stock has, has, has, has really has been feast and famine. It resulted in the closure of several several manufacturing facilities over the last 30 years. There are now there is now one manufacturing plant and and three assembly plants. One of the determinations we have is that the long term rolling stock and. And infrastructure strategy produces a forward a forward. Order book, which is sufficient to keep those plants and the workers who work in them running for the for the long term future.

Accessibility into Macclesfield Station at the moment is severely curtailed for disabled people. The booking hall has been refurbished, which is most welcome, but it'd be really helpful if there was a completion date. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, look into this matter and the travelling public does understand it takes time to do refurbishments, but it would be really helpful if they had a completion date because the dates keep on changing at Macclesfield. I am really sorry. I know quite a lot about the railway system, but I don't know what the completion date for the station at Macclesfield.

It is, but I. But. But I will find out for the noble Lord and. And I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

write to him. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. May I come back to the question. Borwick. AM I to understand. The
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
None Portrait Oral questions: Reduction in government spending, following Office for National Statistics data on public sector borrowing and 10-year gilt yields increases
-

Fourth Oral Question Lord Leigh of Hurley. Paper. My Lords, UK markets are of course affected by global
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:18
None Portrait Legislation: English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill – report stage (day 1) part one
-

be received? As many as their opinion will say content, not content. The contents have it. I right.
15:18
15:19
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
OK my Lord, shall we kick off in clause two, amendment one. Lord Freyberg. >> My Lords, I am pleased to be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am pleased to be the opening speaker of the first day of report of the English Devolution Bill, and I begin by acknowledging Bill, and I begin by acknowledging the government's significant New Amendment Amendment two, which adds culture to the list of areas of competence. This is a hugely important and very welcome step forward, and I thank the government for addressing what has been a clear gap in the Bill. In doing so, I also want to recognise the work of my colleague, the noble Earl of Clancarty, the Minister herself, her officials and others across the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whose efforts have helped bring this change about, and without whom this admission might well have remained.

The Minister will know that we would ideally have preferred a wording in amendment three, and I will leave it to the noble Earl of Clancarty to explain the importance of the inclusion of the arts in this context, and to the noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay to speak to the significance of heritage in his amendment in supporting amendment two. I also support the Government's Amendment 42, which increases the number of commissioners a mayor may appoint from 7 to 10, and I also support the related amendments 43 and 47, which have now been superseded by that government amendment.

This change is sensible and proportionate. If we are recognising additional areas of competence, it follows that mayor should have sufficient flexibility in their leadership structures to reflect those responsibilities, provide subject matter, focus where needed, and ensure that new competences are not merely symbolic but can be exercised effectively. Turning to my own amendment, amendment one, I have brought it back on report because I am seeking further clarity following the Minister's answer in committee and because the government's new amendment two raises related questions about how the framework of completeness will operate in practice, I am therefore grateful to the Local Government Association for their briefing and for their support for this amendment.

My amendment is narrow and a practical one. It simply clarifies that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it on the ground. The Local Government Association has been clear that within the structure of the bill, the most coherent statutory home for tourism is economic development and regeneration, where it aligns with visitor economy, placemaking and local growth. The Bill recognises this to some extent. Clause 41 extends powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors and, as the Minister explained in committee, combined authorities and combined county authorities may use these powers to support the visitor economy, hosts events and attract people to their areas.

However, as the LGA has pointed out, that clause reflects a relatively narrow understanding of how tourism policy works in practice. In reality, the visitor economy is closely connected to transport, to regeneration and to wider economic strategy, and therefore greater clarity in the competence framework will help authorities make full and confident use of their powers. This is why I was somewhat surprised by the government's amendment G1t28, which moves clause 41 to a later part of the bill that change risks creating the impression that tourism is being treated as part of culture, rather than as a core element of economic development.

Without explicit inclusion, tourism risks falling between stools assumed but not fully recognised. That matters in practice. Tourism, as we know, is a major economic driver, and the government's decision to introduce powers for an overnight visitor levy reflects the importance of the visitor economy to local growth, regeneration and placemaking. It also illustrates why tourism sits most naturally within economic development. Because the success of the visitor economy depends on the strength of the of the wider offer, including cultural and heritage assets which attract people to to the place in the first instance, as these new levy powers develop, I hope that some of the funds raised will be used to sustain and improve that offer, since visitors are unlikely to to come to theatres, museums, art centres and historic sites if there has been no investment in them.

All of this underlines that tourism policy does not stand alone but must be planned alongside regeneration, transport, culture and local growth, ensuring that tourism sits clearly sits within economic development would therefore help strategic authorities to take that joined up approach. Against that background, it will be helpful if the Minister could explain the government's thinking. In particular, do the government intend tourism to be understood primarily as part of economic development and regeneration, as local authorities currently treat it, or do they envisage it sitting alongside culture following the restructuring of the bill and given the breadth of the competence framework, would the government consider issuing non-statutory guidance after enactment developed with local government and the sector to clarify how these boundaries are intended to operate in practice? My amendment does not seek to change the architecture of the bill.

It simply reflects how local government already works on the ground. For that reason, I hope the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on this point. I beg to move.
15:26
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause two, page two, line 21 at the end insert, including through tourism. >> My Lords, I congratulate the government on introducing their government on introducing their amendment to adding culture to the list of areas of competence, and I say at the outset, I have no intention of taking my own amendment to a vote. The Minister has listened to many of our arguments at Committee stage on this. I think this will make a big difference. It is what much of the arts has been asking for.

The glass is then I would say considerably more than half full. There is. And how there is a. However, although I support Lord Parkinson's Amendment three, adding heritage to the wording. Ideally, I would have preferred the wording in my amendment for the Arts, culture and heritage and I am grateful for the support of Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Baroness Prashar for that amendment. The word culture on its own is nebulous. So as the Local Government Association themselves recommend, and I quote, to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities can engage with the breadth and diversity of culture in their area, including the arts, heritage and creative industries.

Non-statutory guidance should be co-produced with the sector and published post enactment to better define this area of competence. So I ask the government will they produce such guidance and if so, what will the detail of that guidance be? And are they seeking input into that? The Minister used the phrase arts, heritage and creative industries as being included in culture. In your letter of March the 17th. So what is the basis for that assertion? My Lords? It is the subsidised arts sector, alongside cultural services such as museums and libraries, which I most worry about being overlooked.

New research by equity shows that council arts funding in England fell by 61% between 2010 and 2024, so there is a huge amount of ground to be made up. There is the added concern, as Steve Mannix, CEO of the Mercury Theatre in Colchester, pointed out back in January, an arts professional that, and I quote. As councils merge, a new narrative could take hold. We only need one theatre, stroke museum, stroke Gallery in the new area. As Manik says, this may be efficient on paper, but it is culturally and economically short sighted.

My Lords, I hope very much that the government's amendment will help to counter that. But ultimately, of course, we need significant, significantly more council funding of the arts. My Lords, it's also worth pointing out that Baroness Hodge, who led the Arts Council England Review, said in relation to the bill on March 17th at a culture, Media and Sport Committee meeting and I quote, it's the recommendation that council should have a statutory duty to produce a culture and arts strategy. My Lords, later in the Bill, we will again be discussing local growth plans and I have tabled my amendment for cultural ecosystem Plans.

I mentioned that now only because if we are talking about guidance for culture as an area of competence, it would also be useful to know what might be in the guidance in relation to the requirement, perhaps for a strategy or a plan, although of course, Baroness Hodge did use that word statutory. My Lords, I support what Lord Freyberg said about tourism. Culture is not tourism, and spending on culture should be spending on the arts, not on access roads, leading to a cultural attraction.

For instance, my Lords, as in committee, my amendments 43 and 47 were designed to provide a Commissioner for Arts, Culture and heritage. But the Minister has rather leapfrogged over us with increasing the number of commissioners from 7 to 10. The amendment. The Minister's Amendment 46, is in a later group, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what the minister's expectations are for a Commissioner for culture. For each of the authorities. My Lords, I am grateful for the discussions a number of us have had with culture Commons.

I'm grateful for the support of the Local Government Association. In summary, my Lords, I am very pleased that the government has made culture an area of competence, and I look forward to hearing more of the detail.
15:30
Baroness Prashar Portrait Baroness Prashar (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I. Too am delighted that the government. this. this. >> Amendment to include culture as the eighth area of competence within the within the Bill, and I within the within the Bill, and I hope that the term culture encapsulates arts and heritage as well as Lord Kilclooney has argued. I do regard this as a very significant and constructive step, and I too have been very pleased to work closely with colleagues across the party in developing the amendments, which have helped to bring the issue to the fore, and I also thank the Noahh Baroness Barran Taylor for the time and the care she has taken to engage with us, and I would also like to acknowledge the role played by Trevor McFarlane and common Cultures for the support they provided to us and across both houses.

During the Second Reading, I argued that the devolution cannot succeed without structures which only promote growth. Important though, that is, devolution in my view, will only succeed if people feel more connected to the places in which they live and if they're able to participate and see themselves as part of the shared civic and cultural life. And that in turn rests the strength of the place's social and cultural fabric. And in a society like ours, the question is not whether we live together alongside difference, but the real question is what holds us together.

And the answer, in my view, is culture, which is fundamental. And it is a thread which weaves difference into unity. And culture is the quite architecture which shapes values and, and, and, and relationships. Now, as this agenda moves into implementation, there will be important questions to address about how local mayors will make this a reality and what guidance will be given and how we maintain the arm's length principle at the subregional level, and how strategic authorities can add value rather than cut across the work of local authorities are already delivering in this policy practice.

So I really am delighted that this has been included. I will not develop the arguments, but I think it's important to understand why culture is a social glue in terms of building society communities at, at, at, at a local level. Therefore, I commend the government for bringing this forward.
15:32
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
Like others, I can commend the government for its amendment too. We had a good debate about this in We had a good debate about this in committee, with significant support from across your Lordships House for the government to expand the list of strategic competencies in this way. So as the I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, can hear. We are very glad that she's done so. As you can see from the other amendments that have been tabled in this group. However, the.

The remains are. Enthusiasm for ensuring that we don't just look at culture, but think of culture, heritage and the contribution that our creative industries can make across the board. In committee, the noble Lady. The Minister argued that this was implicit in many of the other strategic competencies. And indeed, when one looks down the list of those, one sees immediately the huge role that culture and heritage can play in skills and employment support, in housing and strategic planning, in economic development and regeneration in the environment and climate change, and in health and well-being.

She was right to argue that culture and heritage should play a part in the work of the new authorities in tackling these, but I'm very glad that there is the further encouragement because not. We know that not all local authorities have been as enlightened or taken advantage of the opportunities that culture and heritage can bring. As I said in committee, when I have the pleasure of being Arts and Heritage Minister, I was critical of local authorities of all parties at every tier that were cutting their spending in culture and missing out on the opportunities of saving in their health and wellbeing budget.

For instance, in missing out on the opportunities of economic development, when one sees what's going on and around the sort of the Kent and Sussex coast, some of the coastal towns like Margate, like Eastbourne, when one looks at the rippling effect down the Tyne and up the north east coast to towns like Whitley Bay, one can see the huge value that arts and culture and heritage can play in delivering the priorities of of local authorities. So I'm glad that this nudge is is being put in, but I am curious to hear from the noble Lady of the Minister why the government has chosen its minimalist description of just culture, rather than some of the alternatives that we looked at in committee, in which other noble Lords have put.

I echo the points that the noble Lord Lord Freyberg, the noble Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness Prashar have have made. I hope that often when people think about culture or heritage, they think of this solely as the subsidised sector. The noble Earl of Clancarty is right to talk about the importance of that. This is where the. The new, the experimental, the avant garde, the works that we will come to love in years to, to come can first be be tried.

But actually most theatres in this country are commercial rather than subsidised. Most of the live music venues that are struggling. But surviving in our in our countries are small businesses. They. The commercial element of culture and heritage is important to stress, as indeed is the symbiosis between the two. Most people going to the theatre don't know whether they're going to a subsidised theatre or a commercial theatre. They're just glad that there's one there putting on things, attracting them to make visits and, and, and boosting tourism.

And there is concern, I think whilst there's enthusiasm for the opportunities of the visitor levy that the government is, is embracing, there is concern, as we heard from the local Lord Dear, Lord Freyberg and others, that this could be spent on fixing potholes rather than on fixing the the deficits in cultural and heritage spending that we're seeing in some local authorities. So if the noble Baroness, the Minister has some comments to make on that at the end of this group, I know that would be welcomed, but I commend her for the government amendment, too, and I hope she will, even at this late stage, look at some of the alternative wordings and have some words of reassurance for your Lordships.
15:37
Lord Bassam of Brighton Portrait Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
-
-
So I was happy to co-sign the >> So I was happy to co-sign the government's amendment, putting culture into the bill for one very good reason. I've always thought of good reason. I've always thought of myself as a practical politician, and I currently chair and I should declare an interest really. Brighton and Hove Seafront Development and Reorganisation Board. For our purposes, regenerating our seafront is all about culture, it is about our heritage and it is about the arts. And these things come together.

My understanding of the definition of culture in the context of this bill is that it brings all of those things together, and I think that we should thank the government for having come up with its simple, effective and modest amendment, which I think many of us have campaigned for for a very long time. I don't want to anger the whip by talking for very long, but I did think that it was important that we acknowledge the the big step forward that the government has made here.

And in the context of my own county of Sussex, it was a delight that the House earlier approved the Statutory Instrument because, for our purposes, one of the fastest areas of growth, particularly in the South, will be arts, culture, heritage and and hospitality. And it's the fastest growth sector in the country. So this is a very fortuitous moment. And I think that with the creation of the combined mayoral authorities and the move towards Unitaries, this is a major shot in the arm for local economies.
15:38
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Inside the House. And I'm the vice president of the Local vice president of the Local Government Association. Now that we are starting Report stage. And I want to say I agree very much with what the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton has just said, because the word culture to me actually tends to be a lot of things, because tourism relates to culture, heritage relates to culture. Heritage is part of culture. Leisure can indeed be part of, of, of culture. And the creative industries certainly are part of culture.

So I think, I hope the Minister who I commend for the decision that the government has made, is absolutely the right thing to do to extend that list of competencies. But I think that that that it's almost whatever we say or whatever the government says. I suspect that the strategic authorities and mayors are going to say, well, this all Interlinks, let's join it all together, up, up, up, together. That is the role of the strategic authorities. So I just want to welcome all of this because I think it's really very helpful.

I think all the contributions that we had from the noble Lord Freyberg, Earl of Clancarty Baroness Prashar and Lord Wilkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Bassam of Brighton have just given us a dimension to what we mean in this debate. I'd like to repeat very briefly a note of caution that I raised at Committee stage, which is that we would not want local authorities to think that somehow all of these matters are transferred to the mayoral level for heritage and culture.

All of these things are actually very much a function of existing local government. But my Lord, with with, with, with those words, I'd like to commend the government for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision that it's made. All right. Yeah. My Lords, I'm grateful to all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this opening group, and particularly to my noble friend, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment, highlighting the importance of heritage. And can I also agree with heritage. And can I also agree with my noble friend about the word culture? I think it can mean different things to different different things to different people, so I could. The noble Lady, the Baroness, Baroness, Minister, could she please explain to us, is this going to be clarified in guidelines? Because I think it's going to be very important that that word is clarified.

It. The debate today clearly identifies the importance of to many noble Lords attached to the area, such as tourism, culture and heritage. However, my Lords, it's also brought into focus a more fundamental issue with the bill as drafted, because a central question remains what in practical terms is actually being devolved here? What do these areas of competence mean in terms of real power? My Lords, real responsibilities and real outcomes. The response to that uncertainty cannot simply be to continue adding to the list.

If the framework is unclear, expanding it risks compounding the lack of clarity rather than resolving it. My Lords, and we risk creating a system that is broader on paper, but no more certain in practice. There is also a question of focus. Strategic authorities will need to prioritise and deliver effectively, simply extending the list of competences, however well intentioned risks, diluting that focus and creating expectations that my Lords may not be matched by the powers or resources available. That's not to diminish the importance of the sectors that we've just been discussing.

Far from it. Tourism, culture, whatever that means and heritage are clearly vital to many local economies and communities. But the issue before us is not whether these areas matter, it's whether this bill provides a clear and coherent framework for devolution. At present, we believe that there is a risk that it doesn't. Before adding further competences, we should first be clear about the purpose and effect of those already in the bill, and I do hope the Minister will address that point directly.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I thank all noble Lords, particularly for such a positive response to the changes being brought forward in this group? being brought forward in this group? I hope we continue the evening as we've started. That would be we've started. That would be wonderful. Before I. Before I begin, can I thank noble Lords for their very insightful and continued very insightful and continued engagement on this bill, both through the Committee and since then in the various meetings we've then in the various meetings we've held in response to those debates last week, the government tabled a package of amendments which address a number of the points raised during Committee stage.

As I've said before, this bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the government's ambition on devolution. It will deliver both a landmark transfer of power out of Whitehall to mayors, local leaders and communities, and on the government's commitment to a fit, decent and legal local government. The amendments the government has brought forward continue in that spirit and I look forward to debating them with noble Lords throughout the Report stage. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Freyberg for their comments.

My Lords, the Government Amendment two adds culture as a distinct area of competence within clause two of this bill, culture and its associated sectors the arts, heritage and creative industries has been a topic of considerable debate during the passage of the bill, and I'm very grateful to all those who have participated, including the Earl of Clancarty Baroness Prashar, for their constructive engagement and valuable contributions. Both this government and me personally believe that culture in its many forms visual arts, music, theatre, museums, libraries, combined arts, digital media, literature and heritage enrich our quality of life as well as supporting economic growth and strengthening social cohesion and pride in place.

As your Lordships will know, it's always been the government's
15:45
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
position that mayors and strategic authorities can and should support cultural initiatives. So by cultural initiatives. So by including culture as a distinct area of competence, the government is codifying that role in is codifying that role in legislation. And this is a clear signal of this government's commitment to the cultural life of commitment to the cultural life of our nation. This amendment will enable mayors to appoint a commissioner for culture, should they so wish, or convene local partners and collaborate with neighbouring mayors on culture matters.

Government amendment 128 inserts a new subheading, culture into part two of the bill. Clause 41, encouragement of visitors and promotion of visitors will be moved from the economic development and regeneration subheading to the New Culture subheading. Although this amendment refines the bill's structure, promoting an area to visitors remains an effective way to boost economic development and regeneration. Turning to amendments three and four, tabled by Lord Parkinson and the Earl of Clancarty, I really do appreciate the rationale for these amendments, but I fear they would unintentionally narrow the scope of of Strategic Authority's activities.

Let me be clear culture as a broad term will allow mayors to engage in any activity relating to arts and heritage. And can I just respond to the noble Earl of Clancarty question about guidance. We accept that culture is a broad term, and that's why we will be looking to provide clarification in both statutory and non-statutory guidance on the use of this term and to the noble Lord Shipley. I agree that this conferring of a mayoral competency should absolutely not infer that other tiers of local government should take their responsibilities any less seriously than they already do.

It's for all tiers of local government to take responsibility for culture. And as someone who fiercely defended our theatre in Stevenage through years of very swingeing budget cuts, I think it's important that councillors at all levels continue to do that. Turning to amendments 43 and 47, many noble Lords have advocated for flexibility in the commissioner model and for the introduction of commissioners with specific briefs such as rural issues or culture. In a later group on commissioners, I will set out more detail and the government's response to these amendments, which includes increasing the maximum number of commissioners and mayor may appoint from 7 to 10.

But in regard to these two amendments, in response to the question from the noble Earl of Clancarty, I hope noble Lords can see that government amendments 42 and 46 will allow for a Culture Commissioner. I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Freyberg for amendment one. The noble Lord has drawn welcome attention to the role that tourism can play in supporting local economic growth. I fully acknowledge that these economic benefits exist. However, I do not believe it is necessary to amend the economic development and regeneration area of competence in the way the noble Lord proposes, and I say that with very good reason.

Of course, tourism is a very important part of both economic development and regeneration. I come from the culture where Harry Potter world is a thing, so I know how important that can be. However, when specific terms like tourism are singled out on the face of the bill, the legitimate question arises as to why other aspects of economic development and regeneration, or other aspects of the other areas of competence are not also expressly named. The approach proposed by the noble Lord risks turning each area of competence into an exhaustive and potentially prescriptive list, and our intention is for them to remain broad and flexible.

As your Lordships will know, the Bill already recognises the importance of tourism by expressly conferring a power on strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors, and this will ensure that combined and combined county authorities can promote tourism, host events and in turn support local businesses. The noble Lord Parkinson asked me a very specific question around the overnight visitor levy, which the government is looking at. Back in November, my department ran a 12 week consultation on the prospect of establishing an overnight visitor levy.

The government is considering all the responses received, and we will publish our response shortly to that. I am sure that this will include assessment of how such funding should be spent, but I will check when the results come out. In response to the noble Baroness Cox comment around the framework for the. This new mayoral authorities, I think we've set out very clearly in the competencies. What the role is of mayors and how we expect them to work in a strategic way to benefit the areas over which they have a democratic mandate.

So I hope that with all these explanations, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments and support the government's approach to adding culture as an area of competence. And I beg to move my own amendments.
15:50
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but very important debate. And in particular, I'd like to thank the noble Earl of Clancarty whose expertise and commitment in this area continue to illuminate our discussions and have brought us to this point of having a new area of competence. I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and his point about that. Not all local authorities are similar is worth repeating.

I would also like to thank the noble Baroness Baroness Prashar, who has spoken with such clarity on the importance of placemaking and culture and. And as an area of competence, the noble Lord Lord Bassam made an excellent point about how culture can help growth and Lord Shipley about. About how it's already existing in existing local authorities and. And we shouldn't forget that Baroness Boycott raised the important point about commissioners. And these roles really do need to be ironed out as to what they're doing, so that we have clear oversight of what's happening.

Lastly, I would like to thank the Minister warmly for her reply, which I found genuinely helpful and which I know will be welcomed across the House and further afield. On the broader question of of what we mean by culture, I continue to believe that that clear and detailed guidance will be essential if the competences to be exercised with the clarity for local leaders and the cultural sector generally, as the global Earl of Clancarty and others have so ably argued, both today and committee, there is a meaningful and practical distinction between the arts, cultural services, creative industries, heritage and tourism and without greater definitional clarity, strategic authorities may struggle to know where their responsibilities begin and end.

Nonetheless, I hear what the Minister said on on these and other points, and I welcome her commitment to ensuring that the framework is workable in practice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your pleasure that amendment one be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment two moved. Formally. Moved formally. Amendment three is an amendment to amendment two. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay not moved. Parkinson of Whitley Bay not moved. Not moved. That brings us back to amendment two then. So the question is amendment two be agreed to? As I is amendment two be agreed to? As I say, content Of the contrary, not content.

The not contents have it. That brings us on to amendment four. The Earl of Clancarty not moved, not moved. That brings us on to the next substantive group, which is amendment five Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
15:53
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I wish to speak to amendment five in my name and that of Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. This bill is extensive, covering many areas of local government and aims for the improved delivery of services by local and strategic authorities. The areas of competence for strategic authorities covered by the Bill are listed under clause two and mindful of the whips instructions at the beginning, I won't list them. All of them are extremely important. I am proposing adding rural affairs to that list.

Over the years I have been in your Lordships chamber. I have often promoted the needs of rural affairs to take a more prominent place in government thinking. The previous government brought forward strategies for industry, business, cities, etc. but nothing for rural areas. Why is it that those who live in rural communities get such short shrift? The funding of rural school education is inadequate compared to that received by urban schools. The buses are infrequent, GP surgeries are in larger villages.

The pub has closed, the local shop shop exists on a knife edge. The roads are repaired irregularly and top dressing appears to be a thing of the past. Those who live in rural areas are not living a life of luxury in idyllic countryside, having to travel miles to a supermarket or travel by bus for a GP or dentist appointment, or to get their haircut can be a real problem for the elderly, infirm and young families. Many families may not have a car or perhaps a one car they have is taken by the breadwinner to get to work.

A trip to the GP by bus could well take half a day, and in some areas where there are two buses a day, one going into town in the morning and the other coming back late afternoon, this could take all day. The relevant local parish or town council will be aware of the problems of service delivery in isolated areas. Likewise, the district council, when there was one, also had brilliant knowledge of the problems of their communities. Where the village shop has been threatened.

In some cases, the community have come together to run the shop with volunteers. Likewise, some pubs have been run by community volunteers on the same basis. It is the communities themselves that know who it is that would welcome a lift to town to keep important employment appointments. The larger strategic authorities are unlikely to have this knowledge at their fingertips, so they will need a strategy to support rural areas. Children and young people are particularly disadvantaged by living in rural areas.

The school bus picks them up in the morning and drops them off in the afternoons, but there is nothing to take them to a friend's house three miles away for a chat on a Friday evening. There is no youth club in their hamlet or village where they can relax. With those of a similar age. It is often the case that where there is one, the village bus stop is the congregation point for young people in the early evenings, young people know they won't be disturbed because no bus is going to stop.

Their mum and dad where they have a car will often provide the essential transport for young people to meet up with their friends. Living in a rural area does not mean you wish to give up your independence. Moving to larger, more strategic local government delivery could be a lifesaver for some communities, but it could also mean that the deep rural areas will be overlooked. Population numbers matter when it comes to allocating finance. Everyone understands that the limited amount of resources must cover the greatest number of people, but that should not be an excuse to ignore rural rural deprivation and poverty.

Given the supporters of the amendment in this group, I won't go into detail on the complicated issue of rural housing, where a larger 4 to 5 bedroom homes are often built when what is required is smaller starter homes, both to rent and buy. Others will do this more eloquently than I. This bill is a once in a generation opportunity to get the delivery of services via local government on a quite different level than has previously been the case.

Now is the time for the rural areas to have full consideration in the context of housing and strategic planning, health, wellbeing and public service reform, alongside the other services listed on clause two, rural affairs is a must to add to the list of competences. Rural communities are not a nice to do requirement, they are a must. This group of amendments is essential for rural communities. I welcome the amendments from Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.

I urge the government to take this opportunity to ensure that rural communities are treated on a par with their urban counterparts. I look forward to the noble Lady, the minister's response, and I'm sure she understands the strength of support there is for rural affairs to be recognised and to be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move here.
15:59
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause two, >> Amendment proposed clause two, page two, line 24 at the end insert bracketed H. Rural affairs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bracketed H. Rural affairs. I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Bakewell of. Mandeville Baroness Bakewell of. Mandeville for moving so eloquently this First Amendment in this group. I would like to speak in particular to the amendments in my name. Amendments 52, 61 and 326. But I think all the amendments in this group are looking to really put rural areas front and centre. For five years, I had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the select Committee in the Other place for environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I was delighted with the work we were able to do to put rural affairs front and centre.

I was very proud of the fact that we actually had a rural proofing unit within DEFRA at that time, and so it was a source of great disappointment to me that the rural proofing unit unit was disbanded. If you look at the 2021 consensus, it defines the rural urban classification as urban areas are settlements with a population of 10,000 people or more. On the basis of that census, rural areas are literally everywhere else and they include rural towns, villages, hamlets, isolated dwellings and open countryside.

Nearly 1 in 5 of us live in rural areas. The challenges facing rural areas are very different to the challenges facing urban areas. The cost of living is often greater. We're off the energy grid and dependent on oil in most cases for delivery, and obviously in normal times it's bad enough with Middle East hostilities. At the moment it's a different situation completely. Houses are often poorly isolated. There's a lack of housing, particularly small units of 1 or 2 bedrooms where everybody seems to want to.

All the developers seem to want to build 4 or 5 bedroomed homes for which there is not the same need in rural areas, public services are sparse and cost more to deliver. Whether it's accessing a GP surgery or ambulances or hospitals. Also, school buses is a particular contention at the moment. After the rural Deprivation grant was slashed and abolished by this government. I personally regret the move to combined authorities and metro mayors. I don't believe that they're suited to rural areas and I think when we had the orders on the combined authorities and the Metro mayors for North Yorkshire, it was only the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock and myself who spoke against the move.

I know in North Yorkshire there was a feeling of great loss when we moved away from the districts and the boroughs, which had served North Yorkshire over generations extremely well. Rural proofing, according to the government's own website, it's definition is assessing what might affect outcomes in rural areas and adjusting policies or policy delivery when appropriate and practicable. If I could just turn to the amendments in my name and preface them with remarks from some of the briefings that I've received in preparation for today, the Campaign to Protect Rural England states very clearly that present many combined authorities are focussed on large urban areas with focuses on economic growth, transport and infrastructure.

The government has said repeatedly that it sees cities and towns as key to economic growth and investment. Therefore, in their view, the CPR are concerned that rural communities will be left behind as strategic authorities draw up their own stresses. In a similar vein, the better planning briefing I received states that the concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of metro mayors for large urban areas, and again, that their focus will be on economic growth and other transport infrastructure.

The government is clear that it sees cities and larger towns as the focus for both economic growth and infrastructure investment. There is therefore a risk that rural communities will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up their strategies and develop their work plans. So the model is not one size fits all. I can quite understand the argument for mayors in urban areas like Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and where there is a big centre of population and a big mass, where the policies are more homogeneous and can be dealt with for a large centre of population.

That is not the case with metro mayors for rural areas. It simply does not stack up. If you look at the needs of York, the city of York, as opposed to the needs of the residents of North Yorkshire, they are competing directly with each other, whether it's economic growth, whether it's culture, tourism or other areas. So my amendments 52 and 61 look at seeking to ensure that mayors in rural areas must appoint an extra commissioner who would have responsibility for rural areas.

Now, I have to say, I'm not wild about. Commissioners in any shape or form. I think it would be far better that the mayor set the priorities and that those actually elected to that office should, should have that focus. Amendment 61 looks at, again, appointing a commissioner with competence to rural affairs if their authority is a majority or intermediate rural authority. According to the rural urban classification to which I referred earlier. Perhaps to me, the most important of my amendments is amendment 326.

This goes to the heart, to me, of rural proofing and making sure that it shouldn't just be. Perhaps one department, such as the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who are responsible for rural proofing. But I would like to see that the. There was a real pull in the government to ensure that every policy that addresses rural issues is actually rural proofed before before it becomes policy. And the reason it shouldn't just be DEFRA. I'm very exercised at the moment that the powers that the Department for net

**** Possible New Speaker ****

zero, what's it called? Net zero. Department of. Energy Security. The Department of Energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Department of Energy Security and net Zero DESNZ is tackling because they are directly opposed to the residents of rural areas, particularly who live in areas, particularly who live in open countryside, and they do not want to have all these clean energy want to have all these clean energy projects, which will not just destroy their view, but will, in a strong possibility, destroy their way of life and possibly the value of their properties as well. So amendment 326 would make sure that before any regulations are made under this bill, once it is passed that the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the the act, once adopted on rural areas, including its costs and benefits.

Without that amendment, I feel that the government is going to be wading into areas where they're going to be so focussed on the issues of those living in urban areas that they leave behind those interests of those living in rural areas, whether it's market towns, whether it's villages, hamlets or isolated dwellings who enjoy the open countryside in many cases that they have at the moment. And I'd just like to end with a plea. We've got local elections coming up in May, and I hope the government is going to take this opportunity to be honest of what their future plans are for planning policy, because if this bill really is nothing to do with English devolution and community empowerment, but actually taking away the rights of those who live in local areas to object to some of these sites that are being proposed, particularly in the clean energy schemes that I referred to earlier, then this is a wake up call for those electors in rural areas, a one off opportunity to reject what this government is proposing.
16:08
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
I rise to move amendment 310, which would insert a duty to which would insert a duty to consider the needs of rural communities into this bill. The duty would require strategic authorities and their mayors to have regard to the needs of rural communities. When considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, I thank the noble Lord Cameron of Dillington Best and Bennett of Manor Castle for their support. Like the noble Lady Baroness Pickering, I lament the fact that the rural proofing unit was taken away, and I hope that one day it will be restored.

I'm very grateful to my noble friend, the Minister, for meeting with me and for her letter of the 17th of March, which went to all noble Lords. The letter informed us that amendments would be tabled to increase the number of commissioners to up to ten, and would thus support the appointment of commissioners dedicated to cross-cutting issues such as rural matters. The government amendments 42, 51 and 60 will be debated in Group nine and naturally I support them. However, there is still no mention of rural in the bill, which runs the risk of not presenting a devolution for all approach.

The distinct lack of reference to rural communities, along with many provisions drawing from the Greater London Authority Act, means that the bill currently reads as. Earl Attlee centric in its approach to devolution. Rural areas have distinct needs. As has been so well pointed out this afternoon, and I. They present a unique opportunity as important economic drivers for this country through farming, food production, local businesses and tourism. With the creation of new strategic authorities and the devolution of powers to strategic authority mayors, we need to consider carefully the application of strategic within a rural context.

Historically, strategic investment has typically focussed on urban areas, ignoring the potential and opportunity for rural areas to contribute to local and national economy. Inspire forward investment from from the private sector and meet essential needs for food production, health and well-being, climate resilience and nature recovery. We have an opportunity here as we move forward with this programme of devolution, where rural parts of the country will now be covered at strategic level, that we ensure that our rural areas are not forgotten and that our rural communities feel that they have fair representation and the strategic investment to support and drive rural growth.

Rural areas have very different characteristics across the country and benefit from tailored approaches to economic growth and development. This legislation has the opportunity to empower areas to provide the bespoke solutions needed for their rural communities. That is in itself, I believe, fundamental to the devolution agenda. My amendment, which addresses points raised by the Royal Town Planning Institute and a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network on English Devolution and Rural Affordable Housing, will embed rural representation within this bill and offer safeguarding provisions, which will lead to better consideration of rural communities and their context specific needs and opportunities through the devolution process and into the implementation of the new strategic layer of local power.

With 85% of the country's land being classified as rural and 17% of the country's population living in rural areas, let us reaffirm our recognition and value for our rural communities and ensure that they have every opportunity to thrive in this new era of regional empowerment, growth and identity. I would urge my noble friend, the Minister, to include this duty and at the very least, to ensure that there is specific reference to the needs of rural areas in this bill. It must be clear that the bill relates to rural as well as urban areas, so that the needs of rural areas are properly considered at every stage.

My Lords, I beg to move.
16:12
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, it's a pleasure to take part in this. The debate on take part in this. The debate on this very important group. Having attached my name to amendment five in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Bakewell and amendment 310 as just very ably introduced by the noble Lady Baroness Royall. All of the amendments. Here are a group. I chose these two because what we're doing is introducing rural affairs as an area of competence for strategic authorities and having a duty to have regard, which makes quite a nice package.

And I think it's interesting that we saw in the last group, the government actually conceded to the power of the argument for including culture as a key element of this bill, and I really cannot see why the government has not done the same thing, having heard very powerful arguments at committee, and I live in hope, having now heard the arguments at report that the government will see the sense of including rural affairs here in this bill. Now, we spoke extensively at committee, and we've already had three very powerful arguments for that this direction.

So I'll just add a couple of points. One, I think the noble Lady, Baroness Bakewell, put it very well, talking about young people gathering at the bus stop in the early evening, because they know there won't be a bus to come along to disturb them for, you know, 15, 16 hours or possibly for six days. The way these things work. And that really is a measure of deprivation. And what I want to add to that at the other end of the population age scale, of course, we have a fast ageing population, many of them living in rural areas, and they may once have had enough money to have access to a car, but it doesn't mean they're going to be able to use a car indefinitely.

And that is a crucial issue, that bus services in rural areas that if you have a metro mayor, it's just going to be very hard to get attention on that kind of issue. But I particularly want a major, as I did it Committee stage. On the issue of food growing. Now, of course, many other things happen in rural areas. People live in rural areas for all sorts of reasons, but our rural areas should be regarded far more centrally as part of the way in which we feed our population.

Now, I note that Professor Tim Lang, well known food expert, speaking at the NFU conference in Birmingham recently, was reflecting on the fact that the UK is only 54% self-sufficient in food unless someone say, oh, it's a crowded island. Well, the Netherlands is 80% eight zero self-sufficient in food. We need to be treating our land, our local areas, as places that produce a lot of their own food. Now, Professor Lang said that our model of agrifood capitalism has just relied on the idea that others can feed us.

But we all know the state of the world, the state of geopolitics, the state of climate, and that's not something we can continue to rely on. Now, since we had that debate at committee, the government has brought in the very long awaited land use framework, and that provides some guidance at the big scale. But how is it actually going to be delivered and how are we going to get the focus on feeding local areas? We desperately need to do this as well as, of course, thinking about environment, thinking about things like flood prevention, all of these things.

We have to see rural areas and, and cities and towns as a complete network, a complete system. But we're going to have to reject to direct these new bodies being created here, attention towards those, or there's a real risk they'll be overlooked and not just the people in the rural areas, but the people in the rural areas, but everyone will suffer as a result.
16:16
Lord Cameron of Dillington Portrait Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. >> I put my name to amendment 310 under the leadership of the noble Lady Baroness Royall, and I should start by saying that for the start by saying that for the purposes of the Report stage of this Bill, I declare an interest. As a retired participant of a mixed family farming business in Somerset, now at Committee stage, I spoke at length on the need. The very real need for some form of rural proofing or rural duty, preferably even a rural commissioner, whereas strategic or combined authority had any rural communities within its boundaries.

And I will not repeat what I said then or speak at such length. You'll all be glad to hear. But just to say that things are very different in rural England compared to urban England. The needs are different and the solutions to those needs are different. And without some form of rural thinking at the seat of power, rural communities will inevitably lose out both if they are poor and need special attention, or are the other end of the scale. If there are enterprising and need help to fulfil their potential.

I should say that rural communities have lost out now for decades, for not having any clout or rural proofing or consideration at the various seats of power, and we touched on some of those issues at committee, and some of them have been raised already in this debate. Firstly, housing houses are more expensive, wages are lower. There are many rural communities where there are simply not no houses to either rent or buy unless you are very, very rich. It is a serious rural problem.

Transport. How do you get your children to the doctor or to the local football training, or to the local he college without an extra car in your family? And the answer is you cannot. So local political and administrative thinking needs to take this into account. Energy. Most rural houses have poor insulation and very rarely is mains gas available, so you have to have more costly forms of heating either oil, electricity or bottled gas. The government have recognised this in recent days and we are very grateful for that.

But fourthly, and this is the most convincing one there is higher council tax, central government support for rural local authorities, in spite of the fact that clearly delivery of services is more expensive in rural areas. Central government support for rural local authorities is 40% less per head compared to the towns, which is why on average, rural council tax is 20% higher per head than in urban areas. And it is just about to get worse. And this is caused by the fact there has never really been a proper rural voice in central government, which supports the very point we are making.

So, my Lords, these are some of the shortcomings that rural dwellers have to suffer, but there are also opportunities which are missed, for instance, delivering training for entrepreneurs. How do you reach out to the various different businesses which exist many, many miles distance from each other? How do you set about pumping new life into the various market towns in your area? It's amazing what can be done in this respect. For example, finding a business theme that can inspire visitors and customers.

For instance, food festivals at Padstow near me and Cornwall, or in Bridport in Dorset, or culture festivals such as the Hay on Wye, Broad Chalk or Cheltenham or Art, as it's in dives again in Cornwall. But there could be garden attractions, nature tours, beer festivals or just having a major town attraction to attract footfall. These various forms. For instance, I remember once, a few years ago now visiting a small town in central France which had a massive sports centre with a swimming pool, ice rink, gymnasium, climbing walls, plural note and and every day.

As a result, the town and the shops were humming with families who'd come from far and wide. And the possibilities are endless. But you will need a rural focus, both to help kick start them and hopefully provide some pump priming funding. So my Lords, in essence, this is an issue which has at its heart both deprivation and need as well as opportunity and possibilities. It should not be ignored. Finally, I should remind noble Lords that this bill is called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

And what we are trying to do here is to empower rural communities, and I personally would be appalled if we miss this opportunity to indeed empower our rural communities when it is such an easy change to make. Thank you, my Lords.
16:21
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Here. >> Here. >> My Lords, I rise to support. >> The noble Lady. >> Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon amendment 310 while also supporting all the other amendments in this group. I declare my interests as group. I declare my interests as Vice President of the Local Government Association, Vice president of the Town and Country Planning Association, an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Amendment 310 would create a duty for strategic authorities to consider the needs of rural communities, specifically covering land use, development of land and regeneration, housing, employment, health and wellbeing.

Several noble Lords have made the point that there are quite different considerations for these functions when addressing rural needs, as opposed to those of urban communities, for example, in relation to housing, many rural areas will see competition for available accommodation from those commuting from elsewhere, from right sizing retirees and in many places, second home buyers and those letting on a short term basis of the Airbnb variety. Yet on average, social housing accounts for just 11% of homes in rural locations, compared with 17% in the country as a whole.

Younger people brought up in the locality, including those badly needed for public and private sector jobs, are forced to move away to find somewhere affordable. In terms of land use, there will be severe constraints on rural areas, including green belts, areas of outstanding natural Beauty now known as national landscapes and local constraints. But urban rural differences apply to opportunities as well as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron has said. For example, in terms of rural exception sites that allow development that would not be permitted elsewhere and opportunities to work with major landowners.

In so many respects, there are substantial differences requiring different policies and actions for rural communities. Yet these communities are likely to comprise only a small fraction of the total population of a mayoralty or combined authority, and pressing priorities from the majority urban areas may drown out the rural voice a duty to take on board the needs of rural communities would counter this imbalance. Of course, the mayor or the combined authority could take a far sighted approach to embracing the rural agenda for their area without any legislative prompting, but this is by no means guaranteed.

The amendment provides the safety net that would make sure rural issues are not neglected in those places where towns and cities amendment.
16:24
16:24
Baroness Andrews Portrait Baroness Andrews (Labour)
-
-
I regret not having taken part in the Committee stage on the bill, and in particular, actually, if you come to the arguments report quite fresh, it has a curiously powerful impact. And this afternoon we have heard speeches on aspects of the amendments in relation to rural needs and ambitions, which have been very powerful. We don't have planning and development bills, not often. And the. My friend the Minister has been extremely flexible and engaged on many aspects of this bill.

I know, but I do think that a bill which claims to speak for the whole of development in terms of the devolution settlement across the UK and community empowerment has a duty to address the needs of the whole country. We've had these debates about the absence of the rural voice, the rural priority, the rural needs. As far as I have been in this House for 25 years, and there have been the same arguments, and largely they have been been made by many of the same noble laws, and they have grown in urgency rather than diminished.

And I think the loss of the unit for rural proofing was actually very, very seriously and misjudged. And I think if my noble friend could give some further thought, particularly to amendment 310 in the name of my friend, I think it would be incredibly welcomed because it actually is. It's reasonable, it's proportionate, and it's comprehensive in what it would achieve to flag up the seriousness with which the government takes the contribution of rural areas to growth.

Two, building community and their specific needs, which have been neglected for far too long.
16:26
Lord Bassam of Brighton Portrait Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak about this based on my experience and this based on my experience and also the report which I helped author for the Co-op Commission on Rural Poverty some four years ago. What what was clear to us then was that there was a growing disparity between towns and villages and cities, and the disparity manifested itself with the flight of public services, principally transport, but other services too. And I think that unless we get the balance right with the creation of the new strategic authorities, villages and small towns are going to feel very much left behind.

And that's not right. It's not just either. I know that that isn't the intention of the government. And I think the amendments. 31O goes a long way to trying to ensure that we get that balance in the right place. Combined marital authorities, I think, are, by and large a very good thing. But applying them to rural areas, I think is difficult. And I think we do have to try and ensure in creating these new combined authorities that a balance is sought between town and country.

Otherwise the smaller communities will feel left behind, left out and disadvantaged. And I think we've got to take measures to adjust and remedy that disconnection. Otherwise, I fear that the flight of public services and the flight of professional services in rural communities will continue apace. And that's, as I said earlier, not right or just. And I think it undermines the very need in those communities, particularly for new housing and for new services related to housing.
16:28
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I have a very important discussion, and I'm actually in discussion, and I'm actually in favour of all of the amendments. They all seem to me to have have merit. And I noted the comments of the noble Lord Cameron of Dillington when he said things are very different in rural England, for they are. And he talked about empowering rural communities. And I think that is absolutely right. I also found the contribution of the noble Baroness McIntosh of Pickering very helpful indeed.

It is very important. Three to amendment three, two six to rural proof. What happens in terms of public spending. The difficulty is that when you. Rural proof after the event by reporting on it. Actually the damage may have been done. And what you need to do is to actually make sure that as decisions are being made, that rural areas have actually been been proofed. But I was very struck by a report I read in my local newspaper a week or two ago from Northumberland County Council, and it was their statutory annual report on health inequalities and well-being.

And it talked about the problems of rural areas in Northumberland and about the availability and the cost of housing, about employment opportunities, employment opportunities for young people, the problems of distance for travelling to work, for travelling to education, for travelling to healthcare. And I am convinced that in, in in cost terms, there is a cost premium for those living in rural areas and that needs to be proofed, which is why the amendment in the name of Baroness Royall.

Cameron, Lord Best and Baroness Penn. Absolutely right. Every single competence area of competence should actually be rural proofing in the same way as they should be urban proofing. But there is one issue that strikes me that we haven't actually discussed it, but seems to me to be very important in this debate, which is that when you have a strategic authority, a Myrtle area. Which is urban and is rural, the population of the rural of the urban area will be greater than the population of the rural area.

The consequence of that is that the number of councillors representing rural areas will be smaller than the number of of councillors representing urban areas. So alongside rural proofing, through embedding rural issues in amendment 310, I actually have concluded and indeed I said this to the Minister a week or two ago when we had a discussion about Report stage, and I said there were two areas where I felt competencies should be added to. One was culture and the second was rural affairs.

And so, my Lords, I, I find myself in support of my noble friend Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I think you have to do both. I think the guidance has got to give us embedding in every single area of competence. But in addition to that, I think to prevent problems being identified after the event, it is very, very important that mayoral combined authority strategic authorities have a rural commissioner, somebody responsible for ensuring that there is a competence to be delivered by a person on rural affairs and rural issues.

And if my noble friend Baroness Bakewell of the mandible is resolved to test the opinion of the House, I will be in the lobbies with her.
16:32
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. >> My Lords. First of all, I didn't know I had to declare my interest, but I do declare my interest as Vice President of the Local Government Association and the Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who brought forward what I consider very important amendments in this group and for the debate, highlighting very clearly the different challenges faced by rural areas compared with neighbouring urban areas.

My Lords, I very well remember my social life at a bus stop in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a rural village in, in Essex. And that was 65 years ago. So it's interesting that still the social life in villages as is at, in, outside or by the bus stop. My Lords, I will start with amendment five in the name of noble Baroness Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. My Lords, the current areas of competence outlined in the Bill broadly cover the responsibilities of public office holders.

Whilst we previously expressed concerns that rural affairs should not be considered in isolation since the Committee stage, the government has announced now changes to ensure a commissioner's work can relate to one or more aspects of an area of competence. To tackle these cross-cutting issues. Therefore, my Lords, we do support this amendment to include rural affairs. As it stands, the Bill fails to highlight the specific attention that rural affairs deserve. Whilst it does indeed cover the environmental and climate change, this is a more macro and I dare say politicised area of policy.

Rural affairs are more far more localised, my Lords, and are often the basis around which local economies function. They should therefore get specific consideration, be part of the responsibilities of these new authorities. I'd also like to thank my noble friend, lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendments. While we entirely understand the desire to mandate the appointment of a commissioner to oversee rural affairs, and we support that sentiment, but we are hesitant to specifically legislate that mayors must do so.

My Lords, we also will highlight in the debate on Group nine. We are rather sceptical of the proliferation of these commissioners in the bill, and these are commissioners that are on elected and often bureaucratic, and we really don't want them to absolve mayors of the responsibility that they actually were elected to hold. We have already outlined our support for the Baroness noble Baroness Lady Bakewell of Hardington Manners, which would add rural affairs to their areas, meaning mayors would already be required to oversee rural affairs.

And I am grateful to my noble friends amendments nonetheless, and we will wholly support the principle behind her amendments. I believe the same argument can be made for amendment 310 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. If rural affairs are to be included in the responsibilities of strategic authorities, then by definition they will have the duty to consider the needs of rural communities. My Lords, accepting the noble Baroness. Amendment five, we believe, is the easiest way to achieve the end that everyone seems to be after in this debate, that rural communities needs are acknowledged and they're catered for.

And I look forward to the noble Baroness. The Minister's response and her explanation as to why. Why is Rurality not in this bill at all, especially my Lords, as morality as morality is? Oh, moving much closer to the more rural areas of this country and away from our cities and our more urban areas, it seems sensible that actually rurality at this point could be taken into account. But then, my Lords, if the noble Baroness, the Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, decides to divide on this issue, then we from these benches will support her.
16:37
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for their amendments and for the many discussions we've had and their engagement on rural issues in the bill. Before I comment on the individual amendments, can I just. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Commission for Rural Communities. That body which had primary responsibility for rural proofing, was formally abolished in 2013. A decision taken by the coalition government in the bonfire of the quangos, just in case anyone was left with the impression that it was this government that had abolished it.

On amendment five, I've noted previously that strategic authorities will operate across a wide range of geographies in England, encompassing both highly urbanised regions and more rural areas. The bill is therefore intended to equip mayors and strategic authorities with the powers they need to support communities across their entire areas. That is why the areas of competence are deliberately broad. This allows a wide range of activity to fall within scope. In this way, rural issues are already reflected from transport and local infrastructure, housing and strategic planning and the environment and climate change.

Already we are seeing strategic authorities support rural communities. The East Midlands Combined County Authority has set out a programme of rural affairs and farming projects. These include examining the potential to promote microgeneration and energy independence for farmers and small businesses, and committing to convene rural partners to discuss solutions for flood prevention. And can I thank the noble Lord Cameron for his welcome to the government's moves? Very recently, the government has recognised the very sharp increases to fuel costs faced by rural communities because of the current conflicts in the Middle East, and I welcome that too.

Turning now to amendments 52 and 61, the government has introduced amendments to increase the number of commissioners and mayor may appoint, and this will increase the flexibility by allowing multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence and to ensure commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area, rather than the area as a whole. Doing so will enable mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs and allow them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for example, two commissioners operating within transport and local infrastructure area, one focussed on rural connectivity and the other on active travel.

However, commissioners are intended to be an optional appointment for mayors. The amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, lady McIntosh, mandate the appointment of a rural commissioner, removing the mayor's right to choose. There is already considerable scope for a mayor to appoint a commissioner and provide them with a bespoke brief and title to position them, for example, as an advocate on rural matters within the combined authority or the combined County Authority area. The areas of competence are intended to capture broad thematic priorities affecting all communities, irrespective of whether they are rural or urban.

The challenges faced by rural communities are addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations. Some are predominantly urban, a standalone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

settings alone. While the specific Factors affecting communities will vary place by place. Many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. In fact, to respond to the noble Baroness Boycott, you could have a party in the bus stops in my area until very recently when, thanks to some active campaigning, we did get evening. But until then, only a couple of years ago there were no buses after 7:00 at all.

Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities. And this includes in the area of housing where local authorities in local plans and mayors and strategic plans must consider the needs of rural housing. And it will be mayors who set the strategic priorities for their area. The noble Baroness Bennett mentioned the powers of mayor and, of course, and the land use framework. Of course, mayors, like all other planning authorities, will have to take account of relevant documents, including the Land Use Framework, which sets out clearly the need for land for food production.

Turning to amendment 310. Supporting rural communities is a priority for this government. We want rural areas to feel the benefits of devolution just as strongly as our major towns and cities. The bill already equips strategic authorities and mayors with powers that can be used to respond to rural priorities, including in areas such as transport, housing, delivery, economic growth and skills. And we can already see how mayors and strategic authorities are using these powers to deliver for rural residents. The noble Baroness McIntosh may not like strategic authorities very much, but on housing, York and North Yorkshire is trialling new affordable housing models for rural communities, and the North East Combined Authority has also established a dedicated coastal and rural taskforce to ensure rural and coastal communities have a clear voice in investment decisions.

Finally, turning to amendment 326, the government should not assume as a better understanding of rural needs and opportunities within strategic authority areas than those areas themselves. Strategic authorities working closely with their constituent councils and communities, are best placed to assess local rural circumstances. This amendment would add bureaucracy without improving outcomes. So therefore, I would respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments.
16:44
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, I thank the noble Lady, the Minister for her considered the Minister for her considered comments, and thank all those peers who have taken part in this debate. And I think between us, we have managed to cover nearly every aspect of disadvantage of living in rural communities. I have to say that some of the. I was very disappointed to be reminded about rural proofing, because it is years ago that we were championing rural proofing. And here we are today trying to get it back again.

It is so important that those who live in rural areas have tailored approaches to rural areas, as has been already said. We need to think about agriculture, food production and housing. Housing is so important along with jobs. I heard the noble Lady, the minister's reassurance that rural areas are covered in all the other competencies, and I haven't been here as long as some people. But I have been here nearly 13 years, and I have heard that phrase so many times.

But it never happens for rural areas. So I do feel that it is really important that rural affairs are given the weight they deserve by being on the face of the bill as a competence, and I therefore wish to test the opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House. Yes. The question is that amendment. Five be. Agreed. To, as many areas of that opinion will say, content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided. By a division. I will advise the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By a division. I will advise the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting
16:45
16:57
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'll tell you what it is. >> My Lords. Now we move to amendment six after clause two. >> Lord Shipley the Lords, I rise to move amendment six. And can I thank the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for co-signing this amendment, which to me is a fundamental issue and it. The amendment would simply allow a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a lower tier of local government. My Lords, this bill is the English devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

And at the heart of this bill should be devolution. But what we actually have is decentralisation. From mayors to mayors from Whitehall. But there has to be no decentralisation or devolution from mayors to lower levels. But if this is seriously a devolution bill, it should be about devolving powers and responsibilities to the lowest level possible. And when the government talks about community empowerment, it is very difficult to see where that community empowerment actually is.

So there are some things in the bill which are relevant, but for the main there is not the money for councillors elected in existing local authorities to deliver the community empowerment that this bill sets out to do. And I think this is a crucial issue, because what we face now is a centralisation around the mayoral structure. I believe that the set of competencies that we have been talking about this afternoon will suck power out of existing local authorities.

And whereas I want to see people empowered in their neighbourhoods to take greater responsibility for what happens in those neighbourhoods, and by that I mean that we need to enhance town and parish councillors. And at the moment they are missing from this bill. So this bill is about decentralisation. From Whitehall to mayors. I want it to go further to be about devolving powers from mayors to local authorities, and then from existing local authorities to lower levels.

The town and the parish council structure. Now, my amendment simply says this. I'm trying to prevent upwards mission creep. I want a strategic authority to devolve to any local authority within its area, any power which it holds through an annual review system I want. Secondly, each local authority in a strategic authority area to consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level and where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.

And within a year of the Bill becoming an act, I'd want all strategic authorities to publish a plan setting out how it and its member local authorities, intend to carry out their duties under the Community Empowerment Plan. Now, this strikes me, my Lord, as being eminently sensible. Yeah, we should be devolving power to people, not centralising power around a mayoral structure, for I fear that that is what is about to happen. And I think we're about to create a much bigger, more remote councils under this bill, when we should actually be looking at how we can get decision maker closer to people.

And that tells me that we have to have an amendment of this kind to make the word English. Devolution and the words community empowerment to have any meaning at all, for they don't have a meaning otherwise. And my Lords, I, I, I, I, I think this is such a central issue politically and philosophically that you give power to the to the place at the lowest level that you can, as long as carrying it out at that level is to be done effectively and efficiently.

I think this amendment is essential for the success of an English. I believe that without this amendment, we will not see community empowerment, because the money is not going to be there for communities to be empowered. And so I would ask the Minister, I realise this is delicious. I'm looking for the Minister to say something which would enable us to think that the government understands the meaning of the words devolution and decentralisation, for I fear the government does not actually understand what those words mean.

And I should say at this stage, my Lords, that if the Minister's response, I, I think, isn't helpful to what I'm trying to propose, it would be my intention to test the opinion of the House, because I think this has become such a fundamental issue. So, my Lords, I move this amendment with a request to the government to say, you need to empower communities. We are about to have much bigger local councils. We are about to remove power from people at local areas as there is upwards mission creep to mayors.

And I think the government must take action to enable the mayors to devolve powers. And existing local authorities also to devolve powers to towns and to parish councils. So, my Lords, I beg to move here. A member proposed after clause two insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.
17:04
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Shipley and having attached my name to this, I having attached my name to this, I would say absolutely crucial amendment to this bill. I declare my position as Vice President of my position as Vice President of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. And I think what we're trying to do here is really save the government from itself, because I think without this amendment, this bill essentially risks being entirely referable to the Advertising Standards Authority for false advertising.

Yeah, this is supposed to be the devolution, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. What instead it is, is the concentration of power and nothing about really empowering communities. So this is the essential amendment. We've parish and town councils, we know how much they are embedded in their communities. They are part of their communities. We're taking away that district council layer, and we're putting all of this power in the hands of one person. Now, it's no secret that the Green Party, we do not believe in elected mayors, but to think about just that concentration of power, even if you do believe in this, shouldn't we actually also be referring power outwards? And I think the two really crucial parts of this particular amendment are subclause three, each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must consider whether its powers may be exercised at a more local level and where it considers that case to enable such devolution.

And then subclause five a community empowerment plan, they must have one to work out how to empower their communities. These are just absolutely basic provisions, and I guess I apologise to noble Lords for bringing up the Brexit referendum. But I was last week with a group of young people. It was really, really refreshing and really telling that they were of course quite small children. Ten years ago, these were young university students and they were like, what actually happened? How did Britain get itself into this mess? Why are we in this situation? And one of the answers I told them was the slogan take back control was a very powerful slogan that lots of people felt really spoke to them.

And we know that we've left the European Union. People don't feel any more in control. And now if we don't make this bill provide some sense of taking back control in England, then that problem, that enormous problem of lack of trust in politics, is only going to grow even further.
17:07
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, my Lord. >> Yeah, my Lord. >> Democracy starts with local engagement and it has all politics. The saying goes, is local, and people start by worrying about their own local community. We talk about pride of place in government policy, but place is not usually the whole of Yorkshire, for example, or even the whole of North Yorkshire. The place is your local community. What this bill assumes is that a local area in governance terms, is roughly half a million people, and a combined strategic authority should be perhaps somewhere between one and a half and 3 or 4 million people.

There are nearly 50 independent states, members of the United Nations, with populations smaller than half a million. There are two European states, Malta and and Iceland, with populations below that. And Luxembourg isn't that much larger. When we get to the equivalent of combined authorities, we're talking about Denmark, Estonia, Latvia. States seem to be not only quite capable but have extensive local government structures underneath them, and they work. I looked with interest at the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics the other week, which the mayors of the various localities and the local region were all present.

Several layers of local government, which is the norm across the rest of Europe. And what this is intended to reduce as far as possible, local politics is absolutely essential to maintaining popular engagement with democracy, party politics and public life. People care about bins, allotments, public toilets, playgrounds and those things are not ideally left with strategic authorities and mayors who will be roughly the equivalent of the president of Finland, who was listening to the other day in terms of the number of people they are responsible for.

Let's be realistic about that and recognise that unless we have active town and community councils at a lower level with elected representatives who can know those who voted for them and who those they voted for will also know we will be losing an essential part of a liberal democracy to which my party and I hope everyone else here are themselves all committed.
17:10
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Yes, yes. Thank you. >> My Lords. I must also declare my interests as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I am grateful Central Bedfordshire. I am grateful to the noble Lord Shipley for bringing back this amendment from the Committee stage, where we discussed how much of this bill, despite its title Centralises. Rather than devolves. This amendment would enable the strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a more local level. As other noble Lords have pointed out, strategic authorities cover large geographical areas, whereas parish and town councils have long been promoted in this House as vehicles for genuine localism and community empowerment.

And it's why elsewhere in this bill, we have our own amendments to support the role of town and parish councils. We support devolution. However, this amendment is not simply an amendment to devolve community empowerment, but and that's the first subsection of the amendment. There are further eight subsections to the amendment, and we do have some reservations on the details and complexities in these additional subsections. Delegating competences or functions must be accompanied by clear assessments of capacity, resource and capability.

It must avoid additional bureaucracy and duties imposed must be practical in their implementation. That said, I thank the noble Lord for his efforts and the spirit of this amendment, which we do agree with. I hope the government will give serious consideration to how powers can be genuinely devolved to local levels to support town and parish councils, and how local authorities can be enabled to exercise them effectively.
17:12
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Shipley for amendment six on Lord Shipley for amendment six on further devolution of powers. As your Lordships will know, one of the core aims of this bill is to create a standardised devolution framework with the consistent and coherent set of functions held by strategic authorities and their mayors. This amendment would risk undermining that objective. It would lead to functions being devolved in some places and not in others, making it harder for local residents to know who is in charge and what they are accountable for.

The noble Lord and others argued during previous debates that powers should be devolved to the authorities, best able to carry out that work. The government agreed with that principle and is therefore conferring powers and functions through this Bill that are best exercised by strategic authorities operating across wider geographies, for example, strategic transport and spatial planning matters. I understand that part of the noble Lords rationale for tabling this amendment is a concern that there will be a transfer of powers away from Lord Biggar authorities to higher ones.

It is not the intention of this bill to strip powers from communities and councils and give these instead to strategic authorities. Indeed, this bill provides new powers for communities such as the new community right to buy and in. There was a lot of talk about parish councils and town councils and I mean, everybody, I think in this room appreciates the work that local. That parish councils and town councils do. But I think really what would happen is that this amendment would essentially force a new level of bureaucracy on, on, on local authorities in Derbyshire.

There are, for example, for example, in Derbyshire, there are 204 parish and town councils and a further 199 in Oxfordshire. In Nottinghamshire, that would mean the East Midlands Combined County Authority and its mayor would be engaging with over 400 councils, where such an approach to are taken would place a considerable cost of consultation on authority, as well as potentially crowding out time for other core strategic responsibilities. And I think we need a plan that fits the bill for each of the local authorities concerned, and not one kind of framework that apparently suits everyone.

And I think what we need to take into consideration, there are 10,000 parish councils in England, with over 100,000 local councillors. The sector varies hugely in size from city or town councils to hamlet sized parish meetings, which are I know a lot about from such. From Sedgefield, where I used to represent. According to analysis from the National Association of Local Councils and the Democracy Club in the 2025 parish council elections, 21% of seats were left vacant. Now, I think where we can engage with parish councils, we should do that.

And if we can't engage with parish councils for confidence issues or because of lack of council, is there, then we should look at other ways of doing that. And that's exactly what I think this bill does. The new neighbourhood government's duty will bring decision making closer to residents and aim to ensure that people across the country, no matter where they are based, have the opportunity to influence the decisions that mean the most to them and their local areas. Finally, as I've said previously, principal local authorities will be embedded within the decision making structures of strategic authorities as full constituent members.

This means they will play a central role in drawing up specific strategies and plans, such as local growth plans. In this way, the bill ensures all tiers of local government can work together in the interests of their local communities. With these explanations in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the noble Lords. Can I clarify something? This one size fits all that the noble Lord is fits all that the noble Lord is speaking about? Can. Can you tell me whether that means that no me whether that means that no unitary authority in future will be able to devolve any any service down to a town or parish council?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Basically saying, is that where we can do that? We will. But where there's a situation where you don't have the structures that local parish or parish or town council, then it might be it might not be, we might not be able to do that. So the best way forward is to have a system that is flexible and that works for the local community and engages the local community. Yeah, yeah.
17:16
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm very grateful to Baroness >> I'm very grateful to Baroness Scott of Bybrook for pointing out that that issue, which I'm glad she did, and I thank the Minister for did, and I thank the Minister for his reply, but I think I've concluded that the government has no plan to empower local communities in the way that the bill suggests. Well, the bill the bill talks about devolution and community empowerment, and I see little prospect in this bill of there being real community empowerment.

I think that the the, the, the the government needs a plan to prevent the upward drift of powers. And I noted that the noble Lord Wilson talked in terms of lots of parish councils, town council seats not being contested. But of course, the reason for that is they don't have a decent enough power to to powers to to make it worthwhile. People standing people don't stand because they don't see what it is that they would do. And so the government has to be convinced that devolving power to communities can actually make better governance in England.

That's where where I am. I'm grateful for the the Conservative Party supporting the spirit of the amendment, which I think means that the Conservative Party will be abstaining on this or perhaps voting against. But I think abstaining. I just think, my Lords, I I'm going to test us to test the opinion of the House because I regard this issue as absolutely central to an English devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without it, my Lords, it is neither of those things.

So I beg leave my Lord to test the opinion of the House here. The question is that amendment six be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content.
17:18
17:29
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My Lords. I rise to speak to this group of amendments on the establishment of combined authorities and combined county authorities and combined county authorities in the name of myself and my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook. My Lords, our concern is the extensive powers given to the Secretary of State in this bill. As drafted, schedule one enables the Secretary of State to create or make certain changes to the governance, boundaries or composition of authorities without necessarily obtaining the explicit consent was involved entirely contrary to the principle of community empowerment, it is a top down reorganisation directed by the centre.

We firmly believe that changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities must be based on local consent. Amendments seven and 38 would remove clause four and schedule one entirely reflecting this principle. The other amendments in this group 9 to 15, 16 to 24, 28, 29 and 35 are consequential amendments to amendment eight, but all rest on the same fundamental principle. Changes should be with the consent of local authorities involved, not imposed from above by the Secretary of State.

It is not local empowerment. Sorry, is not local empowerment and consent the very essence of devolution? The Bill allows the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the relevant authorities have consented. In principle, this is not enough. How can local democracy be meaningful if changes can be imposed without explicit consent? Should local elected councillors merely rubber stamp decisions made in Whitehall? I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could give an example of a situation in which authorities have not consented explicitly, but the Secretary of State could argue they have consented in principle to judge justify top down changes.

These amendments are not merely technical adjustments. They go to the heart of the balance of power between local government and central government, obtaining the consent of the relevant authorities is not an inconvenient administrative hurdle. It's a democratic safeguard. Changes to local government should reflect the wishes of those they are intended to serve. If anything, the inclusion of these provisions in the bill raises questions around the government's true intentions. Is this bill truly about empowering local communities tailored to their geographic, historic and cultural identities, or will it force locally elected representatives to conform to managerial directives from the centre? Amendment eight, in its consequential amendments address the specific drafting of schedule one.

So it is on this package of amendments that I am minded to test the opinion of the House.
17:32
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Leave out clause four. government does understand decentralisation and devolution are fundamentally different things. fundamentally different things. What we have here is a bill for continued central control of the continued central control of the governance of England, subject to allowing mayors rather more powers. I strongly, therefore, from these benches support these amendments while saying that practice of the last conservative government was rather different from the principles which we've had enunciated today, I recall vividly that all but one of the councils in the great county of Yorkshire asked when negotiating with the government for restructure for a whole of Yorkshire, with others, other authorities underneath it, and it was made clear that it would be conditional on acceptance of a four mayor structure for Yorkshire if we were to get the money that the government was offering, we would have to accept what the government insisted on having.

That's a good example of conservative decentralisation. And now we have Labour decentralisation. My Lords, I'm my party's Cabinet Office spokesman. I'm concerned with constitutional issues in the majority of democratic states, the structure of local and regional, as well as national government is a constitutional issue. In England. It is dealt with as a matter of convenience. Successive governments talk a certain amount about how to get civil servants out of London, but the extent to which what local government does is controlled and funded in detail by Whitehall departments, of course, means that the majority of civil servants have to stay in London, because that's where the power and the decisions are taken.

This is a very flawed bill. We are doing our best to limit its many problems. This bill is an amendment which will perhaps limit the damage a little and allow local and regional areas to have some continuing say in how the governance of England should be maintained.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as many noble Lords have said this afternoon, not only have said this afternoon, not only on these benches, this Bill is on these benches, this Bill is entitled The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but it seems to me that it does the exact seems to me that it does the exact opposite. I would strongly support my noble friend, Lady Scott and Lord Jimson's amendments in this group. I think that amalgamation of councils or the establishment of new combined authorities should
17:35
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
definitely not be allowed without definitely not be allowed without local consent. Consent is necessary to ensure that the proposed restructuring reflects the views restructuring reflects the views and needs of the local community without local consent. The transfer without local consent. The transfer of contracts and services may not be efficiently handled, and there be efficiently handled, and there is a large risk that service continuity will not be maintained. That, of course, will lead to increased public discontent with the changes and already the public are not happy at the changes being proposed, not only to local government, but that the changes themselves are unpopular and probably mostly bad.

But in addition to that, to try to install from above. Elected mayors for every local authority in the land to do that at the same time is also very risky and damaging. Where new combined authorities are to be created, particularly the being directed by the Secretary of State, it is very important that the new structure preserves local identity and sense of place, which is so important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor has acknowledged often during the debates on this bill, it is also very important to obtain consent from councils because without consent, it is unlikely that adequate discussions will have been held either between councillors or staff, and there is unlikely to be a common understanding of which roles will be affected by the reorganisation.

For these and other reasons already well put forward by my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I support all the amendments in this group and will certainly be supporting my noble friend if she should divide the house. I just say very briefly what a load of. Hypocrisy from the other side of the house. I was a member
17:38
17:39
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for these amendments on the establishment of combined authorities, the government's very clear that devolution has the potential to devolution has the potential to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver meaningful change led by local leaders who understand their communities best. And I totally agree with what my noble friend Lord Liddle had to say. That's why we want more places across England to access devolution, ensuring that no area is excluded from its benefits.

As I have said previously, it is to support that objective that we are introducing these powers alongside clear safeguards to ensure they are exercised appropriately and only when justified. Our clear preference and our established practice is to work in partnership with local areas to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local leaders and stakeholders. I hope this will be evident from the orders we've laid for new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in recent weeks in Hampshire and the Solent, Sussex and Brighton, Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington.

The government has been clear throughout the passage of this Bill that the powers are intended to operate as a last resort. These powers would only be used where no viable, locally led proposal has emerged. The amendments, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Boycott, also removed the provisions in the Bill that simplify and streamline consent, consultation and statutory test requirements for creating and changing the arrangements of combined authorities or combined county authorities. And that cuts across one of our core objectives, which is to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so that devolution can be delivered more efficiently and be less onerous for local authorities.

Removing these measures would entrench the existing complex processes and risk delaying areas from accessing the practical benefits that strategic authorities are already delivering. Consultation and consent will remain key features of that process, where proposals are developed by a local area, a new consolidated statutory test will also apply to the establishment of any new authority. These ministerial powers are therefore a backstop mechanism in the Bill, allowing the government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how best to access devolved powers, and this will help ensure that all parts of England can benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind.

And as I've been clear in many discussions on this subject, we can't accept proposals which will block other areas from accessing devolution or risk. Importantly creating devolution. Ireland's. Finally, my Lords, I would point the House towards the oral evidence given to the public Bill Committee following the introduction of this Bill. In the other place, when asked whether these powers were necessary, opposition witnesses were clear that such powers were indeed needed to advance the cause of devolution in England. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments so that the way is clear for all residents to benefit from the funding powers and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

functions set out in the Bill. Possibly explain what exactly a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

devolution island is. I'm very happy to do that. Where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy to do that. Where local areas are putting together their proposals and there's a small area of of in the country left out area of of in the country left out in between those areas. It may be necessary to use the powers for that.
17:43
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the contributions of noble Lords and the support of Lord Wallace. >> Of Saltaire and Viscount Trenchard to this group, and for the noble Baroness for her reply. I'm afraid I'm not reassured of the Minister's response. I return to the principle that underpins this the principle that underpins this entire group of amendments, that any reconfiguration of local governance must be rooted in the clear, explicit and democratically expressed consent of those authorities affected. Amendment eight and the consequential amendments simply seek to protect safeguards, safeguarding the relationship in genuine partnership between local and central government.

My Lords, the question is simple should change to local government be based on consent or ordered by the Secretary of State? For our part, we stand firmly on the side of content of consent. For these reasons, I intend to test the opinions of the House on amendment eight and its consequential amendments, and I would be grateful for the support of other noble Lords across the House. Lord Hodgson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Fowler. It is Lordships wish to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is Lordships wish to withdraw amendment seven. Amendment seven is amendment seven. Amendment seven is by leave withdrawn. Amendment eight. The Baroness Scott of Bybrook move formally. The question is an formally. The question is an amendment eight be agreed to as many as are of that opinion will say content content content content, say content content content content, not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will
17:44
None Portrait Division
-

advise the House when voting is advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Is. That Is. That amendment Is. That amendment eight Is. That amendment eight be agreed to as many as are that have agreed to as many as are that have been content. The contrary, not been content. The contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Name. Is Is that Is that amendment Is that amendment eight Is that amendment eight be Is that amendment eight be agreed to? to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 250 not contents 158 so the contents have it. the contents have it. Amendments the contents have it. Amendments 9 to 14 consequential on amendment eight move formally. En bloc. The question is that amendments 9 to 14 en bloc be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content. Content. Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 15. Lord Jamieson not moved amendment 16 to 24.

Also consequential on amendment eight move formally. En bloc. The question is that amendment 16 to 24 En bloc be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. amendment 25 the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. Move formally. Oh. All right.
17:55
17:56
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
A member of the proposed >> A member of the proposed schedule one, page 108, line nine leave out combined authority and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave out combined authority and insert C, c a. My Lords, I'm. Grateful to the Minister for setting out this group of setting out this group of amendments. As has been outlined. These are technical in nature, correcting references between combined authorities and to ensure consistency across the Bill. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognise the need for that consistency. Lord Framlingham.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Framlingham. I beg to move these amendments. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content Of the opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. amendments 26 and 27 move formally. En bloc. The question is formally. En bloc. The question is that amendment 26 and 27 en bloc be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. amendments 28 and 29 consequential on amendment eight move formally.

En bloc. The question is that amendment 28 and 29 be agreed to. En bloc as many as are of that opinion was a content content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. amendment 30 Lord Jamieson. Not move amendment 31 the Lord Teverson. My Lords, I stand to move for my amendment 31 and also speak to my amendments. 33 and 34 and I'm very privileged to have a group all to myself. These amendments are aimed to safeguard
17:57
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Cornwall's distinct constitutional and cultural position within the government's devolution framework. government's devolution framework. And first of all, can I thank the Minister for the time she gave to talk through these amendments and talk through these amendments and also her team? Can I thank Lord Hutton and Lord Bourne of Hutton and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth for adding their names to the bill? And can I also thank the public Bill office for their the public Bill office for their efforts in crafting these amendments? Can I explain to the House that although these amendments are around Cornwall, they don't actually mention the name? The reason being that if these amendments were ever agreed, they would hybridise the bill, I'm assured.

And although London doesn't seem to have the same problem as is so often the case in our affairs, that's why the amendments refer to certain European conventions, which I'll come on to later on. But needless to say, they are. These amendments would effectively refer specifically to Cornwall. I won't take up a huge amount of the house's time, but to say that, and to remind members that Cornwall is not traditionally part of England. It has its own language, its own Celtic culture, and indeed it used to have its own Stannary parliament.

And although it doesn't allow those traditions to get into the way of its future, what it is still a huge pride in Cornwall's own culture and its own history, not just amongst those that were born and have a long pedigree in terms of being Cornish, but in those many people that come into Cornwall to have it as their home and their workplace, they too treasure that distinction that comes with that history. But what I would say is, and I wish to make this point quite strongly, is that Cornwall is not isolationist.

What we're trying what these amendments do is to attempt to prevent moving towards a mayoral system that has not been received well in Cornwall generally. To ensure that it's not part of a wider authority, the Isles of Scilly could perhaps be an exception to that. But I'm not here to speak on the island's behalf and to ensure that the the that we are, that we don't want to take on the Conservatives to take on the government's devolution agenda.

But what we are already and I appreciate the government has offered is for the Secretary of State has. For Cornwall to be a single strategic foundation authority, which is certainly a move forward. But the point that comes out of that and the issue that concerns Cornwall, Cornwall Council, its MPs, all six of them, is that already Cornwall, due to its strong work on devolution, already has a large number of the powers that already would come with that single foundation, strategic authority status.

And so what I would what we're looking for, and perhaps the Minister can assure me is that in terms of devolution powers, the bill reads to me to be that, though within that hierarchy, devolution powers given to a single foundation authority are limited, that there is not a request that can be made to the Secretary of State to accrue to increase those. However, I understand from conversations that this should be seen as a flaw in terms of F00R in terms of devolution capabilities, and it should not.

There is no ceiling and I would be interesting to. Interested to hear that from the Minister that other legislation that's already on the statute book can be used. So I would be welcome very strongly a affirmation from the Minister that we can request further powers such as DEFRA, such as being able to be part of the strategic place partnership with Homes England, and if so, and if Cornwall wished, he could actually apply the tourist tax as well. Tourism is very important to Cornwall.

I'm not saying that is the policy or would be of Cornwall Council, but certainly it is a power that it would want to be able to exercise if it felt it was able. My Lords, Cornwall is a very distinct part of this nation. I thank the government that it has recognised that it has great aspirations in terms of further devolution, which I understand it has to show itself competent in the devolution areas that it already has. I believe it has shown that it is not isolationist.

It has just recently become the area where geothermal energy has first been proven to be successful in terms of future economy, and it will be a major source of strategic rare minerals as well, not least lithium. And on that basis, I look forward to the minister's reply. And I beg to move.
18:03
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
The schedule one, page 112, line 23. At the end, insert the words as printed. >> My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise an important specific question about how our existing legislative framework recognises and accommodates areas with particular cultural and linguistic identities. Amendment 31, 33 and 34 are, as I hope, noble Lords will agree, tightly drawn. They apply only in circumstances where an authority has a specific responsibility. Under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

In that sense, they are not broad or sweeping. Changes to the government's proposed legislation, but rather targeted carve outs intended to address the very particular cultural context. My Lords, there is undoubtedly broad agreement across the House on the importance of preserving and supporting minority languages and cultures. Across the United Kingdom. We see powerful examples of this. The Welsh language has, through sustained institutional support, seen significant revitalisation in recent decades, becoming a second a Central park part of public life in Wales.

In Scotland, efforts to sustain and promote Scottish Gaelic continues to play an important role in cultural identity and in education. And as the noble Lord Lord Teverson has noted, Cornwall's recognition under the Framework Convention reflects a similar desire to protect and promote a distinct heritage, including the Cornish language. We on these benches recognise that language and culture are deeply tied to identity and sense of place. They all seek to promote community cohesion. In a time where it seems that the public feel increasingly divided as we debate devolution and the reorganisation of local governments, it is right that the noble Lords remain mindful of how such changes interact with these long standing commitments.

At the same time, we recognise that these amendments raise wider questions about how such consideration should be reflected in the statutory framework and how far exceptions or differentiated arrangements could be drawn. My Lords, we recognise these are not straightforward issues and they merit careful consideration. My Lords, this group of amendments has highlighted an important dimension of the debate on devolution, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, particularly on how the government intend to ensure that these important cultural protections are both recognised and upheld within the Bill.
18:06
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments relating to devolution in Cornwall relating to devolution in Cornwall and for meeting with with my noble friend to discuss them in more detail. Must first pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long standing advocacy for Cornwall and to preserving his distinct, its distinct identity and supporting its local economy. This is a cause which the government supports, and from the announcement of a new £30 million Kernow Industrial Growth Fund, which will invest in Cornwall, sectoral strengths such as critical minerals and renewable energy, to the increased formal recognition of the Cornish language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Minority Languages.

Agreed on 50th December 2025. This government has demonstrated its commitment to Cornwall. As we have said consistently throughout the passage of this bill. We want Cornwall's strengths and opportunities to be advanced through the opportunities that devolution brings. Working in partnership with local leaders and others to agree a proposal that carries broad support across the area. We recognise the strong enthusiasm in Cornwall for devolution and the benefits it can provide. That is why my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Local Government, wrote to the Leader of Cornwall Council in November last year, setting out that the government is minded on the exception on an exceptional basis to explore designating Cornwall Council as a single foundation strategic authority.

Those discussions are positive and ongoing. This is why accepting the noble Lords amendments at this stage before those discussions are concluded would be premature. Finally, my. My Lords, I must point out that neither the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities nor the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and I think my accent probably falls into that category somewhere, both of which are referred to directly in. These amendments have been incorporated into domestic UK legislation.

While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to both the charter and the Framework Convention. Accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments. I would, however, be very happy to meet with him again to explore the options for devolving further powers and funding to Cornwall, which remains a focus of this government.
18:09
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, I thank the Minister >> My Lord, I thank the Minister and I particularly thank Baroness Scott for her comments as well, Scott for her comments as well, which I think were excellent. It's the first time I've ever put down an amendment, and it's been partly rejected by the government because it gets in the way of international treaties or something like that. So I mark that up as as a first, and I'm sure Cornwall would be very delighted to to hear that.

Hear that news? I take the point that discussions are still continuing, and I stress again that this is not Cornwall isolationism. We are there to work with our friends in Devon and the other side of the table and further up in the southwest as well. But in the meantime, because even I must admit that the amendments are so highfalutin in terms of avoiding hybridisation, I will not press them on this occasion, and I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw. Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 32 move formally. The question is that this formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 33 and 34 Lord Stevenson not moved. I understand Stevenson not moved. I understand that amendment 35 is consequential on amendment eight.

Question is that this amendment be agreed to amend that opinion will say content. Content commentary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 36 Baroness Boycott not moved. Amendment 37. Baroness Wheeler move formally, the question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 38 Baroness Boycott not moved in clause six. Amendment 39 Baroness Scott of Bybrook.
18:11
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move amendments 39 and 40 standing in my name and that of my noble friend name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. These amendments address a fundamental question at the heart of this bill whether decisions of a combined county authority should depend on the agreement of the mayor, or instead, by determination by the majority of its members. At its core, this is a question of democratic balance. Combined, authorities are designed as collective institutions, bringing together elected councillors to reflect the diverse voices and experiences of the communities they serve.

That purpose is fundamentally compromised. If the will of the majority can be overridden by a single individual. Requiring the mayor's agreement is not a minor, minor procedural step. It is a significant concentration of power that cuts against the grain of local democracy. Democratic tradition. During committee, noble Lords raised serious concerns that the granting of the mayor what amounts to a veto, could sideline the will of the majority and move us towards a more presidential model of governance. That concern is not merely theoretical.

One can readily imagine a situation in which the majority of councillors support a vital transport or investment decision, only for it to be blocked, because it does not command the mayor's agreement. In such circumstances, can it truly be said that the outcome reflects the democratic will of the area as a whole? And if the majority view can be set aside so easily, what meaningful role remains for the collective body? I recognise, of course, the argument made by those who support these provisions directly elected mayors bring visibility, leadership and a clear mandate, but strong leadership should come at a.

Should not come as the expense of collective accountability. What is the value of a majority decision if it can be overridden by a single officeholder? And does such a system strengthen democratic legitimacy, or does it in fact weaken it by concentrating power into too few hands? My Lords, these amendments seek to restore the balance for three reasons. First, they uphold the principle of collective decision making. The authority should act as a body, reflecting the range of communities it represents, not as a forum in which the majority view can be set aside by a single voice.

If we accept that councillors are elected to represent their communities, on what basis do we justify diminishing their collective authority? Secondly, they reinforce democratic accountability. Councils like mayors are elected representatives, answerable to their constituents, where decisions are taken collectively by the majority responsible, the responsibility is clear where agreement of the mayor is required, accountability becomes blurred. In such cases, who is ultimately responsible for the outcome, the mayor or the authority as a whole? And thirdly, they support effective and practical governance.

Combined, authorities must take timely decisions on transport, economic development and public services, as are many other things. A system that enables one individual to block decisions supported by the majority creates a clear risk of delay, deadlock and my Lords politicisation, particularly where political control is divided. My Lords, these are probing amendments, but they raise a fundamental question are we content to concentrate power in a single office, or do we believe that local government should remain rooted in collective majority decision making? This is not an argument against mayors.

It is an argument for balance. If the combined authorities are not to command confidence or sorry, or to command confidence, their decisions must reflect the will of the many, not the discretion of one. And I beg to move.
18:15
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I propose clause six, page three, line 32. Leave out from CCA to end of line 33.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment on voting arrangements directly. Elected arrangements directly. Elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are the only authority member directly elected by the fall of the authority area to provide leadership and direction, requiring their agreement on key decisions reflects this mandate and ensures that someone with area wide accountability is responsible for outcomes. It also ensures alignment and strategic coherence, removing the requirement for oral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution and could lead to less coherent strategies.

Sole reliance on majority voting risks blurred accountability if decisions are routinely taken without mayoral agreement, it becomes less clear it was ultimately responsible to the public. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. This is not unilateral decision making. The government recognises the importance of strong collaboration within strategic authorities. That is why the standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of voting members support a decision.

The model in the bill, therefore combines collective decision making with strong, accountable leadership. With that in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
18:17
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord, the >> I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for that. And we've heard the argument that requiring the the argument that requiring the mayor's agreement provides clarity and strong leadership, and I don't dismiss that point. However, leadership in local government has long rested not in the hands of one individual alone, but in the collective judgement of elected representatives working together on behalf of their communities. My Lords, we've been clear that to give one individual the power to block decisions supported by the majority is to risk undermining both accountability and effectiveness.

It blurs responsibility, invites conflict and creates the potential for delay at precisely the moment when decisive action must be required. Combined authorities were established to foster collaboration across local areas to bring together different voices and to make decisions that reflect the breadth of the communities they serve. That purpose is best served by a system in which decisions are made collectively and transparently, not one in which they can be halted by a single veto. My Lords, this is ultimately a question of trust.

Trust in the collective wisdom of elected councillors and trust in the principle that democratic decisions should rest on majority support. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask the government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reflect on these concerns. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your pleasure that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 40 Baroness Boycott not moved. Amendment 41 Baroness Boycott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 41 Baroness Boycott. My Lords, I rise to speak to the many and varied amendments in this
18:19
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
group for amendments. 41 122123125126 and three eight in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook. We owe a special thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his efforts since Committee stage. Beginning with amendment 41. This amendment links Local Growth Plan to an authority's preparation of its spatial development strategy. This would require spatial development strategies to identify the policies which are of strategic importance to the priorities set out in Local Growth Plan. It is a common sense that these are not developed in isolation from each other, and we see no reason why their link should not be set out in statute.

Amendments one, two, two, 123 and 125 would require mayoral combined authorities to identify the infrastructure projects to be included in a spatial development strategy and local growth plans to support growth, especially in relation to employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities. With the increased pressure on authorities to meet housing targets, it is important. More important than ever that these plans and strategies are consistently coordinated. Noble Baroness, the Minister agreed with this at committee and hinted that the revised NPF may address this.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm this and set out more details? Why should these amendments not form part of the Bill before us now? Amendment 308 simply requires that neighbourhood priority statements are commenced under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, whilst updating them to match the provisions of this bill. For those unaware, Neighbourhood priority statements summarise what are considered to be the principal needs and prevailing views of the community in the neighbourhood in respect of local matters.

This amendment allows for both town and parish councils to make those statements and include single foundation strategic authorities, as well as development corporations with planning powers to the relevant authorities. That sounds like community empowerment to me at committee. The noble Baroness, the Minister, stated that now was not the right time to commence neighbourhood priority statements due to the changes in the plan making system. But if not now, when indeed? Is there no better time than amidst the restructuring of local government for town and parish councils to make clear the needs of their communities? My Lords, in the interest of time, I will not comment on.

I will comment on only two of the other amendments. Amendment 307, in the name of the noble Lord Best requires the appointment of Statutory Chief Planner at Committee. We on these benches said the proposal had merit and our position has not changed. My Lords, we also support the Agent of Change principle outlined in amendment 246 to ensure the integration of new developments with existing businesses and facilities. Century old church bells should not be silenced by a new neighbouring housing estate. These are all important issues and so I look forward to hearing a detailed response from the Minister.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Propose amendment proposed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Propose amendment proposed schedule two, page 118. Line 20. Insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lord, I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to a number of amendments I have in this group, and I will limit myself to the ones in my name and that of others who've been kind enough to support
18:22
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
them. Amendment 120 is one with which the noble Lady, the Minister which the noble Lady, the Minister will be quite familiar at this stage. And I read very carefully stage. And I read very carefully her comments in reply to Committee stage, and I have to say I still take issue with what the noble Lady said in that regard, and I would said in that regard, and I would just ask her to to think again. And bear in mind the fact that the department which is actually responsible for preventing flooding and to deal with issues where, for example, surface water flooding combines with sewage in the combined sewers and cause can potentially cause a public health issue by coming into people's homes and forcing them to be evicted.

So the noble Lady will be aware that Defra, as a department, is extremely keen to implement the legislation that was adopted by both houses in the 2010 Water Management Act to ensure that there should be mandatory sustainable drainage in all major developments. So I would just ask her to think again and to make sure that also where there is potential for these to be, I believe they should be mandated. This is the one disagreement I know the noble Lady referred at Committee stage to the MPP, but I believe it would be better to have them mandated to make sure that those major developments do have their could be sustainable drains, there could be ponds, there could be culverts to take the excess water to prevent these sewage spills, which are causing such grave issues and obviously, mental health issues and public health issues when they do spill over.

The second part of the amendment deals with those situations where, and this is something that the noble Lady may be aware that Sir John Cunliffe, in his water permission, said that there should be the. The capacity for water companies where there is no capacity to connect to major developments, they should have the opportunity to say that they cannot connect, and that there is no way for the waste water, i.e. the sewage, to leave that major development. So I hope in the light of the fact that the government is going to bring forward a major piece of water legislation.

Following on from the report that she will look very kindly. In that regard to amendment one. 20, I'd like to turn now to amendments one, two, four and one two. I think it's one, two, four and 127. And may I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord Freyberg and the noble Earl of Clancarty for for co-signing both of these amendments? These might appear to be of minor significance, but these amendments are extremely important to enabling planning.

And I think it was the Local Government Association, in their briefing, asked that the Minister support these amendments. It is extremely important that, having given now the power of culture as a competence to mayors acting in their strategic role that actually seeks this amendment, seeks to ensure these two amendments together, that local growth plans include provision about cultural venues. So really, they're following on from the the earlier amendment now in the government's name to add culture as a competence. So I'm not going to press those two amendments to a vote, but I hope that it is something that the noble Lady will acknowledge.

Now, amendment 246 is, I think, enjoying cross-party support. And if I can find it, I'm going to take the opportunity to thank again the noble Earl of Clancarty, the noble Lord Freyberg and the noble, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay for lending their much valued support, given the experience and expertise that each of them have in this field. We've had numerous attempts as a Parliament to introduce this agent of change. I was fortunate enough to to serve on and to chair the ad hoc licensing committee.

Looking at the the select committee that looked at the review of the Licensing Act 2003. And we believe that something that is causing great concern amongst the cultural community is where there are existing businesses operating very successfully and being very well established, who then face a development, normally a block of flats or something at a later date right next to them. And then of course, the the residents of this new block ask that changes be made normally at the expense of the existing business to make sure that the two can live together.

And by adopting the agent of change principle into a statutory framework. This would ensure that planning applications involving music venues and I think this goes to the heart of the government's growth agenda. So the noble Lady must see this great deal of merit in this principle that music venues abiding by these principles and every community in every application will actually have sort of, if you like, a higher right than more recent and newer developments in that in that regard. So we're asking that we have the same situation as exists in Scotland, where we enshrine the agent of change principle in statute, and it would significantly shorten the planning process because it would empower local authorities to have something.

And this is the Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. So I believe this is where it should be placed. It would empower local authorities to have something specific and enforceable to go back to developers with when their plans did not consider existing music or other live entertainment venues. So we believe that the agent of change principle remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK. It's not perhaps the strongest protection of the businesses, but I think it's something that they could live with.

The government did mention the noble Lady in her response to the amendment at Committee stage, did mention consultation on the new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out the. Applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses. But in my view, actually, we've had so many consultations, we had very powerful evidence that was given to the committee on the 2003 review of the Licensing Act.

So looking to the growth agenda, I would just remind the noble Lady that 35% of grassroots venues have closed in the last 20 years, and they are coming under increasing threat. So I'm going to listen very, very carefully to what the noble Lady says in summing up, in particular on amendment two, four, six, and we'll reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when the time comes. And finally, I'd like to turn to amendment 306 in my name in this group, which which I believe is extremely important, that if the government is persisting with these clean energy projects, and if they're insisting on removing the power of local residents to object to them, then common sense would dictate that fire and rescue services should have the right to be statutory consultees, particularly where the clean energy projects are highly flammable, are at risk of thermal runaway, and they could spread very quickly and often.

They're very close to schools, nurseries, housing and other existing developments. So I frankly find it weird and very alarming that these potentially highly flammable planning projects are not benefiting from the advice from fire and rescue services. If they were statutory keys, statutory consultees would actually make the potential sites safer. So I end on that note, and I ask the noble Lady in her heart to explain to the House this evening for what possible reason, for what possible reason of safety and good practice.

Fire and rescue services are not statutory consultees to these potentially very dangerous sites.
18:32
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 307, which would require every local planning authority in every planning authority in every strategic authority, separately or jointly to appoint a qualified and jointly to appoint a qualified and experienced person to act as chief planner, as a number have done already. This amendment has been already. This amendment has been championed by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, who has been steadfast in his commitment to this reform, which he has maintained would accelerate housing delivery and growth.

I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and the noble Lord Lord Shipley, who at the Bill's Committee stage stressed the value of a high level of professional planning input for mayors and strategic authorities. My Lords, the proposal for a chief planner has been gathering momentum from the time of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. It's been promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute with support from the Better Planning Coalition, which represents some 40 organisations in this sector.

Just last week, the all party parliamentary Group on excellence in the Built Environment recommended this approach and I quote, to drive the professionalism and responsibility in decision making that is required to unlock planning delays and command the level of respect needed when negotiating and liaising with senior local authority members. The relationship between council members and their officers is changing the government's policy for deregulation of planning. Decision making means decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by the planning officers alone will be determined by the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the Chief Planning Officer.

This procedure underlines the need for a senior figure to be identified with the status. To assume this responsibility. It has also been suggested that the Chief Planner might have a formal role in the ongoing training for council members with planning duties, a role which requires a person of seniority who commands respect. My Lords. Having a named chief planner who is fully qualified and experienced with the corresponding status attaching to the role, provides, in the words of the Chief Planner for Newcastle City Council and the North East Combined Authority, the strategic direction and strong professional leadership that a planning authority needs, it creates a clear and trusted voice for our communities, our elected members and our developers, she concluded.

Making this role statutory would strengthen our profession and inspire the next generation to aspire to be chief planners themselves. Meanwhile, the experience of taking this approach in Scotland has demonstrated its value there, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. It's worth noting that the amendment enables authorities to choose to share a chief planner with one or more other authorities if they so wish. My Lords, here is a chance to help reverse the decline in the position of planning, raise morale and support the profession without cost to the government.

Planning departments have been starved of resources over recent decades, yet planning is set to be hugely important in the work of new mayoral and other strategic authorities. The RPI is latest survey of the state of the profession lists the recruitment and retention challenges. Local planning departments are short of up to a third of their staff. Two thirds of them are using agency staff to fill gaps. Shortages of qualified, suitably qualified people means delays that undermine new development mean less proactive engagement before and during a planning application, leading to worse outcomes.

The profession needs boosting, bolstering, encouraging and promoting, as well as very welcome additional government funding. This means changing perceptions and enhancing the status of a vital profession. Appointment of the key officer as Chief Planner would do much to achieve this. The noble Baroness. The Minister at Committee stage, said she would continue to keep this matter under review but would want, in her words, to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it. I do hope she's now been able to satisfy herself that this is a worthwhile initiative, and that she is able to accept the amendment.

I beg to move.
18:37
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I have an amendment in >> My Lords, I have an amendment in this Group 186, which would allow a separate cultural ecosystem plan to separate cultural ecosystem plan to be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan. I would like to say that I was very heartened by Lord Shipley support of this amendment at Committee stage, and he said that this amendment, and I quote, really matters because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what.

And furthermore, he drew attention to, and I quote, the need to ensure that local government maintains the key responsibility that it has always had for the development of cultural assets in its area. I couldn't have put it better myself. My Lords, our cultural assets are an ecosystem and indeed one that crosses boundaries, as well as being hugely important at the local level. As Lord Shipley emphasises, we talked at some length about culture in the very first group of today, but I would just ask the Minister once again whether cultural ecosystem plans would be something that might be considered for the guidelines.

At the very least. My Lords, I have also put my name to the amendments one, two, four, 127 and 246 in the name of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, which she fully explained. Baroness MacLeod McIntosh, of Pickering's agent of change amendment is hugely important. I will not repeat the arguments I gave at Committee stage, except to say that the Music Venue Trust do point out the significant difference between how the system works in England, where it is non-statutory and unsatisfactory, and in Scotland, where there is a statutory requirement and where the system works well.

If the noble Baroness wishes to take this to a vote when the time comes, then I will certainly support her in the lobbies. My Lords, could I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Remind the House the first time I've spoken at Report stage that I am chair of the Cambridgeshire am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and I provide advice to the Norfolk and Suffolk, advice to the Norfolk and Suffolk, Thames Valley and Greater Cheshire Development Forums as well. Can I just apologise to the House in advance? I know I will not be able to be here for days two and three on report, which is one of the reasons why I am very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Best for
18:40
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
leading the amendment relating to the statutory position of a Chief the statutory position of a Chief Planner. In the spirit of the Whip's rendition of the companion. Whip's rendition of the companion. I will not repeat either the points so splendidly made by Lord Best, nor the speeches I made both at Committee, and indeed on the Planning and Infrastructure Act. Planning and Infrastructure Act. But I know that the. The amendment, supported by Lord Shipley, by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, and by my own frontbench, appears to have not only a great deal of support in the country, but a great deal of support in the House.

And I hope when the time comes, if it is on day three that the noble Lord Lord Best will, if necessary, test the opinion of the House to show that support which we hadn't previously imposed on the government, but I think, if necessary, the House should impose it in this. In this Bill. I also want to thank very warmly my noble friend on the front bench for moving amendments. One, two, two, one, two, three and one, two, five and one, two, six, which are all about, as he said, making the local growth plans consistent with the spatial development strategy.

I won't go through that in some detail, but we have seen now that we've seen the draft revision of the National Planning Policy Framework. And while it does say, for example, that the spatial development strategy should give spatial expression to the strategic elements of the local growth plan, local Growth plan, as set out in this bill, does not make it very clear that the that the Local Growth Plan should identify what are the employment, commercial, industrial and logistic projects which are integral to the growth projections for a strategic authority area.

It needs to do that so that those strategic elements will necessarily be reflected into the spatial development strategy. And exactly the same is true for infrastructure as well. That's why those two additions to the content of the local growth plan are so important in being reflected into what then, in due course, should be incorporated into the spatial development strategy, which is already legislated for. I'll finish with that point merely to say to the Minister that I do hope that she and her colleagues will look very carefully at the revision.

The draft revision of the National Planning Policy Framework, insofar as it relates to the spatial development strategies, it should say more by way of the content of the spatial development strategy, in the lines of which we've already discussed. And I was very surprised to find that many noble Lords will recall that we debated at length that the spatial development strategy and the Planning and Infrastructure Act should both deal with the amount and distribution of housing, and specifically the amount of distribution of affordable housing.

But the National Planning Policy Framework does not refer to the amount and distribution of affordable housing. So I think it is really important that the NPF on which statutory the equivalent of statutory weight is to be given in planning policy decisions, should reflect what are the statutory requirements that are mandated in legislation by this House. And I support very much my my noble friend's amendments, which would go to that effect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I rise in support of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise in support of amendments one, two, four and one, two, seven in the name of the noble Baroness, lady McIntosh of Baroness, lady McIntosh of Pickering, amendment 186 in the name of noble Earl of Clancarty, an amendment 246, also in the name of the noble Baroness lady McIntosh of Pickering, to all of which I have
18:44
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
Pickering, to all of which I have added my name. A common thread runs through all four. Culture does not function as we've heard in isolation. It depends on an ecosystem of different venues and activities to sustain one another. Amendments one, two, four and 127 ensure that cultural considerations are genuinely embedded in planning and strategic decision making. While amendment 186 asks authorities to consider the cultural sector as an interconnected whole rather than a collection of separate parts. Amendment 246 the agent of Change amendment is where that thinking becomes enforceable.

The agent of change principle is straightforward. When new development arrives next to an established cultural venue. It is the developer, not the venue, that must bear the responsibility for managing any conflict, such as noise. The government has accepted this in principle and has indicated it will be addressed through planning policy, but policy without statutory footing has consistently proved insufficient. Guidance is applied unevenly and when it comes into tension and other priorities, it can simply be set aside for unpredictability alone can be existential.

If the government genuinely supports agent of change and it says it does, the logical step is to enshrine it in law. Amendment 246 achieves precisely that. It introduces nothing new in principle. It simply ensures that what is already accepted policy is applied reliably and consistently in practice. I strongly support all amendments and urge the government to accept them. I should add that having just heard the noble Lord Lord Best, I'm also in support of the amendment 307 in his name to appoint a chief planning officer for the reasons argued earlier.
18:46
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Very briefly, I think this has been another very important group of amendments in this group. And I think the you know, the the response by the Minister will be important, because I think that there are a lot of very good, important issues have been raised. I'm very grateful to the Earl of Clancarty for remembering what I said at Committee stage, and I. I like him. I have concluded that I was right on that occasion and. But I won't repeat it again.

Now. Suffice it to say this, I wanted to say something about amendment 307 because I've signed it in the name of Lord Best and Lord Lansley and. And I think that it really matters if you are devolving power over planning, over infrastructure planning, if you're serious about driving growth, if you want to improve a local infrastructure, if you want good quality, key decisions on land use, you need a very senior planning person named as a chief planning officer.

Well, this is not new. I've raised this matter on several bills in recent years. I still think it needs to be done because it's about raising the status of the profession as a career option, but it's also about giving the general public the necessary respect for views expressed by a chief planning officer. And I noted the comments. The noble Lord Lord Best about my city of Newcastle upon Tyne and the North East Combined Authority, and I agree entirely with what he said.

It's absolutely right. It needs to be a statutory role. OK? It is. It is not a complex issue. I just think the government should do it and have the confidence to do it, because we want devolution to be a success and to be a success, you have to have the right quality of decisions being made by the right level of senior officer, recommending the right answers to politicians. So with that, I hope very much we shall hear from the Minister that the government is minded to agree.

Amendment 307 at the very least.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Lady Macintosh, Lady Bennett, the noble Macintosh, Lady Bennett, the noble Lord Best and the noble Earl of Clancarty for amendments relating to planning and all noble Lords who to planning and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak first to amendments 41 122, speak first to amendments 41 122, 123, 125 and 126. From the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, moved by
18:49
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness, Lady Scott, moved by noble Lord Jamieson. While I agree with the need to ensure places are identifying and meeting growth opportunities, these amendments are not necessary. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy that they have published and consider relevant, while preparing their spatial development strategies. This could include a local growth plan we set out in the draft, revised Nppf that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to the strategic elements of the local growth plans, as mentioned by the noble Lord Lansley and further, to respond to the noble Lord Lansley local growth plans will be required to include a pipeline of investment opportunities to enable economic growth.

We expect those pipelines to include investment opportunities linked to infrastructure or development. And while I'm talking about the noble Lord Mance comments, I hope he did contribute to the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework with the other points that he made. Turning now to amendments one, two, four, 127 and 186. As I've set out, the government wants arts and culture to thrive across the country, and that's why we are introducing culture as a new area of competence for all strategic authorities.

It's also why we've committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector. Many are already supporting the cultural sector in their local growth plans, while some places are taking this further with dedicated culture strategies and industry partnerships. Local growth plans look across a wide range of needs and opportunities in their regions, including the cultural sector. As I mentioned, our guidance on local growth plans asked mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set a pipeline of projects critical for unlocking growth.

It must be up to local areas working with relevant stakeholders to determine which projects fit this requirement, and that is why we have avoided being overly prescriptive about the content of local growth plans. This additional requirement proposed by these amendments would risk upsetting that approach, which is already underway in many places. I will turn to amendment one to oh, I would like to reassure the noble Lady that the government is firmly committed to taking a systematic approach to tackling drainage issues and to strengthening the implementation of sustainable drainage systems.

However, these matters are more appropriately dealt with by local planning authorities rather than strategic authorities. We are putting in place a robust framework to guide and support local planning authorities in this important work. The National Planning Policy Framework already requires all developments, which may have drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. However, we are proposing to go even further the consultation on a new framework, which closed on the 10th of March, proposed that all sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with national standards introduced last year to improve their design and implementation.

The consultation also included a proposed plan making policy expecting early engagement between plan making authorities and wastewater companies to ensure there is a clear understanding of drainage and wastewater capacity be obliged to assist with plan making. Where a plan making authority reasonably requests it. This amendment, therefore, is not necessary given the actions I have set out. I will now turn to amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Best. I do appreciate the strength of feeling which has brought this amendment before us.

Once again, it's an important issue. However, as I said at the Committee stage, I don't believe it's something we can take forward in legislation without first having further engagement with local authorities in the sector. To understand the full implications. New legislative requirements on local authorities in this area must have a clear purpose and add value. In particular, I am keen to monitor how our national scheme of delegation reforms from the Planning and Infrastructure Act, work in practice and get feedback from local planning authorities on the role of chief planners and the equivalent officers in this process.

As the noble Lord is aware, we consulted last year on reforms to planning committees, which will give chief planners a strong role in deciding what application should go to planning committees, and we hope to shortly publish the statutory consultation on the draft regulations and guidance. We welcome views about these important new arrangements, and this House will have an opportunity to debate the final regulations later this spring. Turning now to amendment two for six. I'm sympathetic to the need to ensure that our drive for new homes does not come at the cost of existing business.

However, I do not believe the statutory route is the most effective way forward. The issues which the agent of change policy needs to address are inherently scheme specific, requiring case by case assessments of potential impacts and mitigations as part of the overall planning balance, which lends itself to a policy approach. National Planning policy already clearly enshrines the agent of change principle as a material consideration. The onus is squarely on applicants to provide suitable mitigation, where existing development in the vicinity is likely to have significant adverse impacts.

Moreover, the new planning Policy framework proposes to strengthen the agent of change principle. It sets out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and engage early on with existing uses. Following analysis of the responses, we will publish the final version in the summer. Local planning authorities can require noise impact assessments when they consider a proposed development is likely to be affected by existing noise sources. Guidance is clear that a range of mitigation measures should be considered, including good design to reduce the impact of noise from adjoining activities, incorporating noise barriers and optimising sound insulation.

Additionally, local authorities can already take the agent of change principle into account under the existing licensing regime. The legislation recognises different areas, face different challenges and licensing authorities may reflect the principle in their statements of licensing policy where they consider it helpful or necessary. We conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework, which sought views on whether it would be beneficial to strengthen the existing approach, and a full analysis of responses to this proposal will be published in due course.

Finally, local authorities have a duty to take such steps as a reasonably practical to investigate a statutory nuisance complaint. They consider a number of relevant factors, including the noise level, frequency and the character of the local area. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of protecting cultural venues from the impacts of new housing nearby, I do not consider a statutory approach to be the right solution. Existing policy and legislation already give local authorities the tools to apply these principles in their decisions, and we are taking further steps to strengthen implementation across both the planning and licensing systems.

My Lords, I turn now to amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just before we come to vote, or to the opinion of the House when the time comes, could I just ask for what reason? If it's working well in Scotland, where there is a statutory basis, why the government is so opposed? And does government is so opposed? And does she not realise that the guidance is simply not being adhered to? And practitioners are at their wit's practitioners are at their wit's end? On that basis?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end? On that basis? Well, I'm very happy to take back the points about Scotland, but we have conducted an extensive call for evidence on licensing, and we're carrying out a very extensive review of the National Planning Policy Framework. So there's been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute their views on that. And in both cases, we will be analysing the responses and publishing our response in in the case of the NPF in the summer and in the licensing framework in due course.

Turning to amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness, lady McIntosh. We don't believe this amendment is justified or proportionate, and we are concerned that adopting it now could have unintended consequences. The government has recently consulted on reforms to the statutory consultee system and consultation feedback is now being reviewed. It's important that we allow this process to conclude before taking any decisions on consultation outcomes. Introducing fire and rescue services as statutory consultees in the planning process at this stage would therefore run ahead of the review's conclusions and impose additional administrative responsibilities on these services.

I am aware, of course, we have discussed it many times that the battery energy storage system developments are a particular area of interest. These installations are already governed by a robust regulatory framework overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which places clear responsibilities on designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. In addition, planning practice guidance encourages developers of larger battery energy storage system schemes to work proactively with fire and rescue services. This guidance also encourages local planning authorities to consult with these services for these types of larger schemes, and to take account of guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council when determining the planning application.

Alongside this, the government is actively exploring whether further measures are needed to enhance the regulatory oversight of environmental and safety risks linked to battery energy storage systems. DEFRA recent consultation on modernising environmental permitting included proposals to bring battery energy storage system sites within the environmental Permitting regulations, and Defra is now considering the feedback received and will publish its response in due course. Finally, I'll turn to amendment 308. The government's position remains unchanged with a significant changes to local plan making, which we have recently set out.

Now is not the time to introduce neighbourhood priority statements to respond to the noble Lord Jamieson question about when consider the progress on neighbourhood priority statements once the Local Plan reforms have taken effect. The second aspect of this amendment would be to substitute arrangements made under clause 60 of this bill for neighbourhood fora, as the body is permitted to prepare neighbourhood priority statements. My Lords, this is not the purpose of clause 60. While neighbourhood planning groups, including neighbourhood Fora, may be involved in arrangements made under clause 60, their functions are separate and should remain so.

Finally, turning to the definition of relevant local planning authority, I want to be clear that adding further types of authority to this definition does not affect who should take into account a neighbourhood priority statement. This is because the definition only applies for the purposes of the duty to publish neighbourhood priority statements. For this purpose, we believe the existing definition is adequate and capture authorities from which the public is already seeking information relating to neighbourhood planning. My Lords, with these reassurances, I hope noble Lords feel able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw their amendments. My Lords, this has been an interesting and valuable debate where noble Lords are seeking to improve the system. I'd like to improve the system. I'd like to thank noble Lords who have made contributions to the debate and the support there appears to be across the House for many of the the House for many of the amendments in these groups. However, I am. While I thank the Minister I am. While I thank the Minister for her comments, I am somewhat disappointed that she was unable to make any commitments around the coordination between spatial strategies and local growth plans, or for that matter, on on neighbourhood priority statements, all of which I think would be very valuable in the same way.

It is disappointing that there were limited commitments on sustainable drainage, fire and rescue, consultees, agent of change, cultural infrastructure and the potential benefits of appointing statutory planners. Noble Lords, I believe, have made a noble a compelling case on many of these. Indeed, I believe this House has shown its expertise and unique shown its expertise and unique value to the legislative process. These are practical pros posals, and I hope the government will give and I hope the government will give them serious consideration. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
19:02
19:02
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
evidenced by the substance of the amendments received and the hours of considered debate in both houses. of considered debate in both houses. The government amendments I am introducing today follow considerable deliberation on those contributions. They focus on ensuring we balance the operational flexibility of the commissioner model with appropriate model with appropriate accountability and scrutiny, both issues, which have been raised repeatedly in this House. I will repeatedly in this House. I will take these amendments in five groupings. First, government amendments 42 and 46 increase the maximum number of commissioners the mayor may appoint from 7 to 10.

Second government amendments 50, 53, 55, 59, 62 and 64. Allow multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence. Third, government amendments 51 and 60 ensure that commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area, rather than the area as a whole only. Fourth, Government Amendments 54 and 63 clarify that the Commissioner must not carry out work in cases where the mayor ceases to hold office early, with the exception of winding down their office. Finally, government amendments 56 and 65 clarify that an appointment can end in accordance with contract law, if not otherwise provided for in the terms and conditions of their appointments.

These changes will increase the overall flexibility of the model, enabling mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs related to an area of competence and allowing them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for instance, two commissioners operating within the transport and Local infrastructure area of competence, one focussed on rural connectivity and the other on active travel. I would emphasise that the ability to appoint up to ten commissioners is in recognition that we expect the devolution framework to grow over time, thereby providing a contingency as mayoral duties and powers expand.

It does not mean mayors frivolously appointing people based on patronage. We know mayors want high calibre individuals whom they can trust to help them deliver for their regions. These appointments should therefore be on merit to bring in people with a track record of success, and whilst combined and combined, county authorities will have the ability to remunerate commissioners. That does not give mayors carte blanche to pay them what they want. Commissioners may only be remunerated in line with the recommendations and maximum amount specified in a report from an independent remuneration panel.

Let me be clear no additional funding is being provided for these appointments. We expect combined and combined county authorities to make appointments prudently on the basis of where they determine a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes, and part of that success relies on commissioners being accountable and their performance being open to scrutiny. That is why, alongside the mayor being able to terminate appointments, the overview and scrutiny committee may also recommend a termination. The decision on whether or not to accept that recommendation must then be put to a vote of the authority's board.

Commissioners will also be subject to the strengthened accountability measures being introduced through local scrutiny committees. This includes removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties for failing to answer questions or provide information, or for misleading a local scrutiny committee. I beg to move government amendments 42, 46, 50, 51, 53 to 56, 59, 60 and 62 to 65 and I will retain my reserve, my right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speak later in response to other noble Lords amendments. I propose clause nine, page 11,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I propose clause nine, page 11, line four, leave out seven and insert ten.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is going to be the shortest speech I make it I've ever made. I think in in the chamber and it is think in in the chamber and it is solely. But it's meant. It's really solely. But it's meant. It's really meant. And that is to thank the the government and the noble Lady, the
19:07
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
Minister for the three amendments Minister for the three amendments that I moved at at the earliest stage, that's. They're now come out stage, that's. They're now come out as number 40, 42 and 46 and amendments 51 and 62. Three. amendments 51 and 62. Three. Excellent changes, it seems to me, Excellent changes, it seems to me, which will assist very much the flexibility that will be enjoyed under the new devolution principles. And I want to again thank the noble Baroness very much for her assistance and the Department with making sure that, I think would have probably now unanimous view that these are three very good amendments and will add to the bill.

So thank you very much. Brilliant speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Suri. Well, my Lords, I, I, I, I have seen this as a very, very important group of amendments. And I think we have moved on and I'm happy for us to have moved on. So whereas I Committee state said that whereas I Committee state said that I wanted to see. An abolition of the principle of unelected the principle of unelected commissioners. It's the unelected bit that has really bothered me. However, they don't have powers to to vote and they don't have powers to make decisions.

And therefore, I think that you can you can make the case for the expertise that is required, certainly in some of the areas of competence that the government is proposing. And and indeed, I mean, we can debate whether it should be seven or 10 or 5 or some other number. Actually, I think I devolve it. I think I let people make their own decisions at a more local level. I, I, I, I got very concerned last week as I began thinking about the government's changes to overview and scrutiny.

I want to say I welcome them very much indeed. I think a lot of progress is being is is being made. The question for me was, who appoints a commissioner to what to to what test, to what level? If a mayor can appoint a commissioner, what criteria are being used for that appointment? And I thought that the overview and scrutiny committee could be used to assess before somebody actually was appointed, to assess whether the person being appointed would be satisfactory in the role.

I've come to the conclusion that amendment 45 is actually a better amendment. In
19:09
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the name of my noble friend Baroness Boycott and and not my noble friend, but indeed Baroness noble friend, but indeed Baroness Boycott and Lord Jamieson. I think Boycott and Lord Jamieson. I think that we need a we need an appointment process which is public, appointment process which is public, which is fair open selection process that the criteria and the process that the criteria and the process are publicly understood, as are levels of remuneration. And as Baroness Gohir Lord Jamieson has said, in order to ensure transparency and accountability, it does seem to me that this really, really matters for the public is not going to have confidence in some of these appointments if they think that someone has been appointed without the right, without the right qualifications or experience to undertake a job.

And when you give two great power to an individual, a mayor, I think there is a danger that in some places, at some times, on some occasions that could happen. And we don't want that to happen because I want the bill to succeed. So we're in favour of driving the devolution agenda. So, my Lords, I am not planning to to, to to move any amendments. 48, 66, 57, 58 in this group, but I hope very much indeed that if the noble Baroness Baroness Cox decides to move to move amendment 45, she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will have our support. My. My Lords, I have expressed my strong reservations and serious concerns about the appointment of unelected commissioners on a number of occasions during the passage of of occasions during the passage of this bill, and I join with the noble Lord Lord Shipley in his criticism of clause nine. Once criticism of clause nine. Once again I say to the noble Baroness, the Minister, do we really want or the Minister, do we really want or need more unelected bureaucrats involved in running local authorities? And to make matters worse, they are now proposing to increase the number of commissioners from 7 to 10.

Why? What possible reason could government have for allowing mayors to appoint even more? At Committee
19:12
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
stage, we asked why senior councillors could not take on these roles and have not had a roles and have not had a satisfactory answer. It's a perfect example. If you create a example. If you create a bureaucracy, it grows. We need to ensure that this doesn't happen because it's all paid for by the because it's all paid for by the taxpayer payer and we need to ensure value for money. And that is why I, along with my noble friend why I, along with my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook, have tabled my amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 44 would reduce the number of commissioners that can be appointed from 7 to 5, reducing the costs for local government to taxpayers should be a priority on amendment 45. This requires the appointment process for commissioners to be fair, open and transparent, and I thank the noble Lord Shipley for his support in this. It is important that these appointments of unelected officials need to be transparent. My Lord, the Local Government Association has said, and I quote, they have expressed concern of the role of commissioners, and they want assurances that there will be robust scrutiny arrangements to hold them to account, given their potentially significant role and remit.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, outline how the government will ensure that accountability is maintained in the appointment of commissioners? I'm doubtful that the government will be able to satisfy me that the process will ensure value for money and democratic accountability. So when amendment 45 is called, I will seek to divide the House.
19:13
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate? As I said earlier, I recognise this As I said earlier, I recognise this as an important issue and we do want to get it right, not least because we care about bettering because we care about bettering those places and those communities that are personal to all of us. I will turn first to amendment 44, will turn first to amendment 44, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of this amendment seeks to reduce the number of commissioners the mayor can appoint to a maximum of five.

I would remind noble Lords that ensuring mayors have the capacity and capability to undertake the new responsibilities we are devolving to them is essential to ensuring that devolution is a success. Commissioners are a key part of the mayor's toolbox, reducing the number of appointments to a maximum of five simply limits that flexibility and scope of the model. In particular, it would mean a mayor would not have the option to appoint at least one person to operate in each of the eight areas of competence should they want to, and we've had much discussion both in the chamber today and during committee, with noble Lords wanting other areas of competency, including rural areas and cultural areas.

So we don't want to inadvertently force mayors to neglect particular areas of competence because they lacked the support they need. I must reiterate that these are optional appointments we expect combined and combined county authorities to make their appointments prudently based on where they determine a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes, and to respond to the noble Lord Jamieson question about why can't council leaders do this work? Commissioners are expected to be politically restricted posts. This means they should not be able to undertake certain activities that someone sitting as a council leader would do, like canvassing on behalf of a political party.

It would therefore not be appropriate for a council leader to be appointed as a commissioner. Council leaders acting as portfolio leads play an important but distinct role from commissioners, and we expect both to work together and will detail this in forthcoming guidance. I will turn now to amendment 45, also in the name of the noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook. This amendment seeks to ensure that mayors appoint commissioners through a fair and open selection process, and that mayors publish the criteria, process and agreement remuneration for these appointments.

I respect the noble Baroness commitment to accountability and transparency in local government, a commitment shared by this government. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to issue statutory guidance on commissioners, including their selection or appointment and remuneration. This guidance will be issued to support combined authorities and combined county authorities, which must have regard to it when implementing the commissioner role. The guidance will stipulate that appointment should be on the basis of fair and open competition, meaning public visibility to the requisite criteria for appointing to the role.

Details of the commissioner's appointment regarding their role and responsibilities are also expected to be published on the website of the Combined Authority or the Combined County Authority. The bill also stipulates that when a scheme is made to pay allowances to a commissioner, the combined authority or combined county Authority must produce and publish reports on the allowances paid under the scheme, including the amounts. Turning now to amendments 48 and 66 tabled by the noble Lord Shipley, these amendments seek to remove clause nine and schedule three, eliminating the role of commissioners from the bill and preventing their appointment by mayors.

I would remind the noble Lord that we are undertaking, and I think he recognised this in his speech earlier. We are undertaking a significant transfer of power from central to local government, ensuring mayors have the capacity and capability to undertake these new responsibilities is an important part of broader reforms to make devolution a success. Commissioners are a key part of the mayor's toolbox. They can deputise for the mayor in a specific area of competence, and by bringing specific skills and experience to bear, they will help the mayor advance their policy agenda more efficiently and effectively than the mayor could working alone.

I thank noble Lords for their many representations on the efficacy of the Commissioner model, and I would like to reiterate briefly the key points. Commissioners are optional. Any funding for them must be found locally. Government will not be providing funding for them. Commissioners should be appointed on merit and the guidance will make this clear. Remuneration for commissioners should be decided by an independent remuneration panel whose recommendations cannot be exceeded, and commissioners must be subject to scrutiny. They must attend and answer questions from the local scrutiny committees that we are introducing.

These committees can raise concerns and recommend that a commissioner is dismissed. Finally, I will address amendments 57 and 58 which seek to ensure that overview and scrutiny committees have the power to recommend that the appointment of the commissioner is not confirmed. I appreciate the noble. Lord Shipley said he doesn't intend to move these, but I will just briefly cover the points he makes. I can confirm to the noble Lord that the guidance will invite the recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding a nominated appointment.

In doing so, the committee can confirm whether they accept or reject a nomination or believe it necessary to hold a confirmation hearing, and this will apply to combined authorities and combined county authorities. I note the noble Lords amendments only applied to the latter, but that would imply an unacceptable divergence between the two types of authority. So I'm very grateful to all the comments from noble Lords and will respectfully invite all noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment 42 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage move formally. The question is that amendment be question is that amendment be agreed to? As many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. content. The contents have it. Amendment 43 the Earl of Clancarty Amendment 43 the Earl of Clancarty not moved. Amendment 44. Baroness Scott of Bybrook not moved. Amendment 45 Baroness Scott of Amendment 45 Baroness Scott of Bybrook move. Formally, the question is that amendment 45 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. The contrary, not content. The question will be decided by a division of the House. I'll advise the House when voting is open.
19:20
19:31
19:31
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I want to begin by making it very clear that we on these benches, believe it's absolutely vital that young people are supported into work, that we. We recognised wholeheartedly that we support the announcement about the new opportunities for young people and we we support them and want to see them succeed. The evidence is clear that periods of unemployment at the start of working life can have long lasting and deeply damaging consequences. That makes early intervention not just desirable, but essential.

It is therefore welcome that the Department for Work and Pensions recognises the importance of this issue. But my Lords, recognition alone is not enough, and the latest figures from the office for National Statistics give us all across this House cause for concern. Youth unemployment among those aged 18 to 24 has risen to 14.5%, the highest level in nearly a decade. That represents a generation being denied opportunity. Young people, unable to take their first step on the ladder to build skills or to contribute to the economy.

It is no surprise that Helen Dickinson, chief executive at the British Retail Consortium, has said the UK faces the prospect of a jobless generation and that this vital step on the career ladder is cracking under the high cost of employment. And actually, to be helpful to the noble Lady, the Baroness, who I know shares the obsession with me about getting people into work, especially young people. But to help her, can I just ask that we we turn to the past 14 years and not say we've had 14 years to sort this because it wasn't all that bad.

And look at the facts. In 2010, the Neet rate stood at 16% and by 2019 it had fallen to 10.7%. In turn, youth unemployment fell from around 20% in 2010 to 10.7% in 2022. We acknowledge that Covid created immense challenges and that the rates went up, but it was not all that bad on our watch. But but we did a lot of good. But there was undoubtedly more that we could have done and should have done.

However, my Lord Jay youth unemployment has risen in each year under this government, now reaching nearly 15% among 16 to 24 years old. My Lords, it is against this deeply troubling backdrop that the government brings forward this policy for which we are pleased, and what we see from the government here is part of a worrying pattern. When the economy fails to deliver the outcomes we all desire, the government doesn't seem to pause or reflect or correct the course.

Instead, reach intrinsically, instinctively for an intervention intervention to compel the private sector to behave as it wishes. And I've no doubt in in real terms, the private sector would love to be creating jobs and getting young people into their workforce. This is the return of an interventionist doctrine that places political direction above market judgement. Many believed that this approach had been left behind, but is now clearly back at the heart of government thinking. We see it in attempts to direct pension fund investment, allocating other people's savings in line with political priorities rather than saver outcomes.

And we see it again here, having failed to create the conditions for a strong labour market. The government's answer is not to enable growth, but to intervene, to manage and control. We on these benches are not merely supporters of employment. We are the party of work. And before the pandemic, employment reached a record high of 76.5%, while economic inactivity fell to a record low of 20.5%. And that was not by chance. It was the result of a deliberate approach, one that trusted enterprise rewarded effort and created the conditions for business to grow and hire.

My Lords opportunity should not be manufactured by the state, it should be generated by growth, and that is the approach we would like to see from the government. But it is one they seem, sadly, to have rejected. My Lords, I've got several questions off the back of this statement, which I hope the Minister will address. If there's too many of them, then I'm very happy for the noble Baroness, the Minister, to to write to me. So can I ask the Minister, the noble Baroness, the Minister, how will participants be selected for these roles? You know, there is always a tendency to, you know, to go for the people, that it's easy to help.

How will you ensure that those furthest from the labour market and in the most difficulty get helped? How will you participants be selected for the roles? Have private sector employers been driving the development of this policy, or has it come from in Whitehall? And how are the government ensuring that employers are at the heart of this intervention? How will the government measure the success of this policy and over what time frame and will the performance be communicated to the whole House? What what will happen to young people at the end of the six month placement? Our employers expected to absorb the full costs thereafter, and if so, on what basis? Or do you actually already intend to extend the timeline? Does the Minister genuinely believe that short term placements, particularly concentrated in sectors such as hospitality, will address the deep rooted productivity and skills challenges in our economy? And crucially, what does the Minister believe is driving the current rise in youth unemployment? Because it is not the uncomfortable truth, this that the government has taxed jobs, discouraged hiring and is now asking taxpayers to subsidise the very employment opportunities its policies of undermine the British Retail Consortium are unequivocal, saying in 2025 alone, the cost of employing a full time entry level worker has risen by 10%.

If the Minister is seeking the root cause of today's labour market difficulties, I would suggest that the government need look no further than their own political record and policies. Businesses across the country point to the same pressures burdensome employment regulation like the Employment Rights Act, sharp increase in wage and minimum wage costs, higher and inflexible business rates and ever growing compliance obligations. My Lords, this debate comes down to a fundamental choice. Do we continue down the path of higher taxes, heavier regulation and greater state intervention? Or do we return to a model that genuinely, genuinely creates opportunity and one that backs enterprise rewards work and enables business to grow? Model that we used to deliver high record employment.

I'm sure that the noble Baroness, the Minister and the government is serious about tackling youth unemployment. I do not doubt that, but I would suggest it must move beyond treating the symptoms and bringing beginning begin, address the causes. I think it must stop trying to control outcomes and instead create the conditions in which those outcomes can be achieved. That means easing the burden on those who create jobs, restoring confidence and recognising that sustainable employment is built not by government decree but by economic growth.

And until the government confronts that reality, these policies will do little more than mask failure at great cost to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taxpayer and an even greater cost generation. Hey, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey, here. My. My Lords, thank you very much for the Minister who hasn't much for the Minister who hasn't said the statement, but we've read the statement and thank you to the the statement and thank you to the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott for raising so many questions, which I will look forward to hearing the
19:41
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
will look forward to hearing the answers. My Lords, we have 739,000 young people aged 16 to 24, unemployed. Nearly 100,000 more than last year, sitting on benefits of £338 per month. And make no apologies for repeating this figure, but I give it in terms of numbers of young people, not as a percentage. I think percentages are misleading and you can't really understand what they mean. These people, these unemployed people, 16 to 24 on average over 50 over five months, searching and applying to hundreds of roles with less than 1% success.

So they give up entirely. Yet employers report millions of vacancies remaining unfilled. This is not a shortage of jobs, but a failure of matching right opportunities for the right candidates. They remain unsurfaced and undiscovered. Given that DWP is already piloting, and I congratulate them on that. Matching technologies at some job centres such as the one in Leicester, which I know about. Can the Minister set out please? What is the government's. The government and department's timeline for scanning these tools nationally across all job centres and critically, what measurable improvement in time to employment does the Department expect from this rollout? And additionally, why is government removing the funding for apprenticeships for management? Can they please explain that to me? And will government rethink the impact of National Insurance contribution? Hike on hospitality, retail and tourism, which could help if we deal with that? That could help substantially.

The youth unemployment we're talking about. This is really a big problem, and I hope the Minister can give answers to the few questions I've raised and those raised by the noble Lady as Baroness Stedman-Scott.
19:43
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the questions from both noble Lords, and I'll come to them in a moment. I just think it's worth reiterating I just think it's worth reiterating why we are expanding our support for young people and why we're doing it now. While the UK's overall employment levels levels are historically high, it's been a tough picture for young people in the labour market for some years now, and I'm sure the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott remembers that in the three years running up to the election, the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by a quarter of a million, up to almost a million.

This hasn't been helped by the fact that the number of youth apprenticeship starts has declined by 40% in the space of a decade. The trends we've seen with young people in the labour market are long term. They're deep rooted and they're worrying. But they didn't start on the 4th of July 2024, and they and they are not confined to the UK. But there's something that we all have to address because, as the noble Baroness said, and she knows very well, because I know from her experience she knows this.

If young people start their adult lives on the wrong foot, it has consequences for decades to come, both for them and for our country as a whole. So Charlie Mayfield highlighted in his Keep Britain Working report for young person goes on to benefits. In their 20s, they could lose out on £1 million worth of lifetime earnings, and it could cost the state £1 million to support them. So tackling these trends is in all of our interests, and I hope there should be good cross-party support for this, especially at the moment and at a time of rapid technological change.

Young people need our support. We've already set out our reforms to refocus the apprenticeship system back on young people. And in response to the noble Lord Lord Farmer, we have made some difficult decisions to focus apprenticeships on the on the on the young people who need this to start at the early in their lives. And so we focussed our priority into that space. We'd already announced a youth guarantee to help the young unemployed, including 300,000 work experience and training places and a jobs guarantee, subsidised work for 18 to 21 year olds who have been long term unemployed.

But last last week, my hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out how we will go even further. So from this summer in terms of the timing for Lord Farmer, we will introduce hiring bonuses for businesses of £3,000 if they hire a young person who has been on Universal Credit for six months, and there will be bonuses of £2,000 for small and medium sized businesses hiring young apprentices. And these bonuses can be combined if the young person hired has been out of work for six months.

On top of that, we're introducing new foundation apprenticeships in retail and hospitality, new short courses in AI, electrical vehicle charging point installation, electrical fitting and assembly, mechanical fitting and assembly, solar PV installation, welding, welding. And we're extending the jobs guarantee to those aged 22 to 24. Altogether, this will create 200,000 jobs and apprenticeship opportunities over the next three years. This represents £1 billion of new investment on top of the funding announced at the budget. So our package of support for young people now comes to around 2.5 billion.

But I am proud of the efforts we're making to ensure young people can flourish. And just to say, in response to the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott, I think she must have got mixed up between this policy and something else, because there is no compulsion here. We're not making employers take on young people. We're offering incentives for them to take on young people. We're offering subsidies for jobs. We're doing all the things to help to make sure the young people who are struggling most have a chance to get those jobs out there.

That's not compulsion. That's not controlling outcomes. That's giving young people opportunity. I am proud that we're doing it. My Lords, some of the other comments that were made and the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott pointed to some of the policy choices this government has made. But as I pointed out, youth unemployment has been rising since 2022, and the OBR predicts that overall unemployment will peak this year and fall in every year of the forecast. The Baroness mentioned tax rises, and if she was referring, I'm just guessing, perhaps the National Insurance contributions.

She will, of course, remember that employers are exempt from paying employers National Insurance contributions for workers under 21 and apprentices under 25, unless they're earning over £50,000 a year. She mentioned the Employment Rights Act and the reaction of employers again Lord Doyle the problems young people are facing in the labour market go back rather further than that. They're not new. What is new is this package of support, which my Lord Dear has been welcomed by large businesses like Amazon, PwC, the Kia Group, and it's been welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses, who called it a game changer in terms of hospitality.

Tom Kerridge, the chef and business person, said, and I quote, these incentives will give our industry a real boost. The liberal, the liberal Lord Lord Farmer made a really important point. There are vacancies in the economy. In the economy, there are 700,000 vacancies in the economy, including 50,000 manufacturing. So there are jobs out there. Our job is to help young people get the support, the skills, the training and experience to get into that. And I completely agree with them, to match them and get them into that.

He made a really important point. That's why we're setting out this package today, and it's why it matters so much. And we've already started to reform the system, but we do have to do all the things that will make the difference to help them get those jobs. The Lord Low Palmer asked about timing the £2,000 apprenticeship incentive for small and medium sized enterprises will take effect for those starting apprenticeships from the 1st of October, as long as they've joined their employer within the last three months.

The £3,000 hiring incentive, the Youth Jobs grant that will be delivered from June this year. The expansion of the jobs guarantee to include 2224 year olds will be from this autumn, and the first set of new apprenticeship units are launching from next month. So we're not hanging around, we're getting out there to do work. I was really grateful to him for acknowledging what job centres can do and supporting young people. We all know there are young people out there who want these jobs, but they often need the help.

They may not have the skills, they may not have the work experience. So in response to the Baroness Lloyd stedman-scott, obviously there are different things to different people. But she asked, I think she was asking what would happen to somebody who was put specifically into the guaranteed job where if they've been out there looking for work for 18 months, they haven't got a job, we will guarantee them six months of a job. And we would hope that by the end of that, the employer would see their potential with all the support they had getting up to that point, and would want to keep them on if for any reason they don't, or if it isn't a good fit, or if they don't feel they've got the right skills, then all the support will be there.

From job centres, from our range of youth. Offer to make sure that now with this new work experience, we can get them out there and get them a new job. Or maybe they want an apprenticeship. Maybe they now think they want to acquire more skills so they can build a career.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But perhaps at this point she could tackle the point I raised, which she touched upon, which is the matching of vacancies with jobs. And I gave the example of the Leicester Job Centre, which is doing this. And my question, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing this. And my question, which I hope you answer, is how are we going to spread that out? This is already happening in lots of different places and in lots of different places and in lots of different ways. Jobcentres are doing it, but for example, we're setting up youth hubs in 360 locations across the country where locations across the country where we can bring together employers and young people, as well as lots, as well as lots of other services so they can meet them.

We have jobs, fairs, and my colleagues have been visiting jobs fairs where they bring in employers to meet to meet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with potential jobs. This is What was the everyday work of job centres? It really is of going job centres? It really is of going out there and matching people together. But I'm really glad. I'd be very interested to talk to him about what he saw in Leicester and about what he saw in Leicester and what he particularly found helpful about that, because it's really good to learn what's out there. My Lords, I have very little time left Lords, I have very little time left to go, but let me just say two two other things very quickly.

One is that even though there are jobs out that even though there are jobs out there, the challenge is always going to be that the young people who are farthest from the labour market are going to find it hard to get them. That's why we have to give particular support to them. I know these are tough times generally, but we have to try to do all we can to get those young people the chance to get those jobs, because if they can get the experience at this crucial moment, it can be transformative down the line.

And secondly, we will evaluate it very carefully. We will set out. I haven't I will write a note somewhere. We will, we will. We're already evaluating what's out there. We're using the evidence base and Baroness Stedman-Scott pushed me. But for example, on wage subsidies, we've looked at the evidence from kickstart, which her government did from the Future Jobs Fund, which our government did. The evidence is really quite strong about. And so we're trying to shape incentives. We're working on what we know that works in terms of the development of the youth guarantee has been underpinned by that kind of evaluation and evidence.

My Lords, an evaluation of the DWP Work Experience program shows a high impact on employment prospects for unemployment prospects, while, for example, we've assessed the sectoral work programmes and they found a really effective intervention. Finally, we're evaluating the eight youth guarantee trailblazers, and we're going to use the learning from those different things happening around the country with different mayoral authorities to work out and inform the design of the youth guarantee as it goes forward. So we absolutely are using evidence from the past, evidence by gathering now and all that.

We're learning to make sure this can be the best it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can be. This should be a national mission and I'm proud that we're doing something for it. My my. My. My, my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My, my. We now have 20 minutes for backbench contributions. I just want to give a brief reminder. This is an opportunity for backbenchers is an opportunity for backbenchers only, not from branches to our short questions of my noble friend the Minister, so we can maximise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contributions. Can I, first of all welcome this statement? I think it is not only statement? I think it is not only important but long overdue in the face of the facts that the Minister, the noble Lady, the Minister gave, including the fact that apprenticeships has fallen. I think she confirmed by 40% over the last
19:52
Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan (Labour)
-
-
decade. If we're going to address that issue, can I answer to avoid that issue, can I answer to avoid what is being suggested is a binary choice between government choice between government assistance and the market. A modern economy requires both. Yes, they have to be balanced, but it's a nonsense to argue that somehow if we left everything up to the market, then that would solve the problems. Patently. That is not true. There's about 300 years of evidence to disprove it.

So can I ask the noble Lady Minister to expand on how the assistance to small and medium sized enterprises will help them to employ people and thus address the problem of NEETs? The non-educated, employment or training young people, because that is the kernel of the issue that I think the country

**** Possible New Speaker ****

faces. I'm very grateful to my noble friend, and he makes a really important point, and it just isn't important point, and it just isn't helpful to anyone. If we start getting caught in false binaries. And clearly what we need to do is to work with the grain of what employers need and to support them in doing it. But our job, of course, they want to hire whoever, they want to hire whoever, whoever's best for them to do their job. Our job as government in this sort of setting is to work out what sort of setting is to work out what will it take to help those young people in most need the help to be the person the employer needs by getting the skills they need, getting them in the right place, getting them in front of them, getting the work experience that they need.

The reason we have a apprentices, apprentices as new employees. And the reason we do that is we know that they face additional barriers, we know they face additional costs, but also we know that they are big. They are there as a sector. They are likely to take on young, young apprentices. And so apprenticeships have spread very wide, but they are prone to taking on young apprentices. So what we want to do again is to lean into the grain of what they naturally do anyway, take away some of the barriers that they will face in doing that and support them in doing what they want to do anyway.

Good for them. Good for the young person. Good for the economy. Hi. I'm serious. Do you want me to, Bishop? Definitely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm immensely grateful. My Lords, like other noble peers,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, like other noble peers, I warmly welcome this. And I notice in the written statement and the statement that the noble Lady, the Baroness, has made an emphasis on technical skills. I declare an interest. I've been married to somebody who's been a professional social worker all her life, but I'm interested in what we are doing to encourage young people into the caring professions, be that youth caring professions, be that youth work, be that nursing, be that educative support, be that social care.

Because it seems to me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serves not only their good, but also the good of our society. And the right reverend Prelate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. The government has done quite a bit of work in different sectors, and I think I've said it at Dispatch Box before, that we have done quite a bit of work in social care, looking at how do we develop schemes, how at how do we develop schemes, how do we develop skills, how do we develop sector work programs in order to make sure that young people can both given the skills, people can both given the skills, but also encourage to go into the sector? I think there can be a really rich and rewarding career, as his wife has found out and as I as I, as I know and and I know that from people who work in the sector initially, people may not immediately see it as an opportunity once they get in there.

If it's a good fit and it's right for them, it's astonishing, rewarding. They transform lives and to be given the opportunity not just to change their own life, but in doing so, to change the lives of other people is something that's wonderful. So the government will carry on supporting that. And I can assure them that wife will definitely know that being without education, employment or training has a devastating effect on young people and the consequences for social stability and the fabric of society is incredibly important.

And I know that the Minister is aware of that. To get a job, individuals need skills, confidence
19:57
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Portrait Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Conservative)
-
-
and motivation, and we expect young people to use AI and social media tools to get jobs, to get tools to get jobs, to get apprenticeships, to get training. But I would like the noble Lady to But I would like the noble Lady to look at today's report from the Policy Exchange, which talks about Policy Exchange, which talks about Secuencias social media, coaching people, how to make successful claims for disability benefits, claims for disability benefits, mental health, neurodiversity, p I p. A quarter of the population now is classified as disabled, three times the increase in those claiming disability benefits.

As the noble Lady will know, and I feel the time has come to work with health to make it more stringent, to assess people as to whether they really do have ADHD, autism, and all the other manifold diagnoses that people are taking on. I think there are times when a more bracing message encouraging young people into education, training or employment would be much more constructive. And I don't wish that to sound harsh. I've never regarded the noble Lady as being harsh in the way that she does.

I think she's hit on. The underlying question is a really important one, and I think our challenge when it comes to young people is that at some point, I think that the government has to stop. I mean, the question sometimes is, when somebody encounters the state for the first time is to look at what are the benefits to which they're
19:58
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
entitled. Now, that that may be very important. Actually, a much more important question is what would it take to help change your would it take to help change your life? I mean, what kind of support do you need to change your life? And for some, and what that will be will depend on the young person's circumstances. Now that's really hard because it's a broader question, but it's a question we have to answer. And it's one that have to answer. And it's one that my department is on a journey towards looking at.

What does it mean to help young people? Because of course, I mean, if somebody has if they struggle, of course, anyone who genuinely can't work needs to get help. And I do understand and I'm aware of the sic fluences and and this this isn't new. And there's been different ways of doing this for some time. The the department is very much focussed on that, and we're very much focussed on making sure our assessment processes are robust and are doing all of that. But we also need to get the incentives in the right place.

It's for example, it's one of the reasons why this government changed the incentives so that in future, people coming on to the universal credit health journey will not be getting extra money for that, because we don't want to to put people in a position where they have an incentive to persuade us they can never work. It's why we're making sure that the Tim's review is looking carefully at Pip to see what's happened, because it hasn't really been reviewed since it was introduced. So we have to get the incentives right, support people who need it, but also to make sure that we give people a vision of fullness.
19:59
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Unless the Minister referred to evidence that has been looked at to shape this new initiative, what evidence has been taken from the evidence has been taken from the scheme that has existed in Wales for the last decade? The youth, the young person's guarantee in Wales. What lessons have been learnt in terms of what didn't work so well and what did work well? And could I also just ask, in the context of AI, what consideration has the government given to how AI will or won't affect the graduate job market, and particularly entry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

level jobs in the services industry? All excellent questions. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All excellent questions. The government we've worked very closely with with the government in Wales about what they've done, because, of course, they didn't because, of course, they didn't need a youth guarantee because they had a youth guarantee in Wales. So we've looked at all the evidence and we work very closely with the and we work very closely with the devolved administrations and carry on doing it. Most aspects of the programmes I've described are GB because apprenticeships are devolved, and so we are working very closely to try to create a localised offer.

We're also working to try to with with mayoral authorities to make sure that, where appropriate, things are tailored to the local, to the local areas and the local economy, because what works in Middlesbrough may not be the same thing as what will work in Truro. So we are trying to do that. As well as working with devolved administrations, she asked a very important question about AI. AI is already changing the world of work and to stay ahead of the changes, the government has launched an AI and Future of Work unit, which is a cross-government function dedicated to ensuring AI delivers positive outcomes for the economy, for jobs and for workers.

It is designed to help prepare the UK for an AI driven labour market by looking at what's what's driving it, what's happened to labour market practices. But a key part of that is that recognising there are two different kinds, lots of different kinds of AI. But put simplistically, there's AI that is replacing jobs but increasing AI, that's jobs that are working with AI. So what we need to do is to give young people the skills to enable them to go into jobs where they will be expected to use AI, and to look at how AI enhances their job rather than simply supplanting it.

And that will apply to young people as a whole, but also to graduates. And graduates will come up with one set of skills. But graduates are the right age and the right position

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are in the same position as anyone else. We're really happy to help them as well. My Lords, I am. Oh my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh my Lords. Like others, I warmly welcome the government's ambitious new youth employment programme. But may I ask my noble friend, what targeted measures will she take to address the acute challenges faced address the acute challenges faced by boys who are significantly more likely to be neat, to underperform at school and to struggle with the at school and to struggle with the transition into employment? How would these proposals ensure boys who are at the greatest risk of long term worklessness and at greatest risk, are effectively reached and supported in the transition to work?
20:02
20:02
20:02
20:03
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
Can I welcome the foundation apprenticeships for retail and hospitality. These are sectors of hospitality. These are sectors of the economy which traditionally have provided the first job for young people and their sectors that have been hard hit by the minimum have been hard hit by the minimum wage and changes to national Insurance. So this is a welcome counterbalance. My Lords, on November the 18th, one of your Lordships Select committees produced a report which focussed on youth unemployment, went to Blackpool and we made a number of recommendations.

We should have had a government response by January the 18th. Four months later, we still haven't had a government response to that select committee. I know it's not the noble Ladies responsibility, but I do suggest it is a discourtesy to the House. One of our recommendations was that there should be a target for reducing the number of people, young people, unemployed. There's a target in the white paper post education and skills. If there's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

target for them, why can't we have a target for needs? Yeah, yeah. My Lords, if I could just say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if I could just say I'm although it might be my it's a government responsibility and I take responsibility for the failure to respond. I apologise on behalf to respond. I apologise on behalf of my department and I will look into what's happened. I can say the department is aware of the report department is aware of the report and certainly. And very grateful. I do often think we don't make enough use of the of the excellent reports
20:04
20:05
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Right. Thank you. Let me take the first the first question. We are not only simply working with those who are on benefits. Some of the specific elements of the program are for those who are on universal Credit, either for six months or for 18 months. I'm looking for work. However, my Lords, we are really concerned about those young people who are not in employment, education or training who are not appearing on the benefits system, who are not on the radar. They're sometimes called hidden needs.

And what we are really concerned they may not be in the system. They may be living with parents, they may be living elsewhere. Nonetheless, they're out there. So the youth guarantee is about reaching all needs, including those not on benefits. And that was a key element of the youth Guarantee trailblazers, backed by £90 million worth of funding. And it was particularly to try to find innovative ways to reach young people who are outside the benefit system, who we don't already have on our radar.

So mayoral strategic authorities are looking into ways that work in their locality and through. And so we're trying to make sure that we reach those people as well. In terms of future. It's a really important there's no point. Nobody wants to be the person who takes an apprenticeship in gas lights just at the point of electricity comes to town. So we do need to find a way of making sure young people go into jobs with a future. And while one can never be sure, we are specifically developing new apprenticeship units which are aligned to the priorities of the industrial strategy, and so that that will hopefully help.

So for example, that includes AI construction engineering, and we'll develop future units as that goes forward. But by going with the grain again, the comment by my noble friend Lord, read by going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the grain of where the economy is going and what employers need, we have to create a future for young people. Preparing for work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Preparing for work. Should start within. The school system, and this was touched on by questions from the touched on by questions from the opposite benches. But can the noble Baroness, the Minister, say what efforts are being made working with the DfE to include career management in education, because the earlier the young are set on the right path, surely the better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right path, surely the better. Yeah. It makes makes a very important point and we have the great advantage now that my my noble friend Baroness Miller is of course the Minister for skills, both in the Department for education and in the Department for Work and Pensions. And already that synergy is proving very helpful. So we're able to have very good conversations with our colleagues in DfE, in DWP, as he knows, bringing together the new jobs and career service.

He's trying to make sure we bring these things together at the outset. So we do help people to develop, not just to get a single job, but also the opportunity of developing a career and something that will carry them on forward. But he makes an important point that we will keep looking at this Lord Low.
20:08
20:08
20:09
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
identifying them locally, but also we're trying to strengthen early identification through better data sharing and better monitoring of attendance at further education. And there's a range of new risk of neat tools, a terrible technical term, but a tool developed to identify those who may be at risk of becoming before they get to that point. So we're working with that and trying to spot disengagement earlier and target support before young people become long term Neet. But also one of the they're doing, for example, is creating youth hubs, 360 of these across the country where we can work together with partners and community spaces, bring together different kinds of support in a way that won't just feel like it's simply engaging with the benefits system or engaging with with a job centre in Jobcentre may be great for some people, but not for others.

So by trying to find innovative ways of reaching them, identifying people before they become long term needs, and good collaboration when people do difference.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A disaster. It is that under this government we have 1 million young people in Britain, not in young people in Britain, not in education, employment or training. 1 in 8 who cannot access those life 1 in 8 who cannot access those life opportunities which we all enjoyed in this chamber ourselves. Could I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, ask the noble Lady, the Minister, whether she will acknowledge this reality about that generation, that reality about that generation, that they want to work, they want to participate in education, employment and training.

And the way in which the government needs to think through this problem is from that starting point. It's a generation full of promise. It's a generation that is most conversant with the kind of technology that we've been talking about in this debate. And secondly, does the the noble Lady, the Minister, acknowledge that with this
20:11
20:11
20:13
20:14
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
function. So my amendment, which would have required the mayor of a combined county authority to combined county authority to establish a scrutiny committee of elected members with powers of elected members with powers of summons to examine and report on the mayor's exercise of functions, is rather out of date now, so I is rather out of date now, so I will not be moving that. But I do want to raise a broader question, want to raise a broader question, because at times the rest of England seems to be following London, and at other times it isn't following London.

And on this occasion 95. In London, the the Mayor of London, I quote from section 48 of the Greater London Authority Act, 1999, is the Mayor of London is required to hold a public meeting known as a People's Question Time, twice a financial year, to answer questions from the public, and I would like that to be replicated across all mayors in England so that something similar happens. I think that mayors are going to need. I hope that they will want to be held accountable for policy decisions they make.

But I do think that Minister might look at that issue of a people's Question Time. We shan't reach it tonight for voting. So I can consider what to do as a consequence of the minister's reply. Amendment 96. I do feel very strongly about having been a member of a regional development agency a number of years ago, but where the RDA was required to turn up to every local council in this area once a year and to answer questions from elected members, seems to me to be an entirely appropriate thing to do.

And all I'm suggesting is that the a combined authority mayor should appear annually before each constituent local authority to answer questions from elected councillors, which would strengthen democratic accountability within the devolved areas. And I find it difficult to know what would be wrong with that. So I hope very much the Minister will indicate her approval. I will not speak about the Bill Lord Bichard amendment because that will steal his thunder. But I think he has hit a very, very important issue around Local public accounts committees.

I have similar concerns to to what I think is going to say, but I'll leave it to him to, to say that. And and so I shall sit down. I'm not moving. Amendment 49. So I think some other. I shall not move that when the moment comes. I. Lord Deben if we're not going to debate it, I think we will still. I will assume it's moved. So. Amendment proposed after clause nine. Insert the following new clause as printed in the Marshalled List.
20:17
Lord Bichard Portrait Lord Bichard (Crossbench)
-
-
Speak on Q to my amendment 182 and in doing so I should declare an interest as an honorary Vice President of the Local Government Association. And of course, thank Lord noble Lord Shipley for supporting my amendment. I want, first of all, to welcome the government's amendment to establish overview and scrutiny committees. And when I say that, you may well be wondering, then why have I persisted in my amendment for what I've called local public accounts committees? Well, the answer is because, as I understand it, the overview and scrutiny committees will only focus on scrutinising strategic authorities, whereas I believe we now need to extend the focus of scrutiny from a single institution, i.e.

the strategic authority, to the wider scrutiny of the place. So the crucial difference between my amendment and the government's proposal is that my scrutiny committee would have the power to report not just on strategic authorities, but also on how effectively all local public service partners were collaborating in a place for the benefit of the public and the wider community. And why is this so important? Well, I'm not going to go through the points I made at length at the Committee stage.

But during the last four decades, our public services have become increasingly fragmented with the establishment of a myriad of disconnected, sometimes single purpose agencies whose objectives and targets have on occasions overlapped and even conflicted. Those agencies have worked, as we all know, too often in silos, and as a result, the public have struggled to access or even make sense of the disjointed services on offer. Money has been wasted because the silos don't work together to deliver the best value for money and at worst, people.

Sometimes children have died because data and intelligence has not shared quickly enough to protect them. Now, I know that in many places, public service partners have worked very hard to break down these silos, but that's not uniformly the case. And the prevailing culture in our public services has too often been one of competition rather than collaboration. And I'm now convinced that for that to change, we do need now, in every local area, a body which has the power to scrutinise and report on how all public sector partners cooperate or don't for the good of citizens.

And if instead we establish overview and scrutiny committees which only address the performance of a single institution, then I think we will actually reinforce the silo based mentality we've created for another generation, all for the want of adding a simple power for the overview and scrutiny committees to report on how the wider system is working. And by the way, if we do that, if we do give them that additional power, we will also demonstrate that in a devolved system, accountability doesn't always have to be to the centre.

Accountability can be local, it should be local, and it can be done more effectively. If it is, I believe, extended scrutiny committees, local public account committees of this sort would be very visible. They could involve local business communities and the voluntary sector, perhaps with an independent chair they would become a very visible local body. Now I promoted this idea actually from the time when I was chief executive of Gloucestershire. Suspend your disbelief. That was in the 1980s. So I was actually delighted when the Devolution White Paper committed government to explore the local Public Accounts Committee model.

The problem is that this bill and the government's amendment don't follow that through. But in my conversations, and I'm grateful for the Minister to have been prepared to be involved in those conversations. My conversations with the noble Baroness, the Minister since committee, suggest that she remains supportive of the concept but wants to see, and I understand this, more policy development and more stakeholder consultation before progressing further. If that is the case, and she could confirm that from the Dispatch Box tonight, then I think that will take us quite a long way further forward.

And I wouldn't press this to a vote if, for example, we were able to set up a working party to produce a fully formed proposal for local public accounts committees, then I think we would have taken a big and very decisive step to changing the very culture of our local public services. As I say, changing from competition to collaboration. I beg to move.
20:23
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this group of >> My Lords, this group of amendments raises important issues concerning accountability and concerning accountability and transparency within our evolving system of devolved governance. First, turning to amendments 49, 95 and 96 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Shipley, these amendments all engage with the central principle that where power is exercised, it should be subject to effective and visible scrutiny. And I am sure all noble Lords agree with that principle. These amendments ensure that it extends directly to elected mayors.

Amendment 49 in proposing dedicated scrutiny committees with powers to summon summons and report reflects a desire to ensure that mayoral commissioners are properly held to account and amendments 95 and 96 six similarly seek to strengthen direct lines of accountability, whether through public facing forums such as we've heard the People's Question Time in London or through structured engagement with elected members of constituent authorities. And we recognise the intent behind behind these proposals, particularly the effort to align arrangements more closely with established practices.

As we've heard to the Mayor of London, my Lords, Government Amendment 67 and 68 introduce substantial new schedules at a very late stage in the bill, they set out an extensive and detailed framework for overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined county authorities. While the aim of strengthening scrutiny is clearly welcome, the scale and complexity of these provisions is inevitably raising a number of questions that merit careful consideration. And it's regrettable, my Lords, that this has been tabled at such a late stage in the parliamentary process of this bill's passage, the proposed role for independent or external experts on scrutiny committees is notable.

It would be helpful to understand more clearly who these individuals might be, how they are to be appointed and their independence, and how their independence will be defined and safeguarded. Questions also arise as to whether there is sufficient capacity and expertise available across the country to support this model in practice. And I look to the Minister for a response on these matters. Further, there are important practical considerations about how members of these committees are to be appointed. The role of elected councillors within them, and the extent to which their proceedings and their findings will be made publicly accessible.

The mechanisms by which members of the public can raise issues and engage with the scrutiny process are also of clear importance. There is also, perhaps a broader question as to whether lessons might be drawn from existing models, including arrangements in Greater London, where scrutiny of directly elected mayors have been in place for some time. Finally, I turn to amendment 182 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bishop, this amendment, we believe, raises the interesting proposal of local public accounts, committees and the principle of strengthening financial oversight and cross-agency accountability, we believe, is an important one.

Although I think the precise design and the implications, as we've heard from the noble Lord of such bodies, would clearly require careful thought and planning, but I do. And so therefore, I look forward to the Minister's response on this particular proposition. Very much, my Lords, this group highlights the central importance of scrutiny within any system of devolved governments. I look forward to the Minister addressing how the government intends to ensure that these new structures are both effective in practice, and clearly understood by those that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they are intended to serve. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Bichard and Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, for noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, for amendments relating to scrutiny and accountability. My Lords, accountability and scrutiny have accountability and scrutiny have been recurring themes during debates on this bill. Can I thank noble Baroness, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, noble Lord Jamieson and Lord Wallace for contributions on these discussions and I am these discussions and I am particularly grateful to noble, Lord Bichard and Lord Bassam for their very constructive engagement and the insights they have shared with me on this issue.

And while I appreciate the noble Baroness Cox comments on late introduction of these amendments, I did feel our discussions on scrutiny at
20:28
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
committee were too important for us not to respond to them as a government. In the English Devolution White Paper, we Devolution White Paper, we committed to exploring a local public accounts committee model to provide a vehicle to scrutinise provide a vehicle to scrutinise local public spending. This recognised that the powers afforded for local scrutiny were not for local scrutiny were not commensurate to the increased scale of powers and responsibilities devolved to mayoral strategic devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. Local scrutiny committees will replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities, providing an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight and broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities.

With greater teeth to hold, mayors to account. To answer the points raised by the noble Baroness Boycott about some of the detail. As with the existing system, the chair of the committee must be from a different party to the mayor or an independent person appointed through an open and fair competition. At least 60% of committee members must be councillors from constituent local authorities, rather than the current requirement that at least half of members must be local councillors. These committees must also reflect the political makeup of the area.

They will be able to shape early decision making and undertake value for money assessments across the full scope of a mayoral strategic authority's work, and I know the noble Lord Shipley was particularly interested in that ability to shape decision making before things came before the board's for decision, and they will have the power to make recommendations on both the quality of decisions and the use of public funds. They will have the authority to challenge decisions taken by the mayor, commissioners and senior officials and require attendance and information at evidence sessions.

And this will also extend to key stakeholders outside of the mayoral Strategic authority, who will be defined in regulations and those who fail to comply without reasonable excuse will face a civil penalty, on which further details will be established in regulations to raise the quality of scrutiny, each local scrutiny committee will be required to consult independent expertise as part of their inquiries. We will set out in regulations that this should take the form of an independent panel where significant issues are raised.

They will be able to share reports and recommendations with any government, department or public body, and this will inform whether government needs to take interventions to support an institution and to ensure that scrutiny is driven by local concerns. Residents will be able to petition their local scrutiny committee to consider specific issues. This system will exist in all mayoral strategic authorities except the Greater London Authority. Whereas noble Lords have already pointed out there are specific arrangements for the London Assembly to continue to act as the scrutiny body.

The London Assembly has the powers to question the Mayor of London, compel senior officials to attend and conduct investigations. Therefore, we do not intend to make any changes to the scrutiny arrangements in London at this time, but we always keep these things under review. The enhanced regime will be introduced first in the established mayoral strategic authorities in 2027, before extending to all mayoral strategic authorities in 2028. We will continue to review the most effective models for local accountability, including exploring a local accounting office model.

These measures will ensure the right checks and balances exist at local level to ensure that mayors and their administrations are held to account with the interests of local people at the heart of the system, and I commend these amendments to the House. I will turn now to amendment 182, which relates to local public accounts committees. The government has engaged significantly on these proposals. Feedback was clear from strategic authorities and the think tank sector. A new system of scrutiny must complement, rather than duplicate existing arrangements.

It could cut across other forms of local scrutiny, such as integrated care boards and exactly who would be held accountable across tiers of local and national government could prove unclear. Now, the noble Lord Bishop knows. I have carefully listened and considered his proposals, and we will continue to keep local scrutiny under review as we develop devolve responsibilities. This will require a much wider consideration of other scrutiny bodies to ensure we don't duplicate or confuse existing structures, and I think there is room for further work on this, and I look forward to working with the noble Lord Bichard going forward.

On his proposal locally. Local scrutiny committees for the time being, will have a clear focus centred around the mayor's areas of competence and general functions. They will conduct thematic inquiries and hold mayors to account on these issues. Local scrutiny committees also go further than the proposed model for local public accounts committees by including provision for sanctions for non-compliance, requirements to consult independent expertise, and a route for public engagement via petitions in regulations. We will set out further detail on the enhanced scrutiny regime.

This will include which stakeholders outside a mayoral strategic authority should be within the purview of a local scrutiny committee. We will conduct extensive engagement on this next phase of work, and these regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring they receive suitable parliamentary scrutiny. While this model differs from the previously envisaged form of local accounts committees, it will provide the right form of scrutiny to support measures brought forward in the bill. I know that the noble Lord Shipley has has indicated his wish to not move amendment 49, but I would just make one comment on it.

Local scrutiny committees will go further than the noble Lords amendments, as I think he's recognised, by creating sanctions for mayors and commissioners who fail to comply with us from their Committee on Amendment 96. It remains important that all tiers of local government work constructively together in the interests of their communities, but this amendment would not support that aim. I understand the intention behind the amendment, but this proposal is duplicative and will place avoidable burdens on both mayors and constituent authorities. Mayoral strategic authorities operate overview and scrutiny committees, which are made up of councillors from constituent authorities.

These committees already have the power to require the mayor to attend and answer questions. As local scrutiny committees are introduced, the English Devolution Accountability Framework will be updated to reflect the new system, and this will provide further guidance on effective ways of working with constituent councils in light of the reforms. By mandating the mayor to attend multiple annual meetings across all constituent councils would create a significant and unnecessary burden. These measures, excuse me, these measures will deliver the strengthened local assurance the sector has asked for, without imposing additional bureaucracy on councils or mayors.

I am grateful to the noble Lord Shipley for amendment 95. I agree that opportunities for mayors to be held to account directly by their constituents are a vital part of good democracy. People's question times are already strongly encouraged by the scrutiny protocol, while other areas provide a direct route through standing items at their overview and scrutiny. Committee areas should continue to engage with constituents in the way that best meets the needs of local people. Therefore, we do not intend to mandate this in law.

Under the new system, local electors will be able to petition their committee to examine and examine an issue of local concern, where at least 0.1% of local electors sign a petition, the local scrutiny committee must decide whether to take this issue forward. This will not prevent mayoral strategic authorities from creating other routes, of course, for local people to engage with their local scrutiny committee or prevent them from establishing their own people's Question Time. We will also update the scrutiny protocol to strengthen expectations for how mayoral strategic authorities should engage with the public in an open and transparent way, in the light of our reforms.

With all of this in mind, I ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and I beg to move. Government amendment 67, 68, 76 and 313 to 316.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. Lord Shipley you indicated you do not wish to move amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Government amendment 50 Baroness Lawlor move formally. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. content. The contents have it. Government amendment 51 Baroness Taylor move formally. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. is that amendment 51 be agreed to.

As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 52 Baroness McIntosh not moved. Government amendment 53. Baroness Taylor move formally. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Government amendments 54 to 56 moved en bloc move formally. The question is that amendments 54 to 56 be agreed to En bloc as many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content.

The contents have it. Amendment 57 Lord Shipley not moved. Amendment 58 Lord Shipley not moved. Government amendment 59 Baroness Lawlor move formally, the question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Government amendment 60 Baroness Taylor move formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that opinion say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 61 Baroness McIntosh not moved. Government amendment 62.

Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. government amendment 63 to 65 moved En bloc move formally. The question is that amendment 63 to 65 be moved formally. En bloc as many of that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 66 Lord Shipley not moved. Government amendment ten moved formally. The question is that sorry, that amendment 67 be agreed to as amended.

Yes, 67 be agreed to. As many of our opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Government amendment 68 move formally. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Government amendment 75 moved formally. The question is that government 75 be agreed to as many that opinion will say content. Sorry. Oh, sorry we jumped. I beg your pardon? Having so much fun.

So we now come to the 11th group in clause ten, amendment 69 Baroness Scott of Bybrook. Mr. Page, the.
20:39
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
One way of getting through it >> One way of getting through it quickly, isn't it? My Lords, I rise to move the group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, relating to clause ten and the reporting of allowances within combined combined county authorities. These amendments are straightforward, but they address an important principle and that of transparency in the use of public money. They seek to do three things. First, to ensure that reports on allowances are published on a quarterly basis.

Secondly, to require that those reports include not only the amounts paid, but also the evidence submitted by members, particularly those with special responsibilities. Thirdly, the to ensure that such reports are published online and are readily accessible to the public. My Lords, none of these proposals are onerous, onerous, nor do they seek to disrupt the functioning of combined authorities. Rather, they aim to strengthen public confidence by ensuring that decisions about renumeration are open, visible and properly evidenced.

Public trust in local institutions depends not only on decisions that they are taking, but how? On how transparency, how transparently those decisions are made. If allowances are justified, why should the evidence supporting them not be published alongside the figures? Indeed, why should such information not be in the public domain? As a matter of course, these amendments also reflect the evolving role of combined authorities as they are taken on a greater and greater responsibilities and greater public funding, so too must they meet higher expectations of accountability.

With increased power must come increased transparency. It is not reasonable to expect that information on the use of public funds is is is not published routinely rather than intermittently. And should that information not include the justification for payments made by those in positions of additional responsibility? My Lords, I anticipate that it may be argued that existing arrangements are sufficient or that flexibility is required, but if the current system already delivers transparency, what objection can there be to making it clearer, more regular and more accessible? And if it does not, should we not take this opportunity to strengthen it? My Lords, these amendments go to the heart of accountability.

If we are to entrust combined authorities with significant powers and resources, we must also ensure that they are subject to consistent, visible and robust scrutiny. And I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment clause ten, page 12, line 33 after publish. Insert. line 33 after publish. Insert. Quarterly. So that. It seems to me that all the amendments in this that all the amendments in this group amount to good practice. It's what should happen so very much indeed. The Minister is going to indeed. The Minister is going to confirm that the amendments are agreeable.
20:42
20:43
20:43
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
set out a reasonable expectation that reporting should be regular, that it should be transparent, and it should be accessible, in short, that it should meet the standards that the public are entitled to that the public are entitled to expect. My Lords, this is not about questioning the integrity of those questioning the integrity of those involved. It is about ensuring that systems within which they operate command public confidence, and that command public confidence, and that confidence rests on on transparency. So I, I listened to the noble Baroness, the Minister, and it will wait until we have the guidance come out to ensure that the that they really reflect what we think the public deserves.

So at this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 70 to 74 Baroness Cox En Amendments 70 to 74 Baroness Cox En bloc not moved. Not moved. Government amendment 75 moved formally. Baroness Taylor the formally. Baroness Taylor the question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content Of the contrary, will say, content Of the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. government amendment 76 Baroness Hayter moved formally. The question is that that government amendment 76 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. We now come to Group 12 in clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11, amendment 77 Baroness Boycott Lord Jamieson. Thank you. My Lords. I speak to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I speak to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook regarding the changes proposed in this bill to the proposed in this bill to the mayoral precept arrangements. My Lords, as we raised at the Lords, as we raised at the Committee stage, it is important to ensure value for money that a mayoral precept is not used to mayoral precept is not used to compensate for cuts of government funding, but rather to support delivery for an area.

Additional
20:45
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
responsibilities should not be placed on local authorities without placed on local authorities without adequate funding on amendment 77, as was said at committee, these precept arrangements were only recently and carefully set out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, as a result of many long hours of debate in this House, the noble Baroness, the Minister has noble Baroness, the Minister has explained that these changes will allow mayors to precept for all an authority's functions.

However, stability is important to the long term confidence in local government finance, and so we oppose revisiting this framework before the recent changes have had a chance to bed in. Amendment 78 seeks to bring the precept arrangements in line with the amounts permitted for county councils and unitary authorities. Whilst we accept that mayoral authority is different to other authorities, this is in itself does not justify an exemption from a well understood precept arrangements at committee. The Minister said the limit would make the value of a precept insignificant.

Does the Minister mean that the government envisages yet more tax increases? This brings me to amendment 79, requiring mayors to explain to the public their reasons for any increases to the precept. This would apply whenever the mayor of a strategic authority sets a precept which is higher than the precept set for the previous financial year, when people are asked to pay more, they deserve to know why, particularly given the current cost of living, to ensure full transparency and that this information is accessible.

Our amendment requires the statement be published on the authority's website, detailing the amount of the increase and explaining the purposes for which the additional revenue is to be used. Nor can this be done in hindsight. The statement must be published before or at the same time as the precept is set. Again, engagement with the local community should not be treated as an afterthought unless we hear convincing arguments against this amendment. I am minded to test the opinion of the House on amendment 79.

My Lords, there is a broader concern that this bill would enable the enable, intentionally or not, excessive tax increases on local people at a time when they can least afford it. I beg to move my amendment.
20:48
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed in clause 11, page 14, line 33, subsection one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the Lord Jamieson for that amendment on precepts for their amendments on precepts. The precept reforms which amendment 77 seek to prevent, will enable mayors to levy a precept across the full range of an authority's functions, giving them greater freedom and how their resource and deliver their priorities. I would remind noble Lords that mayors above the statutory ability to issue a precept since 2017, when it was introduced by the then government. Importantly, it remains entirely for each mayor to decide whether to make use of it.

Under the current framework, any precept that is raised can be spent only on designated mayoral functions, rather than on the full suite of an authority's responsibilities. This restriction is both arbitrary and unhelpful. In practice. It could, for instance, allow investment in transport but not in skills related initiatives. Our intention is to equip mayors with the means to address barriers to growth and improve outcomes for their communities. To do this effectively, they must be able to allocate resources across all functions of the authority, not just a narrow subset.

Amendment 78 would automatically apply council tax referendum principles to statutory authorities. This would unnecessarily restrict mayor's ability to determine how best to deliver for their residents and local economies. The Secretary of State already has the power to set referendum principles for strategic authorities if needed. In practice, moral precepts are relatively small if their increases were capped in the same way as council tax, the sums involved would be minimal, in which, in most areas, limiting their usefulness for supporting local priorities.

The government is being clear that any rises in the mayoral precept should remain fair and proportionate. However, imposing the same limits as councils would reduce local flexibility. This approach cuts across the spirit of this bill and of devolution more broadly. Our aim is to empower mayors to invest in their communities, strengthen public services and support economic growth. The government already consults annually on the local government finance settlement, which is the proper mechanism for considering these issues for authorities and taxpayers.

Turning to amendment 79, as I noted, the ability to issue a mayoral precept has existed in law since 2017, when it was introduced by the then government. Whether to introduce a precept is a local decision and would need to be approved through the budget voting process, with the need to combine authority. A combined county authority. This includes setting out the precept among amount and what it is intended to fund. It is also worth pointing to the council tax billing requirements.

Under the Council Tax Demand Notice Regulations 2011, the information supplied with bills must include details of each local authority's gross expenditure and its council tax requirement. It must also include an explanation of the reasons for the difference between the amounts where mayoral combined or combined county authority issues a precept, it is covered by these provisions. This ensures residents can see both the amount of the mayoral precept and what it is funding. This information is also published on websites and at. The taxpayer requires it.

They can have it in hard in a hard copy. As such, the system already builds in a statutory requirement for transparency and justification. For these reasons, I have set out, the government can cannot support the amendments in this group, and I ask

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord to withdraw them. Can I thank the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lord, Minister, for his response? However, we believe that there needs to be greater transparency in the approach to local taxation to encourage not just accountability encourage not just accountability for financial decisions, but also public trust. Therefore, the government do not wish to press government do not wish to press ahead with their changes to their precept arrangements. I will focus on amendment 79. This amendment is not asking for much. It reflects the simple expectation that any increases to taxation by the mayor are explained transparently and accessible to the members of the public they serve.

This requirement will support, not obstruct, good decision making and management of local government finance. Therefore, on this amendment, I will test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I beg to leave. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your Lordships pleasure that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment number 77 be withdrawn. Order! Is it your Lordships amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave. Withdraw amendment 78 Baroness Boycott not moved. Baroness Boycott not moved. Amendment 79 moved. Amendment 79 after clause 11. Insert the new after clause 11. Insert the new clause set out in the partial list. The question is that amendment the agreed to is content. Content to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary, not content. Not content. The matter will be decided by division. I'll inform the House division. I'll inform the House when voting is open. Voting is now
20:54
21:03
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this new clause would >> My Lords, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic authorities and their ability to authorities and their ability to repay the debts incurred. I would like to thank. The noble Baroness, the Minister, for her correspondence on the matter of powers to borrow after it was debated at Committee stage. As the previous group focussed on precepts, we felt it worth discussing powers to borrow in isolation a Committee stage.

We asked one key question who, in effect is the guarantor? In the event that an authority cannot pay it back its borrowing? I appreciate the Minister's clarification that constituent councils will not be held liable for debts incurred by the authority. However, this is an important area which requires thorough oversight, which is why we have tabled amendment 80 to require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by the strategic authorities and their ability to repay debts incurred.

Surely, one of the aims of government's plans is to put local government on a stable and sustainable financial footing. To be clear, we do not object to the ability of authorities to borrow money, but we do think the Secretary of State and, crucially, Parliament should be aware of the facts. This report will be published and copies placed before both Houses of Parliament annually, and would include an assessment of the ability of specific authorities to meet debts incurred. This would give Parliament oversight of how much debt has been incurred by specific authorities across the country, as well as their ability to repay that debt.

The information can then inform future debates and decision making as to the health of local government finances, and will no doubt be of use to the Secretary of State themselves. I hope the government will give this amendment their consideration.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well said. Post after clause 12, insert the following new clause as printed in the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to. Agree with the noble Lord Jamieson on this matter, and I have Jamieson on this matter, and I have myself raised this on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House, because I've never been clear who it was who actually is going to pick up an overspend when an
21:06
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
pick up an overspend when an overspend. Exists. So it's partly about the ability to repay debts incurred. It's partly about who is actually responsible. In other words, our council tax payers of the constituent authorities liable to help to repay debt. Because my understanding is now that the scrutiny function actually can stop it happening in the first place. In other words, one of my concerns about the failure of the scrutiny system has been that it it it would not be certain that a scrutiny committee would prevent bad financial investment decisions.

But I think now what the government has done in introducing further amendments is actually making it possible for the overview scrutiny function to work effectively in that respect. So what I'm hoping for now is the Minister will just clarify those matters. I am worried about who is liable for debt. I am worried about who is able to authorise substantial expenditure with without certainty that a debt can be repaid, but in the end, will the scrutiny function that the government is now introduced actually prevent the problems that the noble Lord Jamieson has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identified? My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Jamieson for this amendment Jamieson for this amendment requiring the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic borrow money by strategic authorities. I recognise the intent of this as being a well intentioned and well reasoned amendment, but I do not believe the provision is necessary. Like the rest of local government, combined authorities and combined county authorities
21:08
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
and combined county authorities must operate within the prudential framework. This comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. The framework already provides robust oversight and accountability, and I agree with the noble Lord Shipley that scrutiny of key decisions by local accounts committees will also help. In addition, this amendment contradicts the bill's aim of furthering devolution and increasing financial autonomy for these authorities because it would shift reporting requirements up to central government.

For these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons, the proposed amendment is burdensome and duplicative, and I would ask that the amendment is withdrawn. Excellent speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent speech. Thank you. Just as a quick question before I do my closing, the Minister sits down. Local authorities are required to have a section one five one. Officer, will the strategic authority be required to have one?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have one? Good point. I don't want to give a definitive answer to that from the Dispatch Box, but I think the Dispatch Box, but I think the answer is yes. It would certainly be in accordance with local government accounting procedures and practice for anybody involved in spending local government finance to have the professional assistance of a section 151. Officer. I will reply in further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detail to the noble Lord. My Lords, I'm very grateful. The noble Minister's response on this noble Minister's response on this matter and her continued engagement since Committee stage. And also can since Committee stage. And also can I thank the noble. Lord Shipley. I I thank the noble. Lord Shipley. I do apologise for his comments. We will not push this further beyond reminding the House that this is an reminding the House that this is an aspect of local government finance that deserves continued scrutiny and oversight to ensure that authorities can indeed repay the debts incurred through their powers to borrow.

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions on this first day of Report stage and to the noble Baroness, the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for her responses. With that, I beg leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. For further consideration of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. Do now adjourn. The question is that further consideration on report be now consideration on report be now adjourned. As many of that opinion will say content. Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content. The contents have it. Lord Pack to move the bowels, do now adjourn.
14:00
None Portrait Lord Speaker
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page