English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

This is to probe why additional powers for the Mayor of London may be conferred by secondary legislation.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to begin the third day of Committee with this group of amendments, starting with the proposition in my name that Clause 15 not stand part, as we see no justification or real purpose for it. It is not clear why the Government seek to confer yet more powers on the Mayor of London by secondary legislation. I hope other parties will join me in my concern about this clause.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out at Second Reading that the Mayor of London has already been given more and more areas to oversee and a budget of approximately £21 billion. I ask the Minister: what more powers does he need? What is more, rather than giving the London Assembly more powers to represent and scrutinise on behalf of the whole community, Clause 15 will give powers specifically to the mayor. This is not community empowerment but instead gives the Government a mechanism to empower an already powerful individual, without any explanation as to why. Surely this Bill’s priority should be empowering local communities to scrutinise and ensure that services are being delivered effectively and funds used efficiently by those at the top. Can the Minister explain what consultation took place to inform this clause, and with whom?

Clause 15 is further evidence that the real purpose of this Bill has not been made clear. If it is about genuine community empowerment for all England then allowing the Secretary of State to confer further powers on the Mayor of London is hardly a priority. We do not see why London should be put on an ever-higher pedestal. The Committee deserves to know the Government’s exact reasoning behind this clause.

Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seeks to insert a new clause extending the category of people whom the London Assembly can require to attend its meetings or produce documents. You cannot have effective meetings if the necessary people are not there. We on these Benches welcome Amendment 71, also tabled by the noble Baroness, which would replace the current two-thirds majority required to change the Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority. This is entirely sensible. It would improve decision-making and may make better budget-making in London.

Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96 and 182, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, seek to establish a London local authorities joint committee. We are hesitant about creating more committees, but I look forward to his contribution and explanation of this matter.

Amendment 75, from my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, asks us to go back to basics and initiate a review of the London governance model, covering its effectiveness, accountability and, in particular, outcomes. If the Government want to reorganise local government across the country, why not bring London in line as well? This is a perfect opportunity to cut costs and strengthen local democracy in our capital city.

The Government must come clean about their intentions for London. If reforms are made, let them strengthen local democracy and cut bureaucracy, not empower an already powerful mayor. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to this group of London-related amendments, I should declare my former roles as a London borough leader, a member of the London Assembly and a founding chair of what is now London Councils—indeed, I am one of its current co-presidents.

Before I speak to the six amendments in my name in this group—together, they seek to address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance arrangements—I want to say a brief word about the other amendments in the group, drawing on my previous experience. In particular, I wish to comment on the interesting remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who seems affronted at the idea that the Mayor of London and the whole GLA network are somehow trying to accrue on to themselves—or the Government are trying to give them—more and more powers. I respectfully remind your Lordships’ Committee that London is the engine of the UK economy, that without London the UK’s economy would founder, and that it is therefore very important that London retains its status as one of the few great world cities. For that purpose, having strong and effective mayoral and governance arrangements in the capital city is crucial.

I was involved in the discussions with the then Government around the creation of a mayor and assembly for London, and then in the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill when it was in your Lordships’ House. The London devolution settlement was carefully devised by Nick Raynsford, the then Minister for London, and was the first of its type. That settlement has remained largely unchanged for over a quarter of a century.

I have some sympathy, therefore, with Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which suggests that there should be a review of that settlement. However, I have reservations about her amendment, as I do not see why it should be a requirement of legislation. My noble friend the Minister could simply announce today that it is going to happen. Given that extensive consultations and discussions would be needed as part of a review, a year is too short a timescale. In doing such a review, one should look at the role and number of London boroughs. Does having 32 of them, plus the corporation, really make sense more than 60 years on from their creation?

I have some sympathy with Amendments 70 and 71, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. As a member of the first London Assembly, I always felt that the role of AMs was not sufficiently defined or purposeful enough. Strengthening and widening the scrutiny role of the assembly makes a lot of sense, as does changing the two-thirds requirement for amending the mayor’s budget—a threshold that has never been passed, although I gather that the London Assembly is considering the mayor’s budget today, so perhaps something surprising will happen. However, changing that requirement might oblige the mayor to work more closely with AMs—something that has not always been evident over the first three mayoralties. Such a power might be usefully extended to assembly consideration of mayoral strategies. Such a change would, however, alter the balance of the existing governance model in London. Rather than being done in a piecemeal fashion, it should be considered as part of the putative review suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.

I turn now to Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96, 182 and 183 in my name. They seek to address an anomaly—an omission in the original Greater London Authority Act. My understanding is that they have the support of all three parties on London councils, as well as that of the mayor’s office. At their heart, these amendments are about addressing a simple but persistent problem: that the collective body of London’s boroughs is not recognised in statute and is unable, as things stand, to receive government funding directly.

London boroughs work together extensively. Through London Councils, they co-ordinate delivery, share expertise and engage with government on issues ranging from transport and housing to retrofitting and the charging of electric vehicles. In many of these areas, boroughs are the primary delivery agency of policies that sit squarely within the devolution agenda. Despite this, London Councils lacks a clear statutory footing. As a result, it cannot receive Section 31 grants directly from national government. Instead, funding must be routed through a nominated lead authority and then passed on—an arrangement that is administratively cumbersome, slower than it needs to be, and inefficient for both local and national government.

These amendments would provide a straightforward solution. They seek to establish a statutory joint committee, made up of London’s borough leaders and the City of London, enabling London Councils to receive and distribute funding directly and ensuring that London boroughs are properly consulted where legislation envisages consultation with local government bodies. Crucially, these changes would allow resources to flow more efficiently to the boroughs that are responsible for delivery, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and making better use of the collective capacity that already exists within the London system. They would strengthen the clarity of consultation arrangements, ensuring that London borough voices are heard in a coherent and structured way.

I should be clear that these proposals are entirely complementary to the role of the Greater London Authority. They would not impinge on or duplicate the powers or strategic status of the mayor, the GLA or the London Assembly. Rather, they would strengthen the overall London governance system by clarifying the collective role of the boroughs within it. That is why I am pleased that the GLA is supportive of London Councils becoming a statutory joint committee, recognising that this change would improve co-ordination, efficiency and the effective delivery of devolved priorities across London.

In short, these amendments are firmly aligned with the Bill’s broader aims of empowering local government and improving the effectiveness of devolution. They would correct an anomaly that has been recognised for some time and replace it with a solution that is sensible, efficient and long overdue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was referring to the difference between the combined authorities and the combined county authorities, which are made up of the constituent members from the local area. The GLA does not work like that, as we all know. It is not a body that represents the London boroughs; it is a different, directly elected body and it has a different scrutiny function. I was not trying to engage in sleight of hand; I was just pointing out the difference between the two bodies.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ contributions, for which I am very grateful. It is so refreshing to hear about London local authorities. I have talked for a number of years in both Chambers about local government, but we very rarely have a proper debate on London governance. It is very refreshing and I thank noble Lords who have, it seems to me, hundreds of years of experience in the great city’s governance. It is seriously refreshing.

To the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I say that of course I understand the role of our great capital city and its importance in the economy of our country, but I do not think that that means that we cannot at times challenge it and scrutinise it from here, and I think that that is what we are doing. It is our genuine desire to ensure that community empowerment, efficiency and localism should apply to London as well when we are looking at the rest of the country.

Clause 15 remains wholly unclear, both in its purpose and its intention. Empowering one individual further without compelling justification or evidence is not the right direction of travel in our opinion. It may be that we need to review London before we give these further powers, as we are doing for the rest of the country. Are we giving these powers to an authority that is as efficient as it can be in governance, just as the rest of the country is being challenged to be before it gets those powers?

If there is a case for expanding the powers in London, I suggest that the Government look at that governance before they make that decision, which is why the amendment was tabled. If such a case exists, I believe that it should be laid before Parliament transparently rather than delivered through secondary legislation at a later stage in a way that limits our scrutiny and public understanding, which is important.

Equally, amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, have highlighted a real concern about the existing governance arrangements and structures, although I remain unconvinced that more layers of committees are the answer. None the less, not only are the Government taking, in our opinion, the wrong direction of travel, but they are also missing a great opportunity in this primary legislation. The proposal to reduce the two-thirds majority to a simple majority, as we have heard, for changes to the GLA council tax requirement would empower councillors, as we are trying to do in this Bill. My understanding is that, when the budget is debated, many of the issues in the budget are voted down by the GLA but, when it gets to the budget decision, that decision is lost. That does not seem right and the Government need to seriously look at this again.

The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley—I thank her for all her work in the London boroughs—would give us exactly the opportunity that we want in order to assess what currently works, what does not work and where genuine reform, rooted in efficiency, transparency and local empowerment, might be needed.

I suggest that the Government are not listening to what we are saying. It seemed to me that, at different levels, there was pretty much cross-party agreement. I believe that they must explain with much more clarity why Clause 15 is necessary without some sort of review of London, who it benefits and what problems it seeks to solve. We all want a London that works for Londoners, for the people who come here to enjoy our wonderful capital city and for the economy that it feeds in this country.

I also believe that the Government’s arrangements for our city should be proportionate to those for the rest of the country. Further empowering an already powerful mayor without a real, robust rationale does not achieve that. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully between now and Report. In the meantime, I will withdraw my stand part notice but will be considering what we bring forward on Report.

Clause 15 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Fuller, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for moving the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority, and for probing whether Clause 16 is needed.

It is not the job of this Committee to debate the Labour Party rulebook or decisions of its national executive committee. Your Lordships must trust me that they do not want that job. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their interventions on that issue.

Clause 16 will prevent individuals being a Member of Parliament, or of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a mayor at the same time. This is an important clause for two reasons. First and most critically, the post of mayor is a vital role at the forefront of delivering change—whether that is economic growth, public services, planning for the strategic area, transport or many other issues—and its responsibilities will only increase with this Bill. The role must demand a person’s full attention as a full-time post, rather than being a part-time position done alongside another vital public service role.

Secondly, elected members and mayors have a duty to represent the constituents who elected them. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the potential issue of having different constituencies. Fulfilling two different roles on behalf of different geographical areas could lead to conflicts of interest or undesirable trade-offs. This is absolutely not party political; it is common sense. Indeed, it is now the case that those mayors who are also police and crime commissioners—Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin—cannot be Members of a UK legislature at the same time.

I know that this House operates on a slightly different basis, but when I joined it, I was still leader of my council. As a Minister you cannot do both jobs at the same time, but even before I was a Minister, I would not have dreamed of trying to do so. They are different jobs; both carry a heavy level of responsibility, and it was important to me to focus on one.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify that what she just said about PCCs and Members of the legislature concerns the elected Members? We have to be very careful here; we are part of the legislature.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise; I could have been clearer on that. The noble Baroness is quite right: it is the elected legislature. In view of my comments, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

Government Amendments 77, 80, 82, 85 and 90 will modify Clause 16 to introduce a grace period in which a mayor can hold office and simultaneously be a Member of a UK elected legislature without being disqualified. The period will be eight days. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the eight days enables the Chiltern Hundreds process to happen—that is the period required for going from being an MP to being a mayor. To go from being a mayor to being an MP, it enables the mayor to put their affairs in order before they take up their post as an MP. In the event that a mayor is running to be a Member of a UK legislature, it will be eight days beginning on the day when they are elected to that legislature.

I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as I do not know the answer to his question. It is important that Members are given reasonable time to get their affairs in order and to ensure their resignation from the respective legislature. These amendments address concerns raised in the other place about ensuring that an orderly transition can occur in the event that an MP is appointed as a mayor. Similarly, mayors running to be a Member of a UK legislature would otherwise be disqualified immediately on election. Introducing the grace period provides a period of transition for the outgoing mayor to get their affairs in order. I commend these government amendments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

93: Clause 19, page 23, line 6, at end insert—
“(f) the progress of housebuilding as a consequence of devolution, including whether housing targets are being met and whether the right types of housing are being delivered to meet local needs,(g) the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers,(h) any tax changes made within devolved areas under the powers conferred by this Act, including analysis of their fiscal impact and effect on local services, and(i) changes to the organisation, delivery, and funding of social care in devolved areas, including an assessment of outcomes for service users.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the reporting requirements placed on the Secretary of State. It seeks to probe how the Government will assess the wider consequences of devolution, including the impact on housebuilding and whether local housing targets are being met; the effect of devolved powers on economic growth; the fiscal implications of tax changes introduced by devolved authorities; and the consequences of devolution for the delivery, funding, and outcomes of social care services.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, let me make it clear from the outset that, with Amendment 93, we are not asking for a new bureaucratic hurdle in yet another review, but a few additional report considerations. Amendment 93 in my name would expand the reporting requirements placed on the Secretary of State. It seeks to understand how the Government intend to assess the wider consequences of devolution, including: its impact on housebuilding and the delivery of housing targets; its effect on economic growth; the fiscal implications of tax changes introduced by devolved authorities; and the consequences for the organisation, funding and outcomes of social care services.

I will take each proposed new paragraph of this amendment in turn, beginning with paragraph (f). This asks the Secretary of State to consider the progress of housebuilding as a consequence of devolution, including whether housing targets are being met and whether the right types of housing are being delivered to meet local needs. We have consistently made it clear that we support new homes. The Conservative Party is pro development. However, we are equally clear that local voices must be taken along this journey and that local consent must remain front and centre. Only then can we ensure that the right homes are built in the right places, meeting the genuine needs of local communities. Devolution, if done well, has the potential to unlock more housing delivery. This amendment simply asks how we will measure progress against that ambition.

Proposed new paragraph (g) concerns the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers. Devolution has long been argued as a means of restoring local growth. George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer between 2010 and 2016, was the principal architect of the metro mayor model, advancing it as the cornerstone of the northern powerhouse agenda. The argument was clear that empowering city regions with elected local leadership could help rebalance an economy overly concentrated in London, drawing on the well-established economic case for productivity growth in cities. This amendment simply asks how the Government intend to judge whether these devolved powers are, in practice, delivering that promise and whether growth is being spread more evenly across regions. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible extension to the Minister’s report requirements.

Proposed new paragraph (h) relates to

“tax changes made within devolved areas under the powers conferred by this Act, including analysis of their fiscal impact and effect on local services”.

Tax policy shapes behaviour, incentives and market signals. Changes to local taxation will inevitably affect residents, businesses and the funding of public services. Local people have a right to understand how such decisions affect them and how the revenues raised are being translated into outcomes. How do the Government propose to analyse the behavioural and fiscal consequences of devolved tax decisions? What mechanisms will ensure transparency and accountability to Parliament, but mainly to local residents, for the impact of those choices on services?

Finally, proposed new paragraph (i) concerns changes to the organisation, delivery and funding of social care in devolved areas, including assessment of outcomes for service users. Social care is among the most vital and sensitive of the public services we provide. It also represents a substantial and growing call on public finances. Devolution may bring opportunities for innovation and better integration with local health services. However, it also carries the risk of variation in provision and outcomes. With this in mind, how will the Government ensure that devolved arrangements protect service users and maintain consistent standards of care? What measures will be used to assess whether outcomes are improving for those who rely on social care, rather than simply shifting responsibilities between tiers of government? This amendment reflects a desire to ensure that devolution works as intended, delivering growth, homes and better services while remaining transparent, accountable and focused on outcomes. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance on how the Government intend to monitor and report these important issues.

An extension of the reporting requirements in Clause 19 seems a sensible and proportionate addition. It does not seek to constrain Ministers or to prescribe outcomes, but rather to ensure that Parliament and the public can properly understand how these significant powers are being used in practice.

I anticipate that the Minister may say that such a requirement is unnecessary and that existing reporting mechanisms are sufficient. However, devolution should ultimately be judged against its ambitions. If we are serious about empowering local areas to deliver more homes, stronger growth and better public services, it follows that we must also be serious about measuring whether those ambitions are being met. Local people must be able to see the effects of devolution in their communities and Parliament must be able to hold both central and local government to account for the outcomes it produces. For those reasons, I hope the Government will reflect carefully on whether modest additional reporting could strengthen rather than hinder the success of this agenda. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

There is a duty to provide that kind of governance in the Bill. All I am trying to say is that there are various kinds of capacity in the 10,000 parish councils and they are not all the same. We cannot approach them in the same way. We know some of them have problems. I come from a shire county in the north-east of England so I know the capacity of parish councils and town councils to do certain jobs. We are well aware of that, and it is something that we obviously want to try and improve, and work with these parish and town councils into the future.

Amendment 252 concerns the powers available to local and combined authorities to promote local economic growth through banking and credit provision. Banking regulation is of systemic national interest. Its implementation must be consistent in applying technical standards, ensuring financial stability and protecting taxpayers. As such, it remains important that banking regulation continues to be considered at the national level as a reserved matter. Local and community banking is already possible within the existing framework, and the UK has a strong record of enabling new entrants to support access to finance. Mutuals, including building societies and credit unions, play a key role in supporting local economic growth. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals sector, with reforms already under way to help mutuals grow and raise capital. Further, through our financial inclusion strategy, the Government are improving access to affordable credit and strengthening community finance partnerships to support people and local economies. As such, the objectives of the proposed review are already addressed by existing initiatives, and I ask noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 93 in my name is about understanding whether devolution is delivering what it promises, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his support. The Bill places significant powers in the hands of devolved authorities, which is welcome, but with these powers must come clear and transparent assessment of their impact, not only on governance structures but on outcomes that matter to people’s daily lives.

The amendment seeks to expand the Secretary of State’s reporting requirements to cover four key areas, as I have said: housebuilding, economic growth, fiscal change and social care. These are central tests of success. Are housing targets being met? Are the right homes being delivered in the right places? Is devolution driving growth, et cetera? These are not unreasonable questions; they are essential if Parliament is to judge whether devolution is improving outcomes or delivering value for money and reducing inequalities between different places across our country.

This amendment would not prescribe policy but simply ask the Government to measure, report and be transparent about the consequences of their choice. I have listened to the Minister’s response, but he will not be surprised that I am disappointed. I do not think that using the existing reporting system will necessarily cover things and give us answers on whether these very major changes to local government are a success or whether they need some change. We need to look at this further before Report.

I have not done as much work as I should on parish and town councils, because I know that they will come up in future groupings. However, the one thing that came out of this debate for me, and from one or two of the Government’s responses on different groupings, is that town and parish councils are enshrined in legislation; they have rules. I cannot see anything further in this Bill that would put another type of very local responsible organisation in primary legislation. I would be very worried if there were. These neighbourhood arrangements are not going to be legislative arrangements; they will just be local groupings.

I have seen a lot of how this works in Wiltshire. When we went unitary, we were totally parished; we set up the city of Salisbury as a parish council. However, we also had area boards, which were within our council’s gift. They were where local councillors, police and fire representatives and local council officers got together to discuss local issues. Those boards had small budgets as well. They are very different things, however. I would also suggest that parish councils would work in cities and towns—they do work in some. They work very well in neighbourhoods and, in new developments where there are a large number of houses, they can work, but they want the support of government to work, and some small changes in government policy to make them work. I am not sure that having a parallel neighbourhood arrangement is the correct way to go.

The detail of that is for another debate before this Bill finishes Committee. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and, as I said, we will consider this further and possibly bring something back on Report.

Amendment 93 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment because it opens up some interesting thoughts. Some years ago, I worked in east London on what had been for many years a dysfunctional housing estate in Tower Hamlets. As some noble Lords will know, Tower Hamlets has, over many years, experienced the dysfunction of local government and services. My work began in a place where nothing was working properly and a small group of us in a local church decided we wanted to be practical and do something about it. We have gained competence in delivering projects, having delivered 1,000 projects over the years. With local residents, we have built our own housing company, which now has 10,000 properties, owns 34% of the land in Poplar and has about a £2 billion regeneration programme in play. But it did not start like that; it started very small, in a housing estate, where, behind our buildings, there was a local authority park where children were injecting on a night.

At that point, we must have worked through 14 Governments but then the Liberals—not the Liberal Democrats—were running the local authority, and they began to realise that, as a local community group and charity, we had competence in delivering things when so much did not seem to work. All the policies and everything were in place, but things did not work. They started to have a conversation with us—our first small project—about whether we would like to run the local park behind our buildings where children were injecting at night. What happened to us at the other end of the telescope was that we spent six months with the chief executive of the local authority putting together a proper plan, in great detail, for the management of that park, getting to know each other and building relationships, and we got it to a place where we were ready to start.

There was then a council election. At that point, the Liberals had created seven neighbourhoods. They lost the election; the Labour Party won, and it then created seven committees. All the work we had been doing for quite some time was completely lost. It was not the Labour Party’s or anyone else’s fault but, for those of us trying to do something about that park, it was another example of local structures and processes creating massive dysfunction for local people. The terms “community reality” and “place-based knowledge” really matter, and we should not just assume that councillors and others have all the knowledge of such realities.

I have one thought for the Government. There is a real opportunity in this legislation, and I am pleased that they are thinking about this; I am encouraging the process. I gave the officials a document we wrote for Demos during the previous Labour Administration about our work in east London, called Communities in Business. I have had no reply from any of the civil servants about it, but it sets out in some detail some of the work we have done and the thinking behind it. We are not the only people doing this. I now operate across the country and there are other really interesting examples that are led not by councillors or parish councils but by groups of people who come together, put a business logic behind something and deliver a very different kind of culture.

This amendment, and the discussion we had earlier, opens up the opportunity to start to think differently about this stuff and what community empowerment might really mean. Of course it needs to involve government and councillors, but I suggest that it is not just about them; it is about the people in these real places who are often grappling with the machinery of the state, certainly in places such as Tower Hamlets, which has not worked for many years.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her Amendment 95A, which is modest but important. It does not seek to block devolution or slow it down unnecessarily. Instead, it asks for two simple safeguards when new strategic authorities are created or altered: transparency and consent. The amendment seeks to strengthen rather than weaken the devolution framework in the Bill and attempt to ensure that strategic authorities are rooted in local identity, coherent service delivery and democratic agreement. For those reasons, I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendment and noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. This amendment concerns the powers in this Bill for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority and to designate single foundational strategic authorities and established mayoral strategic authorities.

The amendment would require the publication of a statement assessing the impact on community identity and public service boundaries when these powers are used, as well as requiring consent from the affected area. I am pleased to say that the Bill already contains safeguards to address these issues. For example, before conferring functions on a single foundational strategic authority or unitary authority, the Secretary of State must consider the effective exercise of functions for a local area. In addition, local consent is required prior to designation as a single foundational strategic authority.

The Secretary of State may designate an established mayoral strategic authority only if the authority submits a written proposal asking to be so designated. The authority’s consent is an inherent part of the process, as no authority can be designated unless it actively applies. Also, the criteria outlined in the English devolution White Paper are clear about the eligibility requirements for a mayoral strategic authority seeking to be designated as established. These criteria are designed to ensure the effective exercise of functions across a local area.

Finally, on the establishment or expansion of combined authorities, the Government have been clear that it is our strong preference and practice to work in partnership with local areas to develop proposals for devolution that carry the broad support of local leaders and the local area. The power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority would only ever be used as a last resort where a local area has not brought forward its own viable proposal. This will ensure that all areas across England are able to benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind.

On the establishment or expansion of combined authorities more generally, the Bill already includes the necessary safeguards, including a statutory test to ensure effective and convenient local government across the areas of competence. Furthermore, where the geographical expansion of a combined authority area could affect the exercise of its functions, the Secretary of State must consider this before making an order to expand the authority.

I hope that, with this response, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to give an alternative view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on Amendment 241C. First, though, I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam: I spent 10 and a half years representing Great Bentley in the European Parliament—not all of its residents, but the greater group in the area—and it was a great privilege to represent that part of Essex.

I pay tribute to the work of the North York Moors National Park Authority. Let me say a word about how dramatic its work has been, with the wildfires last summer and the potential prosect of further wildfires ahead. It has done a sterling job. Obviously, at one stage, it looked as though livelihoods and livestock might be imperilled and lost with the wildfire at Fylingdales, which was in my constituency for the last five years of my time in the other place; it came perilously close to many farms. I pay tribute to the work that the authority did.

I apologise that I did not realise that I should have spoken before the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in order to understand more about the background to what he is seeking to do. I would like just to place on the record that, to my certain knowledge, the powers that the North York Moors National Park Authority already has—as well as the powers under the Bill—are received very warmly. It is already working quite hard, I think, and devoting a large amount of time to consulting as widely as it possibly can. I am slightly concerned that Amendment 241C could introduce an extra burden that it would be very hard pressed to meet.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to whom I am grateful.

Parish councils are the most local level of government. They were based on one of the most ancient forms of local administration in England, namely the parish system, which is still rightly maintained by the established Church of this country. Any Bill that wants to reflect the movement towards localism and protect local geographical identity must, in our opinion, have provisions to empower parishes. Parish councils are often the best places to truly understand local views on issues that face local people, providing insights on planning and enhancing both community well-being and quality of life, with the protection of things such as green spaces, playing fields and allotments. They can pay attention to the little things that matter but from which larger bodies are too distant—or in which they are disinterested.

The National Association of Local Councils, of which I am a vice-president, has highlighted that town and parish councils raise more than £900 million in precepts each year and invest more than £2 billion in communities. I thank all of the approximately 10,000 of these councils in England for the volunteering that they do, their time and their energy; indeed, they put some 14 million hours a year into serving their communities. They deserve more of a place in this Bill. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why the Government are not protecting and strengthening such councils’ roles in this Bill?

On Amendment 241C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising this issue. Clearly, there is a problem, in that some communities that border or surround the national parks have less of a say because they are currently not consulted on matters that affect them. However, I remain somewhat hesitant about how this amendment might work in practice. I will talk to the noble Lord because I would like some further clarification on, for example, how a consultation taking place for the communities in the Peak District might have to involve, say, the city of Sheffield. How large or close would a community have to be in order to be consulted, in other words?

In addition, we would also like to understand, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned, the implications on any authority’s resources and capacity. I am interested in the views of the Minister on that amendment as well. We strongly support giving local people more of a voice, which is what this Bill says it should be doing. But we strongly believe in the role of town and parish councils as a way to get really local voices into local services delivery. I urge the Government to look further at the role of town and parish councils in the new local government model for this country.