English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

195: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to review parish and town councils(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to review parish and town councils in England to assess their number, functions, and effectiveness in local governance.(2) In carrying out that duty, the Secretary of State must, in particular, take steps to ensure maximal geographical coverage of parish and town councils as a form of local democratic representation. (3) The Secretary of State must, annually, lay a report before each House of Parliament on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1), including any action taken or proposed to achieve the purpose in subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review parish and town councils and take steps to maximise their geographical coverage, with an annual report to Parliament.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments neatly follows the previous group as it concerns further empowerment to be strengthened for the most local tier of our democracy. Amendment 195 in my name would ensure that Governments had a responsibility to maximise geographical coverage of town and parish councils, and would require an annual report to Parliament on the progress made in expanding that democratic footprint.

The creation of large unitary authorities by the Government, as we have just heard, resulted in making local government more remote and, crucially, more focused on the narrow remit of being the service delivery arm of national government—for instance, the delivery of adult and children’s social care, which constitutes three-quarters of a budget of a unitary council. The focus on key service delivery is at the expense of understanding the differences within large council areas and the attention to very local detail that only a parish or town council can provide.

My own experience as a councillor in a metropolitan authority that serves 450,000 people supports that view, hence the importance of encouraging and supporting the creation of an effective local voice for a village, a small town or even a suburb of a large town. A failure to do so will result in people being disfranchised and more remote from decision-making at a large local level. They will feel that their voice does not count, and that is a danger for our democratic institutions.

Those of us who care about local democracy care that people’s voices are heard. Amendment 196 follows that, because it would create a statutory duty to consult. Where parish and town councils have been created or exist, under this amendment the local authorities would have to consult relevant town or parish councils on matters that directly affect them, such as planning applications, parks and open spaces and other very local services and amenities.

Amendment 196 says that a local authority must—I stress the word “must”—have regard to the representations from those councils before a final decision is reached. Consultation has become rather a dirty word in local areas. Anybody who is a councillor, as I am, will know that consultation is regarded as a way in which a tick can be put against the box indicating that local people have had a say, and then it is disregarded. This amendment would make it statutory. People would have to listen and take note of representations.

In supporting these amendments we would ensure that the promise of community empowerment in the Bill is a reality. So I look forward to the Minister’s response, so that we can give our smallest democratic units the standing they deserve. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 216 and 318 in this group, which relate to parish and town councils. Amendment 216 makes provision for unparished electors in the unsatisfactory neighbourhood governance arrangements contemplated by Clause 60 to petition to incorporate into properly constituted and sovereign precept-raising parish councils. Separately, my Amendment 318 applies to the largest town councils, most of which have been wholly or in part district billing authorities before, but which henceforth will be unconstrained in their ability to raise council tax.

I turn first to Amendment 216. In Committee the penny dropped for the first time that those parts of England that were former county boroughs—20% of the land mass, so much greater by population—such as Kings Lynn, Ipswich or Great Yarmouth, or new towns like Stevenage, which is home to the Minister, would be for the most part unparished, and thus second-class citizens in the new arrangements. That is recognised by Amendment 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, which I endorse entirely. I have no problem with it. But I think we need to go further and move beyond the simple promotion of parish councils to the right for unparished areas to become parishes if the measures in Clause 60 are found to be unsatisfactory.

The Government tell us that community or neighbourhood governance will be provided by councillors from the parent unitary authority in unparished areas. Those of us who have been around for a while have heard that duck quack before. We know that these structures are just talking shops, with no resources, capacity or status. This is what we discovered in Committee. People literally from out of town will try to sweep up the crumbs left over, once social care has feasted on the precept, to find what money is left to sweep the pavements, cut the grass, breathe life into the theatre and heat the swimming baths. But with social care consuming two-thirds of the precept, what resources will those toothless talking shops have? These are the things that the larger parishes do, with the consent of their parishioners to raise a precept.

I make no apologies for talking about Norfolk. There are 900 parishes there, and some 10,000 nationally. But when Labour gets its way, 20% of England will be disfranchised and have no parish at all—no money or say, for the most part, in how England is run. That includes the whole of Ipswich, for example, or Oxford. The so-called strategic authorities and the mayor are not going to be interested in the carnival floats, the local antique street market, the food festival or those local culture groups that town and parish councils spawn. The civic life of town mayors will evaporate altogether, with their soft convening and ribbon-cutting powers. No, they will go the way of the local pub, the park café and the high streets, in the vandalisation of high-street Britain.

Do not talk to us about Pride in Place when they disband that whole panoply of civic life, with the sheriff and the burgesses, that illuminates our nation’s story. No, under the dismal and undemocratic Clause 60, the unitary and its councillors will hold all the cards—the budget, the representation and the staff—to hold everyone else over a barrel, because there is no parish council. Of course, they will have no incentive to cede powers either, and all the incentive, on the other hand, to hoard powers and pet projects.

My amendment offers hope to these places: to reject the way in which the Bill creates sock-puppet sinecures for out-of-town councillors from miles away. Where an appointed community council is established, those residents can petition to incorporate—creating the empowerment that the Bill purports to foster and encourage—to create a town or parish council with proper elections, a proper budget and a precept that local people can vote on and endorse, so as not to rely on cast-offs after the social care monster, LGR costs, the recast debts and pension fund liabilities have eaten the rest. I want to help people make their part of England better: more local, more responsive and more accountable. My amendments give hope for democracy for these places, including the cathedral cities, coastal communities and new towns—places such as Stevenage and, for the other part, Gorleston, from where I take my territorial designation, within the historic county borough of Great Yarmouth.

I will listen closely to the rest of the debate and may signal my intention to divide the House on this. The requirement and the ability for local people to force incorporation of their neighbourhood arrangements is important.

Moving on to council tax for our largest town councils, I will be brief. Many of the former principal authorities and districts may become parishes under the new arrangements—or perhaps not, if my Amendment 216 is carried. By charging council tax where they have been districts, they have been able to benefit from formula grant, redistributed business rates and whatever the local government finance system has delivered. But there is a real risk that the parishes will be suckered into taking many of the expensive cast-offs from the home authority in a deliberate cost-shunt. Parks, playgrounds, theatres, moorings, cemeteries and all manner of public buildings will be flipped on to these parishes. They will need to find space in their precept to pay for them, but they will be on their own because they will have no central support and will be living hand to mouth.

My noble friend Lady Scott hates me using this example, but the facts speak for themselves. Council tax under Salisbury City Council is up 44% in just four years and its band D is £383. In my own district, South Norfolk, where I am a councillor, we collect the bins, clean the streets, house the homeless and have built a new generation of housing for just 180 quid—less than half of the parish. The problem with the Bill is that it lumps tiny little Howe, a hamlet of 50 souls in my own ward, in with the village of Hempnall, where next week we will welcome a new vicar, the Reverend Austin Uzoigwe—gosh, I should have practised this—and which has perhaps 1,000 people, together with Horsham, a district of 146,000. In law, all places of 50 to 150,000 will be equivalent. That is crazy, because there is no equivalence between Howe and Horsham, but the people of Horsham need to be spared what has been visited on the residents of Salisbury.

My amendment would create a new sub-class of third-tier authority where there is a population of 50,000 or where the precept exceeds £1 million, so that they fall under the same budgetary constraints as the larger principal authorities. I do not want your Lordships to think that this is anti-town or anti-parish. In fact, it is quite the reverse. The wholesale reconditioning of local government is already going to cost a bomb and create those perverse incentives to pass off the expensive stuff to the parishes. My amendments would strengthen parishes’ hand in the negotiations, as part of LGR, so that they will be able to push back and say no. If they think they cannot afford these gift horses, having looked them in the mouth, they would not have to take them on.

I am seeking to strengthen local democracy and accountability by putting the largest parishes on a proper financial footing, so that they can do the work they do at a price residents can afford. This is not a dig at parishes; they do a lot of valuable work at the level closest to the people. With this amendment, I have their back, as it would stop those councils with the broadest shoulders imposing liabilities and cast-offs on those with the most limited means.

--- Later in debate ---

For all the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the amendments in this group. I ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am pleased that we have had this debate on this group of amendments about parish and town councils, but I am very disappointed in her response. She cited the community governance review as an example of how more parish or town councils can be created, but this depends on the local authority wanting town and parish councils to be created. If—as in my own council, currently doing a community governance review—they do it in a lowest possible key, then, guess what, there is not much of a response. This is why it is important that the national Government take responsibility for all our local democracy by encouraging it rather than doing it diminuendo. Town and parish councils are important, and they become more important as large unitaries are created.

We will not be dividing on Amendment 195 or Amendment 196. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, there is agreement in principle between us that this layer of very local councils is important. The noble Baroness has indicated that she is likely to divide the House on Amendment 214, and if she does, we on these Benches will support her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 195 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

247: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authority acquisition of dormant assets(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 16 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A (inserted by Schedule 29 of this Act) for five years continuously,(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 16 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, earlier we discussed the words “community empowerment” in the title of the Bill. We have not had sufficient discussion about what that will mean and how it will be included in the Bill and made a reality for communities. The word “empowerment” in the Bill is without meaning if communities are left powerless to save the very assets they value the most.

Amendment 247, in my name, addresses the critical issue of dormant assets of community value. That could be, for example, a local village pub that is no longer in use, or a village shop or community centre that is listed by the local authority as an asset of community value. That means that the local community has already made the effort to gather the necessary names to support making that building, that particular asset, one of community value. A dormant asset of community value, to which this amendment refers, arises when a fair offer is made on a professionally determined value price, but the owner rejects it and proceeds to let the building sit empty and decaying, and therefore dormant, for years, refusing to sell to the community or anybody else.

This amendment seeks to provide a necessary backstop for those situations. It would empower a local authority to use compulsory acquisition powers to purchase land or a building that has been, in effect, abandoned by its owner to the detriment of the public. That would not happen immediately, as the amendment sets out stringent qualifying conditions to ensure it is used only as a last resort. The land has to have been on the list of assets of community value for five continuous years. A notice of disposal must have been issued, with the owner having rejected a fair market offer. The owner must have failed to sell the land to any other buyer during that sale period.

When those conditions are met, the land is, by any reasonable definition, dormant. It is serving no economic purpose, providing no social value and is often becoming a physical eyesore that holds back local regeneration. By allowing local authorities to step in under these specific circumstances, the amendment would ensure that the right to buy is more than just a right to wait in vain. The amendment would give communities a path to reclaim and revitalise the spaces that define them—the pride in place that we have heard about throughout the debates on the Bill. I hope the Minister will welcome the amendment and ensure that community empowerment becomes a tangible reality for those seeking to protect their local heritage, their pride in place and their future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 251, 263ZA and 263ZB in this group. I start by giving my general support to Amendment 247, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, just set out. Councils already have quite a lot of compulsory purchase powers, but in my experience they are very reluctant to use them, so I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from.

On Amendment 251, it may seem like Groundhog Day. I am grateful to noble Lords who voted for this in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. At the time, there was a concession from the Planning Minister in the Commons who said that they would look to consult on this. I reminded the Minister then that I would bring the amendment back if necessary, because we had not heard anything about what was going on with this. The issue, as addressed in Amendment 251, is that, at the moment, only a handful of asset types are protected from demolition. In my experience as an MP in a local community, when owners of places with an asset of community value designation decided to demolish them rather than allow anything further to happen, I felt that was unjustifiable.

I hope the Minister will say something somewhat more encouraging than what she said in Committee, when we were told that apparently the consultation would happen “in due course”. For those of us who have served in government, we know that that is basically speak for “never”. That is not encouraging. That is why I want to hear what the Minister has to say today in response to whether any further consideration has been given of when there might be a timely consultation and, ideally, legislation. On that, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House subject to the answer of the Minister.

Amendment 263ZA may seem familiar. It was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I had tabled something similar, but it was not as good an amendment as that tabled by the noble Lord. Currently, the greater protection given to sporting assets of community value is, in effect, available only to sports grounds that have spectator accommodation. It has been designed for non-league and league football clubs where, as we have seen in the past, things suddenly have gone wrong after the owner has gone bankrupt or similar. I felt, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that this should go further, and take the approach of considering for protection community and playing fields. Such protection is available today in the same way, but not with the same proactivity from the local authority as is currently required under what is proposed for sporting assets of community value.

In Amendment 263ZB, I decided that this is important enough to go further again. We already know that the role of Sport England as a statutory consultee is under threat. It is an expressed view of the Government that they wish to no longer have Sport England be a consultee when it comes to planning applications covering existing playing fields. That went out to consultation, but that was the preferred view of the Government. Amendments 263ZB and 263ZA would, in effect, marry, and bring Sport England back into an important role to help local authorities consider and designate particular areas as sporting assets of community value.

The Government have been surprised at how communities right across the country have, and rightly so, stood up and supported Sport England in its response to the consultation. I am conscious that there are relevant aspects in the NPPF, but the reason I am seeking to put this here is to make sure that we continue to have, for the playing fields and sports grounds that we have today, the statutory role of Sport England recognised in legislation. That could be done in a proactive way.

I am interested to hear further from the Minister about why “sporting ground” has been so narrowly defined, even at this stage on Report, because we have not covered that, and where she considers the role of Sport England to be in making sure that we have playing fields for generations to come. That is why I will press my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot really add anything to what I have said already. The valuation process would take all matters into account. It will be for both parties to make representations from their perspective about what they consider to be the market value, and the independent valuer will make the judgment between the two of them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had nearly an hour of debate on this very important group of amendments, which is at the heart of the community empowerment part of the Bill. The various issues that have been raised—cultural issues, playing fields, community buildings, assets of environmental value, assets of social value—encapsulate what communities believe to be the value of the place where they live: their pride in place, which they hope the Government will endorse and support.

I welcome the two government amendments in this group that enhance the assets of community value, but there is still much more to do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. My friend and colleague, the Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson, has written and urged me to speak on this in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is a good example of what can go wrong and how communities can lose what they value most. When we come to the next group, that will be reiterated.

Although we have had a good debate, we are not making any progress with the Minister. I will read her detailed answer in Hansard and maybe follow up some points at the next stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 247 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had three—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

May I say something before the Front Benches? I hesitate to follow my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, but I support Amendment 248 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. We heard in the debate that this has all come at the last minute but, by my reckoning, this is the fourth time I have sat through this debate. If I were to go back in Hansard, it might actually be the sixth, as I have not looked at whether it was mentioned at the Second Reading of both the Planning and Infrastructure Act and the Bill before us.

I have listened very carefully. The Supreme Court, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, has told us to sort it out. There clearly have to be safeguards and we have quite a shopping list of those in this amendment. In the age of social media, there is no chance of pulling the wool over people’s eyes or trying to hide an advert in small print at the bottom of page 78 of the local newspaper.

The wider issue is that we cannot orphan land or blight places in perpetuity. It would be perverse to do that just for want of being able to find an advert in a 100 year-old copy of a newspaper, in a publication that does not exist anymore. That is the prejudice before us. Sometimes you have to look forward and offer a remedy—which is not only in the public interest but in the interest of natural justice too.

This is not just about Wimbledon—that has been sorted—but we have heard in this debate that the shadow exists elsewhere. The matter is not resolved and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, told us to get it sorted. If we do not, nobody can. It seems to me that the proposals before us are fair, transparent and have a very strong public interest test. Now is the time and opportunity—a chance for certainty on all sides, including the protagonists in this issue. Now is the moment.

We have heard so much about how difficult it is to get stuff done in this country. We have a Government in a hurry and sites that are stalled, with people hanging about and waiting. Now is the time to stop the procrastination. Let us get on with it and make a decision. Let us pick up the baton laid in front of us by the Supreme Court and get behind Amendment 248. It is time that we got it done.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I shall start again. We have an amendment signed by three noble Lords who have, in their usual lawyerly way, made a powerful case for one side of the argument. Here I am, however, to speak up for the community in a debate on a Bill labelled in part the “community empowerment” Bill. I have two fundamental issues of concern with this amendment. The first is an issue of parliamentary process and the second a matter of principle.

As to the first—the issue of parliamentary process—one of the difficulties I have with this amendment is that it has not been, and if it is passed this evening, will never be, put before the elected Chamber of Parliament. The amendment has been introduced on Report in this House, and we are the second House to consider this Bill—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

With great respect, I suggest to the noble Baroness that that cannot be right. If we approve this amendment today, the Bill goes back to the other place, and it is a matter for the Commons whether they agree with us or not. If they do not agree, they will say so.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

They are likely not to have the power to agree to have a debate on the amendment as an entity. Considering that the Government are supporting this amendment, it is likely to be included within the Bill as a whole. The amendment as an entity will not be debated by the other place. That, it seems to me, is of huge regret, when it has very serious and extensive repercussions for public open space throughout the country. That is something that we should be very much concerned with, as we think about whether or not this amendment should be passed.

The second bit of the process that concerns me is that it is being introduced as a remedy for an issue with which all of us should be concerned—namely, that there is a problem with no obvious route to put it right, except the one that is being proposed. But it is being done not as a specific remedy for a specific case, but as a general proposal for any such issue without knowing what the implications of that will be. It is unclear. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others have not referenced any specific cases, apart from the well-known Wimbledon Park case and the Day v Shropshire case. Apart from those, it is not known what the consequence of this amendment will be if it is passed. What of other areas of public land held in statutory trust by local authorities for the people they represent in their local area? It is not clear; we do not know. The evidence is not there. That is the problem. That is why, I presume, the Minister made the pledge in earlier stages of the discussion on this issue to do a review. Unfortunately, we await the review, which should have come before any such wide-ranging amendment is put into law.

The second fundamental issue is that of the principle of the amendment. What we are being asked to agree to concerns what is believed to be held in statutory trust by a local authority. The word “trust” is really important at a time when the public are losing trust in how those of us who are elected—or, in the case of this House, not elected—make decisions on their behalf.

If it is set aside and held by the local authority in public trust for the benefit of local people, we need a remedy for the failure of that local bureaucracy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banner, that this is what we must do. However, it is not acceptable to do that using the same—or extended—process that is being proposed by the amendment, which is to have four weeks of notice in a public newspaper, a local newspaper, the circulation of which is plummeting. If we are to do this effectively, we have to have a different way of notifying local people that somebody wants to breach that trust and have the land for development, so that they can have a voice in opposing or supporting that change in the land that has been held in trust for generations.

In the example of Wimbledon Park, which we ought to reference, it is said the freehold was purchased in 1993 by the All England Club, with an express condition, I am told, that the area would not be developed and the freehold would eventually return to Wimbledon Park. As we have heard, that challenge is subject to the courts. The High Court has made a decision in favour of the All England Club, but it is going to appeal, so it has not yet been resolved, and we wait to see what the arguments are. Certainly, the community that benefits from Wimbledon Park is very unhappy at the situation that has become apparent. While I understand both sides of the argument, at the heart of it is that Wimbledon Park is held in trust, and the local community should have a very powerful voice in deciding its outcome.

I also have huge concerns of principle about the retrospective nature of the amendment. The amendment, which, if accepted, will become law, proposes to go back to 1980—nearly 50 years—so anything where there is a question mark over the land held in trust. It is only a question mark, because often, due to local government reorganisation, who knows what the situation is, when papers have gone astray during transfer from one local authority to another. It is going to be retrospective, and retrospective law is nearly always bad law. So let us not do it. Let us at least remove that element of the amendment.

Finally—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Well, it depends whether noble Lords regard land held in public trust for public benefit as important. If noble Lords do not, then they are probably lucky in having land to enjoy—whereas many people living in the communities represented by those in the other place rely on public open land to provide them with access to green open space, which is why this amendment is so important.

One of the other elements of the proposal in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is that it would give the Secretary of State the final say. As someone who advocates for local democracy, that is the final straw for me. This is a devolution and community empowerment Bill, and the last thing we should do is take power from the community and local democracy and give it to the Secretary of State—that will not do. Amendment 249, in my name, would restore the balance by ensuring that the Secretary of State cannot make a decision on a statutory trust without the express written consent of the local authority, and by confirming that the termination of the trust is in the public interest following full and wholesome public consultation.

Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

The most exciting ones always come at the end.

As many noble Lords will know, the Government are embarking on a much-needed funding reform for English councils to ensure that resources are aligned with need across the sector, with the first multi-year settlement in a decade delivering that reform. The business rates retention system is a major part of the overall local government finance system under which English councils retain a share of the business rates they collect, as well as a portion of any growth in that income. Resetting the system is a key element of the wider reforms, ensuring that funding is better aligned with need while preserving the incentive for authorities to continue to drive local growth.

In parallel with these reforms, the Government are also implementing substantial changes to business rates tax policy, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is also an essential task. As a result, the Government must make technical updates to the business rates retention system to ensure that, as far as is practicable, local government funding is not impacted by these changes, which are outside the control of local councils.

The instrument before the Committee today will update the business rates retention system to factor in local government finance reform and to accommodate changes to the tax. It amends two key sets of regulations on which the rates retention system is run. The levy and safety net regulations establish the safety net through which authorities are protected from large drops in business rates income; they fund that protection by applying a levy to business rates growth. The rates retention regulations set out the fundamentals of how the system operates, including how business rates income is calculated and shared between central government, billing authorities and major precepting authorities. The amendments are technical but clear in purpose; I will explain them now.

The safety net and levy determine the balance of risk and reward in the business rates retention system. To ensure that this balance is appropriate through the multi-year settlement, the Government announced changes at the settlement; this instrument puts them in place. First, the level of safety net protection is being increased to 100% of baseline funding level or need, provided through rates income for 2026-27. This is something that local government has welcomed and which noble Lords will, I am sure, agree is sensible. Secondly, the levy on business rates growth will now operate on a marginal basis, with different rates applying as growth increases up to a maximum of 45%. This balances the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections.

Moving on, in response to the reset and wider tax policy changes, we are making changes to ensure that grant compensation paid to councils in lieu of business rates is treated in the same way as the rates themselves, streamlining local government accounting.

Next, the instrument updates key formulae and figures that are used to run the rates retention system in order to reflect changes and updated values from the funding reforms delivered through this year’s settlement. This includes figures used to calculate different measures of local authority income for the year.

Finally, we are making a series of minor amendments that are aimed at reducing complexity across the system wherever possible, which noble Lords will, I am sure, value. These include disapplying provisions that are no longer required, future-proofing routine calculations and streamlining a number of small funding mechanisms.

These amending regulations make technical changes to the business rates retention system, putting into effect what is required due to funding reform and changes to business rates tax policy. If approved, they will ensure that councils receive the business rates income the system is designed to deliver. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council.

This is a very technical measure and a bit of a mixed bag. The reset of the business rates retention system is long overdue and welcome. For too long, the distribution of resources has been based on figures from when the system was introduced in 2013, so recalculating each authority’s assessed need and business rate tax base to redistribute funding on a needs basis is welcome. Given that aim, it is surprising that the Government have not produced an impact assessment. The Explanatory Memorandum says within it that most authorities will find that the system works for them, but some will not, so an impact assessment would be very welcome to understand the winners and losers, and to what extent they are winning or losing. Can the Minister provide some basic impact assessment, not for all authorities but for those that will benefit most and least so that we can see how this will work in practice?

The safety net established in this SI is to be supported because, while any fundamental changes in the business rates system take place, it will enable local authorities to have stability in their known income. That is positive, but as far as I could see it is not explained how authorities already in a pooled system will be impacted, such as those in West Yorkshire. All the data provided is based not on a pool of authorities but on individual ones, so it would be helpful to understand how that works. The proposal for Section 31 grants is welcome, because it will also help remove the impact of volatility in the system.

The downside is, I guess, the move away from the whole purpose of the business rates retention system, when introduced 10 or 12 years ago, as an incentive for growth. The introduction of marginal tax rates—which is what they are—on growth that exceeds the limits could be viewed as a tax on success. That is somewhat at odds with the Government’s fundamental position that growth is everything. It does not seem to apply in this case. How far do they think that these marginal tax rates of 30% and 45% will encourage or discourage investment and growth in particular areas?

This is a mixed bag. The reset is necessary for fairness and a safety net is good for stability, but having worked figures would have been really helpful so that we could understand the consequences.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

If I may speak before my Front Bench, of course we welcome the introduction of multi-year settlements. Local authorities have been crying out for that for many years, and I can see that this is part of the path that we are going down.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, identified the importance of incentives—incentives for councils to do the right thing and go the extra mile. Sometimes those incentives help the council, as a promoter or joint enterprise with those people who wish to invest in an area, to make the case to local residents who may not necessarily welcome development. In my nearly 20 years as a council leader, I used the new homes bonus, as well as business rates retention, as powerful examples to otherwise semi-hostile or reluctant residents for us to make those investments.

Back in those days—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about 10 years ago and it must have been all of that—there were really powerful and compelling reasons for our authority, which was a high-growth authority, to pal up with all our neighbours, not all of which were quite so pro-growth as we were. By giving away some of our growth, the pot over the entirety of Norfolk was greater; there was that compelling case for co-operation. But I can tell the Committee that, over subsequent years, particularly more recently—I should stress that I am no longer the council leader doing these negotiations, but they are fresh in my mind—

Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid on 11 February 2026. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that has been issued for these regulations. It corrects the name of the appropriate administering authority for pension purposes from East Sussex to West Sussex. This change was requested by, and agreed with, the constituent councils. When referring to the Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority, I will use the term “strategic authority” hereafter unless there is a reason to be specific.

Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders being best placed to take the decisions that benefit local communities. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England. The English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of that White Paper is now being taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following an expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Sussex and Brighton. This statutory instrument will establish their strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best.

The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils in Sussex and Brighton on the instrument. The constituent councils are West Sussex County Council, East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.

The instrument will, if Parliament approves, be made under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which the instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028, and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 for a four-year term.

The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with the mayor also a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote, and the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting. Once the mayor takes office, that majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor when acting in place of the mayor.

The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent, the Sussex and Brighton strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are specifically reserved for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it confers, focused around local transport and economic development, are designed to support the work of the strategic authority before the Bill is in force and enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.

MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events and distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post. They were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and on 17 July confirmed to Parliament that the statutory tests to establish a strategic authority had been met.

Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding. This will include devolved funding for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.

To conclude, this instrument represents clear progress in our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England and will make this a reality in Sussex and Brighton. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, one in a series of statutory instruments creating county combined authorities that we have discussed over several months.

I start with what the Minister said about the purpose of this statutory instrument: that the Government wish to “widen and deepen devolution”. We Liberal Democrats support devolution and have long advocated for it. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted in its report on this SI that of the more than 6,000 responses received from the public,

“71% disagreed that it would support … local communities”.

The SLSC asked, given that local opposition—the overwhelming majority of those 6,000 responses not in favour—how the Government will ensure that the mayor has a “firm democratic mandate” and that local residents are able to “engage” with the system. That seems to be fundamental for any devolution proposal—that it takes people with them. Clearly, from the response to the consultation, that is not the case. I hope that the Minister has some responses to that committee’s report.

The Government have given a formal response to the committee’s report, which included a commitment to future strengthening of scrutiny. As the Minister will know, every time we discuss this, I criticise the scrutiny arrangements in mayoral authorities as being totally inadequate for the range and depth of functions that the mayor will have. One of the easy ways to improve scrutiny would be by ensuring that pre-decision scrutiny is the norm. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any hope that this will be the case.

I have a couple of other points to make. The financing of the mayoral model—if I have read it right—is to be from the constituent councils until the mayoral elections. If that is the case, can the Minister quantify the financial call on the constituent local councils until that time?

The main concern I have is that the Government are proceeding with mayoral devolution alongside very significant local government reorganisation. Two major reorganisations in local government are taking place in that area, which will inevitably cause increased expenditure in the first instance. Establishing the different and new authorities will inevitably be a call on the constituent authorities’ finances. It will not all be funded by grants—it never is—and that will inevitably mean a call on financing of basic public services. Does the Minister agree with that?

Finally, the Government and the previous Government are very keen on the mayoral model, but at no point have we had an assessment or a review of its achievements and its failures. Looking across the metro mayors that have been established, there have been some notable successes. The bus transport system in Greater Manchester has been a success, but there are other parts of the country—looking towards the north-east of the country—where it has not been such an overwhelming success and great question marks have been raised about the way that the mayor and the authority have fulfilled their statutory requirements. It is important that the Government do a review and an assessment of the various mayoral models that have been instituted across the country.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

I commend the Government on getting on with doing something on this agenda. I am a massive fan of mayoral authorities. If that is the price to pay to take power away from Whitehall and Westminster, it is a price worth paying. It could have been a bit cheaper, but nothing is cheap when you get it off the Government if the Treasury is involved with it.

I will ask a couple of questions. It will not start until 2028. That is unfortunate because 2027 is closer, so it would have been better if the department got its act together quicker, got the necessary work done and concentrated on those areas where it was doable. Sussex and Brighton are in a DPP area and are expecting an announcement on Wednesday this week about which of the six are likely to go ahead. There is money being laid now that it might be that five or fewer get announced. Do we know whether this is one area that will be announced? If it is going to be announced, do we know whether the constituent members are going to go from three to five? Does that mean that the council holding the ring on the pension pot will still be in existence after that process? If the constituent council is broken into more than one piece, where will the pension pot then sit?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Banner, unsurprisingly, makes an eloquent case for his Amendment 222C. I very much hope that the Minister will hold to what she said when this issue was addressed previously and reassert the Government’s commitment to a wider review of the existing protections to bring coherence to the legal framework, making protections more transparent and accessible so that communities can protect their most valued spaces, to paraphrase what she said.

At the heart of the amendment lies the travails of the All England Lawn Tennis Club. I declare an interest as a resident of Eastbourne and, therefore, as someone who holds a very low opinion of that organisation, which seems to be entirely concerned with itself and its money and very unconcerned with the communities that it interacts with. That is a widely shared opinion, as noble Lords will know—although they may not agree with it.

The troubles that the ALTC is facing have roots in the predecessors of assets of community value. We have long considered that communities have rights when it comes to the places and spaces that they enjoy. These have grown complicated and difficult to understand and enforce, which is why the Minister’s review is needed. But these places and spaces are needed and should be respected.

In this particular case, the ALTC has behaved abysmally, and it should not be advantaged by shortcutting what should be a careful review. I would like to see it soon and done with speed, but it should be an open public review, involving national bodies and others that are interested in the protection of public trusts and recreation rights to arrive at a coherent, well-agreed solution to this problem. To do it by way of an amendment in a Bill is far too limited; there are far too few opportunities to really get into the competing rights and interests that are involved here. I urge the Minister to stick to her previous resolution.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has returned to this issue, which was the subject of debate during the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Then, the amendment in his name concerned only the Wimbledon Park Community Trust. That amendment did not reach the statute book, so here we are again with round two.

In this case, the amendment encompasses all statutory trusts. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, is very persuasive, but there is an alternative argument. The argument proposed by the noble Lord is to clarify the legal technicalities, whereas the opposing argument, which I hope to be able to put, is one of principle: the principle of protecting green spaces that are kept in public trust.

In summary, Amendment 222C is a four-page amendment that proposes to grant the Secretary of State unprecedented power to permanently discharge statutory trusts from land once held for the public’s enjoyment. It is being framed as a measure to resolve legal technicalities—we have heard that argument from the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Grabiner. In truth, it seems to me that the amendment would be an assault on some of our nation’s parks, sports grounds and green open spaces, which were created for the benefit of the local community.

Under the proposal in this amendment, land held in trust for the public under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 could be stripped of its protected status by a simple order from the Secretary of State. This would essentially erase the general right of public enjoyment on that land for ever. The question is: in what circumstances is that justified? Who will benefit from the protection of land held in trust where the protections are removed? Will the community that has enjoyed the rights conferred by the trust have a significant right over any attempt to change the status of the land held in trust? Those critical questions are yet to be answered by either of those who have spoken in favour of the amendment. I hope that, when we get to the end of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, will be able to answer them.

What is most troubling is the basis on which these trusts would be destroyed. The amendment targets cases where a council failed to follow the “previous advertisement procedure” when it originally moved or sold the land. Essentially, we are being asked to reward past administrative incompetence. If a council ignored the law decades ago by failing to notify the public of a land disposal, this amendment would allow that very failure to serve as the qualifying condition for stripping the public of their rights today.

In addition, in my view the amendment would create a dangerous presumption of non-compliance. If an application is made, the Secretary of State must notify the relevant council, which then has a mere 28 days to respond. If that council, which may be struggling with records from 50 years ago, say—and which may have been reorganised by this or a previous Government—cannot confirm that the advertisement took place, the Secretary of State “must presume”, as the amendment says, that the law was broken, thereby clearing the path to discharge the trust.

This is a remarkably low bar for the permanent alienation of public assets. In my view it is outrageous—28 days is a completely inadequate period for doing paper archive searches. Then, the power of presumed guilt is totally contrary to the basis on which our legal system stands. The balance is being deliberately stacked in favour of those who wish to dissolve trusts that hold land for the common good.

That leads me on to the idea of public interest, as defined in the amendment, in the condition proposed in new paragraph (f). It is broad enough to include any “development proposals” or “economic … benefits” that the order might facilitate. If we allow development proposals to be weighed against the sanctity of a public trust, we know which will win in the era of intense commercial pressure and economic benefit or, indeed, financial benefit. The amendment proposes a 56-day window for representations. By the way, the amendment refers to publicity in a “local newspaper”. That is novel. I do not know how many local newspapers still exist. Whether that is a satisfactory way in which to advertise for local representation is one of the questions that needs to be asked and answered.

We are ultimately placing the fate of local green spaces in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than the local communities who use them. There is the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, proposed, whereby the public will have a view and can be consulted. I have many experiences of public consultation, certainly in the reorganisation of local councils currently, where the vast majority oppose but, nevertheless, the changes are made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I now have to remember where I left off.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I think it was near the end.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I was making a point about public consultation. Since the land is held by a trust for public benefit and for the public good, it seems to me that some consideration should be given to giving the people who benefit from that trust—the community; I am sure it could be defined—some sort of veto over any change in the status of the land held in public trust. Obviously, it could not be just half a dozen folk thinking that it should not happen, but if there were a huge swell of public opinion in favour of keeping the land in a public trust, as was done many years before, maybe that ought to be an option for local people.

There are various places across different parts of the country where the council’s own land in public trust would be affected if this amendment were accepted by the Government. The ones I have been able to find—apart from Wimbledon, of course—include Winchester, Swansea, Finchley, Hornsey and many others. Once a statutory trust discharge order takes effect, the land would be freed from the trust “generally”. Its status would be altered for all time, regardless of who holds the title. We should not enable a statutory loophole in this amendment that would allow the procedural errors of the past to become the justification for stealing the green lungs of our communities in the future. As noble Lords might have realised, the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this amendment and stand on the side of communities that strive to protect the integrity of our public open spaces held in trust.

I finish with a common little rhyme that emerged from the 18th century when the enclosures were taking place at great pace—when common land was taken by landowners. It goes:

“The fault is great in man or woman,


Who steals a goose from off a common;

But who can plead that man’s excuse,

Who steals the common from the goose?”

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

Before the Division Bells, the noble Baroness was very dismissive of the consultation process, which is spelled out in the amendment. She referred to what sounded like her own unpleasant experience of such processes in the past. I wonder whether, on reflection—we have had a bit of time to reflect during the break—she thinks that a fair criticism of the amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the difficulty the public have with the word “consultation” is that they often dismiss it as being a mere sop by those who want to change the order of things, whatever that might be. Consultation is frequently used; it is a basic part of the planning process. Often, members of the public make representations based on planning law, the NPPF and local plans, but nevertheless the developers overcome those objections. It is the same with changes to the structure of local authorities. Consultation has become, “You can have your say, but in the end you’re going to be overruled”.

With something as serious as this, where land has been donated for public use for many years and held in trust—a word we need to reflect on—for public use, it should not be easy to remove that public trust, in effect removing the public from the trust. In my view, using a device called consultation is totally inadequate in those circumstances. There ought to be a different way of determining whether land should be taken out of that protection.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is an issue that we remember well from debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now an Act. I am pleased that the Government and my noble friend Lord Banner have been able to work together on this and have, I believe, come to an agreed position. I am also grateful that my noble friend has been able to lend his significant expertise to the drafting of Amendment 222C to help find a solution. However, as we are only in Committee, we will need a little more time to go through it thoroughly before we consider giving it our support.

In the meantime, can the Minister please update us on the wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected, which she committed to during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? Has this review been conducted? If so, what was the outcome and has it been published? If not, when will it be conducted?

We are also aware of the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the Day case. That needs looking at in detail. Will the Government look into the case of Wimbledon specifically, given the enormous importance of Wimbledon to our national sporting life and the contentious issues at stake? Would a targeted inquiry into that case be appropriate? I would be grateful if the Minister could give her view on these points.

Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft order for the reorganisation of the 11 districts and one county in Surrey into two unitaries. I do not totally agree with either her solution or the reasoning behind it. The Government are continuing to push through reorganisation that does not have the support of local people or, in this case, even the existing councils.

The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to this draft SI explains that, of the very small number of responses—around 5,500 from a population of 1.2 million—the vast majority rejected the two-council solution and much preferred a three-council solution, as did several of the local district councils. Businesses also favoured the proposal for three unitary councils: on average, only 25% gave a positive response to the proposal for two unitaries, and 65% for three unitaries. This is being pushed through regardless of local knowledge and wishes, which is never a good backdrop to the creation of new councils. I know; I am in one.

The drive to create large unitary councils is a desire for centralisation, in which all councils are made to fit a predetermined model regardless of geography, demographics and local will. Surrey county—not the county council—has a population of 1.2 million. The creation of just two unitary councils means that each of those will cover a population of about 600,000, which would be bigger than that of the City of Bradford’s council, for example, although not as quite as big as Leeds City Council’s, which is one of the largest in the country. It would be much smaller than all the nearby London boroughs and the north-east metropolitan councils or even Greater Manchester.

What is driving this push for very large unitary councils, when previously created ones do not fit that model? It seems to be driven by a desire by central government to view local government as simply the service delivery arm of central government—local government can deliver adult social care, children’s services, highway functions, licensing functions and so on—but it omits what is really important in local government, which makes it what it is at its very best: to provide ambitions and aspirations for local people, to challenge the status quo and to drive for something better. That is more difficult when you have councils of this population size.

One consequence of creating a unitary council with a population of around 600,000 is that, inevitably, the ward sizes, after a local government boundary review of wards, will be fairly large. I understand that there will be 72 councillors—I think I have got that right—in the new unitary councils. They will represent very large wards. I have experience of being a councillor representing a very large ward; it has 14,000 electors, and it is difficult to keep in touch and make the link that is at the heart of democracy between the elected and the elector. These proposals with large ward sizes will stretch that link to its very limit, which is something to be regretted.

My next point is about the debt, which the Minister referenced. One of the drivers for the abolition of county councils was that they were becoming financially unsustainable, simply because of the services that they were being asked to deliver—the ones with the huge pressures, such as adult social care services, children’s services, SEND, and so on. There were huge and growing financial pressures—I understand that. Meanwhile, in Surrey, Woking council has saddled its district council and residents with, to quote the Minister, huge, unsupported debts. The Minister may like to put a figure on that.

The Government are prepared to provide a sweetener of £500 million pounds to pay off some of that debt. But if I was a councillor in that council, going into the new unitary, I would be wary of entering it while it was saddled with a substantial debt. The Government are prepared to capitalise it, which is great, but that means that more revenue from the revenue budget will be used to fund the mortgage requirements of the debt. It is not a good start for new councils to begin their life, with all the problems that inevitably follow a reorganisation, saddled with a substantial debt. It will make it difficult for those councils to get off to a good start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To continue from where we were before the vote, both noble Lords have understandably asked about the Surrey consultation outcome, and I understand why they would ask that question. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we received 5,617 responses: 26 from named consultees and the rest from residents and local organisations, including businesses and town and parish councils. That consultation ran from 17 July to 5 August.

As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the responses demonstrated a preference for the three unitary proposal. However, as the proposals were assessed against the criteria set out in the statutory guidance, and having regard to all representations received throughout the consultation and to all the other relevant information we have been looking at as a way of determining these proposals, in our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better meets the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performs better against the second criteria, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. The criteria are particularly relevant in the unique context of Surrey, where reorganisation is a critical intervention to improve the financial viability of the area’s councils. That is because of the unprecedented levels of unsupported debt in two of the area’s councils.

The important thing about all this is that the new councils are able to drive the growth needed, providing high-quality public services on a geography that works locally. But to meet the second criteria, around the financial viability, it was really important that we consider the consultation responses alongside that. That has been an important part of our consideration.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an important issue. I accept what the Minister is saying about the importance of councils being financially stable but, if I were a resident of Surrey, I would think that I was being punished by the fact that I was having to absorb Woking Borough Council and being saddled with its £2 billion-worth—is that right?—of unsupported debt, and forced to pay that price when the council of which I was a member, in another part of Surrey, was financially stable. That does not seem fair. Residents are picking up the tab for speculative investment that never had any future in providing the council with anything other than a huge debt, which is what has happened. Is that fair?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.

Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Grand Committee

To conclude, these instruments represent clear progress im our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England and will make this a reality in Cumbria and in Cheshire and Warrington. They will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives of, and opportunities for, their residents. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft orders, which I commend to the Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two statutory instruments, which are progress on the way to the Government’s policy of mayoral devolution. I accept the notion and principle of devolution as being very positive, but, as the Minister will know, I have questioned the way it is being done, and I have one or two comments to make in that regard.

Mayoral strategic authorities are being created across England, ostensibly of a similar nature. However, the population of the new Cumbria combined authority will be around 500,000, and the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority population will be nearly 1 million. How does this compare with what we have already? Well, in West Yorkshire, the mayoral authority serves 2.5 million people; it is five times as large as the new Cumbria one will be and, presumably, will be offering similar services. My own council, where I am still a councillor, has a population of nearly 500,000, which is as big as the proposed Cumbria combined authority.

I will be interested to hear how the Minister expects the Government to respond to this: there will be various layers of mayoral strategic authorities, because those mayoral authorities of a very large population, in the met areas mainly—of course, we always exclude London, because it is a separate entity altogether—will inevitably become the big players. How do the Cumbrias of this world, which are not as big as unitary councils, operate in being able to deliver on transport, skills and so on? There is a question of size, which I would like some answers on.

The other challenge in setting up these strategic mayoral authorities concerns the constituent members of the authority. For Cumbria, only two unitary councils are going to come together to form the Cumbria combined authority. The way in which these are set up—there is a directly elected mayor, and the combined authority consists of a member from each constituent authority plus those who can be nominated on—means that there will be three directly elected members on that constituent authority. That seems unusual to me, let us put it like that, because associate members will not be able to vote. Can the Minister explain how that might work?

The other question I have is about the fact that, as we are discovering in the English devolution Bill, mayors will be able to appoint up to seven commissioners to fulfil the tasks. I understand that there will be many major strategic tasks to undertake, but I challenge the idea of having appointees rather than people elected to these positions. Will Cumbria, for instance, be able to appoint up to seven commissioners? Do the Government expect that to be the case? Will there be any restrictions on the number? Ditto for the associate members, particularly for Cumbria, because it is quite small. The Cheshire and Warrington authority will not be much bigger; three authorities are combining there, I think.

This model of devolution is being rushed out across England. Where such a model has existed, have the Government done any assessment of the effectiveness of that model? I live in a mayoral strategic authority. If somebody asked me, as somebody who is already democratically elected in part of it, what has been achieved, I would struggle. I am sure that some things have been achieved, but are they going to shift the dial, as they say? I do not know, but I think the Government should have some way of testing the effectiveness of it all.

When I looked at the number of folk who engaged with the consultation, I discovered that it was very few. What on earth does it mean to your everyday person on the street? Not very much, so very small numbers engage. However, roughly two-thirds of those who did engage opposed it. How was that view taken into account? If it was not—that is, if it was just dismissed because the Government have this model that they want to roll out across the country, which they are entitled to do—then do not ask people, just do it, if you are not going to take any notice of the comments they make. It seems that people were totally ignored.

I have one final question in response to the comments made by the Minister. She said that, in the constitution of these authorities, if a mayor is not present for a decision-making purpose, the deputy mayor should take their place. The deputy mayor is an appointed person—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I will be quick.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes; we will then come back to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I should have been quicker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will just repeat the final comment I had to make. When the Minister referenced how the constituent authorities would be able to vote in decision-making mode, she referenced the fact that if a mayor was not able to be there, the deputy mayor could take their place and vote. Either that means the deputy mayor is an elected councillor who is nominated to be the deputy mayor in a constituent authority, or it may mean, as it does in my mayoral authority, that the deputy mayor is an appointee. I have a problem if they are an appointee, because they are not democratically accountable. Decisions should be made by people who are democratically accountable to the electorate., I would love that to be clarified. I wish I had finished before the Division, but with those remarks, I hope the Minister will be able to put me right on all the issues I have raised.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these orders, which establish mayoral combined authorities for Cheshire and Warrington and for Cumbria.

As we have made clear in the discussions on the devolution Bill, we support the principle of English devolution and promoted this while we were in government. We support the creation of combined authorities where they have genuine local support, are properly funded and are designed to reflect the identities and needs of their areas. However, that support for devolution in principle does not absolve the Government of their responsibility to demonstrate that these proposals meet the statutory tests as set out in the 2009 Act, nor does it remove the need for proper scrutiny.

The question of funding remains unresolved and frankly a little bit troubling. The Government have indicated that these new authorities will receive additional funding over a 30-year period. How such long-term funding commitments will be guaranteed in practice is not clear. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to provide genuine certainty to these combined authorities? They will need that if they are going to invest in long-term infrastructure projects, skills and transport planning. That requires predictable funding going forward. Also, as an aside, will mayors in future combined authorities receive similar levels of funding?

Linked to this is the mayoral precept. These orders enable the new mayors to levy an additional charge on council tax to fund these functions. While that power may be appropriate in some circumstances, it raises legitimate concerns about local accountability and affordability. We would welcome clarification from the Minister on the detail of central government funding expected to support local devolved functions and on to what extent the Government anticipate or indeed rely upon the use of the mayoral precept to bridge any funding gap. That also raises the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was moving towards of how we ensure scrutiny and holding the mayor to account.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also raised the issue of size. Given the powers that the Secretary of State will have in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to push through potential mergers, what is the Government’s intention here?

Finally, I raise a specific concern about Cheshire and Warrington, which is the financial position of Warrington Borough Council. The estimated £1.8 billion of debt carried by the council is concerning, and it is not at all clear how the creation of a mayoral combined authority interacts with that reality. We ask for further detail: what special measures will be put in place to ensure that the debt does not undermine the financial stability of the new authority as a whole? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the creation of a combined authority will not directly or indirectly place additional burdens on neighbouring councils or local taxpayers?

Devolution done well can be transformative, but devolution done poorly risks creating new layers of governance without the trust, clarity or resources required to make them effective. We urge the Government to consider seriously the concerns raised by local communities, the scrutiny committee and this House. We will continue to support devolution that is consensual, properly funded and genuinely local, and we will continue to challenge proposals that fall short of these principles.

--- Later in debate ---

These targeted models of support are designed to drive the improvement work needed at each council and support their effective engagement in devolution and the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority. We continue to work closely with both councils and to monitor their progress. Clearly, one of the purposes of this will be to make sure that there is no ongoing impact on the new combined authority as we go forward. I hope I have answered all the questions—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Before the Minister finishes, will she answer my question about the position of the deputy mayor?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies; I did not write that down because we were called out of the Room. A deputy mayor is there to do exactly what it says on the tin: deputising for the mayor. The deputy mayor can deputise for the mayor. It is not an elected position, and I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about that, but all those mayors will need a deputy, so the deputy mayor can stand in for the mayor at meetings and cast the mayor’s vote. That is the situation.

In conclusion, these instruments deliver the commitment made—

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

170: Clause 45, page 49, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) arrange for the deputy mayor for fire and rescue to exercise one or more of the Mayor’s fire and rescue authority functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Mayor with Fire and Rescue Authority functions to delegate those functions to a Deputy Mayor for Fire and Rescue, ensuring governance arrangements parallel to those for policing.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Goddard of Stockport, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. It seeks to insert a vital safeguard into Clause 45, ensuring that the specialised governance of our fire and rescue services is not diluted as the powers of regional mayors are expanded. As the Bill currently stands, it enables the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to elected mayors, yet it does not mandate the same dedicated oversight and accountability that is necessary for this important emergency service. Amendment 170 would rectify this by requiring a mayor with these functions to arrange for a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, specifically to exercise those responsibilities.

The prime strength of this amendment is that would ensure governance arrangements for fire and rescue services, which would then run parallel with those already established for the police service. As the Government have rightly sought to abolish police and crime commissioners, they have abjectly failed to ensure that governance and accountability to the public are paramount. A reflection as to how potentially fragile our governance arrangements are can perhaps be informed by events in the United States of America, where the governance arrangements of policing have apparently been overturned with ease.

Can the Minister explain how replacing an elected police and crime commissioner by an unelected appointment, accountable to no one but the mayor, is an improvement in terms of public accountability? By extension, how will governance work if, as proposed, the fire and rescue service loses its direct governance and becomes the responsibility of an unnamed mayoral appointee? Further, there is a real risk that, as this Bill establishes a new tier of “strategic authorities” with broad “areas of competence”, the elected mayors will become “Lord High Everything”, as was the arrogant Pooh Bah in the “Mikado”.

Amendment 170 would ensure that fire and rescue functions receive the dedicated attention they require rather than being treated as a secondary concern within a massive strategic portfolio. This role would provide a clear point of contact for local public service partners and ensure that the strategic direction of emergency services is managed by an individual with a specific, focused mandate—albeit not a specific and focused democratic mandate.

Proper accountability is also lacking within the Government’s plans. The idea that a scrutiny panel, as with the police service, can be effective when only able to consider decisions post hoc is for the birds. I hope the Minister can agree to think about the challenge that Amendment 170 provides in the interests of public accountability. What we need is structural consistency between policing and the fire and rescue services and the dedicated and democratic accountability necessary to protect both our fire services and the communities they serve. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I am not causing any confusion by having moved to these Benches. It was simply because the other Benches are very congested; I continue to support the same party that I supported when I came into this House as a Conservative Peer.

I would like to use Amendment 170—I congratulate the noble Baroness for speaking so eloquently to it—to probe the Government on an issue that is causing great concern, not dissimilar to that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I think from memory we were the only two Peers in this very Room who spoke against the orders for the combined authority of North Yorkshire.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

It was thee and me.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It was thee and me, yes—that was the sum total who voted against. I think that we were right and history has proven that to be the case. I am still trying to get my head around where the fire and rescue service sits in the combined authority of North Yorkshire. I am concerned that now it is going to be even more complicated if, having elected a mayor for York and North Yorkshire, as the noble Baroness has highlighted, this will now pass to the mayor.

This is causing me concern because I raised the point elsewhere about the number of BESS projects—basically clean energy projects, particularly battery storage projects and solar farms—across North Yorkshire and the lack of consulting with fire and rescue authorities, because they are not statutory consultees. I believe that that has highlighted a gap in the structure at the moment. I use this opportunity to ask the Minister—I see that we have switched places; sliding doors and switching places is a theme for today—how that will impact on a county such as North Yorkshire, or York and North Yorkshire, if there is going to be no democratic oversight and no accountability, if that is the current understanding in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is on to something here and I would like to listen carefully to how the Government plan to monitor this. I do not believe that rural counties have really been considered in the mix of things. Clearly, it is an oversight if fire and rescue authorities are not being consulted as statutory consultees to such major projects. For all the reasons that she gave, I think that another lacuna has been identified by Amendment 170 in the great scheme of things and I look very much to hearing the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate on the future of the governance of fire and rescue services. It has exposed a fundamental flaw in the pattern of governance that the Government are pursuing with some haste: enabling a single elected person to become the sole democratically accountable authority for strategic planning, skills, strategic highways, policing, fire services and possibly health. This reflects what the Minister has said: a person, as a directly elected mayor, will hold all the accountability for those important public services.

That will not happen; no one person can hold all that accountability successfully. It will be dispersed, as it is now. In West Yorkshire, we have a directly elected mayor who has appointed a deputy mayor—it could be a commissioner, but in West Yorkshire the position is deputy mayor—who is a political appointee, not directly accountable to the residents of West Yorkshire, for policing.

We know from earlier parts of the Bill that the directly elected mayor can appoint up to seven commissioners, as we are now calling them, who will take responsibility for some of these functions but who are not directly accountable to the public whom they serve and for whom they are making decisions. That format of governance will crumble away when the first big incident of significance occurs, because who is responsible and who calls the shots? That fundamental problem is at the heart of this.

Apart from that, the second fundamental problem is the method of accountability through scrutiny. In earlier amendments, we on these Benches called for a scrutiny panel for each political appointee as a commissioner, which would go some way to alleviating the discrepancy in democratic accountability. But at the moment those scrutiny panels will scrutinise decisions post hoc, which is unacceptable. If they are to be effective, they need to look at pre-decision scrutiny as well.

I am sorry that the Minister has recited the mantra that all will be well and that creating a “Lord High Everything” will be fine. I fear that it will not, and I shall continue to point out the fault-lines in this model. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 170 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 172 and 173 make essential amendments to Schedule 23, ensuring that the law operates as intended with evolving governance arrangements. Amendment 172 aligns the inspection framework for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities with existing exclusions for other fire and rescue authority governance models, ensuring fairness and consistency across England.

Amendment 173 makes technical alignments with existing legislation. It ensures that, where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority takes on fire and rescue functions, it is treated in the same way as existing fire and rescue authorities. The amendment will also bring mayoral fire and rescue authorities within Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, covering companies in which local authorities have interests. It will also bring it within Section 155 of the same Act for the purpose of emergency financial assistance.

It also clarifies the handling of Section 114 reports in the case of mayoral fire and rescue authorities, and the fire and rescue authority’s response under Section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. When a chief finance officer issues a report, the report must be sent to the relevant scrutiny committee, and the authority’s response must be sent to the chief finance officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee. I commend these government amendments to the Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, these two amendments are enabling amendments in response to the previous issue that was raised with Amendment 170 about absorbing fire and rescue services into a mayoral authority.

It has long been the objective of previous Governments to combine police services and fire and rescue services into one model by arguing that they were both emergency services and, therefore, would be better combined. That has always been resisted, with support from these Benches, because police and fire and rescue services have very different objectives. This Bill is seeking to absorb policing and fire and rescue into the ambit of the directly elected mayor, without having this discussion about whether it is appropriate.

I accept that four mayoral authorities have already combined policing and fire and rescue. Whether or not that has been a success is yet to be tested. The argument against these two amendments—I will reprise a bit of what I said on Amendment 170—is that it is an erosion of transparency and public accountability for what is, after all, a critical emergency service.

It is always interesting to me when we have government amendments—it points to pressure somewhere that new powers are needed to make this work. Amendment 172 removes the inspection of the fire service from the inspection regime and puts it into a mayoral regime. This means that, for instance—these are within the amendment—an inspector cannot challenge the budget of fire and rescue, challenge the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer, hold the chief fire officer to account or approve an emergency performance and reinforcement scheme.

All those are critical to ensure public accountability of the fire and rescue service, but suddenly they will not be available for its inspection regime. That will not do. The fire and rescue service plays a vital role as first responders to serious road traffic accidents. They are always the first there, not the police, and they are often at terrorist incidents. We need to have accountability for the public and the existing inspection regime, to ensure that it works well.

My argument with this amendment, as with Amendment 170, is that this is happening by stealth, by absorbing fire and rescue into the police service. Combining them ensures that the mayor has responsibility for those functions. The inspection regime does not apply to the mayor, therefore public accountability for the fire and rescue service lies in holding the mayor to account. As I have said, the mayor is now the sole Lord High Everything of a huge number of strategic functions, so holding them to account on any one of them will be a challenge. I hope that the Minister will think again on this proposal to change the way that fire and rescue services are democratically accountable and inspected, because I fear that failing to do so could have serious consequences.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as I understand it from the Minister, the inspectors in question inspect only operational matters and not governance matters. Therefore, to not inspect the governance of mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities is in keeping with the approach that the inspectors already take to existing fire services. Will the Minister please confirm that I have that right? If I do not, will she please explain why the Government’s arrangements for these new authorities will be subject to less scrutiny than already exists in the fire services? If my understanding is correct, I still have concerns about the need for effective scrutiny of new authorities taking new powers, in this instance over fire and rescue, so will the Minister please tell the Committee how the governance of fire and rescue services will be inspected and scrutinised, if not by this inspectorate? We have to ensure that there is an appropriate approach to scrutiny for all new mayoral combined authorities, which is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I have a real concern about this group of amendments, which appears to look to tinker around the edges to bring the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority into line with other strategic authorities. We already established in an earlier session that governance in London was the first established; it has never been repeated and, indeed, this Bill does not seek to repeat it either. Surely the sensible route is the one that we suggested in Amendment 75: to have a full review, consider the future governance of London and deal with issues such as this at that time.

I do not want to revisit the earlier argument, but I remind noble Lords that in London there is not the same relationship between the mayor and the boroughs as is suggested there might be in the new governance relationships, or indeed that exists elsewhere. In practice, that means that the mayor might not appreciate local circumstances—as I have said before, not all of London is the same. The mayor might not appreciate the local policing capacity, or lack of it, and the implications of that on licensing decisions. He might not understand the local economy and what licensing could mean for that. He might not appreciate the impact of the local demographics when decisions are being made to overturn local licensing decisions.

What is more, as we have heard before, the current scrutiny of the mayor is not considered to be effective. Devolution should mean respect for decision-making at its lowest common denominator—in this case, the borough level. If a more strategic decision is needed for a wider area, the decision should include the local decision-making processes or partners. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider the proposals put forward previously for a thorough review, at which time the implications of these amendments could be considered.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I heard what the Minister said in her introduction to this group of amendments about it following a proposed change to the Bill in the Commons. Like the previous speaker, I understand the need, in a global city such as London, to reverse—for justifiable reasons—the direction of devolution and enable a power grab from the local boroughs in some circumstances. However, the circumstances are not defined, apart from saying that they have to be of “strategic importance” across Greater London. Yet the definition of “strategic importance” is left to regulations.

It is not at all clear how the mayor will make such decisions when they have been defined as being of strategic importance. Will they be based on the licensing priorities, which is a requirement for local borough licensing committees? How will local concerns be heard and considered? This appears to be a profound and unnecessary centralisation of power that threatens to strip local democratically elected committees of their voice in matters that affect their communities’ daily lives.

Under this proposal, which is set out in Amendment 179A—it contains a proposed new section headed “Licence applications of potential strategic importance”—local London licensing authorities, such as borough councils, would legally be required to notify the GLA of applications for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment or late-night refreshment. A further proposal grants the Mayor of London the power, in effect, to veto or override the decisions of these local authorities. So if a borough council decides to grant or reject a licence, that decision is suspended and has no effect until the mayor decides whether to intervene. This is allegedly the devolution Bill, but I am yet to be convinced that it has any relationship to devolution; this is the imposition of top-down command structure over local democracy.

The additional problem is that, if there is a veto and it is called in by the mayor, how quickly will the mayor decide? What is the democratic way in which that will be decided? Is it just the mayor in his or her office making a decision, or will it go to a scrutiny committee for discussion first? Will there be an open and transparent hearing where the local borough council—or several local borough councils, if it is something that affects several of them—can come and explain its decision? Will the mayor have to explain why it has been called in? A lot here is unsatisfactory, to say the least. I ask myself: who is best placed to make a judgment about licence applications, which can have significant effects on people’s daily lives? Is it those who live there and their elected representatives, or is it the mayor of 7 million or 8 million people who says, “Actually, I know best. This is important for business, so hard luck if it affects your daily life”? That is the risk in this.

In the end, this group of amendments is unsatisfactory until we know the definition of “strategic importance” and the methods that will be used for decision-making. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will think again and reconsider. I understand why, if it is a significant application that will affect large parts of London, you would want a mayoral authority to take that decision. But I would want to know how that is defined and how that decision will be taken in a public setting, with the ability for people to have their voices heard and an appeal process.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a directly elected mayor of a London borough with a licensing authority and responsibility. I want to speak in favour of and welcome this amendment. The key word is “strategic”. It is important that we recognise that London’s nightlife and hospitality industries are essential to Britain’s economy. We need to support them; they bring more than 1.4 million jobs to the capital and generate £46 billion in economic activity.

Giving the mayor new powers over strategic licences, including the power to call in and decide strategically on those applications, could be important for the future. Different authorities will vary in how they approach their licensing. Of course, there needs to be that relationship between the local authorities and the Mayor of London—whoever that may be, now or in the future—to be able to listen and recognise, and to have that overarching strategic view of what the licensing is being applied for. We do not live within administrative boundaries, so if something is across different authorities and one side believes that a licence should be granted and another does not, there needs to be some sort of arbitrator to see the overall benefit of bringing that position forward and to say either, “Yes, it is strategically important for London” or, “No, it is not”.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

126: Clause 35, page 39, line 14, at end insert—
“(2) Notwithstanding any powers conferred under this section or Schedule 16, the Mayor of a Combined County Authority may exercise strategic planning powers only where the constituent local authorities have been consulted and, within limits prescribed by regulations, have the power to approve or veto such decisions.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that constituent local authorities have a consultative and limited veto role over strategic planning powers, with any regulations setting those limits made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is really good to be able to take part in the debate on the devolution Bill, particularly to speak to Amendments 126 and 127 in my name. These amendments seek to explore the depth of the devolution that we have been promised in the Bill, which is, after all, called the English devolution Bill. For us Liberal Democrats on these Benches, devolution involves enabling—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but would she prefer to sit when speaking?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I will stand, as I am not speaking for long, and will sit if I need to, but I thank the noble Lord very much for his consideration.

For us on these Benches, devolution involves enabling governance at the lowest possible level to make the appropriate decisions. These two amendments in their different ways seek to explore whether that is in the Government’s thinking and whether they would accept the suggestions that these amendments make.

The purpose of Amendment 126 is to provide clarity concerning the powers of the mayor and the combined county authority. Clause 35 consists of just two lines and is a very brief statement of the powers of land acquisition and planning development. Further details are provided in Schedule 16. Clause 35 confers on the mayor and the CCA the power to acquire land and develop it. Presumably, though it is not entirely clear—and maybe this is where the Minister will be able help the Committee—this would be by providing an outline allocation of the site for housing development under the strategic planning powers in the Bill.

This may result in a major housing development being agreed in principle without the consent of the constituent local planning authority or, indeed, of the local council concerned. The consequences are then very significant if the development fails to include, for example, a condition for the provision of necessary additional facilities, such as school places, GP surgeries and transport and highway infrastructure. It may also mean that a significant housing development—as a general rule, given that it is coming through a strategic planning process, it will be a major site of 200-plus houses —is given permission in principle without consultation and the engagement of the local community affected by it. Imposing new developments on communities in this way will only build resentment and further discredit the notion of local democracy. Amendment 126 would provide safeguards to ensure that such engagement and consultation take place.

There is a provision within Amendment 126 for a veto, but it is a qualified veto. It is included but is constrained by regulation, which would ensure that a housing development is not simply rejected by those who do not want any development but rejected on acceptable planning grounds provided by the constituent authority.

The Minister may say that we have to build houses, and with that I agree. But we have to build them with the consent of the communities in which they are placed. In my own area, I have experience of where a mayor has the powers to impose without consultation and engagement. The local community is furious. It has done no good at all to either the mayor or the infrastructure that is being planned, because the mayor has not taken the community with them, which is what the amendment is about. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.

Amendment 127 is less of a challenge for anybody. It just refers to land acquisition powers. In Schedule 16 there is a list of authorities to be consulted when a mayor wants to acquire land, but the list fails to include parish and town councils. Parish and town councils are statutory consultees for planning applications, so they also ought to be statutory consultees for land acquisition by a mayor. In addition, given the nature of the Bill and the guidance that has been given about increasing neighbourhood governance in some form, making the case for parish and town councils is the right way to go, because I can see them becoming increasingly important as large unitary councils become the norm.

The new unitaries are expected to have a population of around 500,000 people, so wards are likely to be large. Each councillor will represent maybe 5,000 voters, which is the norm where I am. That is easily the largest ratio of elected representatives to voters of any western European nation. It therefore seems that more parish and town councils will be created, and that they will be an increasingly important part of our democratic representation. Given that, it is equally important that those councils can be formally consulted on sensitive issues in local areas, such as land acquisitions. The depth of our devolution is what I am exploring today. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 131. There is an interesting pot-pourri of subjects in this group. Amendment 131 would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner for local planning authorities and strategic authorities. Noble Lords who participated in the debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will recall that we had positive debates on this subject during the passage of that legislation, and I do not apologise for returning to it.

The need for a statutory chief planner role is, if anything, increasing. The argument is very straightforward. We are increasingly, and I think the Government are deliberately, seeking to raise the status of the planning profession, increase the strategic responsibilities of planners and ensure that, through the planning reforms, we accelerate housing delivery and growth. The planning profession is instrumental to making this happen. Although on previous occasions the Government’s response was that this was something that local authorities can choose to do, and therefore we should not require them to do it by appointing a statutory officer, all the messages that are coming back to us from across the profession demonstrate that this would enable the planning profession to step up fully to the role that is envisaged for it through the legislation that we passed last year and this year.

Some of the examples will be known to noble Lords. The national scheme of delegation—I am looking forward to soon seeing the first statutory instrument implementing it—will enhance the role specifically of the chief planner, who will work with the chair of a planning committee in a local planning authority. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that the Government’s consultation document referred explicitly to the role of the chief planner, without there necessarily being a chief planner in all these planning authorities.

We are also adding to the number of chief planners needed overall, by reference to the strategic authorities and the increasing role of development corporations, each of which will have planning powers. Amendment 131 includes not only local planning authorities but strategic authorities. Why? Because spatial development strategies —which, if I remember correctly, are to be implemented under the Town and Country Planning Act but are a result of the Planning and Infrastructure Act—are a very significant strategic planning function in strategic authorities. There is a significant risk that, without a chief planner role, the spatial development strategy will be seen as an adjunct to a local growth plan and an economic development initiative, whereas, for it to be successful, it must be implemented by officers who understand and can use the National Planning Policy Framework and government guidance and mesh them together with the views of their elected members and the combined authority.

This was previously the subject of debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Royal Town Planning Institute, whose support for the amendment I am grateful for—I am also grateful for the other signatures on Amendment 131—has added to that support by reference to a number of quotes. I will not keep the Committee for a long time but I want to read some out, if I may.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I am out of time, may I respond to the noble Lord in writing? I am happy to do that.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been quite a long debate on a number of issues regarding strategic planning and its consequences.

Amendment 126 in particular referred to the new strategic powers that mayors—not just combined county authority mayors but existing metro mayors—will acquire and how those will knit with local plans. Perhaps I should have said at the beginning that I am a councillor currently serving on a large met authority in Yorkshire. It is clear to me that greater thought must be given to how strategic plans by the mayor and local plans by the local authority will work together and not come into conflict. Those who come from the London experience do not understand, perhaps, that the new mayoral authorities will not have the equivalent of a London Assembly where these things can be debated. They will consist of the leaders of the constituent authorities in West Yorkshire, which is five people. If that is deemed sufficient, it is not devolution.

I thank the Minister for her reply, which, as always, went into substantial detail on the probing questions that were asked; I am sure that some of them will be asked again when we get to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 126 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as the mover of the original Amendment 33, I am grateful to the Government for accepting the substance of that amendment. I therefore agree with Motion A to agree to the Commons’ further amendment. I heartily endorse what Minister Pennycook said in the other place on Monday: it is now about getting on with using the powers that are available under this and previous legislation. I wish the Government well in that endeavour.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, all through the debates on the Bill, we on these Benches have agreed with the principle of what the Government are seeking to do, but had concerns about the balance being created between the necessity to improve construction times, especially with infrastructure, and bearing in mind the needs of our environment and our heritage in particular. We do not think the balance is right at the minute, but we agree that the Bill must proceed.

On Motion A, we wholeheartedly agree with the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which we have supported throughout the Bill. With that, I thank the Minister for all her helpful discussions on the Bill and hope that this is the last we have to say about it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire, which is a large unitary authority with both a metro mayor and a combined authority, I have both an interest to declare and experience to share.

This has been a great debate to be part of and to listen to, because the passion for local governance and local democratic government has been apparent throughout the afternoon. Many issues have been raised that are important locally, such as cattle grids—who knew?—and taxi and private hire licensing, which is vital for safeguarding. We have heard about different parts of the country, from Cornwall and even Devon to Lincolnshire, Norfolk, the West Midlands and now Yorkshire.

This has been an important debate, but it has had rather a mixed response from various Members across the House. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are completely in favour of the principle of devolution. It is fundamental to our values, as is community empowerment, which should naturally flow from devolution. Unfortunately, the Bill being debated neither encompasses real devolution nor, unfortunately, empowers communities. We on these Benches will strongly support proposals that enable either or both.

At the heart of the chasm that exists between the Liberal Democrat and the Government’s approach to devolution is an understanding of the essential purpose of local government. Successive Governments have viewed local government as simply a necessary local service delivery function. Perhaps that notion has its beginnings in the statement made by Sir Keith Joseph, when he was a Cabinet Minister in the early Thatcher Government, that local government should outsource all its service delivery, and the council would therefore only need to meet once a year to agree the contracts. Since then, there has been a persistent trend of central government viewing the purpose of local government through that lens.

Nearly 20 years ago, the Lyons report into local government expressed a more positive purpose for local government as being one of place shaping in order to use powers and influence to promote the well-being of a community. Lyons said that that approach was crucial to improving satisfaction through greater local choice and flexibility. It is that wider, more inclusive place-shaping role that we on these Benches support. It follows the long line of great local government reformers and indeed the Localism Act 2011, which introduced the concept of subsidiarity.

It is in that context that Liberal Democrats challenge the basis of the Bill. We support a strategic authority, but it should have greater democratic accountability and not be at the expense of local decisions made locally, where they belong. During this debate, there have been many contributions on Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which establish strategic authorities and the role of mayors. Strategic authorities have an important role to play in place shaping, as we have heard, and both Manchester and the West Midlands have been trailblazers in doing that, but what is not acceptable to those of us who cherish local democratic decision-making is the powers given to a single person over a large area with minimal accountability, minimal community engagement and little involvement of elected local councillors.

The Mayor of West Yorkshire, for example, serves 2.5 million people, and the combined authority consists of, in effect, the five council leaders. Under the Bill, the mayor will have very wide powers to determine a strategy for land use, for example, that will have a significant impact on local communities who will have been denied a genuine opportunity to have their voice heard. Where is the community empowerment in that? Where is the local accountability and local democratic decision-making?

My noble friend Lord Pack has rightly criticised the change to the mayoral electoral system. A supplementary vote fails the test of enabling the candidate with the widest support to be elected. Why has this system been chosen when others, which are more effective at ensuring the election of a candidate with the widest support, have been rejected?

A further undermining of transparency is the power the Bill provides for a mayor to appoint up to seven unelected commissioners. As it stands, this enables a mayor to appoint their mates to these roles—as has apparently already happened in some mayoral authorities, including one not far from where I live. At the very least, there need to be requirements in the Bill for an open process of appointment through a selection panel.

The extension of mayoral powers is far remote from the notion of community empowerment. For example, the potential for civil enforcement powers to be undertaken by the mayor removes them from local involvement. Further, the power of a mayor to take a planning decision away from the local planning authority is at complete odds with local democracy. I have read nothing in the Bill that explains how a strategic planning decision will be defined. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.

Part 3 is a further attack on local democracy and accountability as it provides powers to the Secretary of State to merge councils into unitary ones. What is not sufficiently discussed is that the key criteria for a unitary council is to be its population. The number of people will determine the geography of the new unitary councils, not whether places coexist and work well with each other, or whether it is the will of the people. Forced amalgamations fail. The council on which I served is a prime example. Even after 50 years, there are regular heartfelt calls for its abolition, because it forced together the great towns of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley, when they do not have much in common. That is the danger of forcing councils together in this way.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that there are elements of the Bill that are welcome, such as the creation of the local audit office. That is a very important move. Since the Audit Commission was abolished, there has been a lack of oversight and guidance for local audit, so I welcome that clause. Clause 58 is important, because it gives a nod towards neighbourhood governance, although there is no clarity about what that might mean. In any case, Clause 58 provides a power for the Secretary of State, for crying out loud, to make the decision on what constitutes a neighbourhood unit.

If we really believe in devolution, neighbourhood governance should be decided by the local council area, not the Secretary of State. If there is one thing that I hope the Minister will help us to change, it is that. That is at the heart of what devolution should be: local people determining what neighbourhood governance should look like and what the area should be, not the Secretary of State, who surely has better things to decide on. That is just one example of a ministerial power to override local decisions, which are unfortunately peppered throughout the Bill.

This is not real devolution. There is no fiscal devolution in the Bill either, which, as many Members have said in their contributions, makes devolution a rather empty promise, given that mayors will probably have to compete for resources from the Treasury.

At its best, local government is greater than the sum of its parts. It is what matters most to the daily lives of people. The plea from these Benches is for the Government to start appreciating the power of vibrant, well-funded local government that enhances the lives of the people who live there and the place in which they live. During the next stages of the Bill, we on these Benches will challenge the Government to look through a local lens and provide real devolution and real community empowerment.