Lords Chamber

Thursday 26th March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:40
11:40
11:42
11:43
Lord Roe of West Wickham Portrait Lord Roe of West Wickham (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords, my Lords, we >> My Lords, my Lords, my Lords, we know from the security services. >> I'd like to ask my noble friend,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to ask my noble friend, the Minister a practical question. But first I must commend the actions of my former colleagues in actions of my former colleagues in tackling this terrible incident, this vile attack on the Jewish community in London. They face great danger and difficulty in doing so, I'm sure of that. Having spoken to them, my question is focussed actually, and builds on the question from the noble Lord Paddick, which is what is the Home Office doing in combination with the Department for Communities and Local Government in Interfaith work? Because my experience in these matters is that after the events escalated in the Middle East, we saw an extraordinary rise in the London Fire Brigade and in the Metropolitan Police are physical attacks on both the Jewish and Muslim communities almost in parallel.

And our view, certainly as professionals in the security and safety space, was that more needed to be done in the work to to generate cooperation and mutual understanding and counter some of the vile politics, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia that we were seeing in the most awful way played out in physical attack on the streets. So my question is, what are we doing in the interfaith space to support local community groups? Doing great work? Very often, but not always with the resources they need.
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, that concludes. Our questions for today. Business statement. The Chief Whip. >> My Lords, as a pre recess treat, I thought I'd update the House on I thought I'd update the House on planned recess dates. I've already announced most recess dates until Christmas this year. I can now add the short November weekend when my Lord. The plan is to rise. Inclusion of business on Wednesday the 4th of November and return on Monday the 9th of November. Beyond this year.

I'm also delighted to update the plan for the February and Easter Recesses 2027 to save noble Lords from hurrying to write these down. My office, as has arranged a notice to be in the usual places with all recess dates, I will shortly email all noble Lords, subject to the usual caveats of the progress of business. I intend for the House to be adjourned as follows. In February 2027, we will adjourn the House at the end of business on Thursday 11th of February and return on Monday the 22nd of February for Easter recess.

We will adjourn at the conclusion of peace on Thursday the 25th of March and return on Monday the 12th of April. Hope the noble Lords will find this helpful in planning, especially booking well-deserved holidays and meeting family and friends. I'd also like to thank all noble Lords and staff for their productive term. We have concluded a range of important business and I'm grateful to the whole House facilitating this vital scrutiny we undertake. Finally, noble Lords might note that the Leader of the House of Commons has just confirmed the Other place.

The State Opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday the 13th of May. Noble Lords will get further information on the arrangements from Black's Rod's office in due course. We will return in April. For the last few weeks, sitting weeks of this session before I'm asked, I should also say that the date of prorogation will be announced in the usual way, subject to conclusion of business. Whichever one. A restful and well

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deserved Easter recess. Business of the House. The Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Privy Seal. My Lords, I beg to approve the motion. Standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. The question is that there's a motion be agreed to. As many as are motion be agreed to. As many as are of the opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the 24th of
11:52
11:53
None Portrait Statement: Middle East: Economic Update Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-

alleged price gouging. This smacks of playing to a not very well informed gallery. But what exactly informed gallery. But what exactly do the government intend here? The Chancellor has praised countries such as Norway and Canada for such as Norway and Canada for increasing oil and gas production for, in her words, playing their for, in her words, playing their part in securing energy supplies during a time of conflict. Yet here at home, the government refuses to do the same. The Energy Secretary continues to block increased production in the North Sea, so the government applauds others for strengthening their energy security while wilfully weakening our own.

As pure masochism, we could scarcely be entering this crisis in a weaker position. We face the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world, with consumer prices not far behind, and just today, the OECD has said that the war in the Middle East will hit UK growth hardest of all, with inflation set to accelerate, the government speaks of reducing dependence on energy imports, yet its own actions are driving us in precisely the opposite direction. That is a self-inflicted vulnerability.

This, my Lords, is a dangerous position to be in. And so I gently say to the noble Lord, the Minister, that the public will not thank the government for ideological gestures. They will expect practical action to secure our energy future. It ought not to be beyond the wit of government to expand green energy supplies, whilst also sustaining supply through oil and gas, which we will simply import more of if we do not produce it at home. My Lords, I also want to briefly mention the Defence investment plan.

It was very unedifying to see the Prime Minister discomfited when he was asked about this at the most recent Liaison Committee meeting on Tuesday, the Defence Select Committee heard from industry leaders that without the defence Investment plan, which is now well overdue, some defence manufacturers are going bust, while others have been left in paralysis and bleeding cash. These are quotes, my Lords. The plan was originally expected last autumn, but it has been repeatedly postponed despite repeated warnings that our armed forces face a £28 billion funding gap.

Can I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, when we will see the plan? The Chancellor said her response to the crisis in the Middle East would be responsive and responsible. I must ask the noble Lord, the Minister, what on earth is responsible about this? A refusal to agree a defence funding plan when the Mod faces a 28 billion black hole. British defence firms going under. And all of this at a moment of acute global instability, when our sovereign territory has been attacked and our citizens are being threatened at home.

My Lords, our economic and defence situation is perilous. Gilt yields are at levels not seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Inflation and employment are disturbingly high. Our defences are in a mess. Taxes, borrowing and spending are at record levels and interest rates are going the wrong way. No wonder a respected commentator said this week that he'd never been so concerned that the person nominally in charge of the economy, that is the Chancellor, was manifestly out of their depth.

My Lords, we need better than this.
11:57
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That if this war with Iran continues, and especially if the Straits of Hormuz remain closed as we approach autumn, the global economy will be in serious trouble and the crisis will impact severely directly on energy prices and more broadly on the cost of living. There was far too little in the Chancellor's speech to give ordinary folk, never mind the market's real reassurance. People are not naive and simply to repeat the steps that the government planned for the economy anyway in the Pre-iraq war world is not sufficient.

The Chancellor indicated that any support beyond changes already in the system would be targeted at those most in need. But what does that mean? Is it limited to the 6 million people who claim welfare or pension credit? Is it correct that Treasury lacks the capacity to identify and assess those who don't qualify for those benefits, but are still very low earners? What should the earnings threshold be for support, and will the will the Chancellor act immediately? At the very least to zero rate VAT on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas? And will she introduce a proper price cap mechanism for off grid fuels? Will the government also reverse its senseless cuts to home insulation programmes, which will be really important to a wide range of people? In her speech, the Chancellor failed to recognise the dire position of small businesses.

Inflation in January pre-war was at 3%. UK business activity we find today is growing at its slowest pace since September, with a huge jump in manufacturing input prices. But at this time, such a time tax, NICs and other blows from the budget will fall on small businesses in April, a few days away. This government seems really cavalier about loading small businesses with additional costs, even though they are the backbone of our economy and jobs and sustain our local communities.

Now, the government knows that small businesses face a broken energy market that leaves most of them paying inflated energy prices. Will it now instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate suppliers that are blocking small business access to the best energy deals? Will it now change the business rate system so that small businesses can improve their energy efficiency without facing business rate penalties? And will it adopt the idea of an energy security bank to provide low cost loans for households and small businesses to invest in energy efficiency? My Lord, when the country is anxious, it needs a speech from the Chancellor that recognises and responds to the changed reality.

Will someone from the government please give that speech before anxiety becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?
12:00
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to you both, noble Ladies, Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Kramer for their comments and their questions. As it is the last day before recess. May I wish both noble Ladies are very Happy Easter in advance. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe began her comments welcoming what we are doing on nuclear, and I'm grateful to her for her support on that and for her support as we implement the Fingleton review. As she knows, we've already begun to rewrite the story on nuclear for this country.

We have begun construction at Sizewell C, we've agreed an extension to Sizewell B, and we're due to sign the contracts on the UK's first small modular reactor in Anglesey, in partnership with Rolls Royce. The Chancellor has also confirmed we will legislate to implement the Fingleton review to nuclear and wider infrastructure in the next session, and has also written to industry and to regulators to get them to set out their plans to fast track its implementation. The noble Lady I was disappointed to see indulged in some anti-EU rhetoric, which I know she doesn't actually believe.

I think it makes absolute sense at this time of global instability, that we deepen our economic relationship with our closest partners, and it's very clear that that is where maximum growth will come from for this country. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe and also the noble Lady Baroness Kramer, spoke about the Competition and Markets Authority. They have stepped up their statutory monitoring of fuel prices and will publicly update on fuel pricing later this month. They're also working with government to monitor the cost of household essentials, including groceries for price rises and disruption, and they have launched a market study into heating oil on top of their existing work to identify and tackle breaches of consumer law in the heating oil market.

The Chancellor also announced this week that we are going further to make sure they have the bike they need to detect and crack down on price gouging, bringing in a new anti-profiteering framework and considering time limited targeted powers for the CMA and other regulators as needed. And yesterday, the Chancellor and the business Secretary both met and convened the Regulators Council to discuss their work to protect consumers and small businesses. As the noble Lady Baroness Kramer mentioned, in terms of oil and gas, I agree with what the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe said will ensure the North Sea oil and gas plays an important role in our economy for years to come.

Last week, the Chancellor met with the North Sea industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment and growth and energy supply. The noble Lady also mentioned energy security. She didn't mention the fact that the last government's failure to invest in energy was a failure to protect our country. But through determined long term action, this government is taking control of our own energy supply. We're investing in renewables. Lifting the ban on onshore wind and streamlining grid connections. Running the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year and bringing the next renewables auction forward to this July, and driving forward negotiations on the UK's participation in the EU internal electricity market.

As I mentioned already at the beginning, nuclear, which she did welcome. We must guarantee our domestic oil and gas industry can play a crucial role as well for years to come. So we are investing in Tiebacks to make the most of existing production facilities. And we have also announced that she's the Chancellor has announced that she's instructed officials to develop plans to back critical energy projects with indemnities if they're planning consent is challenged in the courts so that we can build the infrastructure that we need to build.

The noble Lady mentioned the OECD projections out this morning. As she knows, the war in the Middle East is not one that we started, nor is it a war that we have joined, but it is a war that will have an impact on our country. The OECD's projections are highly sensitive to the duration of the shock and reflect the impact of higher energy prices, which the UK, as she knows, is more susceptible to. But I do think in an uncertain world we do have the right economic plan.

The decisions we have taken have put us in a better position to protect the country's finances and family finances from global economic instability. The noble Lady, both noble Ladies, touched on the economic situation that we find ourselves in. The full economic impact of the conflict remains uncertain, but the spring forecast did show that the government has the right economic plan, that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong, and that we are more prepared for a more volatile world.

We have cut inflation standing now at 3%, a lower basin at the outset of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards. The OBR forecast before this conflict showed that GDP per head was set to grow more than was expected at the budget, with growth of 5.6% over the course of this Parliament, and we have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP, its lowest level for six years and the fastest reduction in the G7.

As I say, of course, these forecasts predate the current conflict in the Middle East, but Britain today is in a stronger position to withstand whatever uncertainty comes our way. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe spoke about defence. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. The Chancellor has approved access to the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities to the Middle East, meaning that net additional costs of these operations will be funded by the Treasury.

The Defence Investment Plan will be published in due course. We're investing £270 billion over this Parliament, after years of our armed forces being neglected under the previous government, will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP from 2027, and we're increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone. Finally, both noble Ladies spoke about energy bills. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe asked me what responsible meant. I think it means that as we respond to this crisis, we should learn from the mistakes of the past.

The previous government pushed up borrowing, pushed up interest rates, inflation and mortgage costs with an unfunded, untargeted package of support under Liz Truss that gave the most support to the wealthiest households between 2022 and 2024. Under the last government, households in the top income decile received an average of £1,350 of Direct Energy bill support that left us with high levels of national debt. A check written then for a bill that is still being paid today, contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality, so we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most.

Acting within our ironclad fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord will know and I'm grateful to him for his question. The noble Lord will know that the previous government increased previous government increased welfare spending by £88 billion in the last five years. So that is quite a legacy for us to have inherited. He'll also know that we inherited. He'll also know that we are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. The Chancellor, as I've said, already, Chancellor, as I've said, already, has approved access for the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the additional capabilities in the Middle East.

He asked me for how we will increase defence spending. We're investing £270 billion over the course of this Parliament, after years of our armed forces being neglected under the previous government, will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP from 2027. We're increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow. We're not going to put an arbitrary date on that percentage until we know exactly where the money is coming from.

I should also say that this. This week, the Chancellor announced a new defence procurement mechanism where a group, a core group of NATO allies Finland, the Netherlands, the UK, together with other partners, have announced they are exploring setting up a new mechanism by 2027 for financing, with the aim of to aggregate demand, drive joint procurement, accelerate defence investment and increase the availability of critical capabilities.
12:19
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:29
12:29
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Portrait Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I beg to move that this bill be. Now read a third time. >> The question is this Bill be. Now read a third time. As many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 42, amendment one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted. My Lords, I didn't expect to be back moving amendments quite so quickly, but despite the 20. Supplementary amendments or consequential amendments that I consequential amendments that I moved in the in the last stage report, there appear to be four more that have come to light. I there there printed on the Marshalled List and said they are entirely consequential on the amendment 52 that deleted Mandation and therefore all I seek to do to amendments one, two, three, and eight is to move them formally.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

When the time comes, I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 42,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 42, page one, line 39 leave out or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subsection removed. Perhaps I. Could say a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Word or two at this stage about the government amendment four, because it relates, I understand, because it relates, I understand, to amendment 156, which the noble Baroness. The Minister moved on Monday that amendment 156, which had wide crossbench support, as I understood, coming as it did after an amendment in the other place supported, as I say, across party and particularly by the Liberal Democrats, gave the government the responsibility and the ability to issue guidance, statutory guidance on the issue of fiduciary duty of trustees in relation to systemic issues, including those of climate change, but many more.

The same amendment. And in response to that, Minister in in in the Commons said that the government would bring forward both plans to ensure that the guidance reflected the views of all within the sector and that it was guidance that could be useful to trustees. And all I've ever been interested in is bringing forward something that would help those involved with investment decisions in for pensions to be able to take into account with confidence, the long term systemic issues that they found themselves.

But I'm in danger of of repeating, which I'm sure would not want me to do. Are there arguments what I am concerned about following the debate for which at the vote, which I still don't understand on amendment one, five six on Monday, is what the government will now do. It is committed to this course of action. It's committed and it has taken a great deal of effort in setting up the technical Working Group, in getting views from across the sector.

It would be a real shame if that work were somehow to be halted by the, if I can call them procedural issues of how we get the legislative base to do this, I should pay tribute here to the Minister, and I won't do it. When we come to this bill, I'll pass to the Minister and to her officials who actually moved at great pace and put a lot of effort into coming up with a solution that, unfortunately, the government did not.

That was not accepted by the House on Monday. But I would very much appreciate some understanding from the Minister when she winds up of how this issue is going to go forward, because it was a government amendment. We don't have the opportunity of asking the Commons to think again. It's dead in this House, but I would very much value an understanding. The need for this guidance has not gone away. As I understand it, the government's commitment to the guidance has not gone away.

So it would be very interesting to know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how we take the next steps. My amendment six. In this group is entirely consequential on the amendment your Lordships agreed to, and I'm very grateful to the public Bill office grateful to the public Bill office for their advice in helping me to correct this, and I will move it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally when the moment comes. The amendments here are minor and technical following report, and the government will not oppose them the government will not oppose them today. Amendment four in my name is also minor and technical. This amendment was tabled to correct an error concerning amendment 178, which was moved by mistake at report on Monday the 23rd of March. That amendment relates, as the noble Baroness Hayman said, to the commencement of amendment 156 on investment duties guidance, which was disagreed by the House.

My Lords, that amendment now removes the commencement clause to honour the usual channels agreement on the package, as it was a missed, consequential amendment in response to the questions from the noble Lady Baroness Hayman, and I commend her for her work on this important issue. My Lords, although the House, the. The government introduced its amendments to this House to honour the commitment given by my hon. Friend the Minister for pensions in the other place, since the House has disagreed with those amendments, obviously that cannot proceed.

They were removed from the bill in this House. Therefore, the Other place will not get to consider them again. However, she's right that the need for the for guidance and clarity does not go away. The government remains committed to improving clarity around trustees existing investment duties, including how schemes consider long term and financial, financial and material factors such as climate and systemic risks, while maintaining their core duty to act in members best interests. We will press ahead with this important work. We're currently reviewing next step options to ensure this objective continues to be progressed in the most important way.

In the light of the decision of the House on this matter, the Technical Working Group, which was discussed at some length in the our proceedings, bringing together legal, actuarial and investment experts, will continue to play a central role in helping government develop high quality guidance in ensuring it's workable and proportionate and valuable to schemes, and further updates will be provided in due course. I hope that gives her enough. It's all I'm able to say at the moment, but in the meantime, amendment four is a necessary step and I hope the House will support it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I gather amendment one, two, three are consequential. So the question is that amendments one, question is that amendments one, two, 1 to 3 are agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content the of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment five, amendment four. The question is that amendment four Baroness Sherlock amendment four Baroness Sherlock move formally, the question is that amendment four be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. Amendment five Baroness Neville-Rolfe the. The. The question is that amendment five be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment six Viscount Thurso. The question is that amendment six is agreed to and many of that opinion say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment seven Baroness Stedman-Scott. The question is that amendment seven be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. Amendment eight Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted. The question is that amendment eight be agreed to. As many of that opinion say say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that this bill do now pass.
12:38
12:39
12:40
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
and it's very welcome. I have to admit that it's not quite as good as it could have been if it had as it could have been if it had adopted some of the amendments that I put forward. But we have to I put forward. But we have to accept that, and they are in the area of pre pre 97 pension increases. People have denied those increases. People have denied those increases and the use the release of surplus. I'm therefore pleased that in at at the Report stage my noble friend the Minister gave an assurance that the government will be monitoring closely how the powers of surplus release will be used and will keep that very much under review, and this has been reinforced in the House of Commons.

In an adjournment debate last Thursday, when the Minister for pensions made clear the extent to which they will be monitoring closely how this bill will be will be operated in the context of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

surplus release. My Lords, if only we dealt with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if only we dealt with all the amendments during the course of the Bill as quickly as today, we would have been not here today, we would have been not here quite so late. On many occasions. My Lords, first of all, I'd like to My Lords, first of all, I'd like to thank, if I may, my noble friend Baroness Bowles, whose expertise Baroness Bowles, whose expertise has been absolutely amazing, and to
12:42
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
thank Lord Sharkey and the noble Viscount Thurso, and also to our hard working political advisor, hard working political advisor, Yuli Sabati. I would also like to thank profusely the conservative thank profusely the conservative front bench, who we've worked with very well on things in which we agreed. And when we disagreed, we agreed. And when we disagreed, we didn't come to a gunfight on it either. I like to thank publicly either. I like to thank publicly the noble Baroness Altmann, whose former pensions Minister, whose expertise has been valuable in the in the course of dealing with this bill.

And, of course, I would like to thank the Minister and Lord Katz and her team for their superb work on. On a very technical and a bill with very high stake issues, and I realise there's pressures from the other end as well as here, but we think we've worked well and I think we've come out with something that is pretty reasonable. And, my Lords, we recognise on these benches we recognise and welcome some of the measures in the Bill, such as the value for money framework and the Superfund legislation, but we have also raised large gaps in the regulation, including on pension scandals like the.

Pension scandal and injustices which no one wants seem to face up with, like the pre 97 indexation issues on these benches in the Liberal Democrats will continue to challenge the government on going further. My Lords, we have also worked hard to expose the flaws in the government's plans on Mandation. I think this is probably one of the most important issues, not only as a reserve power, dangerous in that it gives this and future governments huge powers, but the clause itself has flaws which my noble friend Baroness Bowles and others across the chamber have pointed out extensively over this debate.

I think we've had a really good run with this bill, and I again, thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for engaging with us and and hopefully coming up with something which maybe as time goes on, we can tweak in some ways, not necessarily in prime legislation. Thank you.
12:44
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. I want to begin by warmly acknowledging the collegiate and genuinely cross-party approach that has been characterised by the passage of this bill in your Lordships House. I know I also speak for my noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie, in expressing our sincere thanks to colleagues across the House for their constructive engagement. It has been a pleasure to work alongside them, and our collective efforts have ensured that this important Bill has been subject to the careful and thorough scrutiny it deserves.

My Lords, this is a fundamentally important bill, and I'm pleased that we've agreed several amendments to address some of the concerns that we have together identified. I might quickly add at this stage that I and my noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie, had one amendment on the Marshalled List for today, which was a technical amendment, necessary, necessary, necessitated to commence amendment 169 has been passed by your Lordships House at. Report this amendment. The government is has accepted today, my Lords, without rehearsing an exhaustive list, the government now have an obligation to return with clear answers to the concerns we have raised, including in particular the Local Government Pension scheme, or whether it's truly fit for purpose for its members.

Whether the proposed consolidation timetable is workable in practice for ordinary working people, and whether the scale requirements risk undermining innovative and high performing schemes, and the scope, rationale and implications of the mandation power on which there was a resounding view that this should be removed entirely. Many noble Lords have made valuable contributions to our deliberations on this policy through amendment speeches and constructive engagement, both inside and outside the chamber. It is not possible to thank everyone, but I would like to place on record my particular gratitude to noble Baroness Altmann Neville-rolfe notes and pen, and to the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Lucas.

I also extend my thanks to the noble Baroness Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Viscount Lord Thurso, from the Liberal Democrat benches, with whom it has been a genuine pleasure to work. I am also grateful to the noble Lord Vaux of Harrowden for his thoughtful engagement on the Bill. And finally, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her work in steering this bill through the House and the noble Lord Katz for his support.

The Minister has responded to a great many questions, often highly technical and searching ones, and has been given, has given considerable time in both committee and and on report to what is in many respects a dense and complex piece of legislation. I also extend my thanks to the to the to noble, noble Lords for their engagement, particularly during committee. It's been helpful and much appreciated. My Lords, I'll conclude by saying to the noble Baroness, the Minister, this bill contains a number of significant flaws and shortcomings.

Your Lordships' House has offered the government a clear opportunity to make necessary and timely improvements, and I very much hope that we will continue to work together with the noble Baroness May Minister and her colleagues in opportunity.
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:50
None Portrait Amendment:81 Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-

>> In clause 15, amendment 81, Baroness Scott of Bybrook.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak in this first group of amendments concerning the Greater London concerning the Greater London Authority and the London Councils. We express concern regarding clause 15 at Committee, as we do not see why conferring more powers for the Mayor of London should be such a priority in a Bill supposedly concerned with the devolution of the rest of England. Whilst we recognise London's governance is unique, we do not believe that this alone shields its governance arrangements from scrutiny.

Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon expands the London Assembly's existing powers to require the attendance not only of the mayor, but also of experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London services. It is clear that further democratic oversight of London's services is needed, and not from the mayor alone. Amendment 84, also in the name of the noble Baroness, alters the voting requirement for the Assembly to change the authorities consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority rather than a two thirds majority.

The two thirds majority requirement has proved to be a barrier to effective scrutiny, particularly over taxation. This is especially pertinent amidst the rising cost of living for the households and in London, and has our full support. My Lords, all of these concerns and proposed changes can be deliberated further through the amendment 83 tabled by my noble friend, lady O'Neill of Bexley, to whom I am very grateful. This amendment would initiate a full review of London's government's model within 12 months of the day on which this act is passed, giving Parliament the opportunity to look at the gla's effectiveness, accountability and outcomes.

This amendment also has our full support. My Lords, the amendments in my name seek to give the government the flexibility to respond to such a review or any changes Parliament decides on in the future by amending clause 15. As currently drafted, our amendments would ensure functions can be both removed and added to the GLA without requiring more and more primary legislation. I look forward to hearing the valuable contributions of noble Lords, and I hope the government will consider our constructive proposals to allow the government flexibility in the future.
12:53
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Proposed clause 15, page 19, >> Proposed clause 15, page 19, line 24 after two insert, remove or two. >> My Lords, I would like to thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank the Minister for meeting with me so that I could explain more about my amendments and in particular, the amendments and in particular, the need for the wider power of summons for the London Assembly. Amendment 82 is about the need for a greater power of summons. The London Assembly has a limited power of summons over individuals and documents, but it can only currently summons the Mayor of London in very limited circumstances, and the Assembly is also prevented from summoning those delivering services in London.

And at times organisations refuse to attend hearings, including London councils. This cannot be right. Organisations that are delivering services to Londoners and spending huge amounts of money should be required to attend and answer questions now. When I met the Minister, it was suggested that the Assembly should simply ask the mayor to secure guests who were reluctant to attend. That would be rather like the Lords asking the Prime Minister to help with our work. Completely inappropriate. So this power would really strengthen the London Assembly and the scrutiny of services to Londoners.

I therefore hope members across this House would support this simple amendment, which has always received cross-party support at the London Assembly and given there's been a shift between committee and Report stage and a clear understanding of the need to increase scrutiny and transparency of mayors across the country, this amendment would would help address that issue. Now, amendment 84 removes the requirement for a two thirds majority to amend the mayor's budget at its final stage. And this really is an anomaly. It doesn't exist in other parts of local government.

So again, this simple amendment removes it and makes it the same as for other levels of government. And I'm pleased to have received support from Baroness O'Neill of Bexley. This is really about basic democracy and powers for a scrutiny body. It would mean any mayor has to work cross-party to secure his or her budget. And again, I hope all members will support this. Now just briefly turning to the other amendments in this group. Our benches don't support amendments 81, 154 and 156, which feel to us to go against the devolution agenda, suggesting powers can just be taken back by the government from the GLA.

Why would you single out London for this? And surely we should be looking at devolving far more services and powers to local and regional government, rather than just trying to recentralize amendment 83, which we will hear about shortly, calls for a review of the London model. I believe and understand what may already be underway looking at London, and I hope the noble Lord Fink lady, the Minister can update us on that, but I'm sure this probably shouldn't be on the face of the bill.

The Government Amendment 243, which allows for the grants to be paid to joint committees of London councils rather than the current situation, which is very messy in one borough, has to take the lead. I think that's a tidying up exercise and we support that, but I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hearing a positive response to my amendments from the Minister in due course. My Lords, I remind you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I remind you. Of my interest as a councillor on the London Borough of Bexley, on the London Borough of Bexley, previously London, previously Bexley's longest serving leader and Bexley's longest serving leader and associated involvement in both London councils and the Local Government Association. I rise to Government Association. I rise to move amendment 83, which is in my name, as well as jointly move amendment 84 with Baroness Pidgeon and will speak to both as they are
12:57
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
interlinked. Before speaking to my two amendments, I would like to thank the noble Lady, the Minister thank the noble Lady, the Minister for amendment 243, and the power to grant fundings for distribution via a Joint committee, as this will hopefully resolve some of the issues I raised at Committee stage. issues I raised at Committee stage. My Lords, I did raise the. The suggestion of a review of the London governance at Committee stage. Given the mayoral GLA governance structure in London was the first of its kind and it's been in place for about 26 years.

The noble Lady. The Minister did promise a conversation before this stage, but I suspect she ran out of time, although it would still be helpful to have that conversation and interest in that lady. Pigeon did get a conversation. As I said, the governance arrangement in London is now in place for nearly 26 years. It's interesting that the structure has never been repeated, and indeed, this bill doesn't seek to replicate the same arrangement either. That appears to be an indication that it's not viewed in the most successful governance structure, and so surely it would be worth considering.

The learning from mayoral authorities sent set up since, with a view to improving the arrangements in London. The irony is that I sat here the other night listening to the lady noble Lady, the Minister, about commissioners, and it occurred to me that a review of London would also mean that you might pick up some of the issues that are happening in London that could be of benefit to others. So therefore it should show out some of the weaknesses.

So I think that that would be an additional benefit. The main difference between the arrangements post London is that they their governance relationship is between the council leaders and the mayor in pursuit of devolution, hopefully to the lowest common denominator. Indeed, the proposal in this bill suggests overview and scrutiny arrangements. Whereas, you know, the London arrangement, the GLA is considered to be a. Checks and balances position. In London. There's 25 elected members of the Assembly, 14 are constituency members and 11 are London wide.

They can call people before them, but they can't instruct or make things happen. Which comes back to the earlier point. The only real power over the mayor is to overturn the budget with a two thirds majority, which in effect has never happened, something amendment 84 seeks to address. According to seeks to address. According to Google, the budget for 2627 is £22.7 billion. That's an awful lot of money. That does include the mayor's office, transport for London Metropolitan Police and the London Fire, and each council taxpayer.

Band D property in London pays just under £500 per annum towards that. My Lords, that's an awful lot of money and given the responsibilities, wouldn't it be more effective to have the mayor and boroughs working together for the best outcomes of London outcomes like tackling crime, making sure our public transport is effective and efficient, and building the homes London needs outcomes that impact every Londoner, as well as those who come to London to work, learn or visit. In fact, in Manchester those outcomes even include health and it could be beneficial to join up the public health or prevention knowledge and councils to deliver better health outcomes for London.

A review with learning from more recent arrangements might result in some grown up conversations with the mayor, as well as achieving more effective strategic planning and thinking. I'm sure it would save

**** Possible New Speaker ****

money, as well as being more on Services needed for residents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Services needed for residents. Instead of a layer of governance that could be more effective, a review of effectiveness, accountability and outcomes would also allow capture of differences also allow capture of differences in London, as well as sorting out some of the anomalies, such as the funding of the Lee Valley Regional funding of the Lee Valley Regional Park, so we could actually spend money on our own parks and green spaces, rather on one that we may never visit. My Lords, if the government believes in devolution, then I hope they will support these amendments.

If the Minister is unable to offer reassurance to these points, I may wish to test the opinion of the House that I formally move.
13:02
Lord Harris of Haringey Portrait Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I. Should remind the >> My Lords, I. Should remind the House of my interest as Co-President of London Councils and like the noble Lady, Baroness O'Neill. As a former borough leader, I think I was also the longest I think I was also the longest serving leader in my particular borough at various times, and as a former member of the London Assembly, I rise particularly to address the government Amendment 243 and to welcome that and to say how grateful I am to my noble friend, the Minister, for the consultations that she had with me and also with London councils, about the content of it.

I think the amendment that has come forward is a welcome compromise. Obviously, there is a desire from London councils that perhaps written in somewhere, should be a formal requirement to consult, but I am very pleased that the Minister and the Department have been able to respond in this way, and I am pleased that that is now going to be on the face of the bill. I do think, and this underpins the comments that have been made by other noble Lords in respect of the other amendments, that what is being forgotten is that the basis of the settlement in London was that people should work together.

Now, I don't know whether that's a criticism of the three mayors that have been or the various iterations of London councils or the relationship with government, but I suspect that that could be improved. Whether it requires the sort of review that the noble Lady Baroness O'Neill has suggested, I don't know. But all I would say is noble Lords should be careful what they wish for in such a review, because it might produce outcomes that they might not like. But I will sit down by concluding again with my thanks to my noble friend, the Minister for bringing forward amendment 243.
13:04
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, Lady Pigeon and Lady O'Neill for their amendments on the functions and governance of the Greater London Authority and London boroughs. I will turn first to amendments 81 154 and 156. This government is committed to delivering a permanent transfer of power from Whitehall to our region's strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority. Will not be able to deliver their residents for their residents if they fear a future government will be able, on a whim, to easily remove functions that have been devolved.

Parliament is, of course, sovereign. The government will always be able to introduce primary legislation which changes which functions should sit with which level of authority. However, this bill makes sure that the government will have to make that argument through the various stages of a parliamentary bill. It must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. That is why this bill limits the ability of this, or future governments to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation so that they can be exercised again by central government.

It would be wrong to single out the Greater London Authority and allow their functions, and only their functions, to be removed by secondary legislation. Turning now to amendment 82. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, for meeting me to discuss this issue. Her insight into the governance of London is was very valuable to me. Firstly, I would note that the Mayor of London is already required to appear before the Assembly ten times a year for Mayor's Question Time.

This affords Assembly members an opportunity to question the mayor on a regular basis. It's a tried and tested mechanism for questioning the mayor, and is backed up by a strong incentive for the mayor to attend in that. Generally, if they fail to attend six consecutive meetings, they will be removed from office. This amendment would not remove the existing mayor's Question Time mechanism. Rather, it would represent an additional burden on the mayor of London, potentially requiring them to appear before the Assembly multiple times within a given month.

Secondly, this amendment would enable the Assembly to summon witnesses who are not connected to the Greater London Authority or work on their behalf in using a broad definition. It could allow the Assembly to require attendance from virtually any entity linked to activity in or related to Greater London. The Assembly's power is backed up by powerful enforcement mechanisms. A person who fails to comply with the assembly's request can be liable for a fine or even imprisonment for not more than three months.

I'm sure noble Lords can appreciate that the expansion of a power with such enforcement mechanism needs to be considered very carefully. In London, the Assembly has broadly either the same or similar powers to those being introduced for local scrutiny committees. As London's devolution settlement continues to evolve, the government will continue to work with relevant partners, including the noble Lady. I will now turn to amendment 83, for which I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, and I recognise her very long and dedicated service both to Bexley and to London.

The Mayor of London is directly elected by the people of London every four years, alongside the London Assembly, which scrutinises the mayor's work. This model is unique among strategic authorities, and has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years. The government is regularly, regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny, arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for London and Londoners. As London's devolution settlement evolves, we want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities.

With this ongoing conversation already happening, it's not necessary to impose a formal review of London governance to be reported on at an arbitrary point. Indeed, it would be unusual to put such a requirement into primary legislation. The accountability arrangements for all mayoral strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will also be strengthened by revised guidance, such as new iterations of the English Devolution Accountability Framework and Scrutiny Protocol. I will turn now to amendment 84 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon.

My Lords, simple majority voting in London would make it harder for the mayor to exercise executive authority and deliver for Londoners in areas where other mayors are being empowered. As I have said, London's devolution settlement has served London as well for 25 years. Striking the balance between the executive authority of the mayor and the scrutiny of the Assembly mayors in combined authorities and combined county authorities can only have their budget amended by a two thirds majority, and there is no reason why London should be different.

Finally, I would like to speak to amendment two for three. In my name, my Lords, this amendment enables central government to pay a grant funding directly to a London joint Committee, such as that run by London councils, and this will address a long standing anomaly in London's governance. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Harris, amongst others, for bringing this issue to my attention, and can I also thank Lord Harris for his very long service to London government, where there are cross borough initiatives which are outside the remit of the Greater London Authority.

The committees established by London Councils are best placed to receive and direct related funding on behalf of boroughs. Among many other examples, this is evident in the Freedom Pass, which London Councils Transport and Environment Committee negotiates with transport for London and pays for on behalf of boroughs. At the moment when central government wishes to pay funding for initiatives coordinated by London councils, it must use cumbersome workarounds such as paying to a nominated lead borough or routeing it through the GLA. This creates additional barriers in time and complexity to getting money where it needs to go.

It also lacks transparency, making it very hard for citizens to follow who is involved in the spending of their money. This amendment is a simple yet significant change, which will allow funding to flow directly from central government to joint committees established by London councils. Speeding up and simplifying delivery for Londoners. It is, of course, important that any entity receiving public money has the appropriate governance and oversight in place. Therefore, this amendment only enables payment to take place once the Secretary of State has made regulations setting out eligibility requirements.

Those regulations will be approved by resolution of this House and the Other place. So I move my amendment. And can I therefore ask that noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Lady Pigeon and Lady O'Neill withdraw their amendments?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sits down. Can I just clarify something? The new mayors of something? The new mayors of strategic authorities. I understood strategic authorities. I understood it was a simple majority to for it was a simple majority to for them to for for the for the committees to vote, I. Are we now saying that's a two thirds majority, the same as London in the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mayoral authorities? My advice is I read out was it's the two thirds majority.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the two thirds majority. Anyway, I thought I'd read the bill yesterday and it was a simple majority, but there we go. So I. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, for making clear and so compelling the need for change to specific London government's arrangements. These amendments are ultimately intended to help improve services for Londoners and strengthen democratic scrutiny of the mayor or by elected members, whoever he or she might be. I thank
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
None Portrait
-

13:17
13:25
13:25
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:49
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I hope this group will be very brief because I seek clarification from the Minister on clarification from the Minister on the matter. That has caused me some concern. Clause 16 of the Bill concern. Clause 16 of the Bill refers to members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority as a whole variety of rules, which in my view were right. I just want to address the issue of elected local councillors who do not seem to be part of clause 16.

Nonetheless, clearly a local authority councillor can stand for election as a mayor. But I would assume, and I hope the Minister would confirm, that they must resign if they're elected mayor. But if they're elected a mayor when they aren't a councillor in the first place, can a mayor become a local councillor? In other words, in terms of clause 16, the issues are understood and well defined for members of legislatures, but a local authority is not, it appears, a legislature.

And I just wonder, can a mayor also be a councillor at the same time, either as a member of the combined authority or as a member of a local authority somewhere else? I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Lord Sharpe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Sharpe. In close 16, page 21, line five. After United Kingdom insert or an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elected member of a local authority. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The noble Lord Shipley has raised an interesting point and that does deserve an answer. On that does deserve an answer. On this side of the House. Our views were made very clear at Committee stage. We are on the side of democracy. We believe it is up to the electorate to decide who is best placed to represent them, and best placed to represent them, and we should respect their views. we should respect their views.
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:53
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. My Lords, we have highlighted time and time again that we've had no guarantee that the government's plans for local government will save money for the taxpayer, deliver economic growth or tangibly improve local services. And today's announcements, my Lord, I would suggest make that even more in doubt. Therefore, our amendments, while they differ slightly, enable for the Secretary of State to review the impact in two ways. Amendment 87 expands the Secretary of State's reporting duties under existing clause 19, to provide an assessment of the effects of newly devolved powers on the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, particularly focusing on the impact of newly devolved powers.

Secondly, the report must include the results of any evaluation that has been undertaken of the overall quality and value for money of local service delivery in those areas. Clause 19 already requires that this report be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as is practicable. Our amendment 184 requires the Secretary of State to report annually for the first five years after the passage of this act, this time via a statement with copies laid before Parliament.

My Lords, this statement must assess the performance of strategic authorities established under this act, rather than the effects of devolved powers generally in relation to the quality of the service delivery, and to the extent to which their functions have been exercised efficiently and represent value for money. I hope the government will give these amendments really serious consideration. Amendment 318A from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London of Manchester. I beg your pardon, was a Freudian slip, wasn't it, of Manchester.

Requires the government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. In particular, this report must assess effectiveness in relation to land access, green spaces, food production and local decision making mechanisms. I really look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the Minister's response to these these asks. And I beg to move.
13:55
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
Proposed clause 19, page 24, line 32. At end, insert the words line 32. At end, insert the words printed on the shortlist. >> I think I've been clued in there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I've been clued in there and I need to speak to my amendment at 318A as. Yes, still the Bishop of Manchester. There is a vacancy of Manchester. There is a vacancy in London, but I think I'm too old to be considered. Over these last 18 months I've been chairing the Manchester Social Housing Commission. A central to our work has been the contributions that local residents and communities representing their neighbourhoods make to our thinking and eventually our recommendations.

We've seen how empowered communities make a real difference. They are the people who know what it's like to live where they do. They can shape local services for the best results. So far from being a problem for authorities to manage, communities have continually demonstrate how they respond to the cost of living crisis or the epidemic of loneliness. People in communities are vital in driving their own solutions. And I see about about me as I go around my diocese again and again, how local people taking the initiative really make a difference in their communities.

And I admit, yes, I do get frustrated sometimes as a bishop that my local parishes are my clergy don't always do exactly what I want them to do. That would make life simpler for me. But the high degree of autonomy and agency the parish system gives them means they're often empowered to exercise the local knowledge that puts them in a much better position than me to know what will work well in their local context. So the community charter that's referenced in my amendment 318A contains a short number of provisions which would give individuals and communities both protections and positive opportunities to drive change.

Some of these rights already have clear legal precedents in other jurisdictions. Some reflect the UK's obligations in international conventions, but they've not been effectively implemented in England or assessed that all been subject to legal advice, which confirms they're capable of legal implementation. Many of the specific concerns, whether it's about pollution or land owning, can be dealt with by ensuring such rights are carefully constructed and balanced with responsibilities. Upholding many of the rights would require actions by regulators rather than individuals.

I declare an interest in clean air. I live on a road that's a major road. The A56 into Manchester between the city centre and the motorway, and it fails every air quality test it's ever subjected to, and I know how it's important. From all the work I've done in housing over the whole of my adult life, to ensure that families can live healthy lives, and there are good examples of community empowerment from other jurisdictions. New Zealand's right to a healthy home, promoted here by the noble Lord Crisp as the Healthy Homes Bill, New York's constitutional right to a healthy environment, the right shown in the community charter.

Perfectly possible in England. When I was in His Majesty's Government, published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last summer, I was looking forward very much to the changes it would propose, but I do feel the content on the face of the Bill is overwhelmingly focussed on the creation of strategic scale local authorities. That's not a bad thing. But what is it genuinely about community empowerment and that community level? So I do believe to fulfil the ambition that's there in its title, a Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill needs to be one that enables communities to have a strong democratic voice and deliver positive solutions for their area, and communities need to know the extent to which they have such rights, so they know whether they got a chance of their views being heard and listened to or not.

So my amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to report on progress that's being made in community empowerment. In relation to the rights listed in the amendment. I'm not going to take up time listing them all here. It's quite simple. It's quite modest and not intending to test the mind of the House on it, but it would be great for living. Responding the noble Lady, the Minister would agree to a future meeting with myself and colleagues to consider how progress towards these community rights could be measured and assessed.

And with that in place, I think we will have a bill eventually, an act that can live up to those words, community empowerment that stands so prominently in its name. I do also support the other amendments in this group. I do think it's important that we we measure what we're doing to know whether it's worked or whether it's not.
14:00
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I think there are three very important amendments three very important amendments here. I look forward to hearing the minister's response to that. I've got two caveats. The first is, I actually think it's quite difficult for central government to undertake some of the detailed analysis across the whole of England, with its population of 56 million to to to manage that effectively. I do think that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester has got a slightly different issue that he's raised, which is about community empowerment.

And so we talk a lot about English devolution, but the issue of community empowerment is a much more locally based neighbourhood concept. And the problem that communities are going to face is that they'll have no money to do the work that they would like to do with. And so I'm. Very supportive of anything that can be done for there to be an assessment of how community empowerment is actually working. But I would just say my second caveat is this that actually overview and scrutiny committees are supposed to be doing this very job within their own areas.

There are people who will have the responsibility of scrutinising what is happening, having an overview of what is happening. And it seems to me that those are the people who should be gone to first to assess the success of. The bill. When it becomes an act, rather than just going straight to central government expecting them to do it all. There we are.
14:02
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and that noble the right Scott and that noble the right reverend Prelate for their amendments. Amendment 87 is drafted would be much more burdensome for the Secretary of State and actually require yearly reporting via the annual report on English devolution, rather than every five years, as the noble Baroness intended. The annual report introduced by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, is designed to update Parliament on the progress which government is making in implementing devolution across England, rather than monitoring progress on individual policy areas.

This amendment does not align with the focus of the annual report, and I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that the government is already committed to assessing the impacts of devolution on local economic growth and local public service delivery. The mayoral strategic authorities received an integrated funding settlement. We already have an integrated settlement outcomes framework in place. This is published on Gov.uk. The framework outlines a number of outcomes, outcome indicators and outputs which the Mayoral Strategic Authority will be assessed against.

The determine whether they are effectively delivering for their residents. For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authorities Outcome framework includes several outcome indicators relating to economic growth and public service delivery. This includes the number of supported businesses who have increased productivity and measuring the success of support for residents with long term health conditions, getting back into employment, it's more mayoral strategic authorities receive an integrated funding settlement. More mayors will be subjected to the Integrated Settlement Outcomes Framework at the local authority level.

The government recently published the Local Outcomes Framework, which enables outcomes based performance measured against key national priorities delivered at the local level. The outcomes which are measured include economic prosperity and regeneration, adult social care and child poverty. The outcomes and metrics for each local authority area will be published on Gov.uk through a new digital tool. This will improve transparency and enable the public, local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to have a shared view of progress for all areas in England.

The performance against the outcomes and metrics for each local area will also allow local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to work together to identify what needs to be done at a local level by different partners to tackle local challenges. The noble Baroness also seeks to ensure value for money for residents. In her amendment, the introduction of local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities will allow local areas to hold their own mayor mayors to account, including by undertaking value for money assessment.

While I welcome the spirit in all of these amendments, it will place an undue burden on the Secretary of State and we cannot support it. Amendment one eight for the quality of service delivering by strategic authorities the efficiency with which they deliver their functions and the value for money they provide are matters of importance to members on all sides of the House, and as new powers and functions are devolved through this bill, it will, of course be essential that scrutiny and accountability keep pace, ensuring that all strategic authorities are well run and operate effectively.

I have already touched on the role of local scrutiny committees and the Integrated Settlement Outcomes Framework. In addition, strategic authorities are expected to adhere to the process and principles set out in the English Devolution Accountability Framework. This includes the Scrutiny Protocol, which encourages the engagement of residents through mayor's Question Time and other equivalent opportunities for the public and journalists to put questions directly to elected mayors. As part of our commitment to effective governance, we are also undertaking annual conversations with strategic authorities.

These are regular engagements with strategic authorities intended to foster an understanding of strategic authorities roles and challenges, sharing learning from across the sector to drive positive outcomes for residents. Strategic authorities are also subject to the best value duty, including inspections and, if necessary, the appointment of commissioners. And finally, where parliamentarians may have concerns about the performance of strategic authorities, it is entirely appropriate that the that the erase them with the government through the usual means, and I trust your Lordships will see.

Our strategic authorities will be subject to both non-statutory and statutory mechanisms to drive performance, efficiency and value for money. I will now turn to amendment 318 and my noble friend will be more than happy to meet right reverend Prelate Andes Andes colleagues to discuss this issue. These issues further and I thank him for for the for the for the amendment. Through this bill, we are building on the foundations of the Localism Act 2011 with the more effective community right to buy and a new duty on local authorities to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance.

We regularly engage with local government and the community sector to understand our existing powers are working on the ground. We know from this engagement that the current community right to bid provisions are not strong enough to enable communities to protect valued local assets for future use, but is why we are strengthening them with the introduction of community right to buy. This will help communities to safeguard a range of assets that play a key role in community life, including green spaces such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments.

We will explore the best way to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme going forward. Turning to the parts of the Localism Act which relate to community rights and local services, we think that effective neighbourhood governance is the right route to help to ensure that local decisions are made more effectively by people who understand local needs. A core goal of neighbourhood governance is smarter, more responsive decision making that is closer to the communities, giving communities a greater say in what matters to them.

Through regulations, we will set out the criteria for the arrangements that must be in place. We will continue to engage with local government and the community sector to ensure that we understand the best way to do this and the effectiveness of current community empowerment frameworks such as the Localism Act, while ensuring communities have access to pleasant and attractive environments that provide the spaces they need for recreation and growing food is crucial. There are there are other ways the government is doing this, including through the planning system.

As the noble Lord will be aware, the government has consulted on a new national policy, a new planning policy framework designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler local plans. It proposes a number of changes to improve the approach to climate change, and delivery of green infrastructure, nature based solutions and community facilities. We are currently analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course. All of these measures seek to to ensure access to community spaces and the ability to shape local decisions.

An annual report is not necessary or proportionate and is usual. The government will continue to keep all policies under review. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and the noble right reverend Prelate to withdraw their amendments.
14:10
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I think we all agree that it is crucial that we have oversight over the consequences of legislation as big as this. Five legislation as big as this. Five years down the line, how will smaller strategic authorities have delivered in comparison with the larger strategic authorities? How costly will the transitions alone have been? Will local people be better off and feel their taxes are being well spent? Will local service delivery be better and more efficient? I believe these are all questions that government should answer and be held accountable for, but I take.

I do understand Lord Shipley's views that also local authorities, local councils and strategic strategic authorities in the future will also. Having this work. But it is for the government to look at the system as a whole and and to ensure that it's delivering what it is intended to deliver in this bill. Local government reorganisation and the creation of new strategic authorities with new functions should not just be done for the sake of it, or to make life simpler for Whitehall, it should be done to to ensure that it serves a principled and practical purpose.

As we made clear on the very first day of this of Committee stage. Our amendments would allow just that and help inform Parliament how to move forward in the future. And I hope government will see the value of these amendments to assess the real world outcomes of its efforts. I thank the noble Lord for explaining how some of these these challenges are going to be. Implemented, and I think I need to read Hansard tomorrow just to see if we've still have concerns.

But my overall concern, I think, still remains from what the noble Lord said is there is still lack of good parliamentary scrutiny in the first early years after this big reorganisation of of local government in this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tell us what she wishes to do with this amendment. To withdraw. with this amendment. To withdraw. Is it your Lord True this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is finally withdrawn in clause 21,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 88, Baroness Taylor. My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and
14:13
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Ravensdale for amendments on collaboration. I'll start with the government amendments in this group, which are minor and technical in nature. Their purpose is to align relevant definitions across the bill. Taken together, they update wording in clause 21, clause 22 and clause 51. In doing so, they make the wording consistent with that used in paragraph four of schedule 25. In the definition of eligible function, the effect is to clarify that mayors may convene local partners, collaborate with neighbouring mayors, or request an additional function in relation to any aspect of any area of competence.

This reflects the government's clear policy intention to provide mayors with the flexibility they need to use these powers effectively in addressing local priorities, for example, the health, well-being and public service reform area of competence should be read as covering its individual component, parts of health and well-being, and public service reform, rather than as a single, inseparable policy heading. These amendments therefore promote consistency across the Bill, avoiding ambiguity or an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of how these powers relate to the areas of competence.

My Lord, I hope with this explanation the House will support these amendments. And if I may, I'd like to listen to the the noble Lords move their amendments before I respond to them,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I'll do at the end. Amendment 21, page 25, line 28. Leave out one or more of the areas and insert any aspect of any area.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert any aspect of any area. I talk to. Amendment 181. Which is good with this. Britain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is good with this. Britain has a written an unwritten constitution which gives us
14:14
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
flexibility but also lacks constraint on changing Prime Ministers or governments beyond trust in their behaving like good chaps. As we have discovered in recent years, not all prime Ministers do behave like good chaps or chaps. The noble Minister herself earlier today referred to the question of whether a future government, I quote, might, on a whim, change the way it operates in crucial ways. Well, the purpose of this amendment is to entrench the role of the mayoral council in the future governance of England, and to make sure that a future government cannot simply muck things up on a whim.

So this bill has constitutional implications. It touches on many of the issues addressed in Labour's Commission on the UK's future, an important and impressive report some three and a half years ago, which included as its third recommendation that I quote, there should be a constitutional requirement that the political, administrative and financial autonomy of local government should be respected by central government. The report also emphasised the need to balance devolution within England with also with effective management of the relationship between central government and the three devolved administrations through the Council of Nations and Regions.

The West Lothian question has not yet been resolved. Tensions between the UK Parliament, which is also the English Parliament and the devolved administrations, can be contained when Westminster, Cardiff and Edinburgh are governed by the same party. But as we have seen, the current arrangements for UK devolution become contentious when different parties are in government there. In our increasingly multi-party country, this will happen much more often in future. The amendment therefore aims to future proof the bill. Over the last four years, there's been a great deal of discussion across the parties and in think tanks and reports about the need for political and constitutional reform in the UK.

Some of this was included in Labour's 2024 manifesto. Labour in opposition took part in these discussions with the Commission on the UK's future under Gordon Brown's chairmanship, one of the major exercises, the Commons Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs in 2022 to 3, conducted an inquiry to into Governing England, which concluded in recommendation 13. I quote the question of England's place in the Union cannot continue to be ignored. We recommend that the government bring forward proposals for how the distinct interests of England can be represented effectively, both within the legislative process and within government and civil service structures.

This bill has not addressed these issues. There is no mention of the Mayoral Council in the bill. It will meet at the invitation of the Secretary of State, quite possibly when the majority of elected mayors are drawn from different parties than the government, which is highly likely in years to come. The Secretary of State, on a whim, as the Minister might say, will refuse to convene meetings. So this amendment aims to future proof English devolution by making the Mayoral Council statutory and briefly spelling out its functions.

If the government intends real devolution rather than conditional decentralisation, there has to be a counterweight within England to Whitehall and Westminster. Gordon Brown's radical proposals envisaged a transformed second chamber in Westminster, representing the English regions and the other nations as that counterweight. The Mayoral council is a much weaker version of this, but at least it's something, some sort of counterweight capable of arguing with Whitehall on the balance between central and regional and local initiative, and arguing also about the fiscal distribution of funds for regional and local economies is essential.

Without it, this bill offers only the appearance of devolution, thinly disguising the underlying reality of continuing central control. The Minister seemed surprised and uninformed when I raised this underlying issue in committee. I hope that she is now considered it and understands it is important and will either accept the amendment or offer to come back at Third Reading with a government amendment which will provide the constitutional safeguards which are so far lacking in the Bill. The UK, as Gordon Brown's Commission report and many others have declared, is a flawed and weak democracy.

It suffers, amongst other things, from overcentralisation compared to any other liberal democracy, which has led to a widening gap between London and the English regions, as well as often tense relations between the devolved nations and our English dominated government. We are now condemned to move to a model of local government led by elected mayors, who will become the main interlocutors with Whitehall and Whitehall Ministers on English, regional and local matters. So we need to entrench their collective position in the mayoral Council and future proof its position in negotiating with Secretary of State in the future and their advisers.

That is why I regard this amendment as crucially important.
14:20
Lord Bichard Portrait Lord Bichard (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to my amendments >> I rise to speak to my amendments 309 in this group, which seeks to impose a duty on local public impose a duty on local public service partners to cooperate. And in doing so, I'd like to thank again the noble Lord Shipley for adding his name in support. I won't repeat at length the arguments I rehearsed in committee in support of the amendment, many of which, of course are equally relevant to my amendment 182, which we debated on Tuesday.

Suffice to say that the fragmentation of our public services in recent times has resulted in disjointed services, which don't align with the perceived needs of ordinary citizens. It's resulted in wasted resources and a damaging culture of competition rather than collaboration. Competition between providers. When ordinary folk just want to see collaboration and partnership working to improve the quality of the services, they receive, many attempts have been made to address this problem, and noble Lords will recall initiatives initiatives such as the Joining Up Central Government Initiative, a work in progress, health and wellbeing boards, integrated care boards and the Troubled Families Programme.

But in all honesty, none of these have resolved the problem and perhaps only total place in which I played a part was enthusiastically embraced by all sectors. This bill takes a different approach and includes a provision for strategic authorities to convene meetings, which partners will be required to attend. But I'm really not convinced that the power to convene meetings will resolve the deep seated problems which have beset multi-agency working to succeed. I think we need to be more radical and rather than setting up yet more working groups and liaison committees and joint boards, we should attack the problem at its root and we should place on public sector agencies a duty to cooperate with the strategic authority principle councils and each other when they're formulating policies, plans or delivering services.

If such a duty were imposed, then the responsibility for ensuring that it was met would rest with the agencies themselves, which is exactly where it should be. There's nothing new in this proposal. After all, the public sector equality duty places a duty on public authorities to consider how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act and under the Children's Act 2004. A local authority must cooperate with relevant partners, bodies and individuals to improve the well-being of children in the local authority's care, and in doing so, it must consider the role of parents and others who play a role play a part in caring for children.

So there's no reason why an overarching duty to collaborate should be difficult, and that advantages of it are immense. I think it would be a complete game changer. For a start, it would send a very clear and necessary message that this government expects to see collaboration between agencies, not competition. It would change the culture of our public sector entirely. It would show that the primary driver of public services must be to meet the needs of clients, citizens, customers, whatever you want to call them, not to serve for their own convenience or enhance their own profile.

This is an amendment which is supported by the Local Government Association and which I'm given to understand the noble Baroness. The Minister and the Secretary of State want to explore further. I entirely understand that there is probably more policy development to do, and there is a need to consult all the players in this sector, and that's why I won't be pushing this to a vote or although I have to say, I think there's probably a majority in this House in support of this proposal, but I'm not going to push it to a vote.

But I would say that at the end of the day, this is a decision not for the providers themselves, some of whom may find this inconvenient. It is a decision for the government, for the government to decide what kind of local public service it needs. I think it needs this duty and I beg to move.
14:26
14:27
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the debates on on this group. I'll debates on on this group. I'll start with amendment 181. And can I say, first of all that I absolutely agree with the noble Lord Wallace about the overcentralised centralisation of decision making in England, and that's part of the whole rationale for bringing this bill forward. I must be clear that I do appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I know how much good work the Mayoral Council has done since this government established it.

I did want to say just a little bit about that mayoral council, the existing mayoral Council and the leaders council of local authority leaders, their non-decision making bodies so they don't need to be in statute. The current format of the mayoral Council and the Leaders Council has received very positive feedback on their collaborative nature from members of all political parties. The mayor council has run a shadow right to request process ahead of that process being made statutory through the bill, without needing to be a statutory decision making body and as a statutory process, the right to request provide certainty that engagement will take place.

The Mayoral Council and the Leaders Council are still relatively new forums, and they've already adapted to respond to feedback from members and from the government as more devolution is delivered across the country, their needs and best use may change as we get more mayors with more powers and retaining flexibility by not having forums set in, statute will allow us to once again respond quickly to feedback to make sure these continue to be useful forums. The bills are already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way, and to deepen that devolution through a mayoral the mayoral right to request process.

So it's not necessary that the Mayoral Council to create a framework for further devolution funding is discussed regularly at the Mayoral Council, but it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the local government finance settlement process, where allocations of needs based funding are done fairly across the country, strategic authorities have funding set through the spending review process and through the Agreement of Integrated Settlements for our established mayoral strategic authorities, and it wouldn't be appropriate for the mayoral Council to agree such funding.

The Mayoral Council is working well in this current non-legislative format, and it does. As I said before, it does allow it to adapt as the model of mayors across England changes, and it's not necessary for the Mayoral Council to nominate representatives to the Council of Nations and Regions, as all mayors of strategic authorities are already members of the Council of Nations and Regions. Turning now to amendment 309. To be clear, I strongly support the spirit of this amendment, and I've had discussions with the noble Lord Bichard about it, and I particularly agree with the noble Lords point about the public's wish to see greater collaboration across services.

During our previous debate, the noble Lord rightly highlighted that one of the most pressing challenges from the local for the local government sector is the very fragmented delivery of public services, and the noble Lord is correct to say unless this is addressed, the public will continue to struggle with disconnected and poorly designed services. Of course, many existing authorities and public service providers are working together constructively through arrangements that have developed over time. I've got lots of examples, but I'm not going to go into them for time's sake.

However, it's equally clear that more can and should be done to support stronger collaboration between authorities, public services and the wider partners involved in delivering them. The government has taken steps to improve and align public services in five of our existing mayoral strategic authorities. We have launched place based budget pilots, and these pilots will test how total place approaches can improve. Public services. Authorities and service users will be empowered to identify duplication, fragmentation and redesign services so they're more innovative and more person centred.

We are also giving mayors the power to convene meetings with local partners in relation to public service reform, among other areas of competence. The amendment, proposed by the Noble Order, is ambitious and full of positive intent, but to be delivered effectively, as I think he identified himself, important groundwork will need to be undertaken to address public sector reform challenges. It's essential to engage the right stakeholders, and I would therefore invite the noble Lord to join a roundtable chaired by my right hon.

Friend, the Secretary of State, to discuss the government's plans for local public service reform. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further with both the noble Lord and the wider government. Local government sector. With these points in mind, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I just ask you to clarify one point. We are heading towards a point. We are heading towards a model of governance in which there will be some roughly 35 elected mayors. Does the government envisage that the Council of Nations and Regions will then have Nations and Regions will then have the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Irish Government and on the same basis,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government and on the same basis, 35 English mayors. Correct. So these are the those bodies are new bodies and they will be evolving and changing as we evolve and change the model. And they're not decision making bodies. So that's the main reason for saying we don't want to put them in statute, particularly in view of the fact that the you know, they will change fairly rapidly as we increase the mayoral model across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the country. Lord Dear perhaps I should remind the House that the debate is remind the House that the debate is currently on amendment 88 in the name of Baroness Taylor, and other amendments will be dealt with in amendments will be dealt with in their place. The question, therefore, is that amendment 88 be therefore, is that amendment 88 be agreed to, as many as are of that opinion will say content. To the opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. amendments 89, 90 and 92 Baroness Mallalieu moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 93 Lord Ravensdale. Amendment 93 Lord Ravensdale.
14:34
None Portrait Amendment:93 Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-

Speaks my amendments 93 119 and 183. And thank all noble Lords who supported these amendments across Committee and our reports, including the noble Lord Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Lord Lord Shipley, noble Baroness Lea, Baron Noble, Lord Lord Blunkett, and the noble Lord, Lord Clancarty. I also thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for all of her engagement following committee in between committee and reports, and I hope she'll be able to speak on a substantive proposal in response to these amendments.

In her summing up, particularly 119 and 183. So starting with those amendments, my Lords, just to add to what I said at committee, social mobility is a a long standing problem in this country. And actually I'll go back to something noble, noble Lady Baroness Blake of Leeds said yesterday in the chamber that around the government's aspirations that where you come from should not determine where you are going. And we know my Lord Dannatt relative income, mobility, the strength of the link between a parent's income and their child's is poor.

When we look at that internationally ranking near the USA in in in the least mobile developed nations. And, and that echoes my personal experience growing up in inner city Nottingham. I saw too many, too many young people who didn't meet their potential because of where they were from and that that tragedy of lost potential that that represents led to me, that personal experience led to me putting forward a proposal for a special inquiry committee to look into this, which has now now delivered, although we do await the government response on that.

And one of the things that that committee report highlighted, along with lots of recent work by the Social Mobility Commission, is the regional nature of the problem. And we know that that in places like London and the South East, social mobility is relatively good. But in the regions in the North and the Midlands, it's relatively poor and really highlighting the importance of specific place based approaches to address this issue of social mobility. So so now we have a bill in front of us to do with getting more power into the regions, into into strategic authorities.

We do have a really good opportunity here to make some progress on this, this long standing issue, on social mobility, on youth unemployment. So I do look forward to the minister's response on these amendments. Turning to my amendment 93 on Pan regional partnerships, which I brought back from committee with some some minor changes. And this is really informed by the work I've done in many areas on on pan regional issues across the Midlands over over the past 4 or 5 years, and really seeing the benefits of working at scale on a pan regional basis rather than taking advantage of that, that larger scale.

Now, I think if I could perhaps, I suppose, sum up what the Minister the Minister's remarks on this at committee, I she said that strategic authorities do are enabled to do this already. And indeed, there are some successful examples already of Pan Pan regional partnerships, for example, the Great North Partnership. But but the issue here is, is fragmentation. If if the government doesn't push this approach more widely, it simply won't happen more more broadly across the country. And the reason reason this is so important, I think, touches on a point that the noble Order, order Wallace made in the last group on economic development that long again, another long standing problem of the concentration of of wealth and economic activity in the southeast of the country and the regions, the Midlands and the North being left behind.

So really getting the regions together at that larger scale is really key to helping to increase the prosperity of the regions in things like inward investments, in things like large scale infrastructure, cultural events, and also linking up those cross-cutting issues like like social mobility, like energy and many other areas. And the government has already committed to this. So in in the devolution white Paper, it did recognise the benefits of a pan regional approach. And the noble the Minister talked about those enabling cooperation with neighbouring strategic authorities.

This is all about going beyond that, enabling wider collaboration between groups of strategic authorities and a pan regional level across larger geographies. So my question really for the government is how how they will provide this or provide support to the formation of those those regional partnerships which are so important for the regions to develop, to develop economically, to tackle cross-cutting issues and to enable broader economic growth across the country. So I look forward to hearing her response when she comes to sum up.
14:39
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
It was 22 page 33, line 14. At end, insert the words printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, I was. >> Delighted to add my name to amendment 93. In the name of the amendment 93. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. And as we've heard, this Bill is aiming to put English devolution onto a stronger footing so that local leaders can drive economic growth and close the persistent and deep gaps between regions. But as at the same time, as we legislate to empower those places, the government has decided to withdraw support from the Pan regional partnerships that operate at the real economic scale of labour markets, transport corridors and investment decisions.

And certainly in my own region of the South West, we saw partnerships such as the Western Gateway and Great Southwest show what can be done when local leaders come together across traditional boundaries. So, for example, in the case of Great Southwest, they set out a vision which would lift the region's GBA by as much as £45 billion and create 190,000 additional jobs if fully realised. But the government has chosen to end core funding for these Pan regional partnerships, and is only offering a short time limited extension in the case of the southwest.

Despite the scale of the prize, and that risks hollowing out the strategic capacity that's being built up with relatively modest sums of public money, but very considerable voluntary effort from councils, businesses and universities across the peninsula. And as we've heard, this amendment doesn't seek to create a new tier of government or impose any kind of uniform model from the centre, it seeks simply to ensure that where there is a clear economic geography, there is an enabling framework in statute so that collaboration can be sustained over the long term and not vulnerable to short term funding decisions or changes of ministerial fashion, so that we at least have a fighting chance of delivering those tens of billions in extra output and hundreds and thousands of better jobs.

And I know that Ministers have said they remain committed to pan regional collaboration. They want it to be flexible and locally led, and that scarce resources must be concentrated on mayoral institutions. And I agree absolutely with the government that collaboration should be bottom up, and I recognise the fiscal pressures, but the sums involved in supporting these pan regional partnerships are tiny compared with the potential returns of unlocking major investment in areas with so much under employment.

As Jim O'Neill, the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill and others have argued in their work on regional growth. Those returns depend critically on raising education and skills and giving every young person an adult access to the training that matches the needs of the local economy. And pan regional frameworks are precisely the scale at which universities, colleges, employers and mayors can align skills from apprenticeships to advanced manufacturing to reskilling programs in digital and creative industries and others, so that projected jobs in these fields become real opportunities for local people.

And if we're serious, as all of us in this House want to see about spreading high quality jobs beyond London, the southeast, then our regions need both the strong leadership and the ability to act together at scale. And I think our amendment is modest. It's permissive, it's implement stated aims, but it would help turn those headline ambitions into tangible outcomes for jobs and growth and for people across our country to benefit from.
14:44
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
I've added. >> I've added. >> My name to amendment 119 in the name of Lord Ravensdale. And as he said, this has its genesis in the Select Committee, which we both sat on the Social Mobility Policy on the Social Mobility Policy Committee and Lord Ravensdale referred to the fact that we reported in November, on November the 18th. And I'd just say in passing, the government is meant to reply to select committee reports within two months. In other words, by January the 18th, we should have had a response.

It's not the responsibility of the noble Lady, the Minister, it's another department. But when I tabled a question about this, I discovered that on 29 occasions the government has failed to reply to select committee reports on time. So I just put that on on the record, which I think is a discourtesy to the House amendment 119 basically says if you're going to tackle youth unemployment, you need a collaboration between the strategic authority and the local colleges and the local employers.

And the select committee made a visit to Blackpool, where we saw that partnership working very, very effectively. And so the conclusion we came to, and this chimes with what my noble friend Baroness Barran has just said, is that you need local collaboration if you're really to make an impact on local unemployment. And the specific question I want to raise is this, that the model that we proposed placed the responsibility on the strategic authority, principally the mayor, to be the convenor of this collaborative effort in order to drive forward the reduction of local unemployment.

But in the post Education and Skills White Paper published in October, the government comes up with a different model, and I quote from paragraph 232. It also envisages the. The chair of Skills England convening mayors to discuss local labour market challenges. Now that risks duplication at best or confusion at worst. With the model that we came up with after taking evidence for a year, and also, if one looks at the government's proposals in the post education post 16 Education and Skills White Paper, it only applies to those parts of the country within a strategic authority.

And so it does seem to me that our model is actually a better one than that proposed by the government in that in that white paper. And the final point I make is that in that white paper, the government did actually set itself a specific target in terms of skills. And what the select committee recommended was that the government should also set a target for the reduction of youth unemployment. If one can have a target for education and skills, why not a target for the reduction of youth unemployment? So I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to the suggestions in the Select Committee report.

Lord Dear rise briefly to talk about the.
14:47
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
Southwest following the Baroness Northover Baroness Barran comments about how well the greater southwest grouping is working. If I can give noble Lords an example, they've come together and they have commissioned a successful system of getting Wi-Fi continuously on intercity trains. Some noble Lords may think that's a complete waste of time, but actually when you're on a five hour journey like I am, it's quite nice to have a bit of Wi-Fi. And this has been all the five counties, I think, and have got together and done this, and they're all about to write to the Secretary of State for transport saying, well, we've proved that it works even in tunnels and things like that.

When you when you give a small amount of funding to make it cover the whole of the the network. So that works. Cooperation. But I've really got a question from our noble friend, which does relate to the relationship between Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Council, Cornwall Council and the Isles of Scilly Council, because there's a certain occasional antipathy between the two and the size is one thing. One is very much bigger than the other one, but the smaller one being the Isles of Scilly, feels that it's been done down and that Cornwall have not given them the share of the money that they were doing for the last cooperative project.

So my question really, to my noble friend is it all sounds very good. The cooperation I fully supported. But what can be done when it goes wrong?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh my Lord, I see this group five on social mobility as one of the most important that we actually the most important that we actually have to consider. On the second day of report. And I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord Ravensdale for his commitment to increasing social mobility and his work to promote that and to promote work to promote that and to promote Pan regional working. These are very important. The government is
14:50
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
determined to reduce youth unemployment, and one of the ways unemployment, and one of the ways it will do that is through the promotion of growth and through devolving power to mayoral authorities. And I think all these authorities. And I think all these things can work. I do I do think that the there was a something that that the there was a something that the noble Lord Bishop said in his contribution to the previous group when he talked about.

We need a duty to cooperate for local service partners, and we need that duty to cooperate because we have to promote cooperation rather than competition. I think the same rule applies to what the noble Lord Ravensdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Barron, and the Earl of Clancarty, are talking about an amendment 93 about Pan regional working, because one of the history lessons of the regional development agencies, which. Were ended in 2012, was that actually they competed against each other far too much.

And one of my fears in this English devolution bill is that what could well happen is that mayors will be competing with each other for funding, rather than trying to work together to increase the outputs from the money that they have. So I've just found this a very useful discussion, because to have partnerships at a pan regional level, let's say the north of England or let's say the Midlands, to enable that broader collaboration between strategic authorities, I just think would be very, very helpful.

Rather than have mayoral authorities within, say, the Midlands or the north of England competing with each other to earn the favours of the the Treasury through their mayoral structure. I have said previously that I think mayors there has to be a system of assessment of success, of devolution to mayoral authorities. How do you know if they're working? Well, we discussed that in a previous group. In one sense, I think that mayors should be targeted far more than we currently seem prepared to do.

I think mayor should have a duty to reduce youth unemployment. And unless they can demonstrate that central government has done something which prevents them from achieving that objective, then I think it gives a focus to the reason why mayors exist in a local area, which is to ensure that training gets better and that fewer young people, 16 to 24 are not in education, employment or training. Young people must be helped more, and we have to invest more in their futures.

I think. Finally, my Lords, on amendment 183 and to which my name is, is attached. I do think that consulting with the Social Mobility Commission will matter on how you collect the data and the evidence of social mobility outcomes are assessed. It is about achieving real outcomes, and those outcomes will depend on having the data to assess them. And that means that I think that the Social Mobility Commission may have ways in which they can assist us.

The noble Baroness Liddell Baroness Sugg, something I thought was really very important. The cost is tiny in terms of the potential gains that can be made, and I think that is absolutely that is right. So I find these three amendments in this group, led by the noble Lord Ravensdale, to be particularly helpful and appropriate. And I hope the government will will agree when the Minister sums up UQ.
14:54
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would also say how very grateful I am to the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale for bringing forward amendments 93 119 and 183 as which we have already heard, addresses regional collaboration and the vital issue of social mobility, starting with amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, supported by my noble friend Baroness Barran and the noble Earl

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Clancarty. I believe this is a very sensible amendment that will encourage and enable collaboration encourage and enable collaboration between strategic authorities, and we believe this can only be a good thing for regional economic development to the benefit of local residents. I am not going to repeat residents. I am not going to repeat all points so ably set out in all points so ably set out in support of this amendment, but only to say if the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale decides to press this amendment to a division, he will have our full support.

Amendment 119 and 183 go to the heart of what devolution is ultimately for. It's not simply about shifting powers between terms tiers of government, but about proving improving life chances, particularly in these amendments. For those young people who are not in education, employment or training. Amendment 119 highlights and is, as was so ably supported and explained by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. It highlights the importance of the partnership approach in tackling youth unemployment.

My Lords, this is an area where local knowledge and collaboration between authorities, employers, education providers and community organisations can make a real and lasting difference. Devolution should enable that kind of joined up working, and it is right that the Bill reflects that ambition. And again, we will support this amendment if pressed to a division amendment 183. Meanwhile, raises an equally important point about measurement and accountability. Taken together, these amendments remind us that economic growth alone is not enough.

We must ensure that opportunity is shared and that devolution contributes to widening access education, skills and employment and employment. We are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these issues before the House, and we look forward to the minister's response, particularly on how the government intend to embed social mobility considerations into the delivery of
14:57
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
devolved powers. My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale for these amendments and for taking a great deal of time and trouble to discuss deal of time and trouble to discuss them with me in recent weeks. Amendments relating to Pan regional collaboration, tackling youth collaboration, tackling youth unemployment and gathering social mobility data. I do, of course, mobility data. I do, of course, agree with the words of my noble friend Baroness Blake that where you come from should not determine where you get to.

I feel like I'm a living example of that myself, and I know there are many around your Lordships house. But it should. That should apply to anybody, wherever they are, wherever they start out, they should be able to get as far as their as their aspirations and their ability to take them. Starting with amendment 93, the matter of Pan regional collaboration is a topic we have debated in committee. I recognise the spirit of this amendment and its aim of empowering our strategic authorities to collaborate across administrative boundaries, to tackle shared challenges and seize regional opportunities.

As your Lordships will know, there is already a significant pan regional cooperation taking place between authorities, with mayors encouraged to collaborate across their regions as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. To give just one example, the Great North was established last year by northern mayors as a mayor led partnership to unlock jobs, opportunity and prosperity across the North. My Lords, the amendment before us. I appreciate its its intentions, but it largely mirrors what's already provided for in clause 21, which gives mayors the power to convene meetings with local partners, and clause 22, which provides a formal process for mayors to collaborate.

These clauses establish a more formal framework for local engagement and partnership, working, while allowing strategic authorities to determine their own methods and priorities for collaboration. We will be publishing statutory guidance on the operation of the Duty on mayors to collaborate. This guidance, to which mayors of strategic authorities must have regard, will elaborate on the importance of Cross-boundary working and the benefits it can deliver for those who live and work across functional economic areas. To respond to the noble Baroness Barran.

And I'm very grateful for her. Her words, which I think really encapsulated some of what we're trying to do here. But just on the issue of the pan regional partnerships, we did have to take very tough decisions on funding because of the legacy we were left. We do, as she indicated, believe that these functions should now fall into mayoral remit and should be for mayors to build up those very clear partnerships. I know some of the Pan regional partnerships are still continuing to exist because they've moved themselves to self-funding, and I'm sure our mayors will want to work with them.

And in response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, regarding Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, he and I have discussed this on many occasions. I've been to the Isles of Scilly with the noble Lord. Isles of Scilly are a sui generis authority, so they're not covered by this Bill. Nevertheless, we do expect all areas to cooperate across boundaries and I know there are very useful discussions taking place between our friends in Cornwall and our friends in the Isle of Scilly, Isles of Scilly.

Turning now to amendment 119 as set out in the post 16 Education and Skills White Paper, reducing the number of young people aged 16 to 24 who are not in employment, education or training is a national priority. In the last week, the government has committed almost £1 billion more to help young people into work and training through a youth jobs grant and apprenticeship initiative and an expanded jobs guarantee. This has broadened the existing offer to 20 to 24 year olds, meaning more young people will benefit from a fully funded six month guaranteed paid employment opportunity.

On the substance of this amendment, strategic authorities have a key role to play in tackling the nitrate, which is why we are delivering eight strategic authority led youth guarantee trailblazers. These are testing how best to join up services and offer targeted support to young people who are Neet or who are at risk of becoming Neet through localised approaches. The lessons from these trailblazers will be critical in forming the most effective policy approach. Additionally, the Milburn Review is progressing and is expected to make recommendations for policy responses to increase opportunities for young people.

It is right to wait for the outcome of the review before legislating, in order to build consensus and ensure that incentives are aligned. I would respond to the noble Lord young that I will follow up with colleagues in the relevant department about the response to the select Committee report. I wasn't aware that was late, but I will chase that up with my colleagues. We recognise the importance of ensuring that everyone, no matter what their background, can thrive and work is already underway to break down barriers to opportunity and make sure there is no ceiling on the ambitions of people in Britain.

That's why the government will continue to empower strategic authorities to increase access to opportunity across regions, for example, through the design and delivery of local services. The devolution of functions and funding that supports local leaders to tailor services to meet local needs, and government guidance to support strategic authorities in fulfilling their responsibilities. As I set out at the committee, strategic authorities under the Public Sector Equality Duty are already required to consider how their services and decisions can advance the equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

Additionally, the government is committed to commencing the socio economic duty in the Equality Act 2010 when parliamentary time allows. This will ensure specified public bodies are specifically required to consider how. Strategic decisions that they make might help reduce inequalities associated with socio economic disadvantage. I can reassure the noble Lord that upcoming guidance for strategic authorities on the socio economic equalities duty, and on the power to convene meetings with local partners on matters relating to areas of competence, will reflect the importance of good data practices and improving socio economic outcomes.

For example, when exercising the power to convene meetings, mayors of strategic authorities will be required to consider engaging with the Social Mobility Commission on relevant policy matters. Further still, I will also update relevant existing government guidance, such as local growth plan development and delivery guidance, to be clearer that mayoral strategic authorities work with local partners and the Social Mobility Commission to design, deliver and monitor innovative interventions that do support social value. However, adding a statutory duty on this matter is unnecessary and risk creating additional administrative burden on strategic authorities that distracts from important delivery.

Finally, I would like to stress that under this bill, thanks to an amendment in my name moved on Tuesday, mayors will be able to appoint up to ten commissioners and they could, for example, choose to have a commissioner for social mobility. I would therefore invite the noble Lord Ravensdale to withdraw his amendments.
15:04
15:06
15:06
None Portrait Amendment:97 Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-

>> I rise to move amendment 97 and speak to the many others. Apologies speak to the many others. Apologies for that in my name. In this group, although they do actually fall into four distinct different subject four distinct different subject areas. So that partly explains the number of them. Now, my noble friend Baroness Jones of friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb moved and spoke to the to related amendments at committee. The noble Lady was not expecting to The noble Lady was not expecting to be able to be here, but she is now listening in to see that I do this right on these amendments.

So I'm going to start with amendment 97 and 98, which we have others in this group, but I'm just going to focus on the ones in my name here, which are about non-passenger micro mobility vehicles. Now, as my noble friend said at committee, what we are talking about here is a future that is already here, and the intention of amendments is to empower councils to act when issues arise with these micro mobility vehicles. And just right on cue, an issue has arisen in Bristol.

This was this month. There are now new delivery robots running up and down Bristol's Gloucester Road. Now anyone who knows Bristol and Gloucester Road and I know it quite well, having campaigned every often. It's a very vibrant place with lots of small independent businesses and lots of people travelling around. And so one of these little delivery autonomous delivery robots was running up and down this road, and the green, one of the green councillors was walking with their dog.

Now, I believe this is a very small dog. And if you think about what these micro mobility vehicles are going to have to deal with, you can think of everything from very small dogs to very large dogs, small children, large children, all kinds of different obstacles. And the interesting thing about this, in this really complex environment, Bristol City Council says it was not informed about the trial of these, just micro mobility, small wheeled robots. And it does not have a policy on the use of delivery robots.

And as I understand, under the current legal arrangement, it has no real power to do anything about them. And we also think about the issue of these small delivery robots with people with mobility issues, even if they don't actually cause a problem, how frightening they are going to be. Now, I know that my noble friend and other peers expressed concerns that the Committee stage that if opportunity was not taken in this bill to provide the framework to take action, it could be many years before anything happens.

And the example was, of course, taken of pedicabs and just how long it's taken to deal with the pedicab issue. Now, the noble Lord Lord Hendy very kindly responded by letter to those concerns, but didn't give us any way forward, didn't give us an immediate course of action in that letter. So and this what this amendment is proposing is that allowing for secondary legislation. Now, we're aware of the issues around Henry the eighth clauses, etc. But and it's not my intention to push this amendment to a vote or indeed any in this group, but I really hope that the government is thinking very hard and is prepared to take action with this bill, which is such an obvious place to be taking actions.

And this also relates to an amendment on cross-reference in the Crime and Policing Bill in clause eight, which tweaks existing powers to allow such vehicle to be seized, if indeed it is causing a problem in the local area. So that's the first group of amendments. I move now to amendment 107 to 113 inclusive. And these are all about applying the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within an area of a local transport authority, ensuring the alignment of the duty with the scope of their effective transport plans.

Now again, I'm afraid the response at Committee stage did not really engage with the reality of the effects of this bill, of making strategic authorities primarily responsible for transport. It would not be that difficult to report strategic authority level data in addition to what's already proposed, but it would be hugely useful. Now, I do note that on the 12th of February, MHCLG did publish guidance for outcome frameworks at local authority levels, but the traffic levels are not included in there. This seems to be a real lack of joined up thinking between the the the frameworks and the spirit of this bill.

Moving then on to amendments one one 4 to 1 one six about local travel plans. And since we were last discussing this, the issue of fuel usage has of course become much more pressing and of much more concern. And I note that the overall figures that UK road fuel usage has increased 8% since 2020. We talk about modal shift. We hear a lot about modal shift, but we're just not seeing this happen. And what's here now in this bill could be taking us in the opposite direction.

And then finally I moved to the parking levies element of this. Oh, which is amendments 117 and 118. What we need here is a power to create parking levies from local authorities to strategic authorities, that would enable the relevant national authority to widen the purpose of parking. The levy could apply to. With a strategic authority becoming a local transport authority and therefore responsible for the local transport plan. It would deem that plan as forming the policies of any constituent authority must be part of the purposes of this part.

I just finally to put that into some sort of overall context, the Committee on Climate Change most recent report to Parliament, called for new powers and funding for local government to help it deliver the modal shift that's in the targets. By 2035. We have so many pressing needs here and the incredible calculator tool I have to point to shows just how much space in our towns and cities is given over to parking space that could be used for so much better purposes, including in many cases, potentially, of course, the housing that we're so often talking about.

So, my Lords, in a rather complex set of amendments there, I beg to move the first one.
15:13
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Here. Here. >> Here. Here. >> Schedule five, page 140, line 33 after vehicle insert, including

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those used for delivery services. Lord Sewell. I'd like to speak to amendment 99, which picks up the issues of 99, which picks up the issues of providing parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the appropriate density and standard, and also requiring traffic authorities and Great British Railways, when it's fully completed, to cooperate on the provision of parking at or near railway stations. And this builds on the discussion we had at Committee stage. And this amendment is about managing the problems that we all encounter day in, day out, with bikes and scooters parked dangerously on our streets.

So this requirement would help ensure the right amount of suitable parking for micromobility vehicles and help to address this problem. It also specifically names the cooperation with the new Great British Railways, which is essential if we are to allow ease of travel to and from our railway stations. This strengthens what is already in the Bill regarding the parking of these vehicles, and will ensure first and last mile connections are improved. I hope the Minister will be able to support the aims of this amendment and respond to this important issue, and there are many amendments in this group, but I would particularly like to welcome the amendments from the government covering the issue of pavement parking outside London, which is long overdue, and it's going to be welcomed by pedestrians up and down the country.
15:15
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Could you. particular to amendment 100 in this group, but congratulate the noble Baroness Baroness Bennett for opening up this particular group of interesting amendments. I'd like to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for meeting us prior to our Report stage, and bringing forward a first stab at a definition of micromobility. What micromobility vehicles, what the meeting, which I thought was a very interesting and successful meeting, did elucidate, was that there isn't actually currently a definition covering this area.

I would remind the House that privately owned e-scooters, which which I've not covered in this amendment because they are actually illegal to use on public roads and spaces in the UK. They are classified as motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1988, and therefore do require insurance, registration and a driving licence, none of which were available for private e-scooters. Despite this, more than 1 million e-scooters are estimated to be in circulation, leaving their widespread use outside any effective regulatory framework.

According to the government's own data, in 2024, there were 1339 casualties involving e-scooters, 32% of injuries were serious and six were fatalities. The statistics have got worse every single year since the records began. E-bikes, which are defined as electrically assisted pedal cycles, according to the Motor Insurance Bureau, are legal when they meet regulatory defined limits on power and speed. However, as we know, many e-bikes currently in use fail to meet. These requirements, are capable of very high speeds and are illegal for road use, yet are widely available for purchase.

Because illegal e-scooters are non-compliant, e-bikes are classified as motor vehicles. The Motor Insurance Bureau is required to compensate victims of collisions involving their use. These costs are met through a levy on motor insurers, all of us who drive and ultimately the motor insurance premium paying members of the public. The FSA's latest motor insurance claims analysis found that the increased use of e-scooters and e-bikes is resulting in uninsured riders, causing approximately £50 million in bodily injury costs annually.

For over seven years, the MIB has seen a growing number of personal injury claims arising from micromobility incidents, receiving on average three claims a week. So while I do thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for bringing forward not just for the meeting but also bringing forward the table of definitions, which obviously I'm not going to rehearse. You might like to refer to them in his reply, but I'd just like to express my disappointment for the fact that no legislative time, as I understand it, has been made available to bring these into legislative effect.

We've also. The noble order. I'm tempted to call him my noble friend, because he's very agreeable and very assiduous in his duties. In one of his. Was that a. Yes from the whip? Very good. Good that you're supporting each other. One of the replies to a written parliamentary question that I asked the noble Lord, the Minister replied. Like other road users, cyclists are required to comply with road traffic law in the. In the interests of their own safety and that of other road users cycling on the pavement on on footpaths is an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, other than in designated areas such as on bridleways and other shared use routes.

Rule 64. He goes on. Of the Highway Code, states that you must not cycle on a pavement as set out in the Road Safety strategy of the 7th of January. He goes on, more work is needed to raise overall awareness of the Highway Code. We are considering options in this area and further details will be shared in due course. I put that into the category of wishful thinking, and I think part of the problem is that the Highway Code that I grew up with, I was able to purchase a hard copy of it for something like 3 or £5 from the newsagent, but now it's a very, very lengthy document only available online.

And I'd love to know how many hits there are on it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For cyclists especially. Sadly reminded. In a different answer, the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In a different answer, the noble Lord replied that again, as stated in the Road Safety strategy, the government has made a commitment to government has made a commitment to pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles. When parliamentary time allows. He goes parliamentary time allows. He goes on we understand the importance now of providing a clear legislative timeline, and we are working with timeline, and we are working with colleagues across the government to deliver this. We will provide an update when a timeline has been agreed.

I'd just like to state for the record that I find this hugely disappointing, and I do hope that we can rely on the government to come forward with a timeline and with publication of Earl Attlee. Then, in a further parliamentary answer, the noble or the Minister says that the timelines for bringing forward. First of all, the government published a consultation on motoring offences alongside the road safety Strategy of the 7th of January 2026, split into four sections, one of which concerns us here is new penalties for certain offences and other road traffic matters.

We then learnt from the Minister that once the Motoring Offences consultation closes, the government will confirm any changes to the policy on penalties for driving uninsured. Again, the timelines for bringing forward any changes, including those relating to uninsured driving, will then depend on legislative time. So two points I'd just like to note this is disappointing. There's no sense of urgency and, well, it's not the fault of the Minister. I do think that we should have had parliamentary time in this parliamentary session for these purposes.

In the last parliamentary question, the Minister refers to, I asked what assessment they've made of the cost to motor insurance policyholders compensating victims of collisions involving legally used e-scooters and e-bikes. What steps they are taking to address this? I was staggered to think that the. I'm told that the Secretary of State has made no such assessment. The setting of premiums is a commercial decision for insurers and the government is not intervene or seek to control the market, but I hope that I can take this opportunity to make a personal plea to the noble Lord, the Minister, that the Motor Insurance Bureau is making such a request.

Request to make sure that there is insurance cover for this. While I personally don't blame the Minister for the lack of parliamentary time, I do think it's disappointing and I do hope that I can ask the noble or the Minister and urge him to use his good office to find time for this legislation. It is unacceptable that all of us are facing these additional costs on our motor insurance premium, because the insurance sector is having to pass on the cost to us.

I would also like to use this opportunity to ask the Minister when we are going to get the results of these lengthy, ongoing e-scooter trials so that whereas they're only meant to be used in privately owned scooters, are only meant to be used in private spaces, publicly hired scooters. When will that pilot scheme draw to a close? And will the government bring forward an insurance scheme to cover these e-scooters for use for private hire? I beg to move.
15:23
15:25
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
I Lord Jay. Congratulating I should join my colleague in congratulating the government on this pleasant parking issue, but I want to speak in a bit more detail on an amendment 100, and to focus on the. The issue of insurance, which Baroness Carr Baroness McIntosh of Pickering has been speaking about. I began to think that when she started talking about the. She doesn't remember things in the Highway Code. I suppose. I don't remember things in the Highway Code which were published 50 years ago or so, when I did have a driving license.

I think the issue which needs addressing is what are we trying to achieve? And surely the most important thing we're trying to achieve is safety on the roads. And that safety covers not just fast cars, large trucks, FA engines and ambulances, etc. it also covers ordinary people trying to get around business and often on equipment which has got wheels. And I began to think that we should. Are we trying to look at a series of amendments in this group which basically say that anything with wheels is, by definition, bad? I hope that's not the case, because wheels, of course, are an essential part of mobility.

But occasionally the use of these this equipment needs to be separated. We spent a lot of time talking about scooters and freight bikes and other related things in between, but some of which possibly need insurance, and some of them probably don't. I mean, you could widen it to a situation where if you're a pedestrian in London and you cause an accident, which is demonstrated to be your fault, you get you get the blame. And therefore, should you as a pedestrian have insurance.

It's a very wide subject, and I'm not sure that really is covered in this amendment. But as it stands at the moment, I really can't see why we should have. Special regulations for to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles. I quote from providing a pedal cycle or electrical assistance pedal cycle to a person who doesn't have insurance, because surely it's up to the user of these things to decide for themselves at the moment whether they should have insurance and what the insurance is for.

And also the alternative, of course, which is to lock it. So I really can't I can't support this amendment 100, and I hope my noble friend will agree. My name appears. In 2 or 3 places.
15:28
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
In this, this, this grouping. And I want to. >> Join the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton just to say how important the amendment 245 in the Second the amendment 245 in the Second Amendment. Consequential on that matters. I have campaigned for many, many years on the issue of pavement parking and finally feel as though action is being taken. So I want to thank and congratulate the government for the step that they have taken. Now, Lord, I began my concern about some of the transport issues when I was being advised that there was doubt about who between a mayor and a local transport, a local authority would be responsible for traffic calming measures in residential areas and in some parts of the country.

It was being alleged that mayors would control the decisions on where traffic calming would take place, rather than the local council, and so I had a concern about that to, to, to have it clarified. And very grateful that on Monday, I received a letter from Baroness Taylor of Stevenage which clarified the issue to my satisfaction. But I would like just to read out the key parts of her letter for the benefit of recording it formally in Hansard. My Lords, as we know, transport budgets overall are held by combined authorities and combined county authorities as the local transport authority for the area, but they are required to allocate each constituent local highway authority sufficient funding to do their duties.

As in clause 40 of this bill. So there will be new consolidated funding settlements. It will be for the combined authority in the combined county authorities to determine how to apportion the funding between different transport priorities. Inevitably, that will be the case, but they are required to provide suitable levels of funding to their local highway authorities because they are held accountable for the full range of local transport outcomes, including on local roads. In other words, the Mac and the combined authority can be blamed if the money is not available to do the work in the local authority area.

So I think that is as clear as I would expect it to be. And so it will be. And the Minister confirms for each highway authority to make decisions on delivery of traffic and highways functions such as traffic calming measures for the roads in their area. And I think that is I don't expect the Minister to be any clearer than that. Like like to thank the noble Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for that letter of the 23rd of March. And, my Lords, I thought further about the issue of.

The key route networks, and I, I mean, I think that that potentially there could be a problem. The way in which the government has phrased the bill, but I do accept. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord Hendy for a conversation that we have had about this matter. It is important to speed up bus journeys, and I accept totally that quite often bus routes will serve centres of population and centres of business and classified numbered roads may not, and therefore to omit the possibility of using key route networks to improve the attractiveness of bus services does seem to me to be potentially a missed opportunity, and the noble Lord Hendy won't mind that.

I've used some of the words that he used in an email message to me yesterday, and I. But I can see the point that he is making. And I do think that mayors, if we're serious about devolving power, it is right that mayors do get proper choices as to which roads and what movements they want to prioritise. And so I think the noble Lord Hendy has made his case with me. And I just, you know, we're all really aiming at the same thing, which is to improve public transport services.

So, my Lord, with those and with my repeated thanks for the amendments on pavement parking, I beg to, to, to support the, the, the, the ambitions of the government in those areas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I'm beginning. To feel slightly left out. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To feel slightly left out. I haven't been the beneficiary of a large amount of correspondence from the noble Lords Minister in the way the noble Lords Minister in the way in which other noble Lords scattered around the chamber appear scattered around the chamber appear to have been so, so I. I don't have the advantage of his support and.
15:34
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
the advantage of his support and. And the wording that he might have supplied to help me make my speech, supplied to help me make my speech, I was. I was very interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness. Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I do look forward to hearing the government's response to those. And I also had a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by my noble friend, lady McIntosh of Pickering. I will just say, in terms of the Highway Code, if I pause for a personal recollection for a moment, is that back in.

I think it was 1973 or 1974. I was part of the team representing my school, which was triumphant in the West Midlands competition on mastery of the Highway Code. It was a sort of quiz. We had to train for it, but it was sponsored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and I have still to this day a very detailed recollection of the contents of the Highway Code as it stood in 1974, and the most devastating remark or most devastating consequence of this afternoon's debate is that I've learned only today from my noble friend, lady McIntosh of Pickering, that it is now become a very much larger document and is only available online, so it's possible.

I'm going to have to. I've been living by the 1974 version very satisfactorily ever since, but I do think lady McIntosh of Pickering makes a very serious point, and she does illustrate a degree of confusion and delay on the part of the government. The fact is that the uninsured losses that have been accumulating in the motor insurance system and have been attributed, have fallen to the to the expense of responsible motorists who pay their insurance and are paying for all these uninsured losses, is a subject the government is going to have to deal with.

And if the noble Lords Minister is not in a position to do so today, I agree with her that he needs to return to it. The government needs to return to it urgently, and certainly I would hope in the next parliamentary session, the government amendments on pavement parking. I do not object to. I broadly welcome those. What I find most attractive about them is that they make it very properly a local decision, because these things, including the exemptions that will be required, because it's very unlikely that in any part of the country there will be a blanket ban on pavement parking.

There'll be certain areas where there will have to be some exemptions that these these matters should be decided locally and sensitively, in consultation with residents. And that brings me to my amendments 104 and 105, where a similar consideration of the sensitivities of local residents are what motivate me, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Shipley for his indication of support for these two amendments. The government, through this bill, is creating a key route network, which is not unlike, I imagine, the Red route network in London, but applied to other great conurbations.

And there is, unfortunately in the bill, no restriction on the roads in which that network could be created. And the purpose of my amendment. And we did debate this in committee. The purpose of my amendment is to prevent those that network being created essentially on residential and minor roads. And the way I've done that, and it's a slightly rough measure, is to say that it is going to have to be confined to classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic.

Now, I do realise that some of those roads may also be residential in character, but at least they are on major roads at the moment and they know where that where they stand. People need to be protected from the thought that they're probably possibly quiet. Residential road could become an extension to an urban motorway with very little say on their own part. And the purpose here is to protect those people. And I think the government could very easily agree to this, because it's most unlikely, I think, that they would want to see those consequences arise, and this would be a way of protecting from them.

I have to give notice to the noble Lords Minister that unless he is very accommodating on this point, I will want to test the opinion of the House. Finally, I'd like to turn to my amendment 103 again debated in committee, which is to leave out clause 27 and clause 27. So the history of clause 27 is that when when the Greater London Authority was created, the Mayor of London was given the power to dispose of non-operational land belonging to TfL, but only with the supervision and with the approval of the Secretary of State.

There would have to be permission from the Secretary of State before the disposal should take place. The effect of the Bill is to remove that requirement and to leave it entirely to the Mayor of London. I do want to emphasise that the comments I'm making have no relationship to the to the incumbents of the current incumbent or any other incumbent. The remarks I'm making arise because since the Greater London Authority was was passed, the mayor has had housing responsibilities added to his portfolio.

Those responsibilities did not exist in 1999, and I think it was the 2011 Localism Act that added them. But it was around that time that housing responsibilities were added. So there is now, so to speak, irrespective of the personality of the incumbent built into the mayoralty. There is an institutional conflict about what is the best use of land under his disposal. Would it be for transport purposes? Would it be for housing purposes? And depending on the political pressures on him at a particular time, poor judgement might be exercised in deciding on the disposal of of that land.

So the effect of my amendment in removing clause 27 is simply to maintain the status quo. It is to say that the mayor may order TfL, may, on behalf of TfL, dispose of TfL land as currently. But he would require, as currently the approval of the Secretary of State and I think that is an important point in terms of ensuring the proper integrity and responsibility over any decisions to do with the disposal of land, giving the conflict.

Given the conflicting roles, potentially conflicting roles that the Mayor of London has in this regard. Otherwise, I think this has been a very useful debate, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister, has to say, since, at least in my case, it will be for the first time.
15:41
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords Lord Moylan, Lord Shipley and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, lady McIntosh, Lady Pigeon and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle for their amendments, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his contribution. I'd just say to him in. In response that this government is very much in favour of mobility. But of course, it has to be subject to appropriate regulation. I'd also be delighted to supply the noble Lord Moylan with future scripts for his speeches in response to bills like this.

My. My only condition is that he reads them as I as I give them to him and I. I try not to shower him with more correspondence than he needs. I will start with government amendments. 245 and 265 which are about pavement parking, which will enable all pedestrians to use the pavement safely, but especially people with mobility or sight impairments and those with prams, pushchairs or luggage. On the 8th of January, my department published the response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling an amendment at Committee stage on this subject, and I'm sorry that the noble Lord is unable to to be in his place today, but I'm delighted that my noble friend Lord Bassam has so clearly echoed his views. The amendment enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to create a coherent and adaptable framework under which English local transport authorities could prohibit parking and motor vehicles on pavements and verges in their area.

The prohibition introduced by regulations will be subject to civil enforcement. The regulations under the new clause will address, including how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit prohibit pavement parking, which vehicles would be excluded, permissible permissible exemptions for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area, and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition, amongst others. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament can examine and approve the detailed regulatory framework before it takes effect.

And in the meantime, we plan to give local authorities powers later this year to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstruct the footway. This can be achieved through secondary legislation. I'll turn to government amendments 1101 and 102. These amendments ensure continuity in the approval of line rental schemes, where a new mayor has not yet been elected, several new strategic authority areas will not have a mayor in place until 2027 or 2028. Without this change, there would be a period when no one has the legal power to approve lane rental applications.

Highway authorities in these areas are preparing schemes now, and they must have a clear and workable approval route. The amendments provide that the amendment provides that the Secretary of State will continue to act as the approval authority for any applications submitted before the first mayoral election takes place. This gives certainty to local authorities and avoids unnecessary delay. It also means that decisions can be made promptly and transparently through the interim period. Once a mayor is elected, the power transfers automatically as Parliament originally intended.

This is a practical amendment. It maintains momentum, prevents avoidable disruption and supports local delivery. It also future proofs the legislation through any other new mayoral areas face similar election timing issues. I commend all these government amendments to the House. Turning to amendments 97 and 98, this framework is designed to regulate shared micromobility vehicles such as rental e-cycles and pavement robots. It's not designed to regulate the use of vehicles. We are already taking, taking action to tackle some of the issues that the noble Baroness Bennett referred to.

The Crime and Policing Bill will give the police stronger powers to seize without warnings vehicles being used dangerously in response to the noble Baroness Bristol example. We will need separate primary legislation to legalise these pavement robots and we've committed to bringing this legislation forward when time allows, if they're legalised and by by saying that it's it's clear that currently they're not. Then, as this bill is drafted. So our licensing regime can be extended to them so that they can only operate with a license from the local authority.

So they are covered under the definition of non-passenger vehicles in this bill. Turning to amendment 99, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Pigeon as the noble, as the noble Baroness does, we want more shared cycle schemes across the country, and we know that the success of schemes will require parking in the right places. This will require constructive and and continuing collaboration between strategic authorities who will issue licenses and traffic authorities who remain best placed to manage street space.

We can't legislate from Whitehall on the specifics of parking, as local leaders know their areas best and each area has unique needs. However, we know that we need to support and encourage the conversations at local level, which will lead to the right parking solutions, which is why we have included in the bill a legal duty on authorities cooperating on parking, promoting equitable engagement between authorities, focussed on shared interests and balancing responsibilities for managing licensing revenue and delivering parking.

My discussions with the noble Baroness have been helpful and constructive and thus I confirm that we will set out detailed guidance on what good cooperation will look like to guide discussions towards productive parking outcomes. Turning to railway integration, our integrated transport strategy is due shortly, and the noble Baroness will know that the long term rail strategy will come forward as part of rail reform and the Railways Bill. These documents will, of course, shape the remit and priorities of GBR and integrated transport networks will be a top priority.

This includes precisely the measures set out in the noble Baroness Chisholm amendment, and I assure the noble Baroness that they will very much. Part of Gbr's remit. Further, GBR must have regard to local transport plans and therefore must engage with local leaders on their visions for integrated regional transport networks, including shared cycles and micromobility. On amendment one 100, tabled by the noble Baroness lady McIntosh of Pickering, I nearly referred to her as my noble friend as she is so courteous and beguiling and I understand the noble Baroness.

Concerns about around insurance and the government recognises it's important that this complex issue is addressed with careful thought and consideration, which we will do before implementing the licensing framework via regulations. Schedule five creates the power to set mandatory licence conditions in regulations, which very much could include insurance requirements. But as she observes, the insurance is commercially and legally complex and give it given its importance, we must consult in depth to strike the right balance of responsibilities between operators and users.

Furthermore, this amendment will place the onus of holding insurance on individuals. The government believes it would make no sense to create a different insurance standards for rental bikes than for rental of other vehicles, whereas the onus is on the rental provider, such as cars. The noble Baroness referred to the recent meeting where we where we discussed definitions and following that, as she says, I wrote to her with them. I was happy to clarify these. She raises a number of really important issues in.

In the speech that she's made in relation to this amendment. And rather, rather than go through all of those issues now, I'm very happy indeed to commit myself to a further discussion with her and with my noble, with my colleague from the other place, Lilian Greenwood, in order to correctly set out where and what we think we can do with regard to the matters that she raises, which I do and the government regards as important, I just say as an afterthought, that certainly if the Highway Code is no longer available as a printed document, that's the first I've heard of it.

I've got a very recent example, both on my desk at the department and indeed at home, because everybody who uses the road should know what the current version of the Highway Code has in it. Turning to amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Moylan. As he knows, transport in London is devolved with the mayor responsible for managing the capital's transport, the capital's transport network, and it's right in line with the wider purpose of this bill that the mayor should be empowered to consent to operational land disposals, land disposal applications from TfL.

Both the government and the mayor recognise the need to balance transport, housing and wider strategic consideration, and this clause rightly places responsibility for making that balanced judgement with the mayor, who is accountable for those decisions in London. This goes to the heart of what devolution is intended to achieve, and the government rejects the proposition that somehow the mayor isn't capable of making a decision about the best use of land under currently under transport control, which might be used for housing, for housing, housing purposes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turning to. Wasn't my suggestion that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wasn't my suggestion that the mayor needed to be supervised. It was the suggestion of the draughters in the Labour Party of the 1999 GLA act, which I am simply standing up for. So reject it by all means, but don't cast that upon me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me. Well, I'd say to noble Lord, the successes of those people have changed their minds. So it's about time he did too. We've got the experience of three mayors over 25 years and there's, there's the there's, there's no evidence that they're not capable of taking this discussion. Whereas of course, in 1999, there had not been a mayor. But the mayoralty has self-evidently been very successful on amendments 104 and 105. We discussed, of course, those at the Committee stage.

And what I said at that stage is that the powers in this bill are based on the principle of devolution. That is, it should be for places to consider what's right for them. We plan to use the existing powers available to us in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, to provide concise guidance on the designation of a key route network, as well as the use of the associated power of direction. This will assist combined authorities and combined county authorities in considering factors that should be important in designating a key route network road, including traffic levels, public transport, especially buses and links to key development and employment sites.

That balance helps places in considering important factors on designating roads, as well as respecting principles of devolution, and that such choices are ultimately local. We intend to produce such guidance very shortly. There are strong reasons why roads which are not classified numbered roads should be considered as key routes. Under certain circumstances. They could be. They might well be roads with high very high level of bus and public transport use or links to employment, employment, important employment or development sites and in both cases, numbers of people carried as well as numbers of vehicles might be important as the designation.

I hope the commitment I have given to produce guidance on designating a key route network and using the associated power of direction reassures the noble Lord that we have considered the reasons behind his amendment, and I thank very much the noble Lord Shipley for his helpful intervention on that and our recent and our recent discussion discussions, I should say amendments 107 to 113 relate to the duty to provide reports on traffic levels. I understand the noble Baroness desire to align duties with others, in particular geographies, in this case with local transport plans.

Any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to affect such reports directly. There should not be a duty to make a report without any power to affect it, but that is why there are changes elsewhere in the schedule to give mayors a combined and combined county authorities power to direct highway authorities in the use of their powers on key route network roads. That aligns with the geography on which they will produce these reports. In contrast, these amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on non key route network roads, but without any direct control of the traffic on them, as was noted in a similar amendment in the other place and discussed in committee, it's duplicative.

Principal councils already have a duty to make such reports for local roads in their area, and as highway authorities to the relevant powers are best placed to influence traffic levels on their roads. Amendments 114 and 115 refer to local transport planning and closer working between strategic authorities and constituent councils is vital to support a successful local transport network. Clause 29 of the Bill supports this close working by requiring the Constituent Council to implement the strategic Authority's policy set out in the Local Transport Plan and to have regard to the proposals in the plan.

This clause extends an existing duty placed on some existing constituent councils and aims to standardise arrangements for all constituent councils. The clause is intended to maintain a balance, encouraging close collaboration between strategic authorities and constituent councils, without giving the strategic authority excessive control over how councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to implement, rather than have regard to proposals in the local transport plan, giving strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads.

Amendment 116 refers to reviewing and updating local transport plans. Adopting a local transport plan is a key strategic decision for Non-viral strategic authorities for existing non-local. For existing Non-viral strategic authorities, all constituent councils have to agree to adopt the local transport plan. This approach is in line with the government's commitment in the English Devolution White Paper to ensure that all strategic decisions from non mayoral strategic authorities would have the support of all constituent councils under existing legislation. It's up to local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and amended to reflect local transport circumstances.

The government will be producing updated guidance for local transport authorities on local transport plans. This will provide advice on when authorities should review and update the plans, and the mandatory intention of the amendment is therefore not needed. Amendment 117 removes the word workplace from the framework, extending the levy, introducing power to spaces other than workplaces would be a significant extension and not necessarily a desirable one. The aim of workplace parking levy levies is primarily to reduce congestion, which is great at greatest at peak commuting times.

Furthermore, the definition of parking spaces to which this framework applies is set out clearly, so this part of the amendment would not have its desired effect. The amendment also adds strategic authority to list of bodies that can introduce a workplace parking levy. I touched on this at Committee stage in response to an amendment tabled by my noble friend, Lord Bastion of Brighton. And as I said then, I am aware of calls for a greater role for strategic authorities in their mayors.

The Nottingham Scheme scheme has been a success, and it's understandable that strategic authorities would like to play a greater role here. However, I know that a number of local traffic authorities are considering introducing schemes, and we need to consider carefully the impacts of any changes on existing plans. Finally, this amendment would act would add the local transport plan to the definition of local transport policies, of which a workplace parking levy must support under the Transport Act 2000. As I know the Minister set out in the other place, the 2000 act already defines local transport policies with reference to local transport plan, so this change is unnecessary.

Amendment 118, I'm afraid has no effect. Local authorities outside London already have powers under section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to direct surplus parking revenue towards highway improvement projects. These include maintenance under certain circumstances within the meaning of section 62 of the Highways Act 1980. Turning to the environmental improvement elements of the amendment, adapting the highway to future resilience needs is an established part of highways maintenance best practice and is therefore already included under the act.

Likewise, improvements to the natural environment within highways context support pollution reduction and are also included. Therefore, the definitions in the Act are already broad enough and do not need to expand to be expanded further. I therefore ask all noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and I beg to move the amendments in my name.
16:00
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for a typically the Minister, for a typically thoughtful and comprehensive response to a very large and complex group of amendments, and thank all the noble Lords who've taken part in this group. I will just take a moment to join other noble Lords in celebrating the government amendments two, four, five and 265. I've been in your Lordships House more than six years, and I've heard much talk about doing something about pavement parking.

And I was just actually happened to be in Chorley at the weekend. And people were pointing out to me particularly egregious examples of such. And I know from Sheffield, there was indeed quite a phase where social media was just having the daily awful piece of pavement parking posts. So I think that's really encouraging. I'm not going to go through all the amendments. I'm sure there are many people in the chamber will be pleased to hear. I'm just going to very briefly say I can't, of course, speak for noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon, but I think the noble Lady made a really important point.

And I think the the offer from the guidance from the Minister sounds like a step in the right direction. So that's also encouraging demonstration of effect. And also the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh, as the Minister said, made very important points. And we're talking about further discussion. So that's all progress there. I'm just going to finally comment on the 97 and 98 on Non-transport and micro mobility. The street robots we were talking about. I'm afraid I really didn't follow what the Minister said.

They're currently not legalised, but they're running around on the streets of Bristol. I'll be looking into that. But in the interest of time, I'll stop there and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
16:01
16:02
16:02
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
The comments of the noble Lord in relation to guidance to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issued. And with that I think I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Lordships withdraw an amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships withdraw an amendment by leave withdrawn and 105 Lord by leave withdrawn and 105 Lord Moylan not moved. 106 Taylor moved Moylan not moved. 106 Taylor moved formally. The question is this amendment be agreed to as many as have that opinion will say content have that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. 107 to 1 one three Baroness Bennett not moved. We now come to clause 29 amendments 114115 Baroness Bennett not moved and now in schedule ten one one 6 to 1 one eight Baroness Bennett not moved.

We now come to 119. If I can only find it. Right. 119 Lord Ravensdale not moved. Is not here after clause 31. OK, so we now come to clause 37 Baroness McIntosh 120. Not moved. We now come to one, two,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one Baroness Scott of Bybrook. Oh, sorry. Lord Jamieson. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment and that in the name of my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook, friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook, there is near universal agreement that a brownfield first strategy is the right one. Not only does it the right one. Not only does it save green fields, new development benefits from existing infrastructure. Homes are delivered
16:04
None Portrait Amendment:121 Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-

infrastructure. Homes are delivered where they are needed most and it supports regeneration. And finally, it's better for the environment. However, greenfield sites offer the potential to landowners and promoters of huge planning gain from a few thousand pounds an acre as agricultural land to hundreds of thousands once planning permission is received, and hence their willingness to push and challenge the system and once planning permission is received, building on it is so much easier for developers. As a result. In effect, we have a default greenfield first approach losing precious greenbelt and productive farmland.

If the current crisis has taught us anything, it is that we cannot be dependent on imports. We need to grow our own. And yesterday's announcement on local government reorganisation. With urban areas expanding into their rural hinterland, will only encourage the building on green fields, rather than focusing on the urban footprint. Now, for years, governments of all colours have tried to prioritise brownfield first. But guidance alone is simply not enough. We need something that is more forceful. We need it in legislation.

By making this a requirement of strategic plans, mayors and combined authorities will need to upfront address the issues facing brownfield in their areas to make it easier to speed it up and deliver brownfield development, because without it, Greenfield will continue to be the default. The environment will suffer. More money will need to be spent on infrastructure, and we will continue to lose valuable agricultural land. We will also fail to deliver the homes we need where they are most needed. Continuing the housing crisis with young people unable to afford their own home and increased homelessness now, report states.

The noble Baroness, the Minister, raised a concern that this would be used as an excuse to delay development sites. In fact, it is very opposite the case. This is all about getting more sites, more homes faster and where they are needed most. My Lords, when we are facing a housing crisis and we are failing to build. And that biggest failure is in the urban areas like London who have the greatest need. It can only be right that we build more in urban areas through gentle densification and repurposing redundant sites.

My Lords, I beg leave to move my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 37. Insert the new clause. Brownfield land priority words of Brownfield land priority words of which are on the Marshalled List. Amendment 121.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 121. Just tries to say a few words in. I would say in general support of I would say in general support of this motion, as in the principle as we did support it in the planning and Infrastructure bill, so it and Infrastructure bill, so it would make sense to do so. I you
16:07
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
know, it was good old John Prescott, who first promoted brownfield first. And ever since then, you know, And ever since then, you know, councils have always been encouraged to brownfield first for encouraged to brownfield first for all the reasons that the noble Lord Jamieson has just outlined. But brownfield alone cannot meet our housing needs. And that's the real housing needs. And that's the real issue that I've got with this. Brownfield development is more costly. Contamination and development costs alone make it much more costly.

I think there's just a fear of lopsided development, and I would be interested in further discussion, but clearly not here. Now about how we square up the very emotional debates we've had over the last day of, of, of this stage of the bill with the with rural issues and the lack of housing in rural areas and how they need that for all those reasons. And then an amendment that really squarely says, leave the green areas alone. So I've got a little bit of problem with that.

Whilst. Absolutely. We on these benches support the over riding principle, but given the large area of combined authorities, there's very clearly going to be a massive range of sites covering all sorts of green sites and all sorts of brownfield sites. So what I'd like to leave the Minister with on this is a thought that perhaps the government really need to give more incentives to develop brownfield first, and there are lots of ideas that I'm sure the noble Lady is aware of that would encourage that more.

But the key thing is brownfield alone won't meet housing needs. Rural areas do need more housing, but clearly we need strong protections of our greenbelt and our and our countryside here.
16:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Jamieson for amendment 121 about brownfield land and I agree that we brownfield land and I agree that we should have, you know, we should always use brownfield land wherever it's possible to do so. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill has so succinctly articulated, we. One of the reasons for promoting the development of town centres and cities is that there just is more brownfield land in those. And we're trying, as part of the reorganisation process is to promote that kind of development.

But there will always be a need for some development in rural areas. We do have a rural housing crisis which we've got to tackle, and there are other uses as well. For example, data centres for which it might be appropriate. My Lords, once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those who mayors, will be required to prepare a spatial development strategy. These strategies will provide the framework for local plans and they will identify broad locations for growth, key infrastructure requirements and housing targets for individual local authorities.

But they will not allocate sites for development. In preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need for consistency with national policy. The effective use or re-use of brownfield land is strongly encouraged in the current National Planning Policy Framework, which expects substantial weight to be given to the benefits of developing suitable brownfield land within existing settlements. The revised National Planning Policy Framework mentioned earlier in my response goes further still. New proposed policies on development within and beyond settlement boundaries are designed to promote a more sustainable pattern of development by directing growth to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable urban land and taking a more selective approach to development.

Outside of settlements, mayors will also have the ability to grant upfront planning permission for specified forms of development on identified sites through Mayoral Development Orders. We want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible to allow mayors to use these powers across a range of uses and land types, in line with their ambitions for growth, and it's right that we continue to promote the effective use of previously developed land. However, we should be cautious about introducing overly rigid legal requirements that may not be appropriate in all circumstances and could risk constraining the growth this country needs.

And for those reasons, while I understand the intention behind the amendment, I don't consider it to be necessary or proportionate. And I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
16:12
16:13
16:23
16:24
None Portrait Amendment:129 Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-

engaging me on the narrow point. And this this group of amendments, three of them are mostly the same, are supportive of what the government is trying to achieve. Now, in clause 42, there is a requirement for mayors to cooperate with the LGPS to finance infrastructure. I have no problem with that. In fact, it's to be welcomed. But my amendments are welcomed. But my amendments are based on the simple truth that if they are to grow the economy, mayors need to have a complete understanding of how money is raised, deals put together and bright ideas turned into investable opportunities.

So in essence, mayors need to understand the difference between funding and financing. Funding is writing the check, financing is putting that deal together. And of course, they're completely different disciplines. So my amendments simply substitute the word develop with promote. It recognises that it's the role of mayors to produce investable opportunities, but not necessarily the LGPS to buy them. This isn't purely semantics. It's a simple word change that stops accusations of a degree of connivance or collusion between the mayor and funds, which could lead to conflicts of interest.

So this group ensures there's a proper separation of duties between the mayor and the funds. And I think that the word promote helps everybody be clear. It's the mayor's job to punch the opportunity. But the scheme isn't necessarily mandated to accept it. Promotion makes it clear the mayor needs to work harder to be clear about what the market and investors require to turn that idea into a proposition. And in so doing, and this is an important point, encourages the wider uptake of good opportunities, not just buy the home fund, but the wider pool of investments in the LGPS and beyond.

So there's less accusations of connivance, a greater clarity of roles, greater professionalism and an understanding of how financing works, a better separation of duties which allows other pools to jump on the bandwagon of good ideas rather than just being a closed shop. Words matter. This substitution will strengthen the clause and make an actual investments more likely. I beg to move two minutes.
16:26
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Proposed clause 42, page 43. Line 20 leave out. Develop and insert. Promote.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which all address an important and practical issue the clear separation of duties between the mayor and the local government pension scheme. At its heart, this is about avoiding conflicts of interests. As we've heard under the bill, mayors will rightly have a central role in promoting investment opportunities in their regions, championing growth, attracting capital and supporting local economic development.

That is an essential part of the devolution agenda. However, we must be equally clear about who is making investment decisions on and on whose behalf pension funds exist to serve their members and local taxpayers. Their primary duty is for you to act in the best financial interests of those beneficiaries. There is a distinction here that matters. My Lords, the mayors may promote opportunities, but they should not be in a position to influence, directly or indirectly, the allocation of pension fund assets.

In simple terms, one body promotes the opportunity. Another independently decides whether to write the check. As has been noted, there is also an important difference between funding and financing, between providing the capital and structuring the deal. Both require clarity of responsibility and robust governance. Cooperation between mayors and pension schemes is not only desirable, it is inevitable inevitable, but the cooperation must not drift into anything that could be perceived as pressure or direction. We must guard against any blurring of lines.

My Lord. What begins as collaboration must not become even inadvertently, connivance. These amendments are therefore modest but necessary. They seek to put beyond doubt the separation of roles to protect the integrity of pension decision making, and to give reassurance to local taxpayers and scheme members alike. And for those reasons, I support these amendments.
16:28
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Fuller for amendments one, two, nine, 130 and amendments one, two, nine, 130 and 131 and for his time in discussing them with me. I recognise his intention to clarify the roles and responsibilities of strategic authorities and pension funds in making local investments, and I agree that it's excuse me, it's very important for roles and responsibilities to be completely clear. We want strategic authorities to play an active role in bringing forward investment and guidance.

Will further explain the government's expectations. I would just point out there is a reciprocal requirement for local government pension funds to cooperate with strategic authorities. In another bill, the Pension Schemes Bill and the wording of identify and develop in this context is consistent with that requirement, which makes it a bit late to change that just now. The meaning of development, however, can be clarified in guidance. Pensions guidance will confirm there is no requirement to invest in assets assets which they do not deem to be suitable as pension investments, and this should provide reassurance, I think, to him, schedule 20 includes a requirement for local growth plans to set out key projects for achieving economic growth through private or public investment.

The guidance on local growth plans already makes clear the expectations and support available to mayoral, combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities for developing and taking forward that pipeline of investment opportunities. Further, government guidance for local government pension funds will explain the meaning of this requirement for them, and this guidance will further clarify our expectations in this context, and I'm very happy to discuss with the noble Lord outside of the chamber as we develop the guidance, and therefore, I'd respectfully ask the noble Lord Fuller to withdraw his amendment.
16:30
16:31
16:31
None Portrait Amendment:132 Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 132 in my name with regards to the general health determinants listed under clause 44 in this bill under clause 44 combined, authorities must have regard for improving health of people in their area. Compared with the current list of general health determinants, our amendments expands them to include the available availability as opposed to just the standards of housing. In addition, matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle as referenced in the bill, are specified to include physical activity and diet in relation to housing standards, of course, are crucial, but housing available availability should also be considered as it affects housing insecurity and homelessness.

My Lords, regarding physical activity and diet, it should be clear to all noble Lords that these are major health determinants. This is a common knowledge. Dietary patterns are a key determinant of chronic disease, and physical activity is a major risk factor factor for preventable disease. In 2023, evidence from the Sport and Recreation Alliance showed that in the UK, it was ranked 11th out of 15 comparable European nations for the levels of physical activity that were undertaken, and that we were the third highest spender on healthcare costs caused by inactivity.

Indeed, updating the general health determinants in this bill would then inform the health determinants reference in amendments one, three three and 134 by the noble Baroness Royall of Blaisdon. Evidently, there is scope in this Bill to see what more can be done to make our country healthier based on common sense. My Lords, and I look forward to the noble Baroness. The Minister's response to this very short and very simple amendment.
16:33
16:34
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
for individuals, public services and the economy. Addressing these inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the powers to shape economic growth, the powers to shape economic growth, create healthy places and reduce inequalities. This bill provides a timely opportunity to embed health timely opportunity to embed health and health equity at the heart of devolved decision making, and I warmly welcome clause 44, which is warmly welcome clause 44, which is a crucial lever for improving health and reducing health inequalities. At Committee stage, I tabled amendments to strengthen this duty and the proposed local growth plans to ensure that all strategic authorities act consistently to improve health, reduce health inequalities and consider health where growing there while growing their local economies.

My noble friend the Minister responded that she believes the duty as drafted will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan. However, the government has not yet provided any detail on how this duty should be fulfilled or how strategic authorities will be held accountable for this. Without this detail, there is a real risk that inequalities are worsened, with some strategic authorities taking significant action to improve health and others seeing the duty as a tick box exercise to ensure the duty is as successful as we in the government want it to be.

I have tabled amendments which would require the government to report to Parliament on the implementation of the duty, and I am grateful to my noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Bichard for their support. The government has previously said that it will monitor the health duty with meta formula. The. The Minister for devolution, Faith and communities saying on the 21st of October 2025 that we will continue to monitor how the new duty beds in and its impact across the country so we can ensure that its intent is aligned with practice and delivery.

These amendments formalise the government's commitment, providing a mechanism to identify whether further support, guidance, resources or requirements are needed in the future. It would also provide a mechanism to support shared learning across strategic authorities. The amendments focus on implementation and process rather than outcomes, given the time it takes to see shifts in health inequalities, information could be collected with a light touch approach of returns from strategic authorities covering actions taken, strategies produced, partnerships formed, etc. and desk research by civil servants.

Without these amendments, there's a risk that the new health duty remains well intentioned but inconsistently applied across regions and will therefore fail to have any real impact on reducing health inequalities. This would be a significant opportunity missed to reversing worrying health trends. If the amendments are not acceptable, I hope that the government would agree to guarantee strong guidance on this issue to ensure that the duty is properly implemented across all regions. I beg to move.
16:37
16:38
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-

My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and Lady Royal for their amendments relating to the new health improvement and the new health improvement and health inequalities duties, and I thank Baroness Freeman for her contribution as well. First amendment 132. I would like to stress our ambition to enable combined authorities and combined county authorities are the experts in their local areas to take a broad view of the factors that shape health and drive health inequalities in their areas. The bill illustrates a number of important health determinants to give clarity to our intent and indicate areas where authorities are likely to be able to act.

It already includes standards of housing and matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle. It also explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health, setting out large numbers of individual determinants risks restricting flexibility, because it would imply that the specific determinants to be considered are only those which are set out in detail on the face of the bill. Indeed, the proposed amendment would have the effect of limiting the scope of general health determinants.

It would set out a narrower list of general health determinants by removing the scope for combined authorities to consider any other matters that are determinant of life expectancy of the state of health of persons generally other than genetic or biological factors, and focus instead only on matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle, rather than also considering wider public health and systemic matters which might determine life expectancy or the state of health of a person. And I am grateful to my noble friend Baroness Royall for amendments one, three, three and 134.

However, I believe that this amendment would add an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on combined and combined county authorities. The Secretary of State will be unable to make such an assessment without placing detailed reporting requirements on combined and combined county authorities. We want to shift power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best. The requirements for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the consistency of implementation of the duty is not compatible with our fundamental proposition that combined authorities and combined county authorities are best placed to judge how to put the duty into effect locally, and furthermore, the requirement on the Secretary of State to define a minimum standard against which to assess authorities would unhelpfully impose a degree of uniformity and of the unfortunate effect of turning a minimum government standard into a default standard.

This would constraint local ambition more broadly, and alongside this new duty, we want to simplify requirements in relation to the planning and delivery of health and care services to create more flexibility for areas to respond to the need of their local populations. However, I would like to reassure my noble friend that we will pay close attention to how the new duty, embedded in the work of combined authorities and combined county authorities, in order to understand the impact it is having over time, including the different ways in which authorities respond to it.

With these reassurances are thus at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and Lady Royal withdraw their amendments. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon for her amendments. My Lords, by ensuring we have holistic a ensuring we have holistic a holistic view of housing, not not just the quality, but actually the just the quality, but actually the quantity of housing and the role it plays in health. It's a way we make
16:42
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:45
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my noble >> My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rees for amendments friend Lord Rees for amendments 135138 and 174 and for him being available to explain why he's brought this forward from other mayors and he's passed on their views for us. I will speak first to amendments one, three, six and 137 in my name. As I've set out committee, these are essential amendments to to schedule 23. They don't create a new duty or expand powers, but they ensure that existing provisions apply consistently.

When a mayoral combined authority is acting as a fire and rescue authority, amendment 136 brings the inspection regime for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. I do hope we can call them the same thing. At some point. I get fed up with saying it twice, every time, into line with the. Yeah, that would be my amendment into line with the existing exemptions for other fire and rescue authority governance models. Maintaining consistency and fairness across England. Amendment 137 confirms that where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority assumes fire and rescue responsibilities, it is treated in the same manner as established fire and rescue authorities.

This amendment extends the application of part five of the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989 to mayoral, fire and rescue authorities relating to companies in which local authorities hold interests. It similarly brings them within section 155 of that act for the purposes of emergency financial support. Furthermore, it clarifies the process for handling section 114 reports for mayoral, fire and rescue authorities and the corresponding duties under section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1988. When a Chief Finance Officer issues such a report, it must be provided to the relevant scrutiny Committee.

The authority's response must then be sent to the Chief Finance Officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee at committee. Baroness Pinnock raised concerns about accountability in relation to fire and rescue authority functions, and I trust that her concerns have now been addressed by the introduction of local scrutiny committees. Turning now to amendments 135138 and 174, I would like to stress that clause 47 of this bill is a key provision ensuring that fire and rescue services in a mayoral combined authority area are subject to clear and direct accountability through elected mayors.

These amendments would cut across that approach by separate by sorry, by creating a separate legal entity for chief fire officers. In doing so, it risks blurring the lines of accountability and making it less clear who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of fire and rescue services. They could also introduce unnecessary complexity into fire governance arrangements, and move away from the integrated model of local leadership that the bill is designed to support. For those reasons, the government can't support the amendment.

I do, however, recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and the interest in exploring alternative governance models. We will continue to consider this very carefully and work with partners across the sector to explore the model in due course and with these reassurances, I hope my noble friend Lord Rees feels able to withdraw his amendments and I beg to move the minor and technical amendments in my name.
16:49
16:49
16:49
None Portrait Amendment:g139 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

committee. The attention given to the detail of these clauses and to their practical implications has been very valuable. I would like to begin by stating clearly that this government recognises the important role of local licensing authorities, which are often best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge. This is reflected in the design of the new strategic licensing functions for the mayor and the Greater London Authority. For example, by requiring the Mayor of London to consult London licensing authorities before determining the London wide strategic licensing policy.

The government intends to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds of what is meant by potential strategic importance to Greater London in regulations. London licensing authorities will remain the default licensing decision makers in Greater London, and the mayor will only be able to call in decisions made by London Licensing Authority on applications of potential strategic importance to Greater London in a limited set of circumstances. Even then, the mayor may choose to uphold the decision of the London Licensing Authority.

The Greater London Authority has launched a consultation on the new London wide strategic licensing policy, which I am pleased to hear. Many London licensing authorities have responded to, and this will help inform the criteria with which the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out in regulations what potential strategic importance to Greater London means. We intend to conduct further engagement with London borough councils and other licensing stakeholders before laying these regulations, as well as any other Statutory Instruments that are needed to determine the procedural elements of the call in process.

Nevertheless, our amendments establish some important parameters that prevent the mayor from unnecessarily encroaching on local licensing authority's decision making. This includes preventing the mayor from rejecting an application that would otherwise have been granted by London Licensing Authority, reflecting our intention to establish a clearly defined role for the mayor in promoting London wide strategic objectives to drive growth in London's sporting, cultural, hospitality and nightlife sectors. The call empower is intended to be used as a measure of last resort and only in specific circumstances.

Effective as much, and is existence as its use to encourage a more enabling and joined up approach to licensing across the capital. My Lords, let me now turn to some of the concerns raised by Baroness Mone Baroness O'Neill of Bexley committee. While my time in local government was spent some 30 miles outside of London, I'm acutely aware that large urban areas cannot be treated as homogeneous, at least least of all our diverse capital. I therefore recognise that the licensing priorities of inner and outer London boroughs will vary significantly, as will their demographics and their local policing capacities.

There is no inherent contradiction between this reality and the establishment of new strategic licensing functions at the mayoral level. When determining strategic licensing policy, for example, the mayor will be under a duty to have regard to the requirements on local licensing authorities when carrying out their licensing functions, including, for example, the setting of local licensing policies, as well as locally published cumulative impact assessments. The mayor will be required to state his reasons for giving any direction to ensure an appropriate level of transparency.

A new rights of appeal against mayoral directions will also be established to mitigate against improper use of the call in power. The government will monitor the new strategic licensing measures, and the Secretary of State will be able to repeal the measures up to five years after they come into force. My Lords, I must conclude by emphasising that licensing decisions are, by their nature, nuanced judgements. They involve weighing competing factors and exercising discretion rather than arriving at binary outcome through the piloting of new strategic licensing measures in Greater London, our intention is to give greater weight to economic growth and the reputational importance of London's hospitality and nightlife sectors, while recognising the importance of promoting the licensing objectives to help ensure that people's local concerns are protected.

I beg to move the amendments in my name and I will listen to the the words of other noble Lords on the other amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before I comment on theirs. Amendment proposed clause 50,
16:54
16:55
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
required for their security staff to work closely with the police, the street pastors, the Vawg team the street pastors, the Vawg team and Vawg charities. And this isn't just during operational hours, but after closure and at local events as well. This is a very detailed local arrangement that works for local arrangement that works for this borough. So having the Mayor of London to call in a licence application and to change conditions or impose longer hours conditions or impose longer hours on a community, would simply not be right and go against the spirit of this legislation, which is supposedly about devolving down local powers.

I think our concerns here and a question for the the Minister is the government really confident that a future mayor, perhaps of a different political persuasion and approach, wouldn't be far more interventionist, blocking the very growth opportunities that it's claimed? These new powers are seeking to free up. I mean, the words the noble Lord, the Minister said, just noble Baroness Amos said just now about the important role of local licensing authorities. Well, licensing works best when it's grounded in detailed local knowledge through local councillors and local communities working together.

And these proposed call in or direction powers for the mayor of London would risk overriding this expertise, increase tension and introduce uncertainty in the system for boroughs, businesses and residents. And a key concern I've picked up is how potential conflicts between local priorities, which are reflected in the council's licensing policy and pan London priorities potentially driven by the mayor's decisions, will be resolved, and there is a genuine fear that this could lead to an additional burden on boroughs, including increased casework appeals, additional workload to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

borough staff and no doubt additional Of course. To the boroughs. And I think we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the boroughs. And I think we talked about strategic. What does strategic mean? Central activity strategic mean? Central activity zone, Wembley or Twickenham stadia, which sit in the middle of highly residential areas. Those boroughs residential areas. Those boroughs work really closely with communities. They know what hours are, they know what noise levels are, they know what noise levels are acceptable. And I'm really concerned that centralising this in some ways could cause a huge risk. So we urge the noble Baroness, the Minister, to think again on giving these additional powers to the these additional powers to the mayor of London at this time.

Yeah.
16:57
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group. Amendments, as has been this group. Amendments, as has been raised by the noble Baroness Pidgeon. These provisions introduce a substantial change to the licensing framework for London by creating a role for the Greater London Authority and ultimately the Mayor of London in applications deemed to be strategic importance. This raises important questions about the balance between strategic oversight and the principle of local decision making. As a noble Baroness Pidgeon has already mentioned, licensing has traditionally been a core function of borough councils rooted in local knowledge, expertise and accountable to their local communities.

The introduction of a mayoral calling power, therefore represents a major shift, which could result in significant duplication, added bureaucracy and the loss of local voice and expertise. My Lords, this raises questions of clarity and process, particularly around the definition of strategic importance, and I'm grateful that the Minister said that strategic importance will be defined. I would appreciate clarity on what timescale and what assurance will the noble Baroness, the Minister, give that strategic importance? Sorry, genuinely strategic important means what the man in the street would determine to be genuinely strategic, important, and hence would be for a very limited number of situations.

The noble Baroness, the Minister also made the comment that the mayor will not be able to reject applications that have already been rejected. However, as I understand the provisions, the mayor would be able to impose a whole series of conditions on an application that had been given approval at the local level, which in effect could make that license inoperable in any event. So again, could we have some assurance as to what additional conditions could be imposed and that these would be fair and reasonable and would, in effect, be an alternate route to a rejection for something that the local authority, sorry, the local borough had already approved.

I look forward to the noble Baroness Shah

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responses. I thank Baroness Pidgeon and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Baroness Pidgeon and the noble Lord Jamieson for their comments, and I thank Baroness Pidgeon for the amendments. 140 and Pidgeon for the amendments. 140 and 148 our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing measures in London is clear to enable a more strategic approach to licensing to boost London's nightlife and hospitality
17:00
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
London's nightlife and hospitality industries. These industries are essential to London's economy, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and generating £46 billion in economic activity annually. They also play a vital role in shaping the capital's global reputation as a vibrant, diverse and welcoming city. Yet there is evidence of unmet potential, particularly when it comes to London's night time economy. Night time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022 to 2025. A YouGov survey survey found that 45% of Londoners stated they might have ended a night out before midnight in 2023 to 24, despite wishing to stay out later.

Now, of course, the reasons for this are multifaceted and licensing is not by any means the sole factor at play. Nevertheless, the government believes that licensing in London should operate as more of an enabling framework, one that is one that allows responsible businesses to thrive. While, of course, absolutely importantly, continuing to protect residents and public safety. London operates across 32 boroughs in the City of London, each rightly rooted in its local context and responsive to the needs of its communities.

However, when licensing decisions are made in isolation within each of those authorities, the cumulative effect can be a fragmented and inconsistent approach to issues that may have consequences across the capital. For example, a venue of regional or international significance like the ones the noble Baroness Pidgeon mentioned a major a major cultural destination or a late night operation tied closely to transport hubs and visitor economies doesn't serve one borough alone. Yet at present, the licensing system often means that proposals are assessed solely through a local lens, even where their impacts and benefits are distributed far more widely.

It is precisely to address this gap that a carefully constrained strategic role for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority is justified. Other major cities, such as Amsterdam and New York, have shown what is possible when licensing is approached, not solely as a reactive regulatory tool, but as part of a broader strategic framework for nurturing culture, hospitality and the night time economy. My Lords are. Underlying aim here is to enable London to be the best version of itself vibrant, safe, inclusive and globally competitive.

The measures before us are a necessary and proportionate step. Towards that end. I do hope that my reassurance about the consultation we intend to carry out relating to the meaning of potential strategic importance to London, will have helped reassure the noble Lady, and I would ask her, therefore, to withdraw her amendments.
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:04
None Portrait Amendment:150 Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-

schedule allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors. We believe the schedule as drafted lacks the the schedule as drafted lacks the appropriate democratic safeguards. My Lords, the current test in the bill for whether the Secretary of bill for whether the Secretary of State is satisfied for regulations to be made is appropriate. My Lords, that threshold is notably low and subjected to objective for the exercise of very wide powers.

These provisions allow for conferral modification and transfer of significant public functions, including through the amendment of primary legislation. It is therefore reasonable to expect a more disciplined legal standard. We on these benches believe that replacing appropriate with necessary and proportionate would align the exercise of these powers with well established public law principles. These amendments would require the Secretary of State not only to justify the objective being pursued, but also to demonstrate that the chosen intervention is genuinely necessary and no more extensive than is needed.

The amendments do not prevent action, but rather ensure that such action is properly constrained and is transparent. My Lords, I now turn to the issue of consent amendments 157159161162165167 and 169 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the written consent of affected strategic authorities and mayors. Before they could exercise their powers. They would therefore introduce a vital democratic safeguard. As currently drafted, the duty is limited to consultation which which do not guarantee that local views will be meaningfully shape the outcome.

Given these regulations may significantly alter the functions and balance of power within local government structures. It is only right that those directly affected have a decisive voice. Put simply, changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent. My Lord Dannatt consent requirement would ensure that changes are made in genuine partnership with local leaders, rather than imposed from the centre. It would also further enhance transparency and now allow both Parliament and the public to see clearly that reforms have secured local agreement.

My Lords amendments 1581 6164, 166 and 168 address a clear inconsistency in the drafting of the schedule by applying an established safeguard to provisions where it is currently absent. In part one, the Secretary of State is rightly constrained by the requirement to consider whether regulations are justified by reference to the effective exercise of the function concerned. However, in later parts, despite conferring powers of equal significance, such as the transfer and reallocation of functions, no such discipline is applied.

This risk creating a situation in which substantial structural changes to local government can be made without a clearly defined statutory purpose. By inserting this test alongside the requirement that any intervention be necessary and proportionate, the amendment ensures that all uses of these powers are guided by consistent and principled frameworks. I finally turn to the amendments regarding pilot schemes. My amendments seek to place sensible and proportionate safeguards around the use of pilot schemes, which is currently drafted, confer very broad discretion on the Secretary of State with limited external scrutiny.

Pilot schemes are, by their nature experimental, and it's therefore essential that, subject to robust transparency and evaluation requirements, the amendments ensure that impact reports, consultation responses and written consents are made public. This would strengthen accountability and allow both Parliament and the public to understand how these schemes are operating in practice. The requirement for an independent evaluation introduces an objective assessment of whether a pilot scheme has achieved its intended outcomes, rather than relying solely solely on the views of those involved in its delivery.

Removing the ability to extend pilot schemes repeatedly prevents what could otherwise become a rolling arrangement that avoids proper scrutiny. The introduction of requirement to demonstrate measurable improvements, supported by evidence, and to show that benefits outweigh any adverse impacts, ensures that pilot schemes are not only well intentioned but tension. But my Lord's effective in practice. Finally, my Lords, and I'm sorry I've taken so long. Requiring all regulations under this schedule should be subject to the affirmative procedure, accompanied by a clear written statement, reinforces parliamentary oversight and ensures that the exercise of these significant powers is properly justified and properly transparent.

I look forward to the noble Lords. The Minister's response on these points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Post schedule 25, page 266. Line 20 leave out appropriate and insert
17:10
17:10
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-

think he's 26, so it might take a little bit of time to to reply with. little bit of time to to reply with. With a depth of understanding. So amendments 150 152 and 155 seek to alter the wording of the statutory test, which the Secretary of State must apply when taking a decision to make regulations to confer function on strategic authority or modify our function is exercised by a strategic authority. However, the statutory test as currently drafted in the bill is already sufficiently robust.

The statutory test already requires the Secretary of State to be convinced that any regulations are appropriate for the effective exercise of a function, introducing a more restrictive statutory test, which would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that regulations are necessary and proportionate, could lead to central government being too cautious in using schedule 25 to proactively make changes to the devolution framework, and could discourage government from expanding the framework in the future. Amendments 1581 61 63164166 and 168 seek to apply the statutory test to each of the ways in which the Secretary of State can use schedule 25.

Make regulations to modify. Our function is exercised by strategic authority. These amendments are not necessary as the statutory test does not need to be repeated throughout the schedule. The bill introduces the statutory test in part one of the schedule, which relates to both the conferral and modification of functions. Part two, three, and four of the schedule provides more detail on how the Secretary of State can modify functions, and therefore the statutory test still applies to part two, three, and four. I will now turn to amendments 151153157159161162165167 and 169.

These amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to obtain local consent before conferring a function on a strategic authority or modifying our function is exercised by a strategic authority. It is right that the bill includes an extensive list of the authorities and people, which the Secretary of State must consult with before decision is taken on the conferral of modification of a function for a strategic authority. This list includes effective measures. Strategic authorities, local authorities, anybody's or persons who are currently involved in exercising the function.

In London, the Secretary of State will also need to consult the Greater London Authority, functional bodies and the London Assembly. However, it would not be right that the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of all the authorities and people who would be affected by the decision on the conferral of modification of functions. Schedule 25 allows the government to expand and update the devolution framework for each class of strategic authority in the future. This approach moves us on from the era of bespoke devolution deals for each area, which were time consuming and complicated to implement and allows us to move to to more quickly expand and deepen devolution across the country.

Under this new and more standardised approach to devolution, it would not be right for an authority or person to effectively elevate, or which prevented the Secretary of State from confirming or modifying a function on a whole class of strategic strategic authority. If individual authorities or mayors are a veto, they could limit the rollout of further devolution and Lord Bach opportunities and prosperity for other areas in England. Also, as currently drafted, amendment 161 also appears to mistakenly require the Mayor of London and London Assembly to provide their consent for the modification of functions which affect strategic authorities outside of London.

I will now turn to amendment 170, which seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from modifying the voting arrangements for a specific function of a combined authority or combined county authority. Clause six of the bill introduces a default voting arrangements for all new functions of combined authorities and combined county authorities. This ensures most functions will be subjected to votes, which require which require a simple majority of members, in which the majority needs to include a mayor. In mayoral authorities, this default voting arrangement strikes the right balance of empowering consistent constituent councils, who make up the authority and the directly elected mayor.

However, in some instances, it may become apparent that the public or the mayor personally accountable for a specific function. So the mayor should be able to make an unencumbered decision on that function. Or alternatively, it may be apparent that the effective exercise of a function requires all local authorities affected by the function to be in support, so specific voting arrangements are required to ensure the affected local authorities must vote in favour. Therefore, the government needs the flexibility to set specific voting arrangements if necessary.

This amendment would prevent the government from ensuring the effective exercise of functions as issues arise in the future, which need to be fixed. I turn now to the amendments to schedule 25, which seek to amend the process by which the government will test new functions with strategic authorities as part of a pilot scheme. Amendment 172 and 179 would both impact the Secretary of State's ability to extend pilot schemes. The bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for a pilot scheme to last up to three years, using the affirmative procedure, and then extend the pilot scheme by up to two years using the negative procedure with the Secretary of State believes the strategic authority needs longer to pilot a function before an assessment can be made to determine whether the pilot scheme has been a success.

The bill also allows the Secretary of State to extend the pilot scheme more than once. Amendment 172 will prevent a pilot scheme from being extended more than once. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that the government has no intention to CA pilot schemes go on for an indefinite amount of time. The purpose of the pilot scheme is to test whether a specific function works for a strategic authority, before taking a decision whether to update the devolution framework. However, the government does not want to force the closure of a pilot scheme arbitrarily.

If more time is needed to determine whether the pilot scheme has been successful before a decision is taken on adding the function to the devolution framework. Therefore, flexibility is required. Amendment 179 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations for the extension of the pilot scheme using the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. The government believes the negative procedure is sensible and proportionate for this regulation making power, as the Secretary of State will be extending a pilot scheme which would have already received parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure.

And finally, amendment 179 also seeks to require that all regulations make made use in schedule 25 to update the devolution framework and set up pilot schemes must be accompanied by a published written statement explaining the purpose, rationale and evidence. This aspect of amendment 179 is duplicative when laying Statutory Instruments in Parliament to make any regulations, the government is already required to set out the purpose and rationale for making any regulations, and parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise the government on its purpose and rationale for making any regulations.

Amendment 174175 both relate to the impact report, which will be produced at the end of a pilot scheme to help inform the Secretary of State's decision on whether the pilot scheme has been successful, amendment 174 would require the Secretary of State to publish the impact report, which is seen by the strategic authority to the Secretary of State. This amendment is not necessary. The government is considering whether it would be appropriate to publish the impact reports of pilot schemes in the annual report on English devolution, which is laid before Parliament.

However, adding a requirement in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to publish impact reports would be an unnecessary statutory burden. Amendment 175 would require the Secretary of State to arrange for an independent evaluation of the pilot scheme to be conducted and published, in addition to the impact report produced by the statutory authority, producing two impact reports for the same pilot scheme would be overly bureaucratic and duplicative. Although the impact report produced by the strategic Authority will be important in informing whether the pilot scheme was successful, the Secretary of State will also consider other evidence and would consult a wider range of mayors and strategic authorities before making a decision on the devolution framework.

I will now turn to amendment one seven, 6177 and 178, which relate to the decisions made by the Secretary of State following a pilot scheme. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult if a pilot scheme has been successful and the government intended to update the devolution framework, amendment 176 would require the government to publish that consultation. This amendment is unnecessary and overly burdensome. The bill does not require the government to publish consultations conducted by the Secretary of State before the permanent conferral or modification of functions of strategic authorities outside of the pilot scheme process.

Therefore, it would be inconsistent to require the Secretary of State to publish consultation following a pilot scheme. Amendment 177 seeks to require the Secretary of State to obtain the written consent of all affected mayors and strategic authorities, before taking a decision on the devolution framework following a pilot scheme. As I as I've outlined previously, it would not be right for an individual mayor or strategic authority to prevent the government from confirming or modifying a function for a whole class of strategic authority.

After consulting all the relevant authorities and people, the Secretary of State is best placed to decide which functions best sit at which level. Providing any area with a veto could limit the expansion of the devolution framework over time, and hold back opportunities and prosperity for other areas in England. Amendment 178 178 seeks to alter the statutory test, which the Secretary of State must apply when making a decision on the devolution framework following a pilot scheme. The statutory test, which already applies to the decision on whether the pilot scheme has been successful, is already sufficiently robust.

A more restrictive statutory test that demands evidence of measurable improvements and an independent evaluation could lead to a further government being too cautious in expanding the devolution framework. Creating a higher bar for evidence would be an unnecessary additional safeguard. When guardrails are already in place, and would risk cutting across the spirit of the bill to make devolution more streamlined and straightforward. For these reasons, I ask that the noble Baroness withdraw for amendments and read thoroughly tomorrow's Hansard.
17:23
17:24
17:25
None Portrait Amendment:g171 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

These are technical amendments which provide greater clarity on how schedule 25 will allow the how schedule 25 will allow the functions of strategic authorities to be updated and modified over time. Amendment 180 clarifies that time. Amendment 180 clarifies that schedule 25 of the bill allows the Secretary of State to modify and confer functions on new strategic authorities during the period between their establishment and the inaugural mayor taking office. This amendment ensures the functions of mayoral strategic authorities can be modified if needed, ahead of the mayor being elected, ensuring the authority is able to operate effectively during this period.

A good example of this is the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to Devolution Priority Programme areas whose mayoral elections will take place in May 2028, where local government reorganisation will see the abolition of current fire and rescue authorities in April 2028. This amendment will ensure we have a mechanism to provide for the new mayoral strategic authorities to become the fire and rescue authorities, thereby ensuring the continuity of service provision critical for public safety. Amendment 171 clarifies that schedule 25 of the bill allows the Secretary of State to specify whether a function which has been conferred on a particular class of strategic authority, is to be exercisable by different strategic authorities within that class at different times.

This flexibility will, for example, be important in enabling the appropriate transfer of fire and rescue functions from existing fire and rescue authorities to strategic authorities at the right time for each area. In some areas, strategic authorities may be established in advance of local government reorganisation being completed and it may not be appropriate to transfer those functions until the reorganisation is concluded. The amendment therefore ensures that such functions can be commenced at a point when an individual area is ready to exercise them.

I will now turn to government amendments 192 and 193. I am grateful to members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to Lord Lansley for their consideration of the Henry the Eighth power in schedule 26. Concerning the conversion of a combined County Authority to a combined authority following local government reorganisation, the government has carefully considered the committee's recommendation to remove the Secretary of State's power to amend primary legislation made in future sessions. As it relates to this power, we have concluded that any necessary transition of a combined county authority to a combined authority can be delivered without taking a delegated power.

I am therefore able to confirm that the government not only accepts the committee's recommendation in relation to this specific power, but intends to go further by removing the delegated power to alter any existing primary legislation altogether when undertaking conversion, say, for amendments to the 2007 act itself, that may be necessary. So I beg to move my amendments and, my Lords, I know the House will sit tomorrow on the terminally Ill Adults Bill, but as I am not likely to participate in those debates, can.

I wish all noble Lords a rest for and relaxing recess, and we will continue our deliberations on this bill on the 13th of April.
17:29
17:29
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)
-

Question? Is that amendment 171 be agreed to? As many as are, that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. It contents have it. Amendment 172 ladies got not moved. 173 Lord Rees not moved. 174 Baroness Boycott and 175 6789. I'm going to turn the page just in case there's any more. There or not. Not moved. Amendment 180. Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question is that amendment 180 be agreed to. As many as it opinion will say content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. 181

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Wallace. At this time on a Thursday

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At this time on a Thursday afternoon just before the recess, is not the ideal time to call the division, much as many, many of us division, much as many, many of us on these benches would have liked to do. So we do not resile from the view that this bill is constitutionally deficient in democratic damaging. But the Labour democratic damaging. But the Labour Party, so long as it remains in government, will have to take responsibility for the consequences of the reorganisation of the governments of England as it develops.

And the Minister has made it clear that she wants it to develop flexibly, and perhaps so long as we have a single party government, it may continue to do so. But meanwhile, I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. Amendment 181 not moved, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 181 not moved, not moved, not moved. Amendment 182. Lord Bichard not moved 183. Lord Lord Bichard not moved 183. Lord Ravensdale not moved 184. Baroness Ravensdale not moved 184. Baroness Boycott not moved. 185 Baroness Bennett not moved. 186 the Earl of Bennett not moved. 186 the Earl of Clancarty not moved.
17:31
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page