Lords Chamber

Thursday 23rd April 2026

(began 1 hour, 57 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:05
11:07
11:08
11:08
Lord Stockwood Portrait Lord Stockwood, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord >> I'm grateful to the noble Lord for the advanced sight of his follow up question. I commend the forensic technical nature of the question as well. The trade measure he refers to covers 20 categories of steel, including all steel that is made in the UK that includes Breitbart wire and stainless steel. Categories were not covered in the safeguard are all now in scope. This means that the measure protects 100% of steel production domestically in the UK, whereas the steel safeguard only protected 96%.

We engaged extensively with industry when developing this measure and have sought to balance the need to protect the domestic steelmaking industry whilst maintaining secure, reliable supply chains for downstream businesses as well. We will continue to engage closely with industry as we implement the measure, and we have committed to reviewing the measure in the next 12 months to ensure that it is entirely fit for purpose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the. My friend, indicate what further helpful measures there may be for this beleaguered industry in be for this beleaguered industry in terms of energy costs, a green taxes which are necessary have dealt severe blows to the long term dealt severe blows to the long term prospects for steel and. In Wales we have seen the erosion of tens of we have seen the erosion of tens of thousands of steel jobs. May I also ask him to bear in mind that rail connections between steel producers
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Funding to permit farmers to undertake environmental measures for flood prevention and drought resilience Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-

>> I beg leave to ask the question. Sunny in my name on the Order Paper.
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:51
None Portrait Business of the House
-

>> Malvern Hills Bill and one other motion, the Senior Deputy Speaker. >> My Lords, I beg to move the first two motions in my name be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first two motions in my name be agreed to. En bloc question is that the two motions in the name of the Senior motions in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker be agreed to. En bloc, as many as are of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Debate on the Report of Procedure and Privileges Committee on changes relating to Grand Committee and delegated legislation. Debates. Procedural changes resulting from the coming into force of the House of Lords.

Hereditary Peers Act 2026. Highlighting international agreements. Committee reports in House of Lords business. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Procedure and Privileges Committee report to the Senior Deputy Speaker. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the seventh report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee be agreed to. The first part of the report The first part of the report proposes changes to grand committee sittings and to debates on delegated legislation in order to increase the House's capacity to scrutinise legislation before the scrutinise legislation before the House and give peers more certainty around timings. The committee recommends that the default maximum sitting length of grand committee should be increased to five hours, with grand committee on Thursday starting at 12:15 p.m.

rather than 1 p.m. further, we recommend there should be an additional grand committee for delegated legislation only on Tuesday morning, starting at 11 a.m. for up to three hours. As now, these provisions will only be used when necessary. We also recommend changes to debates on delegated legislation to create greater certainty for members, both those taking part in debates on delegated legislation and those taking part in business taking place after such debates. We recommend time limiting debates on delegated legislation in the chamber to a maximum of 60 minutes and having a speaker's list, the usual channels would, in exceptional circumstances, be able to extend the time limit to 90 minutes or longer.

The committee also recommends that during debates on delegated legislation, both in the chamber and grand committee, the clock should time the length of speeches rather than the whole debate, bringing practice on the use of the clock into line with that. For debates on primary legislation. My Lords, all these changes, if agreed by the House, will be implemented for a trial period only and will be reviewed in spring 2027. The second part of the report seeks the House's agreement to changes to the standing orders and companion that reflect the coming into force at the end of this session of the core provisions of the House of Lords Hereditary Peers Act 2026.

This repeals. This requires the repeal of eight Standing Orders and the amendment of another, along with consequential changes to the companion. Finally, the report seeks the House's agreement to minor changes to the companion. Following the House's decision on 14th April that departing hereditary peers should have the same access rights as members who retire under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. My Lords, I commend the report to your Lordships. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I want to put on the record that I I want to put on the record that I very much approve of the suggested additional day on Tuesdays specifically for delegated legislation. I think it's important that the delegated legislation is, that the delegated legislation is, given the stature that it deserves, and I think this will be a popular addition to the abilities of members of your Lordships' House to discuss delegated legislation.

I note it is only for a trial period initially, but I feel sure that it will be at the end of that period adopted on a permanent basis, which I would very much welcome.
11:55
11:55
11:57
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Portrait Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Milords two interesting comments. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, obviously, I would also want to take this opportunity to thanking him and his committee for undertaking what is a very key part of our committee work, and I express gratitude for that. I would say both to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle that I specifically said the committee wanted to have this as a trial. The intention behind all this rationale.

And when we as a committee looked at it, was to in no sense stifle scrutiny, indeed, to give peers greater certainty about timing. We had had a number of observations about the difficulty of of this issue. So it is, as I say, for a trial at no point. And in fact, as chairing that committee, at no point did any of us see this as a route to, to use the words, the noble Baroness shutting down debate. It's very important that these matters are properly scrutinised.

What I would say is this is one of my passing and final shots. Senior Deputy Speaker is that when I have ever I've spoken to the House, the House is almost unanimously felt that we should all speak succinctly to the point and not over stress their Lordships with lengthy contributions. And I do think that what we all need to do in this trial is to ensure that, yes, there is proper scrutiny, but that it is done in a way that I think is conducive to the whole spirit of having these debates in the terms that I've described.

So on that basis, and the points that have been made by noble Lords, I hope that the your Lordships will approve the committee report, and I beg to move the motion standing in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are. That opinion will say, content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Standing orders public business. The Deputy Senior Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg to move the forth motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question. Order. The question is that this motion be agreed to as many as are of that opinion as they content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. Consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
12:00
None Portrait Legislation: English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. >> The question is, if the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered as many as are that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment two, to which the its amendment two, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason to a. I will also speak to reason to a. I will also speak to motions B, c, c one, H, and h one. My Lords, it's a pleasure to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place, and can I thank all noble Lords who have engaged extensively in the very brief period we have had between report and Ping pong, and I would like to also thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for devolution, Faith and communities, for setting out the government's position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships during earlier stages of the Bill, as she outlined, the government's central aim with this bill is to devolve power and money from central government to those with skin in the game, building a different type of state where communities with local knowledge are given the power to shape their areas.

Turning now to the first group of amendments in discussion today, for which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, Lady Scott and Lady Pigeon, beginning with Lords Amendment two, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. My Lords, this amendment seeks to add rural affairs as a distinct area of competence to clause two of the Bill. While I very much appreciate the good intention behind it, I don't believe this change would address the underlying concerns that noble Lords have raised. Having reflected on the points made during report, the central issue is not whether rural affairs appears as a separate area of competence, since rural affairs are already within the scope of the other competencies.

Rather, it is about how strategic authorities and their mayors exercise their functions, taking proper account of the needs of rural communities. To address that, the government proposes to issue non-statutory guidance to strategic authorities to ensure that they consider the needs of those who live and work in rural areas when exercising their powers and functions separately. My Lords, we are providing mayors with the ability to appoint up to ten commissioners, which will give the flexibility to assign multiple commissioners to a particular area of competence.

This approach enables commissioners to focus on specific aspects within those areas, such as rural affairs, should they wish to do so. And with these points in mind, I would ask the noble Baroness not to insist on her amendment. Turning now to Lords Amendment four in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, this amendment seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process, and that the criteria and process for appointments are published, as well as commissioners remuneration.

My Lords, I've been emphatic through the passage of this bill about the government's focus on accountability in local government, and commissioners are no exception to that, and I trust the statutory guidance published by the government on the 16th of April, which covers important issues raised in this House, provides confidence to noble Lords in that regard. Members in the other place raised concerns about appointments being based on merit, and I am pleased to confirm that the guidance explicitly states that appointment should be based on merit and fair and open competition, and that details of a commissioner's role, once appointed, must also be published on the website of the Combined authority or the Combined County Authority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott and the noble Lord Lord Jamieson queried directly with me how adherence to the guidance is monitored and enforced. As the guidance is statutory, relevant authorities must have regard to it unless they have a good reason to depart from it, and can explain that reason. If the guidance is not properly considered, decisions may be unlawful and therefore open to challenge through a judicial review and failure to properly consider the guidance will also be a relevant consideration for government in assessing whether an authority is meeting its statutory responsibilities, including compliance with the best value duty, and would form part of MHCLG assessment of governance and improvement.

Turning to Lords amendments 13 and 87 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Pigeon, which enabled London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London's budget with a simple majority, the government will simplify and ensure consistency in the voting arrangement across mayoral strategic authorities, including London. A general principle in that simplification is that the voting arrangements for exercising functions should match those for agreeing the budget that funds those functions in mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities. Most functions will now be decided by the default arrangement of a simple majority of authority members, which must include the mayor.

But some functions strategic planning, bus franchising, Mayoral Development Corporations and fire are exercised solely by the mayor. For this reason, these authorities have two budgets one for functions exercised by the authority as a whole and one for functions exercised solely by the mayor. The bill streamlines the process for setting and agreeing the budget for functions exercised by the authority as a whole. They will now be subject to a simple majority, including the mayor. However, mayoral budgets will continue to require a two thirds majority to amend, as is set out in existing secondary legislation.

It's right that we empower democratically elected mayors to set the budget for functions exercised solely by the mayor, with the appropriate checks and balances that the two thirds majority provides. The Gla's budget and governance is fundamentally different from combined authorities. All functions are exercised by the mayor, and so there is a single consolidated mayoral budget for the GLA. The Assembly's role is to scrutinise the mayor's budget and exercise the functions, not make decisions on them. Therefore, it's appropriate that the threshold for amending the final draft of the mayor of London's consolidated budget remains a two thirds majority, as is the case for mayoral budgets in other mayoral strategic authorities.

And that is why it's the government's view that this House should not insist on these amendments, as it would put the scrutiny of the mayoral budget in London out of step with those in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, for raising it and providing a really helpful opportunity for the government to clarify the position, and I'm happy to confirm the government will update the guidance and explainers setting out voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities to ensure this principle can be easily understood.

And can I just comment briefly at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and the noble Lord Jamieson raised that there are a few, a very few exceptions to this, and I'd like to just detail why that's the case. These are where differences exist for technical reasons. For example, in the East Midlands, given the Nottingham Tram contract or where the number of constituent authorities within a CCA does not allow for a neat two thirds split, or in the Tees Valley, which has five constituent authorities and therefore a 3/5 voting threshold as the closest equivalent to two thirds possible with that number of constituents, the government, as I said, will publish guidance setting out voting arrangements regarding amendment in lieu 87 B and 87 C.

The explanation I've given clearly sets out that a review of voting arrangements for the London Assembly's ability to determine the Mayor of London's budget is unnecessary. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords, and that they will agree to the motion to not insist from the other place. And I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendments in lieu. Finally, my Lords, I turn to Lords Amendment 85, 86, 97 to 1 one six and 120121 and 123.

In the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, they collectively seek to remove the powers for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or a combined county authority, or to provide for a mayor. In certain circumstances. The government does not support these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that devolution can play a central role in boosting regional growth, attracting investment and improving outcomes for communities. With decisions taken closer to the people they affect.

The powers in this bill are intended to ensure that progress towards those aims is not stalled indefinitely. Where there is a clear potential for devolution, but importantly, where no workable proposal has come forward locally because that is what we all want to happen. Ideally, they provide a backstop power to be used only when necessary and appropriate, and with clear statutory safeguards. In practice, our approach continues to be one of collaboration with local partners. That commitment to partnership has been reinforced by the assurances given by the Minister for devolution, Faith and communities.

In the other place, where your Lordships will know, the government made clear that for a period of two years following Royal Assent, it will not commence. The powers enabling the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of non mayoral strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities without local consent. It has further committed that for a period of four years following Royal Assent, it will not use these powers to provide for a mayor without local consent. These commitments provide a clear and proportionate backstop power, while preserving the legislation's ability to support devolution over the long term.

On that basis, I would ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments in schedule one.
12:10
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that motion A be >> The question is that motion A be agreed to motion A one. The Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mandeville. Lord, I beg to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion a leave out an amendment to motion a leave out from house to the end and insert do insist on its amendment two, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons to a. The Commons have disagreed with our amendment, which was carried 285 to 156, a majority of 129. A pretty convincing endorsement of the strength of the feeling from the chamber for Rural Affairs to get the recognition they deserve.

And I'm grateful for the Minister's letter and offer from Rural Affairs to be included in non-statutory guidance. The reasons given by the Commons were that rural affairs are covered by the other competencies in this on clause two of the Bill, as the Minister has already referred to as. When rural proofing was considered as an essential element of any service delivery, infrastructure project or change to local government, it should have been an essential element of the planning all the way through the process.

The question should continually be asked how will what is being proposed affect the rural areas? Rural England covers the largest geographical area of England, but has the smallest proportion of population. The large towns and cities. Due to the ease of connectivity, attract business of every description and provide jobs and economic economic prosperity. Ever since the Industrial Revolution of the early 1800s, this has been the case. But even Arkwright built his mills in rural Derbyshire this morning. I have been contacted by Richard Hebditch of the Better Planning Coalition, emphasising how important rural areas are and, if I may, I will quote from his email the concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of Metro mayors for large urban areas.

Much of their focus will be on economic growth, transport and other infrastructure, and the government is clear that it sees its cities and larger towns as the focus for both economic growth and infrastructure investment. We are concerned that there is a strong risk that rural areas will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up sds's, as well as in the other strategies and plans. We therefore welcome current Lords Amendment two, which inserts rural affairs as a competency for strategic authorities, and I am grateful to Richard Hebditch for his information this morning.

Those who live in rural areas want the benefit of those who live in highly populated areas. We want the strategic authorities and the mayors to consider how their future plans will affect those in rural areas. The benefits of a thriving comedy economy, good infrastructure, a buoyant jobs market, decent homes and good connectivity, especially digital. As we enter the AI dominated area area should be the right of those in rural areas. My Lords, the town and parish councils are likely to be overlooked if care is not taken.

I recently returned from a short stay in rural Norfolk, where my mobile phone coverage was very patchy. Even at home. In Hampshire, where I live on the outskirts of the village, but only 200 yards from the secondary college, which services a large area, bringing students in on double decker buses. I have difficulty with my mobile reception. If I want to make a phone call or answer an incoming call, I have to go into the lounge at the front of my home in order to get sufficient signal to be able to have anything like a decent conversation.

My Lords, the majority of 129 on the amendment on the 24th of March was one of the largest, if not the largest majority on this bill, and demonstrates the strength of feeling in the chamber. On the importance of rural affairs. I remain convinced. Convinced that rural England will only get the recognition it deserves if it is on the face of the Bill and covered in statutory guidance, and is not relegated to non-statutory guidance, which is not sufficient. Every policy and strategy brought forward by mayors and strategic authorities should have been through a process by whereby the question has been asked and considered how will this affect those living in rural areas? How will this affect their safety, their environment, access to decent affordable housing and travel arrangements? Asking commissioners to consider rural affairs if they wish.

I'm afraid does not cut it. I beg to move. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion A B agreed to since when motion A1 has been moved as an motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A leave out from house to the end and insert the words as printed on the the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords. Firstly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly. My thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing forward
12:15
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
her motion again A1 on the inclusion of rural affairs to the list of competencies and I agree list of competencies and I agree with every word she said, including that about broadband and mobile reception in rural Norfolk, which I reception in rural Norfolk, which I have to deal with on a regular basis. Whilst we've been suspicious of the expanding role of commissioners, if this government wished to push forward their reforms, then it's only right that reforms, then it's only right that rural affairs be added to the list of competences.

I know the noble Baroness Neate Minister has outlined that rural affairs are already within the scope of other areas of competences, but the same could be said about the addition of culture, for example. What's more, the government tabled amendments to at Report stage, which allowed a commissioner's work to relate to one or more aspects of areas of competence and allow work on cross-cutting issues. My Lords, I do feel very strongly that a Commissioner for rural for Rural Affairs within an area which has a rural area in as part of its its responsibilities, does allow that rural proofing not just of rural things, but of all other services that the mayor is considering as a.

As a result of my understanding now is that this does not mean that every mayor has to appoint a Commissioner for Rural Affairs. That may not be suitable, as I've said, for each area. However, adding rural affairs to the list of competences would allow the work of commissioners to at least relate, as I have said, to rural affairs, and would enshrine rural affairs into law rather than leaving it, as we've heard, to non-statutory guidance. This brings me to the appointment of commissioners, and I'm very grateful for all the time that the noble Baroness the Minister has given me and and others for, and her work and engagement on this issue and other issues.

My Lords amendment four sought to ensure a fair and transparent selection process for the appointments of commissioners, and I'm very pleased of of the commissioners, and I'm very pleased with the draft statutory guidance that for full fulfils most, if not all, of everything we asked for. I thank the Minister for early sight of that guidance and for ensuring us that the guidance has sufficient teeth so that mayors can be held to account and therefore, we will not be pushing this amendment.

Turning now to voting arrangements, my Lords, on the London Assembly, and I'm also grateful for the work that has gone into setting out the bill's exact position on this. It was very complicated, and it. And it was useful to have that that explanation on the voting arrangements for mayoral budgets, which usually require a two thirds majority. But as the noble Baroness Limb Minister has continually said in this bill, the government wants consistency. We're not all sure that we agree with that, but the government has made it very clear that they want consistency across the country.

So why not in mayoral voting arrangements? However, as we've said, and the noble Baroness, the Minister has said there are exceptions across the country. We've got the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the North East Combined Authority. We have the London mayoral voting arrangements and given this is this extensive bill seeks to, as I said, to simplify the system of local government as a whole. It's not clear why this has not been addressed. That is why we've a tabled amendment 87.

B asking the Secretary of State to review the voting arrangements of the London Assembly in context of the budget setting arrangements for strategic authorities across the country. I recommend the government do more work in this area, ensuring that voting arrangements are not only consistent, but they also allow sufficient democratic scrutiny of all mayoral budgets. I'm therefore on this one minded Tess opinion of the House. Finally, my Lords, our package of amendments on schedule one regarding the Secretary of State's powers to direct changes to combined and combined county authorities based on on the principle that these changes should be based on local consent.

I note the government have committed not to use these powers for two and four years respectively, but surely this concedes that their use is an unacceptable breach of local trust. We've made it very clear throughout this bill that we do not agree with imposing any changes on local government of any type without the agreement of local councils and particularly of local communities. Whether the powers are used by this government or by a future government. Their use could do serious damage, my Lords, to the relationships between central government and combined authorities and, crucially, their constituency councils.

And, as I've said, their local communities. And for these reasons, we remain concerned about the conclusion of these powers in the bill, and I hope Liberal Lords will see the risk they pose, not now but also into the future, and will support our motion H one. I beg you.
12:21
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I wonder if I might just add a thought or two around the issue of rural affairs, but first, can I just say that I am grateful for the movement the government has introduced on the appointment introduced on the appointment processes for commissioners? I did a Second Reading and at Committee stage and at Report stage have stage and at Report stage have quite a lot to say about commissioners. The appointment of them, the terms and conditions, and my worry throughout was that we should never get to a position in which commissioners are being appointed for the reasons of political favour or similar, and what you actually need are the best people for the job.

And therefore the guidance that's been issued, I think is really very helpful. Can I say something about this? The issues around rural affairs, because there is a problem in the documentation we now have in the sense that the Nobel Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville was absolutely right to point out that the Commons reason for rejecting our amendment was that the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs, but that is not the case.

They don't. And for Baroness Bakewell of Ardington Mandeville mentioned 1 or 2 of those. But let me just explain why it is not sufficient. The first is that whereas it is very important that for all the competencies that an authority has, that rural affairs are embedded in decision making. For example, on transport, and I'm sure they will be by the commissioners and the mayor and those who are charged with making decisions. The problem is that there are things which are not within the the competence framework.

As an example, I will give the impact of energy costs on domestic users and small businesses in rural areas. It's not clear to me that that light of any of the competencies that the the government has has come up with. There are issues around cost of living, travel costs for young people to education and training. Indeed, you know, there are many young people who are undertaking placements as part of their education, which require substantial costs in in travel. And it is more expensive in rural areas than it is in, in, in, in urban areas.

Baroness Bakewell referred to the communications problem. There are communications problems for young people, and all residents of rural areas that are not within the competence framework that the government has come up with. And in general terms, the availability of public services would simply fall between two stools. So the provision of NHS services would have a different focus. If there was to be a Rural Affairs Commission commissioner. I think the same is true of leisure facilities as well. So there are many areas of policy that one can think of that are actually not within the Meryl, the areas of competence.

So I think it would be very helpful if the government would come back to this. But having said that, the Commons disagrees with the Lords amendment. The Undersecretary of state said this. I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities, using the powers and functions that they have been given. Well, I think that it would be really helpful if that became statutory as opposed to non-statutory guidance. I would like to know more about what is actually planned and the timescales for that, because I think it really matters.

And the danger is where you have a wholly urban area. You know, some of these issues are of lesser importance because there aren't the rural areas within them and where you have a wholly rural area within the metal structure. Well, then due attention inevitably, I think, will be given by the mayor. I see the problem coming where the there's a very large urban area and a smaller rural area in terms of population, and it's the rural area then that may feel they are losing out.

And unless something like statutory guidance is given, I think that we're going to find in a year or two years time that people are feeling short changed in rural areas. Which takes me to a final suggestion to the Minister, which is this there is to be an annual review. I think the government should state clearly in the other place, if the House decides it goes back to the other places, I hope it will. But that actually an annual review to assess what is really happening on the ground, I think could be very helpful.

So I hope the Minister will take in good spirit the points that have been made across the chamber. But I think there are issues here that do need to be addressed. And if the noble Baroness decides to press her
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page