Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 43 seeks to ensure that the extension of votes to 16 year-olds, as argued by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is accompanied by the necessary citizenship education to prepare young people to exercise their new rights and responsibilities as citizens. A number of noble Lords emphasised this in the debates about 16 and 17 year-olds on our first day in Committee. The amendment calls for a catch-up programme of political and media literacy and citizenship, supported by teacher training, with particular attention to the needs of student groups who face socioeconomic disadvantage or most lack electoral confidence, including girls and young women.

I should say that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who supports my amendment, asked me to give her apologies that she cannot be in her place to speak to her Amendment 44, which would place responsibility for citizenship education on the Electoral Commission; otherwise, it is very similar in its tone to my amendment.

I applaud the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, but I am well aware, from research that I was involved in as an academic some years ago, that some young people, not surprisingly, lack confidence about voting. Professor Bryony Hoskins of the University of Roehampton—who has conducted more recent research and whose assistance I am grateful for—tells me that

“young people approach their first election with unequal access to political learning, unequal confidence and different opportunities to practise making their voices heard. Without action to address these differences, there is a risk that the reform will disproportionately benefit those already equipped to participate”.

This underlines the importance of good citizenship education. I was a member of the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, the spirit of which lived on in the recent QSD in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The committee emphasised:

“Citizenship education has a crucial role to play in helping to build active citizens”.


Its importance is all the greater in the context of the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds.

More recently, the APPG on Political and Media Literacy—supported by Shout Out UK, to which I am also grateful for its help—has pointed to

“a growing body of research indicating that young people who receive structured political and media education demonstrate higher levels of civic engagement and greater resilience to misinformation”.

They are more likely to become first-time voters, which increases the chances of them voting subsequently.

With regard to gender, Professor Hoskins’s research shows that even though girls tend to outperform boys in civic knowledge, they demonstrate lower confidence in their ability to understand and engage in formal politics. Longitudinal research in England shows that the gender gap in political confidence widens between ages 11 and 16, precisely the years preceding the proposed voting age.

When it comes to socioeconomic disadvantage, the IP-PAD UK adolescent study found that civic confidence diverges sharply by place. Its report suggested that

“'democratic confidence is shaped not only by age, but also by socio-economic experience”.

Another study, by Dr James Weinberg at the University of Sheffield, underlined the current fragmented state of democratic education in England, with stark disparities between private schools and state schools serving affluent communities on the one hand and state schools in economically deprived communities on the other. More affluent parents are more likely to talk to their children about politics and to feel confident doing so. It is perhaps not surprising that other research found that, when they had access to it, disadvantaged students often gained more from citizenship education than their more privileged peers.

Research undertaken by Professor Hoskins for G-EPIC—Gender Empowerment through Politics in Classrooms—has developed and evaluated teaching approaches designed to strengthen political confidence, particularly among more disadvantaged girls. Its research should inform the kind of catch-up programme envisaged in this amendment. Indeed, ACT—the Association for Citizenship Teaching, which has done so much to press the cause of citizenship education—is currently promoting these teaching resources.

I welcome the Government’s appreciation of the importance of citizenship education, especially to newly enfranchised voters, as expressed, for example, by my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern in winding up the recent QSD.

I have a number of questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, how will the Government ensure that newly enfranchised young people receive appropriate citizenship education before their first opportunity to vote? Secondly, how will that provision address the gender and socioeconomic inequalities in political confidence that I have raised? Thirdly, what teacher training and resources will support inclusive delivery? Fourthly, how will implementation be evaluated to establish its success in benefiting young people facing the greatest barriers to political participation?

In concluding, I stress the urgency of the kind of catch-up programme envisaged in this amendment. In its briefing on the Bill, the Electoral Commission notes:

“We’ve long recommended improvements to democratic education in schools, and the lowering of the voting age makes this more pressing”.


As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern said at the end of the QSD:

“This is a pivotal moment for citizenship education”.—[Official Report, 19/10/26; col. 545.]


The need to act quickly was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the honorary president of ACT, who regrets he cannot be in its place. He warned that, if we fail to revise the curriculum so as to inform, educate and equip young people to take on voting at the ages of 16 and 17, it will be a dereliction of duty. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that we will fulfil our duty to the young people who will exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens for the first time—I hope—at the next general election?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak in favour of Amendments 23 and 43. Following on from my noble friend Lady Lister, I know that my noble friend Lord Blunkett would say that the new curriculum, in which citizenship will be made a compulsory subject for primary schools, with a stronger emphasis on the subject in secondary schools, should be introduced in 2027 rather than 2028. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether it might be possible to change the curriculum and introduce the changes in 2027?

I understand that the citizenship GCSE is really rather good and I encourage all schools to ensure that the maximum number of students can study for that GCSE, but I know that there is a dearth of citizenship teachers. Can my noble friend the Minister say what we are doing to ensure that there are more teachers qualified to teach citizenship? As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, that is the way to ensure that it is properly taught, and taught impartially.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 24, to which my noble friend Lady Meyer added her name, as well as my Amendments 280 and 287.

At Second Reading, I spoke against plans to lower the voting age to 16 on three grounds: evidence on brain development; the confusion that these plans bring to our policy approach to maturity; and the Government playing to the imperative to give ever more stuff to voters, in this case young people. Young people face far more pressing issues which are far harder to resolve; progress on these would lead to much more substantive and beneficial change.

Today, I will focus on the first of those grounds. I tabled Amendments 24, 280 and 287 partly in response to the Minister’s reply. I am grateful that she found time in her closing remarks at Second Reading to refer to my speech, but what she said concerned me as to how clear I had been. She mentioned the scientific evidence I gave against 16 and 17 year-olds being able to vote, saying that

“we do not give people the vote based on their intellectual or cognitive abilities, and that applies to 16 and 17 year-olds—as it does to all our voters”.—[Official Report, 14/9/26; col. 1058.]

I had not at all been arguing to restrict voting to those with sufficient cognitive and intellectual ability: that would be elitist. I was not talking about what a 16 year-old understands. My remarks were exclusively about maturity. I mentioned how staff across the Youth Custody Service always refer to 16 and 17 year-olds as “children”, not because of their cognitive ability but to remind themselves of their relative immaturity.

Neuroscience has quantified and plotted on a graph what brain maturation looks like at 16. I cited the much-respected developmental psychologist Professor Laurence Steinberg, whose studies have found that, across all demographic groups and both sexes, resistance to peer influence increases in a linear fashion between the ages 14 and 18 and seems pretty set for the majority at the end of that period. Hence, typically, by 18 most young people have developed the capacity to stand up for what they believe and withstand peer pressure.

I highlighted other studies of the brain’s control system or executive functions, which enable young people to regulate their emotional reactions, perhaps to a shared reel or video short, and make independent judgments. They stabilise to adult levels only in late adolescence—at 18 to 20 years old. As the researchers of a key study say:

“Results provide a canonical trajectory of executive function maturation that demarcates the boundaries of adolescence”.


Lowering the voting age tramples these boundaries and appears evidentially indefensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by my noble friend Lord Farmer, to which I have added my name. This amendment asks for something entirely reasonable: proper assessment of the evidence on the decision-making capability of 16 and 17 year-olds, compared with those aged 18 or over. Surely, before lowering the voting age, Parliament should have that evidence.

This is not about questioning young people’s intelligence or enthusiasm. It is about whether, at that age, they have developed the maturity and independence of judgment to understand the long-term consequences of their decisions. The scientific evidence is there. To give an example, Professor Sallie Baxendale, a clinical neuropsychologist at UCL, explains that, during adolescence, the brain undergoes extensive rewiring. The connections responsible for rational judgment, impulse control and assessing long-term consequences are still developing. In other words: at 16, the brain is still very much a work in progress.

Research also shows that teenagers are particularly sensitive to emotions, immediate rewards and peer pressure. This is particularly so in today’s world of social media, influencers, foreign interference and online campaigning. Of course, many 16 year-olds are intelligent and politically engaged. But intelligence is not the same as maturity. Most of them are still at school, living at home, and have yet to experience real independence.

Voting is not just about expressing an opinion; it is about choosing who governs us, who taxes us and who makes decisions affecting our future. We already recognise that young people need protection. Both the Children Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child generally recognise that those under 18 are children. As noted before, in England, people cannot marry, buy alcohol or tobacco, serve on a jury or stand for Parliament until they are 18. I remind the House that the Mariage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 passed with cross-party support, including from Labour. It raised the minimum age of marriage to 18, even with parental consent. Why? To protect children from forced marriage and family coercion. If we protect children from family coercion over marriage, should we not be equally concerned about pressure from parents or other adults enticing them to vote in a particular way? Surely, the principle is the same: protecting children from coercion.

Only a few months ago, the Government announced plans to restrict children’s access to social media in order to

“give kids their childhood back”.

But how does involving children in political decisions give them their childhood back? Is it not bizarre that the Government consider 16 year-olds to be still in need of protection from TikTok yet old enough to choose who will govern the country?

The Bill proposes bringing children into the electoral registration system before they are even old enough to vote. When questioned the other day, the Minister told us that,

“Even by the age of 14”,


children

“have decided what subjects they want to continue to study”,—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1390.]

as a reason why children at age 14 should be involved. Surely choosing school subjects is hardly comparable to choosing who should govern our country.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness was in the Chamber when we discussed these issues only two days ago, but all the arguments which she has quite rightly addressed this afternoon were indeed rehearsed then. They have been discussed and debated very widely.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I was basically talking to the amendment, which requires evidence. That is why I was talking about how we do not have the evidence, and that the evidence we have shows us the contrary: that children under the age of 18 are probably not mature enough.

Surely choosing which subjects you study at school is not comparable with choosing who should run our country. This is where a lot of noble Lords before me questioned whether the Government think that this measure will encourage young people to vote for them. I suspect that, if the figures were different and young people voted for the Conservative Party, we would have a very different argument at this stage.

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and her very considered remarks. I welcome the debate on this group, which explores the most unwelcome decision to bring children into the voting net. In particular, I welcome the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, specifically Amendment 301.

The wording of the government amendments, which no one has spoken of yet, requiring officers to investigate whether 14 or 15 year-olds live in a household, sends shivers down my spine—as does the concept of allowing this for children, whose rights in so many other areas of life are correctly postponed until they are responsible enough to use them wisely. We had this debate during Brexit, when the idea of 16 year-olds voting was mooted and discussed and then, quite rightly, dismissed. The point was made then— it is obviously true now—that there is substantial scientific evidence that a person’s capacity for reasoning, logical judgment and decision-making continues to develop up to the age of 18, and many would say thereafter. Although it is true that some basic cognitive capacity and logical reasoning can be reached at around 16, there are other areas where they are not.

In particular, studies highlight that resistance to peer pressure develops well beyond the age of 16. This is absolutely key, as my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, who has unparalleled expertise and experience in this area, pointed out. Peer pressure is not just from others of a young person’s age, and it is not meant to imply Peers such as me who go canvassing. It is teachers and other influencers, particularly these days, as most young people have access to influencers whom they regard as incredibly important and relevant to matters that matter to them, such as fashion and sport. Maybe these influencers are skilled in fashion, sport and related areas, but it would be worrying if they persuaded people how to vote based on extremely limited understanding of the policies themselves.

Scientific research has found that someone under 18 might be just as capable as an adult of understanding an argument, processing information and reaching a logical conclusion, and I do not doubt that. But they are most certainly less capable of resisting peer pressure or emotional impulses. Can the Minister advise us whether the Government have undertaken any specific research in this field to be sure of the competencies of 16-year-olds? In particular, can the Minister explain whether such 16 year-olds will now be eligible for jury service? If not, why not—not forgetting, of course, that jury members are selected from the electoral roll? How will that work? Perhaps she can explain why, in July 2025, the Labour national executive committee decided to change the rules so that officers of local Labour parties have to be over 18.

Let us look at some other glaring inconsistencies. Sixteen year-olds need parental consent to join the Army or marry. Young people cannot order a drink in a pub unless they are 18, so if their side does win the election—possibly due to their vote—they cannot join in the celebrations in the pub or, like the Chancellor, exhibit their joy by inverting a pint glass over their heads. Not unreasonably, Labour refused to lower the drinking age to 16. Why? In Labour’s words, to protect children from harm. Labour says that under-18s are not capable of making that decision for themselves. Labour raised the age for buying cigarettes to 18 “to protect children”, according to the Labour Minister. Why? Because Labour decided that children were not to be trusted with this important decision. Likewise, under-18s are dealt with in different courts and cannot watch the same films as 18 year-olds, because the British Board of Film Classification requires a person to be 18 before being classified as an adult.

As we have heard, the same applies to buying fireworks, using sunbeds and even buying knives. Labour legislated that children had to stay in school or comparable education until 18. Why? Because they were not capable of taking the decision to stay or leave themselves—this has nothing to do with protection. Welsh Labour banned under-18s from tongue piercing, arguing that

“young people may be less likely to have the experience or knowledge”

to take that decision.

Labour does not trust children under 18 to have Botox or buy corrosive substances, and it does not trust children to place bets or even enter a gambling shop. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, then deputy leader, said:

“Those who gamble should be adults”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/19; col. 721.]


So he confirms Labour’s view that under-18s are children. When Labour reduced VAT on children’s meals—another Brexit win—HMRC confirmed that under-18s are children.

What will these children use for voter ID in the polling booth? Few will have appropriate ID. For these reasons and many others, some 95% of the world’s democratic countries do not allow voting at 16; people have to wait until they are 18. Maybe it works in Nicaragua, Cuba or Ecuador, but it does not work here. We will be outliers, propelled by a Government rightly accused of attempting gerrymandering and, as I just demonstrated, abandoning all their past precedents and good practice on the altar of electoral greed—which may well backfire if those voters do not turn out to vote for Labour, as is now predicted.

In conclusion, will the Minister please tell us what research the Government have undertaken on my concerns, particularly about peer pressure on children, and whether she shares my concerns on some of the other issues I have raised? If the Government have undertaken that research, perhaps she could share it with us. If not, these amendments, which largely go to postpone the proposals, must make sense. A referendum would allow those who are closer to 16 and 17 year-olds to make this decision.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of points. I wonder whether the noble Lord thinks that older people are not subject to peer pressure. I believe they are.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Scientific research has shown that younger people are more subject to peer pressure than people over the age of 18.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

What scientific evidence? We can come back to that some other time; I do not wish to waste time this afternoon.

On gerrymandering, I entirely refute that case. Recent polling suggests that young people are not more likely to vote for my party. We are doing this not to secure votes but because we believe that empowering young people is the right thing to do. I have some sympathy with the viewpoint put by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said. Civic education and votes at 16 must go together, but we do not understand the depth of understanding of democracy among some young people. A couple of months ago, I went to a primary school in West Yorkshire where children between years 1 and 6 were elected to the school council. They all had to put forward a manifesto, and they patently understood democracy, voting and what everything meant. On civic education—to which we will return—this is not about influencing young people but about informing them so that they are aware of the rights they will be able to exercise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, posed a question: do we want another referendum? Of course we do not, because, in 2011, there was a referendum where we asked the people whether they wanted to fiddle the franchise and mess around with the voting system, and the people said no by a very large majority. All noble Lords need to recognise that that is not the way we want to go.

I certainly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, when he proposed his amendment about social media—something I will return to later, in group 9. I will not go under the bonnet now, save to say that I think he omitted, in thinking about 16 year-olds, to consider the attainers who will need to prepare to vote on their 16th birthday but may not be 16 yet.

I associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Jackson, who has just spoken, about the muddle that we are in within our United Kingdom relating to the vote and to the franchise. The Bill ought to be the opportunity to bring an end to the hotchpotch of different arrangements in different parts of our United Kingdom. At Second Reading I spoke about the different systems. Clearly, there is first past the post, where the person who gets the most votes wins—easily explainable in the pub, although obviously there are no 16 year-olds there. There is the alternative vote, which now is just used for the Scottish Crofting Commission elections. There is the supplementary vote, with open and closed lists. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who is not in his place, entertained us at Second Reading when he explained to us how he got elected to Holyrood without standing in that election. Then there are thirds and all-outs. The franchise is also different: in Scotland, any resident, of whatever nationality, can vote, but you must be English, from the Commonwealth or from the EU for local elections here. And of course Peers cannot vote at all.

I was taken by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who said that such arrangements risk the peace in our nation that flows from the Belfast agreement and the Windsor Framework. I am concerned that this is a slippery slope. The Prime Minister has already declared that he wants to review still further the voting system to consider proportional representation. We all need to be careful what we wish for, because PR will lead to more sectarianism, more minority voting and more campaigning in Urdu, where single-issue activists seek to hold the rest of us over a barrel, reducing trust in democracy and elections, and the institutions they serve.

I will consider Amendment 279, in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Brady. Some months ago, I attended a Learn with the Lords session at the education service in Victoria Tower Gardens. I was surprised to be paired—I do not know why—with a load of gobby kids, each of them egging each other on, promoting and lionising the Tate brothers and, in my presence, voicing all sorts of unacceptable, misogynistic opinions about immigrants and women. It turned out that it was not Learn with the Lords but “learn from the kids”. I was really concerned.

This plays to the point of Amendment 279 and that which the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has mentioned about where the boundary between childhood and adulthood is. I do not propose to go through another laundry list of the things you can do aged 16, although you can sell scrap metal to a dealer and you can get there on a moped—that would not be a big deal—or, in Scotland, get married without parental permission. I say to my noble friend Lady Coffey, who is in her place, that you may not be able to get a tattoo but you can certainly get a piercing. These are trivial examples, but it goes to the muddle we are in. When you are 18, you can fight on the front line, get a credit card, take out a loan, buy a pint and sit on a jury, as other noble Lords have said. You can make a will, buy land and property, hold a tenancy and rent an adult video—not that anyone rents videos of any sort nowadays. It illustrates the point that we must have the review contemplated by Amendment 279, to be fair not just to the adults in the room but—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is true that one can join the forces at 16, but one does not fight on the front line, as the noble Lord put it, until one is 18.

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate, and of course we all wish him well in his retirement. We will miss him, and his views on democracy are very well established. I agree with him in relation to prisoners, but that is a personal view.

Democracy is fragile, and too many people have lost faith in our politicians and in our Parliament. We must give citizens confidence that our system is fair, inclusive, transparent and accessible.

I commend the Government for taking action to prevent overseas money influencing our politics, but the influence wielded by domestic mega-donors also threatens our political system. It is a challenge to democracy and corrupts our politics. I welcome the letter from the Housing Secretary and the First Secretary of State to the Electoral Commission asking for an immediate review of political spending caps. This is very urgent. I therefore ask my noble friend whether the Government commit to a timeline for announcing and legislating further measures to cap donations.

As well as deciding what electoral law should be, we must consider stronger penalties for breaches of the law, including confiscation of the entire donation and a substantial fine. It would be good to have the views of my noble friend the Minister.

One important aspect of electoral funding was not properly addressed by Rycroft and is absent from the legislation. The use of think tanks funded by unknown sources and foreign money to influence our politics should concern us all, as it does the Liberal Democrats. Does the Minister agree that think tanks, like charities or political parties, should be required to report and publish information on their donations?

I fervently believe that further work on reforming our electoral law system is crucial and must take place before the election. The Government must review electoral law swiftly and carefully to ensure that it is fit for purpose at every level and then urgently bring forward further legislation. I suggest that perhaps they could do this in the next Session of Parliament to close loopholes, address new issues that have arisen and ensure that our elections are free from undue influence.

I am delighted that the Bill will lower the voting age, but this must be accompanied by education to install political, digital and media literacy. We need this education as soon as the Bill is enacted to ensure that our young people have the information and confidence to participate in the next elections.

I welcome the Bill’s provision to remove the requirement of home addresses to be published on the notice of election agents, and recent changes for candidates to opt out of publishing their home addresses on ballot papers. However, home addresses should be kept private by default. Women candidates are more likely to withhold their addresses than men, which can impact on their ability to prove a local connection. A change to prevent the publication of a candidate’s home address and instead replace geographical location with the constituency, district or ward would put all candidates on an equal footing and ensure both transparency and safety.

As the Electoral Commission’s recent report states, the rising abuse and intimidation of electoral candidates is changing politics. This must not be normalised and requires a change of culture. This Bill is an opportunity to change the culture, so I urge the Minister to take forward five further issues that were not voted on in the Commons: strengthen requirements for running for office by including domestic abuse in the list of offences and disqualification orders, as in Apsana Begum MP’s amendments, which received cross-party support; embed a code of conduct for political campaigning, building on the recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference and the ongoing work of the Electoral Commission, which is engaging parties to create a code; require the Electoral Commission to disseminate candidate safety resources; introduce an elections code of practice for social media platforms; and include an elections advertising code of practice. Claims in non-broadcast election advertising, including social media and targeted digital ads, are currently exempt from the code overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. Thus, no independent body is responsible for assessing whether factual claims in electoral advertising are accurate. We need to close that gap to ensure fair and factual, robust debate and political expression.

Finally, I will be moving an amendment on compulsory voting, which I believe is a proven method of increasing voter turnout at elections, ensuring that citizens use their vote to influence the shape of our country and empowering them to bring about change.

I end by thanking many organisations for the excellent briefing they have provided, including the Women’s Democracy Group coalition.

Domestic Travel and Holidays: Visitor Levy

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I do not normally apply for jobs, but there we are. On the central point about mayors, it is our intention to announce the results of the consultation, and as he knows, there are a lot of details to be worked out, but those plans relate to places where they are.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this devolution of power. In declaring my interest as chair of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, I ask my noble friend if he shares my concern about the impact of disinformation, especially from the United States of America, on reduced visitor figures to London this year. Will he also join me in welcoming the campaign of my newly ennobled friend the Mayor of London to showcase our wonderful city and tackle this online disinformation?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Yes, I do share my noble friend’s concern about misinformation and disinformation, not just in this regard but in many other regards. As noble Lords with whom I have discussed the elections Bill will know, I am particularly concerned about foreign interference in various matters in our lives here, including elections.

London is of course a wonderful and safe city. The Government have an ambitious target of 50 million in-bound visits a year by 2030, and I pay tribute to the work my noble friend is doing to promote those activities. London is a wonderful place—do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

Jo Cox Civility Commission

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

That this House takes note of the Government’s steps to strengthen communities and implement the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission 10 years on from her murder.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, like many in this House, I had the privilege of knowing Jo. Ten years on from that devastating loss, I pay my respects and send my condolences to her remarkable family, who have shown such strength and courage. We know that this week will be particularly challenging for them.

Jo was petite in stature but a giant in so many ways. She had a remarkable zest for life. She was a catalyst for action in her constituency and the wider world, where she worked in international development, witnessing at first hand the impact of conflict and inequality. Jo was a courageous campaigner against injustice and bigotry in this country and the wider world. She was a feminist and a humanitarian, who loved her fellow human beings. She believed in service. Most importantly, she was a mother, a daughter, a sister, a wife, and a fantastic friend to many.

Jo inspired love and hope, and it was for that reason that, following her appalling murder, there was an outpouring of love as well as grief. Jo’s murder was an act driven by extremism and division, but people responded not with fear but with something that Jo believed in: connection. In December of that year, friends and family set up the Jo Cox Foundation to pursue the issues about which Jo was passionate, guided by her values and principles.

It is an immense honour to serve as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. Our vision is a society underpinned by her enduring belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us; a society where our communities and our democracy are strengthened by connection and respect across difference, with decency and civility in public life.

A decade on, our work is more important than ever. Sadly, despite the collective promises made 10 years ago to address hate, foster unity and bridge divisions, our society is more fractured and communities are more divided. Loneliness remains a profound public health crisis, and the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives have intensified. This 10-year mark is not only a moment for remembrance; it is a call to action. Social connection is not just a “nice to have”; it is the bedrock of a safe, resilient society, and it is fundamental to the healthy functioning of our democracy.

The heartening news is that the desire to connect is fiercely alive. New research by the Jo Cox Foundation, in partnership with More in Common UK, shows that while many feel community ties have weakened, one in three people actively want to improve their connection to those around them. Crucially, those who are currently the least connected are the ones who want to connect the most. The issue lies in the systemic barriers to that connection: financial hardship, anxiety among young people, online interactions replacing real-life communities, and deepening political polarisation. We must act—we have a duty to act. We urgently need to bring people together, in person wherever possible; to support our young people to access places, relationships and opportunities to belong; to give communities the resources and power to take forward community-led social action themselves; and to remove the barriers to connection, whether that be by creating accessible and affordable places to connect, or more intentionally addressing loneliness by adopting our joint call to action for a new cross-government action plan on loneliness and connection.

Jo was dedicated to combating loneliness and formed an independent, cross-party commission of MPs and charities. This led to the appointment of the first Minister for Loneliness, Dame Tracey Crouch, whom I am delighted to say is now on our board. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for having drawn Tracey into the Government. As we are all aware, we now have an epidemic of loneliness, especially among young people, which is having a profound impact on individuals, society, the NHS and productivity. When lonely people are isolated in their rooms, they are sometimes prey to social media algorithms that exacerbate divisions and can lead to violence, and sometimes political abuse and aggression.

We understand the importance of meaningful social connection so, together with other members of the Loneliness Policy Action Group, we have launched a cross-government call to action—a set of policy calls aimed at embedding loneliness prevention and promoting connection more deeply across government policy and public services. I warmly welcome the Government’s report, published earlier this week, Loneliness, Isolation and Social Connection Among Boys and Young Men in England, but I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister agreed to meet me and my colleagues to discuss much needed cross-government action.

I do not suggest that the recent horrendous murders in Southampton and Belfast were the result of loneliness, but I have no doubt that the violence that ensued was whipped up by social media in toxic online spaces, algorithms, anger and division in our fractured society. Fear of the other was weaponised. Yet, there are extraordinary examples of generosity in words and deeds, such as from the father of Henry Nowak and those who gave shelter to those in fear of racist thugs in Belfast. There is much work to be done to bring people together, break down barriers, nurture understanding and heal divisions, enable people to listen, talk to each other and disagree agreeably.

Polarisation in our politics adds to the ferment. Politics face a crisis of connection, confidence and safety. Both Jo and Sir David Amess were murdered by extremists while carrying out their democratic duty in their constituencies. Since then, the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives and candidates has intensified. The political atmosphere is becoming increasingly hostile. Reported crimes against MPs have more than doubled since 2019. Some 96% have experienced threatening behaviour, with threats of sexual violence disproportionately targeted at women, minority and disabled MPs. In a Question for Short Debate two weeks ago, we heard of the intolerable abuse suffered by councillors, both online and in person. Our political system is under attack and our democracy undermined.

The pressures fall disproportionately on women and those already under-represented in our democracy—the very people whose participation make our institutions more representative and resilient. This risks a reversal of progress on political diversity. A Girlguiding survey found that a third of girls and young women are deterred from pursuing careers in politics because of the hostility that high-profile women face online. We are moving towards a culture where abuse is dismissed as “part of the job.” It is not, and we must reject the growing normalisation of abuse and intimidation. This is a systemic problem, rooted in wider inequalities and pressures across the political ecosystem. It is a direct threat to our democracy. Talented people are stepping down, not standing in the first place, and self-censoring.

We need an inclusive democracy, one in which people feel safe and confident to participate in robust but respectful debate. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but it must never be used to incite violence, spread hatred or justify harassment. Language matters, and we must ensure that we never return to the toxic public discourse we endured during the Brexit debate. We must not allow our country to be dominated by extreme voices. We must deplore the racist voices and policies of Restore, which is backed by Elon Musk and would welcome Tommy Robinson as a member. We must choose hope over hate.

The Jo Cox Civility Commission has successfully advocated for improvements such as expanded police support and security co-ordination for elected representatives, making security costs exempt from election spending limits, ending the requirement for councillors to publish their addresses on council websites, and improving specific guidance for families of MPs. It is outrageous that families of MPs and councillors are targeted and subjected to abuse. However, we must go further. We call for further change, including for political parties to enforce higher standards of conduct, for social media companies to make their platforms safer, and for improved media, digital and political literacy for all ages.

I want to end on a positive note—a note of hope. For every act of division, there are hundreds of acts of connection and community up and down the four nations. We see this every year during the Great Get Together, which takes place this weekend. Thousands of people across the country reject division and step out of their comfort zones to get together with friends, neighbours, people whom they have never met before, in parks, at picnics, in community halls and gardens, to eat, drink, bake, sing, run or merely sit in the sun and talk over a cup of tea. It is the living embodiment of Jo’s belief that we have more in common than that which divides us.

I thank the many friends in this House who have engaged, and continue to engage, with the important work of the Jo Cox Foundation. It is the responsibility of every one of us to foster community and connection, and to build a more respectful political culture. We should be guided by Jo’s words but, rather than repeating them, we should act on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, what a glorious way to finish; I thank my noble friend the Minister. To think that we are a unifying force—that is a wonderful way to finish; I thank her so much. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate for sharing their experiences, but also for expressing their hopes and fears. I am grateful too for the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and for our wider work, because strengthening our communities, addressing the epidemic of loneliness and nurturing respect and civility in politics are all inextricably linked. These are the ways to address the challenge of making a more resilient society.

Still, notwithstanding the divisions and difficulties in our communities and our country, there is always hope. There are many great things and so much positive action in our communities. Like everyone else, I love the catalogue of positivity, which is going on my wall as well. In fact, I might print it out and circulate it to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. That is real, positive action.

It is also uplifting that across the Chamber, where quite often we disagree agreeably—and that is fine; that is as it should be—today we have agreed on all the points of this debate, and I think that is a matter of strength. We have all shown a great determination to bring about change where it is needed, and it is needed if we are to ensure a healthy democracy and a resilient society in which everyone feels safe to participate. We must hold firm to Jo’s words, and we must act.

I will end on a lighter note. I encourage all noble Lords to participate in the Great Get Together this weekend and, perhaps in the next 10 days, to go and raise a glass to Jo in one of our bars where they are serving Great Get Together beer.

Motion agreed.

Local Councillors: Recruitment, Retention and Well-being

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, I have not been a councillor, but I was married to one and am the mother of one. We have heard all the appalling facts and stats. As chair of the Jo Cox Foundation, I am deeply concerned about the impact that abuse and intimidation are having on councillors, their families and, ultimately, our society. No one should have to risk their safety to serve in public life, yet that is exactly what is happening across the United Kingdom, with damaging consequences for our democracy.

The political atmosphere is becoming increasingly hostile. Too many elected representatives and those considering standing are avoiding engagement, limiting their visibility or stepping away altogether because of safety concerns. Too many excellent change-makers are choosing not to stand in the first place. These pressures, as we have heard, fall disproportionately on women and those already underrepresented in our democracy—the very people whose participation makes our institutions more representative and resilient.

Our local councils should reflect the communities they serve, but instead this trend risks narrowing who feels able to take part. We are moving towards a culture where abuse is dismissed as part of the job, but it is not: it is a systemic problem rooted in wider inequalities and pressures across the political ecosystem, and it is worsening across democracies globally. If we fail to act, our councils will reflect an ever-narrowing section of society, with serious implications for the decisions made and the services delivered.

We need an inclusive democracy, one in which people feel safe and confident to participate in robust but respectful debate. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but it must never be used to incite violence, spread hatred or justify harassment. We need a democracy that enables political parties to thrive. Councillors, who are the lifeblood of all political parties, are the people who are rooted in our communities.

The Jo Cox Civility Commission has made clear recommendations to address abuse, intimidation and violence, and there has been welcome progress, including Operation Ford, but more needs to be done. The Representation of the People Bill is a very positive step, and it is a great moment for us to amend that Bill where necessary. We need the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance and require returning officers to provide this to candidates as soon as possible; the Electoral Commission should have more powers for enforcement; and political parties must publish their codes of conduct and be held to them.

Finally, social media has amplified hostility. It did not create resentment towards politicians, but it provides a perilous platform to share it, with dangerous consequences. A clear code of practice under the Online Safety Act would help to provide consistent protection and give candidates the confidence to participate. I pay tribute to the LGA for all the work that it has done with councillors, but also with those who have lost their seats.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 132 is on the general health determinants listed under Clause 44. Under that clause, combined authorities must have regard to improving the health of people in their area. Our amendments would expand the current list of general health determinants to include the availability, as opposed to just the standards, of housing. In addition,

“matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle”

as referenced in the Bill are specified to include “physical activity and diet”.

On housing, standards are crucial of course, but housing availability should also be considered as it affects housing insecurity and homelessness. On physical activity and diet, it should be clear to all noble Lords that these are major health determinants. This is common knowledge: dietary patterns are a key determinants of chronic disease, and physical activity is a major factor for preventable disease. In 2023, evidence from the Sport and Recreation Alliance showed that the UK was ranked 11th out of 15 comparable European nations for the levels of physical activity that were undertaken, and that we were the third-highest spender on healthcare costs caused by inactivity. Updating the general health determinants in this Bill would inform fthe health determinants referenced in Amendments 133 and 134 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon.

Evidently, there is scope in this Bill to see what more can be done to make our country healthier, based on common sense. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this very short and very simple amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 133 and 134. As we are aware, the UK’s health is fraying and unequal, with increasing numbers of people unable to work owing to poor health. Compared with other high-income countries, the UK now has one the lowest life expectancies and is among those with deepest health inequalities. This has avoidable and negative consequences for individuals, public services and the economy.

Addressing these inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the powers to shape economic growth, create healthy places and reduce inequalities. This Bill provides a timely opportunity to embed health and health equity at the heart of devolved decision-making, and I warmly welcome Clause 44, which is a crucial lever for improving health and reducing health inequalities.

In Committee, I tabled amendments to strengthen this duty and the proposed local growth plans to ensure that all strategic authorities act consistently to improve health, reduce health inequalities and consider health while growing their local economies. My noble friend the Minister responded that she believes the duty as drafted

“will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 613.]

However, the Government have not yet provided any detail on how this duty should be fulfilled or how strategic authorities will be held accountable for this. Without this detail, there is a real risk that inequalities will be worsened, with some strategic authorities taking significant action to improve health and others seeing the duty as a tick-box exercise.

To ensure that the duty is as successful as we and the Government want it to be, I have tabled amendments which would require the Government to report to Parliament on the implementation of the duty. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Bichard, for their support.

The Government previously said that they will monitor the health duty, with Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, saying that

“we will continue to monitor how the new duty beds in and its impact across the country, so we can ensure that the intent is aligned with practice and delivery”.—[Official Report, Commons, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, 21/10/25; col. 358.]

These amendments would formalise the Government’s commitment, providing a mechanism to identify whether further support, guidance, resources or requirements are needed in the future. It would also provide a mechanism to support shared learning across strategic authorities.

The amendments focus on implementation and process rather than outcomes, given the time it takes to see shifts in health inequalities. Information could be collected with a light-touch approach of returns from strategic authorities covering actions taken, strategies produced, partnerships formed, et cetera, and desk research by civil servants. Without these amendments, there is a risk that the new health duty remains well intentioned but inconsistently applied across regions and will therefore fail to have any real impact on reducing health inequalities. This would be a significant missed opportunity to reverse worrying health trends. If the amendments are not acceptable, I hope that the Government will agree to guarantee strong guidance on this issue to ensure that the duty is properly implemented across all regions.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. I spoke to Amendment 132 in Committee. I will not repeat what I said then, but I just want to say that the Minister said in Committee that the reason why the Government want to stick with their own wording on Clause 44—a clause that we all support very strongly—was that they did not want to be too prescriptive regarding what areas should be looking at as health determinants. However, if we do not reflect what is known about the determinants of health, we will not be able to set down what we need to measure to evaluate the success of Clause 44, which is so important and which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, spoke about in connection with her amendments. I therefore urge the Government to look very carefully at these amendments to see whether some adjustments can be made that would make Clause 44 as strong as we all want it to be.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for moving the first amendment in this group so eloquently. I will speak in particular to Amendments 52, 61 and 326 in my name, but all the amendments in this group look to put rural areas front and centre.

For five years, I had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, and I was delighted with the work we were able to do to put rural affairs front and centre. I was very proud of the fact that we had a rural-proofing unit within Defra at that time, so it was a source of great disappointment to me that it was disbanded.

The 2021 census defines the rural/urban classification in this way: urban areas are settlements with a population of 10,000 people or more, and rural areas are literally everywhere else and include rural towns, villages, hamlets, isolated dwellings and open countryside. Nearly one in five of us lives in a rural area. The challenges facing rural areas are very different from the challenges facing urban areas. The cost of living is often greater. We are also off the energy grid and dependent on oil for delivery in most cases. In normal times, it is bad enough, but with the Middle East hostilities at the moment, it is a completely different situation.

Houses are often isolated, and there is a lack of housing, particularly small units of one or two bedrooms. All the developers seem to want to build four- or five-bedroom homes, for which there is not the same need in rural areas. Public services are sparse and cost more to deliver, whether it is accessing GP surgeries, ambulances or hospitals. School buses are a particular contention at the moment after the rural deprivation grant was slashed and abolished by this Government.

I personally regret the move to combined authorities and metro mayors—they are not suited to rural areas. When we debated the orders on the combined authorities and the metro mayors for North Yorkshire, only the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I spoke against the move. I know there was a feeling of great loss in North Yorkshire when we moved away from the districts and the boroughs which had served North Yorkshire extremely well over generations.

The definition of rural-proofing, according to the Government’s own website, is

“assessing what might affect outcomes in rural areas and adjusting policies or policy delivery when appropriate and practicable”.

I will preface the amendments in my name with remarks from some of the briefings I have received in preparation for today. The Campaign to Protect Rural England states very clearly that at present, many combined authorities are focused on large urban areas, with focuses on economic growth, transport and infrastructure. The Government have said repeatedly that they see cities and towns as key to economic growth and investment. Therefore, the CPRE is concerned that rural communities will be left behind as strategic authorities draw up their own SDSs. In a similar vein, the Better Planning Coalition briefing I received states:

“The concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of metro mayors for large urban areas. Much of their focus will be on economic growth, transport and other infrastructure … the Government is clear that it sees cities and larger towns as the focus for economic growth and infrastructure investment. There is therefore a risk that rural communities will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up their strategies and develop their workplans”.


The model is not one size fits all. I can quite understand the argument for mayors in urban areas such as Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, where there is a big centre of population and a big mass, and where policies are more homogeneous and can be dealt with for a large centre of population. That is not the case with metro mayors for rural areas—it simply does not stack up. The needs of the residents of the city of York and of those of North Yorkshire are in direct competition with each other in terms of economic growth, culture, tourism and other areas.

My Amendments 52 and 61 seek to ensure that mayors in rural areas appoint an extra commissioner to have responsibility for rural areas. I am not wild about commissioners in any shape or form—it would be far better if the mayor set the priorities and that those elected to the office should have that focus—but my Amendment 61 looks at appointing

“a commissioner with competence for rural affairs if their authority is a majority or intermediate rural authority according to the Rural Urban Classification”,

to which I referred earlier.

For me, the most important of my amendments is Amendment 326, which goes to the heart of rural-proofing and making sure that not just one department—such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—should be responsible for rural-proofing. I would like to see a real pull from the Government to ensure that every policy that addresses rural issues is rural-proofed before it becomes policy. I will explain why it should not just be Defra. I am very exercised at the moment about the powers of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, because it is directly opposed to the residents of rural areas, particularly those who live in open countryside, who do not want to have all these clean energy projects that will destroy not just their view but, quite possibly, their way of life and the value of their properties.

Amendment 326 seeks to ensure that, before any regulations are made under the future Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the future Act’s impact on rural areas, including its costs and benefits. Without that amendment, I feel that the Government will be wading into areas where they will be so focused on the issues of those living in urban areas that they will leave behind the interests of those in rural areas—including market towns, villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings—who enjoy the open countryside they have at the moment.

I will end with a plea. Local elections are coming up in May, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity to be honest about what their plans are for future planning policy. If the Bill really has nothing to do with English devolution and community empowerment and will actually take away the rights of those who live in rural areas to object to some of the sites being proposed, particularly because of the clean energy schemes that I referred to earlier, then this is a wake-up call for those electors in rural areas and a one-off opportunity to reject what this Government are proposing.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 310, which seeks to insert a duty to consider the needs of rural communities into the Bill. The duty would require

“strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities”.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I lament the fact that the rural-proofing unit was taken away, and I hope it will be restored one day.

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting with me and for her letter of 17 March, which went to all noble Lords. The letter informed us that amendments would be tabled to increase the number of commissioners to up to 10 and would thus support the appointment of commissioners dedicated to cross-cutting issues such as rural matters.

Government Amendments 42, 51 and 60 will be debated in group 9 and naturally, I support them. However, there is still no mention of “rural” in the Bill, which runs the risk of not presenting a devolution-for-all approach. The distinct lack of reference to rural communities, along with many provisions drawing from the Greater London Authority Act, means that the Bill currently reads as urban-centric in its approach to devolution.

Rural areas have distinct needs, as has been so well pointed out this afternoon, and they present a unique opportunity as important economic drivers for this country, through farming, food production, local businesses and tourism. With the creation of new strategic authorities and the devolution of powers to strategic authority mayors, we need to consider carefully the application of “strategic” within a rural context.

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

Rural areas have very different characteristics across the country and benefit from tailored approaches to economic growth and development. This legislation provides the opportunity to empower areas to provide the bespoke solutions needed for their rural communities. That, in itself, is fundamental to the devolution agenda.

My amendment, which addresses the points raised by the Royal Town Planning Institute and a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network, entitled English Devolution and Rural Affordable Housing, would embed rural representation in the Bill and offer safeguarding provisions. That would lead to better consideration of rural communities and their context, specific needs and opportunities through the devolution process and the implementation of the new strategic layer of local power.

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this very important group, having attached my name to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and Amendment 310, which was just very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.

All these amendments constitute a group; I chose these two because we are introducing rural affairs as an area of competence for strategic authorities, giving them a duty to “have regard”, which makes quite a nice package. Interestingly, in the last group the Government conceded the power of the argument for including culture as a key element of the Bill. I really cannot see why they have not done the same thing with rural affairs, having heard the very powerful arguments made in Committee. I live in hope that, having now heard the arguments on Report, the Government will see the sense of including rural affairs in the Bill.

We spoke extensively about this issue in Committee, and we have already heard three powerful arguments today for taking this direction, so I will just add a couple of points. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, put it very well when she talked about young people gathering at the bus stop in the early evening because they know that a bus will not come along and disturb them for 15 or 16 hours—or possibly six days, the way these things work. That really is a measure of deprivation. At the other end of the population age scale, of course, we have a fast-ageing population, many of whom live in rural areas. They may once have had enough money to have access to a car, but that does not mean they are going to be able to use one indefinitely. That is a crucial issue in relation to bus services in rural areas. If you have a metro mayor, it is going to be very hard to get attention paid to that kind of issue.

I want to major, as I did in Committee, on the issue of food growing. Many other things happen in rural areas—people live in rural areas for all sorts of reasons—but our rural areas should be regarded far more centrally as part of the way in which we feed our population. Speaking at the NFU conference in Birmingham recently, Professor Tim Lang, a well-known food expert, reflected that the UK is only 54% self-sufficient in food. Lest someone say, “It’s a crowded island”, the Netherlands is 80% self-sufficient in food. We need to treat our land, our local areas, as places that produce a lot of their own food. Professor Lang said that our model of agri-food capitalism has just relied on the idea that others can feed us, but we all know the state of the world, the state of geopolitics and the state of climate. That is not something we can continue to rely on.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

140: Schedule 20, page 225, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that local growth plans explicitly take account of the statutory health duty and the proposed Health Inequalities Strategy. It strengthens the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the government’s intention that devolution should support inclusive growth and stronger communities, while maintaining local flexibility.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 140 would strengthen the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the Government’s intention for devolution to support inclusive growth in stronger communities while maintaining local flexibility.

Devolution should give local leaders the tools to make a tangible difference to the lives of their citizens. However, if poor health and widening health inequalities continue to constrain economic participation and the effectiveness of public services, and if local growth plans are not used to drive better health, devolved leaders will fail to deliver real change to their communities. I believe that this Bill is a hugely significant moment for regional governance, with its explicit expectation that devolution should support improved outcomes, including health outcomes, for communities.

In many UK regions, long-term illness is now the single largest driver of economic inactivity. This can be seen most clearly in areas of historically high deprivation. The economic impact of poor health is stark. The Health Foundation’s independent Commission for Healthier Working Lives found that

“8.2 million working-age people report a long-term health condition that limits their ability to work … Poor workforce health is estimated to cost UK employers up to £150bn a year through lost productivity, sickness absence and recruitment costs”.

I warmly welcome the Government’s ambition to address regional economic inequality. Improving health and reducing inequalities are prerequisites for economic success. However, health currently remains largely absent from most local growth strategies, although not all. In the Oxfordshire strategic plan—the plan that I know best—health inequalities are a primary focus. The plan explicitly integrates social well-being with economic growth to address the county’s stark internal disparities. It pays specific attention to the foundational economy, which is to say the sectors providing basic goods and services, such as health and education, and identifies these as providential elements on which well-being depends.

Without considering health as a core objective and precondition for growth, local growth plans are less likely to be effective in delivering long-term sustainable growth. Some places in the UK are pioneering new approaches, including the West Midlands, which has implemented the inclusive growth framework. This aims to ensure that everyone benefits from growth by focusing on all types of investment, such as public, private, capital, revenue and time, which are all given attention. However, practice is uneven and lacks a consistent understanding of impact. This amendment aims to recognise the relationship between health and local growth so that further devolution reduces rather than widens inequalities.

I recognise that the number of co-operatives and mutuals is expanding and that the Government are calling for new growth plans across the mutual sector. That is very welcome—I am a Co-operative Member of the House of Lords. My amendment therefore dovetails with the current policy. It is right that local growth plans should promote co-operatives, mutuals and community wealth building—the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. This puts people before private equity profits and champions the kind of economic development activity that gets overlooked by industrial strategies. Instead, it focuses on the everyday economy where most people work.

In Preston, for example, community wealth building is changing lives and has been linked to an incredible 9% increase in life satisfaction and an 11% rise in median wages. This has led to a reduction in daily antidepressant prescriptions of 1.3 units per person and a drop in depression prevalence compared to similar areas of 2.4 per thousand. I am sure that the Government would agree that these results should be replicated across the whole country.

I suggest that community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of all citizens, everywhere. Scotland already has a community wealth building Bill passing through its Parliament and I hope that this amendment ensures that England does not fall behind. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take these things into account. Economic growth will be the lifeblood of mayoral combined authorities, but their ability to achieve that growth will be diminished if health and health inequalities are not an integral part of their plans. I beg to move.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 141B in my name. This amendment is designed to help address perceptions that economic growth and environmental growth are in competition with each other. Tony Juniper of Natural England said it as eloquently as anyone could:

“we need to ensure that Nature and the economy are partners rather than seen as choices. That means weaving Nature recovery into the growth planning up front—the cheapest point at which to invest in Nature, and the one that also yields the biggest returns”.

In essence, this amendment calls for the Secretary of State to publish a local authority guide to constructing a win-win: best practice in growing the natural economy as part of the growth plans, and how nature-based solutions and easy mitigations to protect wildlife can help local economics.

The amendment covers a range starting with responsibilities to individual wild animals and birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was picked up by the Animal Sentience Committee as something that was slightly missing when we discussed the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I cannot help mentioning my beloved bird-safe design of buildings as a specific example of something that might be covered. Just as a reminder to those who might have missed the fun and games on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, buildings that are poorly designed in their use of glass and light can pose a serious threat to birds and are thought to kill around 30 million a year in the UK. Simple tweaks to the design of buildings in the planning stages can make them much safer to birds at no cost at all. But not many people know this, so guidance is necessary. Local authorities can use that guidance as they wish.

The amendment goes on to cover broader responsibilities to the environment and natural world. It would carry best practice advice on all the environmental services that can be harnessed to reduce flooding and pollution and to provide green spaces—all opportunities that can help local authorities to reach environmental as well as economic targets. So many developments that have gone badly wrong at the interface between economic and environmental growth could have been entirely turned around if, at the very outset of planning, the right expertise had been applied. It could make all the difference if a guide to best practice was a necessary part of the pack given to support local authorities. Without it, more avoidable issues might arise to the detriment of both the economics and the environment.

I completely recognise that I am not a drafter of legislation and that this amendment is very roughly worded. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the schedule already allows the Secretary of State to publish any guidance that they want, but I hope that the Government grasp this opportunity to put forward their own amendment to the Bill that commits to publishing a best practice guide that shows that they do not believe that protecting wildlife and helping nature is an opposing aim to wanting economic growth and that helps local authorities to see how both can be done together in a virtuous circle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that this has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate. I am grateful to all contributors and for the amendments to Schedule 20 on local growth plans.

I will start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, which draws our attention to the important role of mayors in addressing health inequalities in their areas. Through Clause 44, we are introducing a new legal requirement for combined and combined county authorities to have regard to the need to improve the health of people in their areas, and to reduce health inequalities between people living in their areas. This will reinforce our ambition to ensure that health is considered in all policies and will support our health mission in England.

I add that the mayoral competencies set out in the Bill specifically include health, well-being and public service reform, so that means that that should be taken into consideration in all the work that the mayor and the strategic authority do. It is the Government’s intention that mayors should sit on ICBs, which I hope will start to address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Royall about how we get that linkage between what is going on in the national health and what is going on at local level.

There are some great examples across the country of what is happening—obviously, Manchester is the best known because it has specific powers to tackle health, and I really welcome that, but in a district council like my own, we took great interest in tackling some of the key health challenges in our area to help the economy, such as tackling obesity, smoking and some of the big, long-standing mental health challenges that we faced, and we worked closely with partners in doing that. Of course, there is no better example of the contribution that local authorities can make to public health than the response of local authorities to the Covid pandemic, in those very unique circumstances, so we know it can be done.

Although I recognise that it is not explicitly stated in relation to local growth plans, I can reassure the Committee that this new duty will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan. Indeed, as I said, many places are already demonstrating this awareness.

I know that many of my noble friends will be very sympathetic to the benefits of co-operative and mutual models in addressing these challenges—I know they are aware of my history in the co-operative movement. I hope they will also recognise that a key principle behind local growth plans is that they must be locally owned, in line with the fundamental principles of devolution.

I recognise the community wealth-building principles so clearly articulated by my noble friend Lady Royall, and the example that she gave of Preston, which has been a leading proponent of using the power of public procurement and provision of infrastructure and services to tackle inequalities in its local area. That has been very important, and Matthew Brown and his colleagues have done a very significant piece of work on that. However, while we may commend those local examples, we must afford local growth plans the flexibility for local challenges to be addressed in response to the local context.

I hope my noble friend feels reassured that mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities are already considering health as part of their plans, and that the new health improvement and health inequalities duty will achieve the desired effect. On that basis, I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 141B is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and I thank her for all the discussions we have had around her environmental issues, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act and recently. The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to set out in guidance how mayoral combined authorities should align growth measures in their local growth plan with considerations of nature, wildlife and the environment.

I want to reassure the Committee on two points. First, this is already possible. We have set out that the guidance on local growth plans can cover a range of matters. That includes the information to be included in a plan—that is to say, its content—and the ways in which the authority may have regard to the plan when exercising other functions. But the guidance is not limited to just these matters; it can cover additional matters not explicitly set out in the primary legislation. I reassure the Committee that this enables us to set out the matters included in this amendment, should that be needed.

Secondly, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities are already subject to several requirements linked to this amendment. This includes the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets, as well as statutory duties related to air quality. Local growth plans will provide an important framework for economic growth, but they will sit alongside a range of other statutory plans, strategies and duties. Decisions that impact protected species, nature recovery and the environment will still need to consider relevant policy frameworks—for example, local nature recovery strategies, about which we had much discussion during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for setting out so clearly how important it is to ensure that in our planning process, whether it is local growth plans or spatial planning, we aim to create that win- win for development and the environment. We made some significant steps with that in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, and I hope that local growth plans will contribute to that as well.

That said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will feel reassured that the matters in her amendment must already be considered by mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. I hope she will feel reassured that, should further guidance be necessary, it remains possible to set this out in the guidance on local growth plans. I therefore ask that her amendment be withdrawn.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her response, because she clearly understands the issues. I am super-grateful for all the contributions from noble Lords around the Room.

We are all absolutely in agreement that good health is a prerequisite for economic growth in our country. I realise that the Bill takes more account than ever before of the need for these new strategic authorities to act in relation to health and health inequalities. I hear all the frustrations around the Room about the fact that it has not really worked before. Manchester is working really well, and that is brilliant, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out, the dots simply are not joined, either in funding or in services terms. I know that a lot of that is because of the siloed way in which each of our public services receives its money. For it to work really well, we need to have properly funded local authorities and a well-funded health service.

This is a great opportunity, and I am sure that the Bill as it stands will take us a long way. Still, if we could have a statutory health duty in the Bill, it might be a catalyst for further action; it might be a real catalyst for discussion between the Treasury, the NHS and the MHCLG. I would really like to discuss this further with my noble friend before Report. I do not know how far we will get, but this is a great opportunity to make the system work better. I do not want to give up just yet, but I do not want to make her life a complete pain. I would like to come back to this matter before Report and have a discussion with my noble friend the Minister and her team but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 140 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 165A is in my name. It seeks to

“include wheelchair and community equipment provision in the list of ‘general health determinants’ that authorities need to have regard to as a cause of health inequality”.

My intention is to highlight to noble Lords that the provision of wheelchairs and community equipment for disabled people is, to put it bluntly, a disgrace. I urge the Government to look at the outcomes at the moment for those who depend on wheelchairs and disability equipment and, basically, to ensure that local authorities and the NHS play their part in putting things right.

As the Wheelchair Alliance has said, at the moment, there are no consistent national standards, there is no independent regulation and there are few clear paths for users seeking repairs, reporting faults or making complaints. As a result, many disabled people face long waiting times, delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation and, tragically, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being. It is the same dismal picture with community equipment, embracing hoists, hospital beds, pressure-related mattresses, grab rails, bathing aids, harnesses and all of the other essential items that we need.

The All-Party Group for Access to Disability Equipment recently reported on the systemic crisis in this sector. Carers think that things are getting worse, and the system is inconsistent, underinvested, fragmented and lacking leadership. What is tragic is that this is easily sortable. I am convinced that, if we sorted this out, we would provide a better service at less cost, because the current system is just a complete and utter mess.

The reason why the Bill is suitable is because local authorities and integrated care boards share responsibility for community equipment. Wheelchair services and community equipment often reach the same individual; they should operate in tandem, but they are two distinct systems. In welcoming this very good clause, I would like an assurance that combined authorities, in collaboration with the NHS, will take their responsibilities in relation to wheelchair and community equipment services seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point about the difficulties that local authorities sometimes have in working with the health service and in the release of budget. Here we have a situation where both types of authority spend money inefficiently. I am suggesting that we could provide a much better service. Either the quality will be much better or we will have consistent quality, at least; I do not think that it will cost a lot of extra money as well.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 166 would provide a clear mechanism for implementation and accountability of the proposed health duty, while maintaining local flexibility. It would require strategic authorities to produce a health inequality strategy and report on progress every five years.

In many ways, this follows the debate we had on earlier amendments. It is intended to provide a minimum standard and accountability for strategic authorities to adhere to, ensuring that they are meeting their new health duty. The requirement to report every five years was deliberately designed to be the same length of time as the proposed local growth plans will cover, to ensure that they better support one another in strengthening local economies and improving health. The amendment would also ensure that new strategic authorities will mirror existing practice in London, ensuring that health and well-being are embedded across all strategic functions.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my opposition to Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. It in no way conflicts with the series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, so ably presented by my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I agree with the thrust of all she said. There is no doubt that, if Clause 16 is to be sustained, improvements to it, alongside those in the government amendments, would be useful. However, I do not favour that approach. I just do not believe that any part of Clause 16, which amounts to an unjustifiable fettering of the electorate—elect a good candidate or otherwise hand it to an elected mayor in office—should be sustained. Therefore, none of it should stand part.

The public are tiring of funny business in elections. I have laid amendments to later parts of the Bill that would make the cancellation of local council, mayoral and PCC elections illegal without the super-affirmative procedure, which would require a vote in both Houses. Labour is playing fast and loose with democracy—a cancellation of a vote here and a postponement there, asking those with the most to lose whether they would like to stay a little longer, and bogus capacity excuses from councils that do not even run the elections. We read today in the Daily Telegraph a Labour NEC member of many years standing disclosing threats with menaces to Labour council leaders to connive to strip the franchise from more than 4 million electors this May.

When I was a young man, my noble friend Lord Pickles told me, “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. He was right then, and that advice is still correct today; it should never go out of fashion. We need to encourage as many people as possible to serve the public at every level. In my public life in local government, I took the view that I did not have the time to be a double hatter, or even triple hatter, by seeking to serve my community as a parish, district and county councillor—combining it with a business career was quite enough for me—but that is not how it is for others.

The fundamental principle here is that the public should get to choose their elected representatives. If somebody wishes to serve at more than one level, that option should be available to them, but they should be accountable to the electorate, not anyone else. It is the public’s choice. We often have people who serve at more than one level, amplifying the experience they gain at one level to the benefit of another; that was not for me, but it worked well for others.

I listened carefully to what my noble friend said, but Clause 16 is nothing more than a grubby stitch-up to prevent the public having their free say. It would stain a banana republic for certain citizens to be denied the chance to stand, especially those who had demonstrated a track record of success. I have not had time to consult my noble and learned friends but I am sure that I could get an advisory opinion that such action is contrary to international law. You would think that that would be enough to put the black spot on it, but not for this Government.

I sense that, in drafting Clause 16, there was some intent to prevent my noble friend, who served with distinction as mayor in the north-east—and whom the public elected once, then again—standing as a mayor and being in the legislature. It might have been the case that, as in the last Parliament, a county council leader is also an MP. In those cases, the Bill would force that person to choose, but, if you believe in democracy, it is not for him to make that choice—it is for the public, via the ballot box. Clause 16 is state overreach and a case of party-political interference. That why it should be deleted. I read the newspapers and have been in politics long enough to know what is going on here.

It transpired in the past week that the Labour Party’s own internal rules prevent a Labour mayor from sitting in Parliament. That is a choice for Labour and one that should be available to other parties, but it is not a compulsion to be forced on parties that have a different outlook and better principles. Do not just take my word for it. There are others who cherish democracy more than this Government. The Electoral Commission and the Speaker of the other place have had cause to criticise the debased commitment to the sanctity of the vote. We heard from the Prime Minister himself earlier this week that the reason why the Mayor of Manchester cannot stand in this mother of Parliaments is that it is part of Labour’s rules and has nothing to do with the candidate’s suitability—it makes no judgment on whether the candidate has the appropriate experience. No, the Prime Minister told us that the decision was driven solely by the unwelcome financial cost to the Labour Party of running a second-order mayoral election—so not by statute but by internal rules, which we all know change from time to time. That was coupled with the inconvenience of spreading more thinly the campaigning capacity of Labour’s demoralised and depleted activists.

The Government may have thought that they were being clever with Clause 16, by preventing local leaders from exercising national influence, but they have been pricked by the back-draught from the good folk of Gorton and Denton, which tells me that there is widespread support for the notion that Clause 16 should be excised from this Bill. The public know a lemon when they see one. The former Deputy Prime Minister, who introduced this Bill in the other place, now appears to have a case of buyer’s remorse, as the measures that she published are now being used to deny her Manchester mate from putting himself forward to the voters. That is some irony: it is not just back-draught; it is blowback. Of course, in the case of the Manchester man, that is for future service. However, I am anxious that in other cases there might be a question of retrospection. My noble friend highlighted Johnson and Khan, which is a case in point.

When I was the leader of the council in South Norfolk, which is an electoral authority, I was always careful, in so far as elections were concerned, to separate my role as leader of the controlling group from the administration and operation of the election and electoral matters. If successive returning officers who served me were here, they would confirm that approach. However, that is not how it works in Clause 16. The Prime Minister told us that he would put country before party, but those who continue to promote this Bill clearly did not get the memo, because Clause 16 is about putting the wants of the Labour Party before of the needs of the electorate. It prevents the electorate from having their say on who should be elected, especially somebody who has done rather well in one area of politics and who might do well in the other. It is an abuse of the people, the law and democracy.

We have heard it said that your Lordships’ House is standing in the way of the will of the Government and somehow it is improper and, as a result, we need to be reformed. However, with these amendments, we show that noble Lords are standing up for democracy and community empowerment. The denial of a free vote on candidates is the pure expression of community disempowerment. Labour should be ashamed of itself for Clause 16. It does not trust the folks, as my noble friend Lord Pickles advised all those years ago. No, for them, it is party first and public second. This clause proves this, which is why it must go.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

Can I just make a brief statement? While it is right and proper that each and every amendment and clause is debated, I deeply regret how party-political the last two contributions have been. What we are all doing here is trying to do the best for this country and not make these things party-political. I deeply regret some of the comments that have been made by people opposite.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I am sorry if the noble Baroness regrets those, but the facts stand. A mayor who has done a rather good job in one part of the country is now going to be prevented from standing as a result of applying Labour’s rules for all the other parties. That is a statement of fact. I do not deny that Labour has the right to have its internal rules, but those rules should not be forced on all the other parties. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that way, but that is how we in the other political parties feel when another party’s internal rules are applied to everyone else. It is anti-democratic. As I say, I am sorry that she feels that way, but the feeling is equal on this side of the Committee. That should be placed on the record, too.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a time for public sector agencies and all of us who have worked in the public sector to be reminded that the public sector does not exist for its own convenience: it is there to deliver to the needs of citizens, often at a time when they need it most. Authorities can do that only if they work effectively together and have regard for their partners when making the big decisions. I have come to the conclusion that that will happen only if there is a duty imposed on all public service partners to do just that. If we do it, we have a wonderful opportunity to change the culture of public services delivered in local areas from one of competition to one of co-operation. The benefits of that will be absolutely huge.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I agree with so much that he said—but I shall speak to Amendment 196, which would introduce a duty on local public service partners such as NHS bodies, the police and fire authorities to co-operate with strategic authorities and principal councils. I am particularly concerned about inequalities. I was very proud to co-found and co-chair the Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership, which works closely with businesses, charities, higher education establishments and local councils, including in relation to inequality and health. Oxfordshire is now a Marmot place—and I know that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is considered to be a Marmot city region. I hope that new strategic authorities will follow.

As noble Lords are aware, health inequalities are pronounced within as well as between regions, with huge life expectancy gaps between and within local authorities, including those operating within the same strategic authority. For example, within the East Midlands Combined County Authority, the gap is 5.2 years. The gap is enormous within cities; we all know that in London the gap is between 17 and 19 years. But, shockingly, in counties such as Oxfordshire there is a life expectancy gap of at least 10 years. Addressing these health inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the power to shape economic growth, create healthy places and, consequently, reduce the inequalities.

The Bill already contains several important levers to do this, which is welcome, with the duty to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Clause 44; the requirement for strategic authorities to produce local growth plans in Clause 39 and Schedule 20; and the inclusion of health, well-being and public service reform in the areas of competence for commissioners. However, I believe that this amendment is necessary, because we know, and evidence demonstrates, that health improvement and a reduction in health inequalities requires joined-up policies and actions across public services.

My amendment would ensure reciprocal engagement in local decision-making, service planning and policy implementation, strengthening whole-area collaboration across public services. It would also be the catalyst for places to use the powers that they already have to build local partnerships. The duty would also embed in statute best practice around co-operation, which already exists at neighbourhood, local and regional level. It would set out clearer expectations on different parts of the system, such as integrated care boards and local authorities, to collaborate on improving health.

The amendment is light touch, practical and evidence-based, with the support of many organisations that work on health and reducing health inequalities. It would not add unnecessary bureaucracy or require new spending commitments, but it would make a profound difference to policy-making and action in areas of our country and in the new bodies that are about to be created. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the issues raised in this group are fundamental, and I support everything that has been said so far, broadly speaking. Our efforts to identify how the new structure will relate to all the other organisations delivering public services, and how they will all work together, demonstrates the importance of Committee. I hope that when the Minister replies there will be some positive movement on that.

I hope the Minister will not think me flippant when I have said what I am about to say. Amendments 98 and 99 are important in probing the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests. Many of the Bill’s pages—pages 23 to 34—are about mayoral powers to require local partners to attend meetings and other mayors to collaborate, and so on. I have a simple question for the Minister about local partners; as I say, I hope she will not think I am being flippant. The Bill says:

“The mayor for the area … may convene meetings with local partners to consider relevant local matters”.


I understand that, but can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor to consider relevant local matters?

I ask that question because, on previous days in Committee, the answers that we have had about devolution away from mayors to, say, constituent councils, have been that there is to be no power of scrutiny for a constituent council within a strategic authority. That is a very serious matter—I do not think it will work. My question is simple: can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor, or is this a one-way power whereby only the mayor can convene meetings with local partners? If it is, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will be willing to pursue the matter when we get to Report.