High Streets and Towns: Regeneration

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support councils to regenerate struggling high streets and towns.

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

My Lords, this Government recognise the very real pressures facing high streets and town centres, from long-term vacancy and rising costs to crime and changes in how people use town centres. That is why we are backing councils with long-term investment through the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme, and with new powers such as high street rental auctions to tackle vacancy and shape high street uses, strengthened community right to buy, and bringing forward a cross-government high street strategy later this year, backed by at least £150 million. Together, these measures give councils the funding, powers and flexibility that they need to drive regeneration locally and restore pride in place.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Pride in Place is a programme delivering to 300 communities over the next 10 years. In those next 10 years, what financial support will be available to those hundreds or maybe thousands of communities across this country that are not included in the scheme but whose high streets are also struggling, mainly due to the Government’s policies, taxes and national insurance increases?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think that might be more due to 14 years of letting high streets sink into decline. However, the places that are subject to Pride in Place funding will also be joined by the new cross-government high street strategy, which will look at all high streets. This will be backed by £150 million of targeted support, which will help to tackle some of the structural issues holding high streets back and the challenges facing retail, leisure and hospitality. We will align policy across government and strengthen our councils’ roles as leaders of place-based regeneration. We will develop that with councils, businesses and communities. We recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all for high streets, and this builds on our commitment to pride in place everywhere.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

The real Britain is where parents put on after-school clubs and summer fêtes to bring their kids together, where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club with the same passion as they would support their country’s team in the World Cup, and where neighbours hold street parties and set up mutual aid groups to look out for each other during Covid. This is a Britain to be proud of, and I commend this plan to the House”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s Statement. When it comes to social cohesion, the penny has clearly started to drop in government departments that something must be done.

As has been highlighted by the leader of the Opposition in the other place, there are groups in the United Kingdom whose loyalties do not always align with our national interest. We should call it out as what it is—separatism: groups of people living apart from our country’s way of life, our behaviours, norms, customs, expectations and standards. That is what matters. We should be a multiracial country, not a multicultural one. This policy paper does not go far enough, in our opinion, as to admit that truth, which is why we have serious questions about whether the measures proposed will be enough to solve the problems we face.

We are all familiar with the rise of extremism. This paper sets out a new social cohesion measure framework, which will try to monitor levels of social cohesion. However, increased monitoring of the problems needs to be followed through with enforcement to make an actual difference. In addition, the paper promises an annual state of extremism report to set out the nature of extremism in the United Kingdom, with a new state threats designation power. These extremists need to be faced head on. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will name specific organisations?

Last week, I spoke to a group of Jewish university students. Their testimonies of life on campus were harrowing. The Government say that the Office for Students will strengthen its monitoring of universities’ efforts to prevent individuals becoming involved in terrorism. The Government have also said they will codesign a cohesion charter for conduct on campuses, which universities will be encouraged to incorporate into their own codes of conduct. Is “encouraged” enough? Again, will increased monitoring and an optional charter be enough to help those students I spoke to? Which groups will be involved in codesigning this cohesion charter?

The paper seeks to link schools with children of different backgrounds. I would be interested to hear what sort of “social and educational opportunities” are envisaged as part of this initiative. To stop children growing up in communities which are fenced off from wider society, we on these Benches advocate replacing the promotion of multiculturalism in our schools with a curriculum that teaches a national story—one which helps children belong to something bigger than themselves and gives them confidence as to why our culture matters. I understand that my noble friend Lady Spielman will be working with the shadow education team on this issue. I really look forward to seeing their proposals.

I now turn to what has perhaps received the most attention in this policy statement, namely, the new anti-Muslim hostility definition. The previous Conservative Government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, using language based on existing hate crime laws. Others have asked what this non-statutory definition will do to tackle these specific crimes. The accompanying note also insists that the definition allows things to be said which are “in the public interest”. I ask the Minister once again: who decides what the public interest is and how? What criteria are they going to use?

This definition is complex and we deserve to have all the facts, so can the Minister commit to publishing the working group’s report in full? Moreover, the Government met with so-called relevant stakeholders following the working group’s report. Can the Minister please clarify who those stakeholders are?

Protecting What Matters recognises the importance of having a shared language. This is hardly ground-breaking. Indeed, we should not be campaigning in foreign languages, as was seen recently in Gorton and Denton. It undermines integration. Will the Government support the guidance issued to councils in 2013 by the then Secretary of State, which advised against routine translation into foreign languages? Will the social cohesion measurement framework also measure English language proficiency? These are basics which any social cohesion plan should grasp.

Earlier in my speech, I referenced the leader of my party. She also said this:

“Anyone can throw a match and walk away, but the point of this is not to divide or provoke. It is the opposite”.


Our queries to the Minister today reflect genuine concerns about what the policies mean in practice. We need a plan that is honest about the issues we face and which, crucially, has the teeth to solve them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Anti-Muslim Hostility: Non-statutory Definition

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the most reverend Primate. I am going to the iftar in Stevenage tomorrow evening, and it has been great to see the cross-community participation in iftars around the country. The Government are taking a number of steps to support this definition, with funding that will help to tackle some of the anti-Muslim hostility that we have seen. For example, we have put additional funding for cohesion into the Pride in Place programme to enable us to tackle some of these issues. I will go into more detail on Monday.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the anti-Muslim hostility definition allows things to be said that are “in the public interest”. Can the Minister clarify who decides what the public interest is, and how?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

Debate on Amendment 222A resumed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on what was—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, before we were interrupted, I was just saying that we are very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on 11 February—it was as far away as that, and we have not met since then. If noble Lords think back, it was quite a substantial debate on quite a detailed group. It exposed three central questions, which the Government must answer before the Committee can be satisfied with Schedule 29. First, is community right to buy being strengthened, or is it being quietly diluted? Secondly, will the new way of doing it be workably practical? Thirdly, are we broadening community value or are we narrowing it?

I will begin with Amendment 222A in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. However carefully drafted Schedule 29 is, community right to buy will not function without progressive funding, and that is simply a fact. Under previous Administrations, community right to buy was not merely a legislative gesture; it was always backed by dedicated financial support. That funding was increased year on year. It was recognised that if communities are to compete with commercial purchasers, they require practical backing and not statutory wording.

I ask the Minister directly: what funding will operate under this regime? Will there be a National Lottery partnership funding, or are communities now expected to rely entirely on their own fundraising capacity?

Schedule 29 makes significant changes to the way assets of community value are defined and protected under the existing localism framework. A number of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey quite rightly step back and ask a more fundamental question: are we improving the system that communities rely on, or are we making it more fragile? Her amendments probe whether protections could fall away too easily, whether designated periods are being weakened and whether the balance is shifting away from communities and towards expediency. At the heart, this is about certainty for communities.

The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, take us to valuation and compulsory purchase. If market value is assessed in a way that takes into account speculative planning uplift, communities will often be priced out right from the very outset. Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 was designed to deal with precisely that issue. Therefore, I would like the Minister to explain why the Bill does not address this directly and whether the current drafting leaves community purchasers at a structural disadvantage.

Finally, Amendment 234B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, raises a practical but important point about maintenance. What is the point of designation if an asset can be allowed to decay beyond viability into the future? If local authorities are to hold these powers, do they also have the tools to prevent deliberate neglect?

This group of amendments reveals a consistent concern across the Committee. We support the principle of community right to buy. We introduced, funded and strengthened it. But Schedule 29 represents a significant rewriting of that framework. The Committee is entitled to clear assurances that we are not, through complexity or technical adjustment, weakening the very protections that gave the right meaning. The Government must now demonstrate three things: that the right will be properly funded, that protections are not being eroded and that the definition of community value reflects modern community life in all its cultural, environmental and sporting dimensions. If those assurances cannot be given, this House will inevitably return to these issues at a later stage. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments on the community right to buy and assets of community value, which I will refer to as ACVs. I know we debated this as far back as 11 February and, if it were not for the magic of Hansard, it would be a considerable memory test as to where we got to.

I hope I can reassure noble Lords of the determination of our Government to strengthen community right to buy and make it work. I will turn first to Amendment 222A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the subject of funding for the purchase of ACVs. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we are already putting record investment into communities, supporting them to take ownership of valued local assets and ensuring that they can make effective use of the new community right-to-buy powers in the Bill. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that if you do not do that, there is little point in having a community right to buy at all. Our Pride in Place programme is providing up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 places to regenerate and improve their communities. The Pride in Place impact fund will also provide £150 million of funding for up to 95 places to support the development of community spaces, as well as revitalising local high streets and the public realm.

The Government launched the £175 million community wealth fund in September last year as part of our commitment to put power in the hands of communities and deliver on the Pride in Place strategy. The community wealth fund is funded, as the noble Baroness indicated, through dormant assets and match funding from the National Lottery Community Fund, our delivery partner. Disadvantaged communities will receive funding pots of between £1 million and £2.5 million each over a 10-year period, building community power in the places that need it most. Local people will have a say on where the funding should be spent, be that community cooking classes, after-school clubs, improvements to the look and feel of neighbourhoods, sports facilities or many other projects that have come forward for that funding. We believe that providing funding directly to the most in-need communities and putting them in the driving seat is the right approach. Communities can use their funding on the projects that are most important to them, including protecting local assets.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand all that money coming in, but it is targeted to certain communities. The community right to buy was for communities across the whole country. They had the ability to ask for support to save their pubs, or village or town amenities. I worry that those not in the schemes that the Government have now set up are going to be left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on these matters. Our national parks are now in their 75th anniversary year. Some 10% of our land and most of our SSSIs are part of our protected habitats in national parks. National parks are key for protecting our ecosystems and adapting to climate change, and they provide untold social, health and cultural benefits to the nation. They are an extremely important part of national cultures and psyche. I support the noble Lord; we need further clarity on these matters. I absolutely support his call for the Minister to provide greater clarity and guidance on these matters between now and Report, so that we can properly examine them between now and then.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s opposition to the question. His intention is not to frustrate the purpose of the legislation but to probe an important constitutional question: how powers exercised by the national park authorities will intersect with those newly empowered devolved authorities. National parks occupy a distinctive position within our public framework. As devolution evolves, and as mayoral and combined authorities acquire broader strategic competences, clarity of responsibility becomes ever more important.

We would therefore welcome the Minister’s reassurance on two points. First, how do the Government envisage disputes of competence being resolved where priorities differ between the national park authorities and devolved bodies? Secondly, how will the statutory purposes of national parks be safeguarded within the new governance structures? This is not a question of resi1sting devolution but of ensuring that, in our enthusiasm to devolve, we do not dilute clear lines of accountability or the protection afforded to some of our most precious national landscapes.

This are sensible probing clause stand part Questions, and we are most grateful to my noble friend for raising them today. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for opposing Clause 73 and Schedule 30 standing part in order to encourage a debate on the role of national park authorities in the production of spatial development strategies. We have discussed this issue during the passage of both this Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I know it is a matter of great interest to him.

As they are not strategic planning authorities, the legal duty to prepare a spatial development strategy does not apply to national park authorities. That means that they cannot be constituent members of a strategic planning board either. They remain local planning authorities with responsibility for preparing a local plan. Although national park authorities are not formally part of spatial development strategy governance, we still expect them to play an active role in preparing the strategy. This could be as a non-constituent member of a strategic authority or as a co-opted member of a strategic planning board.

Strategic planning authorities will be under a legal duty to consult any local planning authorities within or adjoining the strategic development area and affected by the strategic development strategy, including national park authorities, on their draft spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining a spatial development strategy will want to make sure that any views expressed by consultees have been properly taken into consideration.

During a previous Committee debate, I confirmed that the Government intend to publish guidance to support strategic planning authorities in engaging effectively with national park authorities on their strategic development strategies. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government still intend to publish guidance on this matter alongside other guidance to support the implementation of the new strategic planning system.

To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that guidance will set out how protections are in place for the statutory purposes of national parks, how that can be conveyed as part of the strategic planning process and how park authorities can contribute to the development of strategic plans in that way, and it is the same with the competencies.

With this confirmation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his opposition to the clause standing part.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I did ask about this: if there is a disagreement between the national park authority and the mayor, who takes precedence?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When it comes to drawing up a strategic development strategy, it will be for the planning inspector—as they would, in the normal way, if there were a dispute between two of the parties engaged in that process—to work through that and determine whose view holds sway in the strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I have one amendment on its own in splendid isolation in this group. It is, as I hope noble Lords will agree, on an important topic: the use of social media in local government. This is an important topic for several reasons. One is that social media is so central to how local government and mayors may or may not choose to communicate with residents. It is also a crucial part of how elected public officials, whether they are councillors or mayors or, indeed, at the national level, experience politics. Often, that is an unhappy experience in terms of harassment and threats, but it can also be a very positive experience in terms of being able to engage more effectively with members of the public.

Of course, social media is important in many respects for its wider impact on society. That is why it comes up so often in debates and Questions on other topics in our House. In that respect, local authorities and local government in general have an important leadership role in setting some of the practical realities of how the social media landscape plays out. Sometimes, we are all collectively a bit too passive in assuming that the social media landscape is set by a combination of tech bros in California and Ofcom getting to grips with the Online Safety Act, but there is a practical degree of leadership at all levels of government that can encourage and help bring out the best of social media while downplaying the worst of social media.

There is an important role at local government level, in particular, because local government is the original source of information on so many topics that people love discussing, debating and sharing information about, whether it is which days you should put your bins out or which days schools are being closed due to snow in the winter or often controversial issues regarding, say, planning applications. Local government can make decisions on how and where to share information on all those things. Even if, in a sense, people think that they are not making those decisions but are simply following by default the social media channels that they have always used or that other parts of government use, that in itself is a decision.

The intention behind my amendment is absolutely to respect the discretion and flexibility that there should be—different places will wish to make different decisions, as appropriate—but also to show that there are two benefits to giving an explicit strategy a bit of a nudge. One is making sure that people are thinking through these issues sensibly and appropriately, and the other is enabling democratic accountability for the decisions that are being taken. Many of us probably have a wide range of views on how appropriate or not it is for people at any level of government to use Elon Musk’s social media channels, but, crucially, for the democratic accountability element to play out effectively, it is important to know what decisions are being made, how they are being made and what the rationale for them is. Different voters in different places may come to different decisions about which approach they prefer, but having a social media strategy that is explicitly published will make that democratic process much more effective.

Of course, I appreciate that if the Minister were to kindly accept my amendment, all the issues that it mentions, such as disinformation and public trust, would not suddenly be solved by it. On the other hand, they are difficult issues that we need to try to tackle, using all the different levers available to us. In that sense, I hope that the amendment would be a small contribution to that overall challenge, and therefore I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we absolutely understand the intention behind this amendment. Social media clearly brings its challenges, particularly around misinformation, public confidence and data security—all serious matters. However, we do not agree that this is an appropriate statutory duty to place on local authorities.

Councils are already under immense operational and financial pressure. Their focus must be on delivering front-line services: social care, housing, waste collection, planning and public health. Requiring every authority to draft, publish and continually review a bespoke social media strategy, complete with formal risk assessments, would impose additional administrative burdens at a time when capacity is already stretched.

Local authorities should of course act responsibly and lawfully online, as they already must, but mandating a specific statutory strategy in primary legislation is neither necessary nor proportionate. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 241A, which would require local authorities to prepare and publish a social media strategy. When he talked about the values of social media, it reminded me that my local authority has recently introduced food waste recycling. The bin arrived on my doorstep, and I did not know what the system was—I am not the leader of the council any more, strangely, so I did not know it was going to do it. I did not think to open the bin. Inside was a lovely set of bags that you put your food waste in and a little bag you put on your worktop. I managed to get all that from the website before I actually opened the bin and found all the relevant information. As we know, not all social media is as helpful as that.

Although I have no doubt that the noble Lord’s amendment is well intentioned, we believe it is unnecessary, given the existing legislative requirements that all local authorities must have regard to when using social media. All local authorities are already required by legislation to consider the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity in coming to any decision on publicity, which is defined as

“any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public”.

That definition clearly includes any communications posted on social media. Given that the proposed amendment would, in effect, replicate aspects of the publicity code, to which every local authority must already have regard, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

These amendments are modest. They would not undermine mayoral leadership or slow legitimate decision-making. They simply insist that when serious risks are identified they are acted upon, that plans can be scrutinised before money is lost and that the public can be informed when governance is going wrong—that is their right. If the Government cannot accept these amendments as drafted, then perhaps, on Report, the Minister will consider offering something real in their place. The last thing we want is a new audit office being like a crocodile with rubber teeth. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which concern the proposed local audit office. Having read the statement of intent and the consultation on local audit reform, we recognise that the Government have identified three systematic challenges. Two are particularly pertinent. First, on capacity, there is a severe shortage of auditors and too few firms in the market. Secondly, on complexity, financial reporting and audit requirements are overly complex and difficult to deliver on time. They are modelled largely on corporate auditing, rather than tailored to local public bodies. That encourages risk aversion and delay.

We do not dispute that there are real problems, but we want clarity over the proposed solutions in this Bill and in the transition plan published last November. Our opposition to Clause 74 standing part is not an attempt to frustrate reform; it is a probing step to understand the necessity and design of the proposed local audit office. What specific problem does a new statutory body solve that reform of the existing framework could not?

Regarding capacity, how does establishing a local audit office increase the number of qualified auditors in the system? Will it expand the training pipeline and make local audit more financially viable or attract firms that have previously exited the market? The Bill provides that the office will determine audit fees, while audit firms must nominate a lead partner for each audit. On what basis will the fees be set, and will local authorities and firms have any input at all? If fees remain inadequate, capacity constraints may persist.

There is also the question of delivery. If public provision is intended to sit alongside private provision, what scale of direct audit activity is envisaged for the new body? If it begins conducting audits itself, what impact would this have on competition and the long-term health of the market?

We are also told that the local audit office will reduce the audit backlog and strengthen relationships between local bodies and their auditors. Will this be achieved through simplification of reporting requirements, reform of risk and liability expectations and the adjustment of fee structures, or simply through centralised oversight? We need solutions to underline market weaknesses, not just structural governance reform.

The proposed local audit office will have regulatory functions, including maintaining a register of firms qualified to conduct local audits. Amendment 244 probes why a register is proposed while the office is also able to designate another organisation as an external registration body responsible for holding such a register. How many more bodies do we need in this landscape? At the same time, it may have operational functions. How will a clear separation between those regulating and operational roles be maintained? What safeguards will prevent conflicts of interest if both bodies regulate and potentially participate in the market?

That concern lies behind Amendment 246, which is explicitly a probing amendment. It seeks to clarify why the local audit office should be given the powers to acquire interest in audit firms or to provide assistance to them. What is the rationale for allowing the regulator to act as a market participant? Under what circumstances would it exercise those powers? Would it provide financial support to prevent market exit? What principles would guide such decisions?

Amendment 247 seeks assurance that the local audit office undertakes local authority audits itself and that its works will be subject to the same standard, scrutiny and independent oversight as private firms. Therefore, will the local audit office be subject to equivalent inspections and ethical standards when acting as an auditor? We would quite like a yes or no on that point.

Finally, Amendment 248 probes how rotations of key audit partners will work in practice and how independence will be safeguarded. If the local audit office undertakes audits directly, what arrangements will ensure appropriate rotation of the individuals acting as the key audit partner? What rotation period is envisaged? What process will govern handover and continuity? What safeguards will be put in place to prevent overfamiliarity and to protect professional scepticism? Just as importantly, where will these requirements sit? Will they be set out in the legislation, in regulation or through reference to an external ethical or professional standard? If an existing framework will apply, which one, and how will compliance be ensured in practice? The principle of rotation matters for independence but requirements that are too rigid risk worsening capacity in an already stretched system. How will the Government therefore balance independence with operational resilience?

These are not wrecking amendments. They are intended to provide clarity to the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking to them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

I will start with the clause stand part notice for Clause 74 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which questions why a local audit office is required at all. The local audit office is critical to overhauling the local audit system. The Kingman review, Redmond review and Public Accounts Committee all recommended a new independent oversight organisation to simplify the system and drive change. The current model of dispersed functions across different organisations has not delivered for the system, local bodies, taxpayers or government. As someone who was involved for many years with the LGA resources board and as a spokesperson for finance in Hertfordshire County Council, I felt sometimes as though I were watching this audit problem occurring like a car crash happening in slow motion—you could see it coming along.

While audit can seem like the dry and dusty aspect of local government, it is of course, as both noble Baronesses have said, absolutely vital to ensuring that members, officers and the public can have confidence in their local authority’s financial systems. That is why when we came into government I was so determined that we would fix this. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has set out some of the reasons why this is even more vital and urgent now, as we enter the new era of devolution. The local audit office will play a crucial role in ensuring that the reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers.

The missing data and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of government accounts for the past two years, providing no assurance to Parliament and a general loss of public accountability and trust. That is just not acceptable and we cannot carry on like that. Significant steps already taken by this Government mean that the backlog has been cleared and assurance is being built back. However, without the establishment of the local audit office and our wider reforms to tackle the root causes, the situation could recur.

To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I will come to some of her other questions as we go through, but the local audit office will support and enable our wider audit strategy, which tackles capacity and capability issues among auditors and account preparers, as well as overly complex financial reporting and audit requirements. Without the establishment of this office and the wider reforms to tackle the root causes of these problems, we could end up back where we were a couple of years ago. The local audit office will be pivotal in rebuilding that transparency, accountability and public trust in local government and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred.

Amendment 243 would give the local audit office an additional function to investigate risk management issues identified by audit committees within local authorities. These committees play a vital role across all local authorities. That is precisely why this Bill requires every local authority to establish an audit committee and ensure that it includes at least one independent member to provide robust scrutiny.

If audit committees identify risk management issues within a body, they should ensure that appropriate measures are in place to address them effectively, escalating serious issues to full council where necessary. The statutory guidance for audit committees that this Bill will enable is the appropriate mechanism to consider such issues. While the local audit office will have an important role in overseeing the local audit system, the statutory audit committee framework will remain with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the overall integrity and effectiveness of local government and, crucially, is directly accountable to Parliament. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate for the local audit office to have statutory responsibility for investigating risk management issues identified by audit committees.

Amendment 244 seeks to remove the statutory requirement for a register of local auditors to be held. The local audit register is a proven and effective regulatory mechanism for audit providers that has been in place since the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Currently, the register is held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, overseen in this role by the Financial Reporting Council. Audit providers that join the register agree to its rules and fund its regulatory activity through their fees. In the short to medium term, we expect the local audit office to continue the current model under which a professional accountancy body is recognised to register and oversee audit firms.

New Section 6A replicates that arrangement for the new system, with two changes. First, the register-holding body will be overseen by the local audit office, not the Financial Reporting Council, meaning that the local audit office will have the final say on enforcement where serious quality or professional conduct issues occur. Secondly, there is provision for the local audit office to hold a register itself, and regulate audit providers directly, in case this becomes a more suitable mechanism at a later stage. In the unlikely event that a register-holding body became unwilling or unable to continue in its function, this provision would also enable the LAO to step in at pace to maintain regulation. This arrangement strikes a sensible balance between independent regulation of private firms and the local audit office providing oversight and taking the final enforcement decision in the rare cases where serious infringements of quality or professional conduct occur.

Amendment 245 would remove the provision enabling the body responsible for maintaining the register of authorised local audit providers to charge a fee to applicants and registrants. The register will be both a statutory requirement and a critical regulatory mechanism, supported through a range of activities that need to be properly funded. It is right that the cost of maintaining the register should be borne by those applying and registered to receive public funding for undertaking local audit work, not through the public purse. It is also unreasonable to expect an external body to assume responsibility for the registration and regulation of the local audit market without a clear mandate to charge for the range of activities required to do so. While it would be possible for the local audit office to rely on more generic fee-charging provisions elsewhere in the Bill, it is more suitable for the register to be set up and maintained by an external registration body. Registration costs covered through fees is current practice, and continuing this is the most appropriate approach, at least in the short to medium term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this is not the first time I have found myself getting in the way of the last part of a Bill, usually in talking about territorial extent. The last train that would get me to Saltaire tonight leaves King’s Cross just after 7 pm, so I will try my best to be brief.

This is about terminology but also about honesty. My amendments would provide some tighter definitions of “local”, “community” and “neighbourhood”. Having seen the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, tabled on “parish”, perhaps I should have also included one on that. I note that his definition of a parish council includes anything that may have the same population as Greenland. The intended ideal size for a “local authority”, which this takes us to, is about the same as the population of Luxembourg. That is not really local government and it certainly is not local democracy.

I grew up believing that all politics is local, and that citizen engagement is a fundamental part of what politics should be about. This would take politics away from the local community and neighbourhood representative model, with references to community groups that are not representative but are entirely self-formed from civil society. I would not only regret that but think it a deep step back away from the principle of democratic self-government.

I know from my early experience with the Labour Party in Manchester that there are many within Labour who regard the relationship between the party and local people as one in which Labour delivers services and the local people are supposed to be grateful for them. The Liberal approach to democracy is one in which we work with people, and we expect and encourage citizens to be engaged in local and community politics.

This is a Bill that abuses the terms “community”, “neighbourhood”, “parish” and “local”. It sets up sub-regional strategic authorities and reduces the number of local elections and councillors. If I understood the answers to the Question yesterday, it is intended that, following this legislation, the next thing will be to reduce the number of local councils and borough councils in the Greater London Authority so that we have local authorities in London that are roughly the size of Luxembourg.

I regret this; as I have sat through Committee on this Bill I have found the whole Bill deeply distasteful and weakening of our democracy—but there we are. However, I wish that the Government would at least be a little tighter in their use of these important terms than they have been, and those are the intentions of my amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to this final group of amendments, beginning with Amendment 251 in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, which would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act after five years and to report before Parliament. This report would assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this legislation have been achieved, and whether objectives and measures remain appropriate.

This amendment speaks to a broader concern throughout Committee on this Bill. It is simply not clear what the Government’s objectives are in the Bill, as it does not follow through on its title—as we tried clearly to explain with the purpose clause in the first group of amendments on the first day of Committee. I cannot remember how many weeks ago that was. As we have said before, the financial implications are unclear, as well as whether local authorities will have the capacity to deliver on their responsibilities. But I do not think that we should wait to find that out in five years’ time; we need, and indeed your Lordships’ House deserves, that clarity now about the finances and the geographical configuration of these new authorities.

Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, intends to repeal the statutory provisions, which have never been enacted. I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to do this to simplify the statute book, unless the Minister can outline reasons as to why these provisions must be kept or announces a timeline for their commencement.

Amendment 264, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, would ensure that the provisions in this Bill will be enacted within five years of its receiving Royal Assent. Again, we must have the assurance that the Government intend to follow through on legislation agreed in this House, and to be clear on what their exact plans are for the powers contained within it.

Amendments 257 to 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seek to divine more clearly in law what is meant by “local”, “community” and “neighbourhood”. That has been a crucial debate throughout Committee; we need to ensure that newly reorganised authorities and local government structures are not just areas neatly drawn on a map for the ease of those in central government. We on these Benches believe that they must also reflect local people’s wishes and be in keeping with local history and traditions. However, we have to be realistic—these new authorities are also going to be responsible for delivering not just very local services, which are now delivered by the district councils or by the town and parish councils, but the big services of social care, SEND, highways and so on. This legislation must not be based on a shallow understanding of what constitutes local communities and neighbourhoods. If anything, I am not sure that the noble Lord’s proposed definition of “local” as

“an area suitable for shared government, linked by easy communication”

goes far enough. People do not think of their local communities and neighbourhoods as districts or from the top-down perspective of governance structures.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am delighted to tell my noble friend that the Government are bringing back pensions for local councillors. It is very important that they do that; local councillors provide outstanding service for their communities and many of them have to give up considerable aspects of their working life to do so. I am delighted that this Government see the value of that and have brought back pensions for councillors.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the estimated outcomes of the local government reorganisation are very unclear, so could the Minister clarify how much money overall that reorganisation is going to save taxpayers? What are the geographic boundaries of the new unitary authorities? If she cannot answer today, will she please tell us when she can?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government’s ambition with local government reorganisation is to simplify local government, ending the two-tier system and establishing new, single-tier unitary authorities. Over and again, I have said at this Dispatch Box and in committee on the Bill that we are working on that strong local government will help to growth the economy and drive up living standards. Having one council in charge of each area, making sure that decisions can be taken quickly, will speed up housebuilding, get infrastructure projects moving, attract new investment and help us reform local public services effectively.

On the costs and benefits, each proposal has come forward with its own costs and benefits, and that information will be available when decisions are made on those proposals.

Ballot Secrecy Act: Breaches

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The entitlement of resident Commonwealth citizens to vote reflects our close historic ties with Commonwealth countries, and the Government will not be removing Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights. I cannot give an answer on numbers right now but I will write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have announced voting pilots, as we have heard, in a number of local authorities for the May 2026 local elections, which, apart from other things, will allow electors to vote at polling hubs up to seven days prior to actual polling day. How will the Government ensure that the security and the safety of the ballot box—which is so important to us all—will continue in these hubs? In particular, what about the chances of duplication of votes in that system?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are looking to test several ways of making in-person voting more efficient, more convenient and better aligned with the expectations of today’s electors. Two types of flexible voting will be piloted during the local elections in May. The first is centralised voting hubs, as the noble Baroness indicated, where any elector in the authority can cast their vote on polling day. The second is to offer advance in-person voting at designated hubs in the days leading up to polling day, potentially including weekend access. That said, there is no diminution, in either of those processes, of the security arrangements around voting. They will have trained polling staff, people will have to show their ID when they vote, and we expect those pilots to be as secure as voting in the traditional way.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Reforming local government is not optional. Councils are the front line of the state, responsible for the visible signs of whether a place is succeeding or failing. The public expect better local services and they are right to do so. It was important that we acted swiftly on these elections when further advice was received. I recognise that has been difficult for affected councils and I want to assure colleagues that we did not take this difficult decision lightly. I have spoken to many councillors and Members of Parliament in recent days and understand the scale of disappointment acutely, but ultimately the Government must act when legal advice says that we need to do so. We will continue to rebuild local government after a decade of neglect, so residents get the services that they deserve. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have sown confusion and imposed unnecessary costs upon the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to distance themselves from the consequences. What was presented as a firm and settled judgment has unravelled in short order, leaving uncertainty in its wake. That matters, because it is not an isolated U-turn or rethink or change of position; it joins a growing catalogue of reversals, each compounding doubt and carrying a financial price.

Stability in public administration is the foundation upon which local authorities plan, candidates prepare and citizens place their trust. Against that background, it is important to recall how we arrived here. The original decision to cancel these elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He defended it repeatedly in the other place, and the Minister defended it consistently in your Lordships’ House. In the press, the Secretary of State went so far as to describe the elections as “pointless”. Yet what was so confidentially asserted has now been undone.

Two issues now arise. The first is constitutional. Does the Minister accept that there should be strict limits upon the power to delay or disapply elections outside the most exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? If she does, then, in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, will she urge her colleagues to reflect upon the sentiment of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and those in my name, which would limit the power of the Secretary of State to cancel elections by secondary legislation and constrain the power to alter the timings of local polls? It is notable that members of the governing party voted down those safeguards in the Commons.

The second issue is practical and goes to the heart of delivery. Local government is already navigating a demanding programme of reorganisation. Councils are restructuring governance, staffing, finance and service delivery. To remove and then abruptly restore elections in the midst of that process has inevitably diverted senior officers and members from their primary duty, which is the delivery of services to their residents. In other words, reorganisation requires focus, discipline and clarity. Instead, councils have been drawn into administrative uncertainty, legal contingency planning and accelerated preparations at short notice. That is not without consequences. It absorbs scarce managerial capacity and risks delay to the very reforms that the Government profess to champion. If community empowerment is truly the objective, one might expect the Government to strengthen local capacity rather than burden it with unavoidable disruption.

It is precisely because there are constitutional and practical consequences that your Lordships’ House is entitled to transparency on the costs of all this. Can the Minister therefore inform the House of the full costs of this regrettable sequence of events? What have been the expended legal fees on wasted preparation and the emergency arrangements that are now required to conduct elections at short notice? What support is being provided to local authorities required to shoulder these additional burdens? There is talk of £63 million, but is this on top of the already agreed election costs? Has an assessment been made of the impact upon council capacity and service delivery, and if so, will it be published?

The same need for clarity applies to the Government’s approach to election pilots. What is their present status? How many councils that initially indicated they possessed the capacity to participate later informed the department that they did not any longer have that capacity?

Taken together, these questions point to a wider uncertainty. Where does this leave the Government’s much-heralded program of reorganisation? Confidence in reform depends upon steadiness of hand and clarity of purpose. If Ministers will not answer fully and restore transparency, then we feel that serious reflection is required at the highest level. I would suggest that that is not at Secretary of State level, as he has been the person responsible for this unnecessary mess.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, here we are again with a topic we have discussed and debated in different forms several times. I will do my best not to simply repeat the points made previously, particularly as it seems like each time we return to this topic, it is messier and more expensive. Although the outcome in the end is welcome—that all elections will be going ahead in May, as should originally have been the case—I think we can all agree that the route by which we have got here is a highly undesirable one. Therefore, having read the Statement that we are considering this evening very carefully, and having read Hansard for the debate on Monday in the House of Commons about the Statement, I have three particular questions for the Minister.

First, in that debate on Monday, the Secretary of State was asked whether, in the light of the latest legal advice and the Government’s current understanding of the legal situation, the Government believed that the cancellation of elections last May was legal. The Secretary of State was asked that direct question and chose not to answer it. We can all speculate why, but I hope that the Minister will be able to clear that matter up by giving us a direct answer on that.

Secondly, having looked at the reasons the Secretary of State gave in the Statement for cancelling elections, I think that they do not sit easily with what he wrote in the article published in the Times newspaper ahead of the consultation closing on potential cancellations. The Statement that we are considering this evening says that the cancellation of elections,

“should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances”.

That is a sentiment with which I suspect we all agree. But in the article in the Times newspaper, the Secretary of State said:

“They want pointless elections, Labour wants to fix potholes”.


The existence of potholes in need of repair is absolutely not an exceptional circumstance. It is a frustrating daily reality. It is really hard to see how one can reconcile the Secretary of State’s comments about wanting to fix potholes with the claim that these are exceptional circumstances.

Moreover, the Statement we are considering goes on at some length about how the Government were listening and consulting. Again, however, looking back at the article in the Times newspaper, published before the closure of the consultation over elections for this May, we see that it kicks off right from the very first sentence with a very clear steer that the Secretary of State thought that cancelling elections was a good idea. It goes on to make that point repeatedly in the succeeding sentences and paragraphs. So, given that that article, published before the close of the consultation, could be seen both to have prejudged the outcome of the consultation and to have given different reasons for cancelling elections than those considered in the consultation—all of which potentially would result in some legal issues about the validity of the decision—I wonder whether the Minister could again clarify matters by letting us know if the Secretary of State’s comments, both in that Times newspaper article and elsewhere, were a factor in the change in legal advice being given to the Government about the legality of the cancellation of elections.

Thirdly, turning to perhaps a more positive aspect, I absolutely welcome the comment in the Statement that the Government are willing to think again—particularly in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am sorry: the phrase is that the Government are “reflecting carefully”, which I hope means “thinking again” as well, about the amendments that have been tabled, such as by myself and by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the powers and the circumstances in which elections might be cancelled in the future. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell us whether those reflections will be carried out involving a degree of cross-party discussion. Will they be carried out in time so that, if the outcome of those reflections by the Government is to decide that changes to the law are appropriate, we can do that on Report of that Bill?

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for bringing forward this debate but I cannot, in any way, agree with his solutions, either the ideas for all-party use of a donations pot—I am not sure how big that pot would be—or the endgame of state funding.

The statutory framework governing donations, principally the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 1983, were designed to prevent foreign money distorting British politics. Those principles remain sound. But the landscape has evolved: new financial vehicles, shell companies, unincorporated associations and cryptocurrencies present risks that were understandably not explicitly legislated for a generation ago. This is a fact that hostile actors increasingly seek to exploit.

We recognise that the Government’s July 2025 elections strategy acknowledged that the current framework is no longer sufficient. It proposed stronger checks on donations, greater transparency for gifts and limits on company donations etc. We also note the announcement the independent review into electoral resilience following troubling allegations of foreign interference, and the Secretary of State’s commitment to examine illicit funding streams, including cryptocurrencies. We support the objective of protecting our democracy from hostile actors.

The previous Conservative Government took steps in this direction, strengthening national security legislation and committing to improved information-sharing between agencies and political parties. This was precisely because of the real and evolving threat of foreign interference at the time.

However, strategies and reviews are not substitutes for legislation. The electoral strategy was published seven months ago, and the Representation of the People Bill is only just being laid before Parliament today. There has been little consultation with political parties as these things are starting to be put forward; I do not believe that that has ever happened before. At a time when state-backed interference, opaque funding routes and emerging financial technologies present genuine risks, delays here will have consequences. How will the Government ensure, in particular through the Bill, that parties are properly supported, including through proportionate and lawful information sharing if they are to undertake enhanced checks on donors? What specific safeguards will be introduced to ensure that foreign money, whether channelled through companies or digital assets, cannot penetrate our political system?

The safety and integrity of our democracy should never be partisan; nor can reform be endlessly deferred. If the Government believe that the existing framework is no longer robust, as they say they have done for nearly two years, it is now time to move from review to action.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, in particular my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who made a number of important points about all three of the suggestions before us. I thought the point from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was extremely well made: this is about place-making and what happens on the ground. A top-down approach is building the other way around.

I will be very brief. This is a devolution Bill, yet it prescribes what can happen on the ground. I have said that at least half a dozen times in Committee, but I will repeat it again because it deserves to be repeated. I want to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, some extra support, because there is an issue with size, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out.

I understand that we have an appropriate figure for the size of a unitary authority of some 500,000, but I counsel the Government against using population size as the basis for a calculation. I can remember, a few years ago, when the Minister was the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, having a conversation about the ideal size for Buckinghamshire and Bournemouth in Dorset. I remember being told that, in Buckinghamshire, the ideal size needed to be 350,000, but I was urging a figure of around 300,000. I am quite happy to be wrong about that but, if the Government are moving towards a figure of 500,000, they will have to justify it. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly made the point that you need to consider natural geography, the identity of the authorities and so on. He put it extremely well.

I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I am sure the noble Lord would not mind them adding to it and improving it with new things, but it should form the basis for a consideration of what the ideal unitary size is, which may of course be different in different places. It is for local people to say whether they prefer a model of 500,000, fewer than that or whatever; otherwise, this process will be too top-down.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief in closing, but very clear about the position of the Official Opposition on this group. After many hours of debate, one point should now be beyond doubt: devolution cannot be delivered by compulsion. If the Government persist in reserving sweeping powers to direct and impose local government reorganisation from the centre, the Bill will continue to fall very short of its stated purpose.

We have heard many views, mostly negative, from noble Lords today, but I have been there. In 2007, under a Labour Government, I took my then council to a unitary. I was not very popular, but it was our decision: we planned it and we asked for it. It has been a great success; it is more efficient and more local. I will talk more about that in future groups today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I very much support what other noble Lords have said, given that I promoted amendments to her previous Bill on this subject. It seems to me immensely important that notices should come to the notice of people. I know what my local council would do, if faced with this clause: it would publish either nothing or as little and as obscurely as it could. Its practice is to try to ensure that people do not know what it is up to.

It is entirely undesirable that local councils should have this direction in paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 27, without any rules as to how they should apply it. If we are to keep this clause, at the very least councils should be given an objective; for example, that they should publish it in a way that will lead to the widest readership over the widest spread of the community. In other words, they should know what they are trying to achieve, and they should have something through which to justify their actual performance against what they are supposed to do. I also ask that the publication be, at least in part, in IPSO-regulated spaces, to make sure that what is getting out is of quality.

As noble Lords will remember from the previous Bill, we need to get rid of the 19th-century definition of “newspaper”. There is a much broader section of local news enterprises. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows, because we are very close neighbours, the level of local news that we get now is very degenerated; the level of investigation, rather than just reprinting material they are given, is really very low. However, in that gap, little local enterprises are springing up. They are often not yet of a sufficient size to afford a print run, but they are getting out there and doing the investigative work. They ought, in the right circumstances, to be supported. I urge the Government to change the definition —if we keep newspapers, that is. If we do not, as the schedule proposes, and we broaden the discretion of local government, we must make it clear what it has to achieve rather than allowing it to achieve nothing.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I support the principles behind this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, which has attracted widespread interest from both within and without your Lordships’ House.

At its heart lies a simple question: how do we ensure that the public continue to have clear, independent and accessible routes to information about the decisions made by their local authorities? For a long time, local newspapers have played a vital role in this. Our local journalists are there not only to report news; they scrutinise local decision-making, as we have heard, and act as guardians of local democracy. They are often the only regular observers of the workings of local government. In many parts of the country, it is only local journalists who regularly attend council meetings, who probe and challenge, and who ensure that decisions are brought to the attention of residents.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, all of us here who have been in local government have been at the end of the pen of many journalists—sometimes in a positive way, but often in a negative way. Local newspapers have always been the starting point for many young journalists who have gone on to be better and more successful journalists. As a local council leader, it is always interesting to watch that progression. I have always been pleased to give as much support as possible to local journalists learning their trade.

The requirement for councils to place statutory notices in local newspapers has long been one of the practical mechanisms that enable this transparency and accountability. It ensures that important matters handled by local authorities reach their residents where they are most likely to see them. Crucially, they reach residents through an independent medium—not one controlled by the authority. That independence is a safeguard we should not discard lightly, even in part.

It is true that the local media landscape is changing. Many local news organisations now operate both in print and online or only online, and audiences increasingly access their news digitally. However, as we have heard, the answer to such change cannot simply be to remove this duty—altogether, in some instances—and, in extremis, to see people rely solely on council websites. Many residents seldom visit council websites, as we all know. Some find them difficult to navigate. They are not used to being widely used as a source of day-to-day information on their local authorities. If statutory notices are placed only there, this would be not modernisation but invisibility. There is evidently concern, as reflected in the broad support for this amendment, that the Government’s current proposal would weaken transparency rather than strengthen it.

I listened with interest to the compelling cases in this debate, and I cannot help but wonder whether there is another way. If this policy requires updating, modernising or broadening, why do we not consider doing precisely that? Rather than the Government removing the requirement completely, allowing publication

“in such manner as the local authority thinks appropriate”,

would they consider expanding its scope instead? It could be broadened to include reputable independent local news websites, trusted digital publishers and recognised social media channels, operated by established local news providers. I defer to those who know the industry better than I do, but would this not reflect the realities of contemporary media consumption while preserving the more core democratic principle that notices should be published through independent and accessible outlets?

Above all, we must avoid a future in which councils become the sole gatekeepers of information that should be publicly available, easily accessed and subject to external scrutiny. The partnerships between councils and local media remain essential to the health of our local democracy, and we consider that any move to weaken that would be a big mistake. For these reasons, I believe that the principle of the amendment deserves serious consideration and I hope the Government will reconsider their approach.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 202, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seeks to maintain the current requirement to publish governance changes—it is only governance changes—in local newspapers. I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. There are clearly strongly held views around the Committee.

We have just had two powerful debates about empowering local councils and councillors. We seem to have changed our minds in this regard. The Bill does not prevent local authorities publishing a notice in a local newspaper, should they wish to. Instead, it empowers councils to decide the most appropriate and effective method of notifying their local communities of any changes to the governance model. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I appreciate all his points, but local government is not responsible for the problems of local newspapers; there are many issues affecting them. We all value them immensely, but it is not just local government that is causing those issues.

The Bill’s provision updates the current statutory requirement. It shifts the focus from—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, what a helpful discussion we have had about this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has rightly called this clause a muddle and said that we need to come back to it on Report with some flesh on it, because there is absolutely no detail here.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in relation to Sussex, there is no local structure for when it goes unitary. That strikes me as fundamental. Clause 60 says nothing about town and parish councils. We have had a whole set of amendments trying to address this problem, but it should have been addressed before we got to Committee. It must be addressed by the time we get to Report.

I think that we have understood now what the problem is. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said at the start, in introducing this group, that he had an unease about Clause 60, which he called a “most dubious clause”—how right and prescient he has turned out to be. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, complained that he had said a number of things on Monday about the muddle, gap or vacuum that there is. I raised this matter, and I am happy to agree that that is the case, but on day 1 in Committee, I talked about the importance of local authorities devolving power to town and parish councils—to lower tiers. At every level there should be a statutory requirement on all the bodies to devolve power to a lower level, wherever there was a case for so doing. The Government did not support that, but I remind them of that debate on and the amendment to Clause 1, as it would help to get them off the hook with this very poorly drafted Clause 60.

On a final point, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said, there is a confusion in terms in the Bill between local, neighbourhood and community—the three words I think he used—to which I add “area”, because we get that as well. The words start to become interchangeable because nobody is quite sure what they mean. They are not properly defined in the Bill. They ought to be, but the difficulty we have is that the Government do not quite know how to define them. The solution to the problem is to change Clause 60 to include, as part of the local government structure, town and parish councils, then to insist that areas of competence should be devolved to the lowest level possible for the management of that service.

I hope that the Minister is taking very seriously that we must have something much more substantial on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, London does have a parish. It was set up in 2014 after a local referendum, and it is Queen’s Park—just so your Lordships know. There is nothing at all to stop the greatest city becoming parished.

I agree with many noble Lords that Clause 60 is a muddle. While it places a duty on local authorities to make appropriate arrangements for effective governance, it does not say whether that effective governance should be elected or non-elected. It also says that the Secretary of State would have powers through regulations to define neighbourhood areas and to specify the parameters of what arrangements may be considered appropriate. I find that very odd. I do not know which Secretary of State would understand the neighbourhoods of my now county of Norfolk, let alone the whole of England. However, we welcome efforts to bring decision-making closer to the communities that it affects. From previously setting up unitaries, it has been very clear that it is important to set up some more local organisations, but we need much more clarity on what they should be.

Neighbourhood committees or area committees—whatever they are called—are not the same as elected town or parish councils. They are unelected and in the control of and usually paid for by the unitary authority. I have experienced these committees and they work very well. They are probably needed for a bigger unitary authority, but they are no substitute for elected councils, such as town and parish councils. In fact, one of the strengths of neighbourhood or area committees is the inclusion of those local town and parish councils, so that all issues will be discussed locally by everybody concerned. Town and parish councils, because they are elected, are required to look at local plans and neighbourhood plans, and even at the budgets of the councils, to give a local perspective on those big issues for the unitary authorities. In that spirit, I welcome the intention behind Amendment 205, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, which seeks to strengthen the role and authority of locally elected councils and affirms the principle that neighbourhood governance must be rooted in democratic legitimacy and local accountability.

Amendments 206, 207, 208, 209A and 210, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Lansley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are important because they quite rightly seek, in different but complementary ways, to enhance and secure the role of town and parish councils within this emerging framework of what the Government are calling neighbourhood governance. We all know, from long experience and evidence on the ground, that genuine community empowerment through elected town and parish councils is central to effective neighbourhood governance. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is absolutely right that town and parish councils are a way for the larger authorities to test what is going on right down on the ground.

Parish and town councils are often the most immediate and accessible tier of democratic representation. They are closest to the lived experience of local people, they understand local priorities and they are often best placed to translate national policy ambitions into practical, locally sensitive action. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will think that that is a good thing for them to do.

Building on that point, I would be grateful if the Minister would therefore clarify how the Government see the roles of parish and town councils evolving within the wider framework of neighbourhood governance in this Bill. It is interesting that the Minister’s responses so far have been far from encouraging to town and parish councils. Why not encourage new unitary authorities to look at setting up more town and parish councils in their areas? That could go into a change to Clause 60.

In particular, can the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that town and parish councils are meaningfully involved in the decision-making that affects their communities? That happens now, but will it continue to happen? Finally, can she confirm how the Government will ensure that any move towards greater neighbourhood governance will be underpinned by clear lines of democratic accountability, so that locally elected parish councils are empowered to deliver more as we, hopefully, get more of them and they are embedded?

Throughout our consideration of this Bill, we have spoken at length about the importance of parish councils in general terms. In the specific context of Clause 60, that importance becomes even more pronounced. If neighbourhood governance is to be effective, it cannot be imposed from above. It has to grow from what we have already in large parts of this country, which could be created elsewhere.

We are therefore clear in our commitment to continuing the central role of town and parish councils in providing effective neighbourhood governance. That brings continuity, it brings local trust and it brings democratic legitimacy. Town and parish councils provide an institutional memory and a community connection that, as we have heard from other noble Lords, transient structures simply cannot replicate without democracy.

In closing, while we must ensure that the framework set out in Clause 60 retains sufficient flexibility to reflect the diversity of local circumstances, that flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic clarity and local voice. The amendments in this group speak to that balance, we believe. They remind us that effective neighbourhood governance is about trust in local institutions, trust in elected representatives and trust in communities themselves; it does not come top-down from government.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I would like to make a point before my noble friend sits down. In her opening remarks, she spoke about the experience that she has had in local government. She talked powerfully about the important role that parish councils and the like can play, and I agree, but I had expected her to say what success does not look like. I have been on the receiving end of self-appointed pressure groups with an axe to grind and of transient social media campaigns. If we are not careful, an aggressive reading of Clause 60 could see us sleepwalk into legitimising transient organisations with crony co-option. We have all seen what that looks like. This is what we have to be careful about. I know that my noble friend has had experience of that to her cost. It is important that, going forward, we safeguard against the mistake being made again.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

In any local democracy, you will get that happening. That is right: people should get together to lobby, to make sure that their local representatives understand what they want and what they do not want. However, when you have town and parish councils, they have the legitimacy because they have been through the electorate. Also, if what they are saying is not what the local community want to hear, the electorate can get rid of them at the ballot box.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Lansley, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their amendments on neighbourhood governance.

Before I speak to the amendments, let me say that I was very sorry to hear that the noble Earl has given notice of his intention to retire from the House at the end of March. I hope to have an opportunity to thank him more formally, but I thank him now for his huge contributions to all four of the Bills in which I have been closely involved in your Lordships’ House; he has made a significant contribution, and I just want to use this opportunity to say that.

Before I respond to the individual amendments, I reiterate that the Government strongly value the role of town and parish councils in driving forward the priorities of their communities and delivering effective local services. They are close to the communities they serve, know their communities’ needs, can champion the priorities of local people and can design the right services that work for their places. Interestingly, when we were discussing the SI on the new authorities in Cumbria and Cheshire yesterday, it was interesting to see that, in Cumbria—forgive me if I am quoting this figure wrong, as it is from memory—there are 296 parish councils. I know that it is quite a rural area, but I thought that a significant number; I believe that there were also more than 100 of them in Cheshire.

--- Later in debate ---

This notice removes the provisions which make changes to the supplementary vote system.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the notice that Clause 61 and Schedule 28 do not stand part of the Bill. These remove the changes being made to some local election voting systems. I will also speak to my Amendment 216, which seeks to limit the Government’s power to delay local elections.

Clause 61 states that Schedule 28 makes provision for the use of the supplementary vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners. When choosing our leaders, it is important that our voting systems are easy to understand and trusted. First past the post is exactly that. It is simple, it is familiar and it gives everyone confidence that the person with the most votes wins, straightforwardly and transparently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have already outlined to the noble Lord that the sentence I used, whenever we discussed this and whenever I was asked, was that elections would not be cancelled unless there were substantial reasons for doing so. Local authorities made those representations, which is why the decision was taken.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, when we ask these questions, the Minister always talks about the complexity of these changes, but what I do not quite understand is that, in 2009, the then Labour Government changed nine groups of authorities to unitaries without any of this sudden change to local elections. Only six are affected now, and the last lot will be 14, so I do not know why this reorganisation is causing complexity that others, done by a Labour Government, did not in the past.

I will address the contributions on my Amendment 216 and the related Amendments 211 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Hayward, who gave a strong explanation of why some amendments to the rules affecting local elections are so urgently required. There is clearly deep unease across the House—not just in this Committee—about the length and frequency of election delays arising from the Government’s local authority restructuring. The Government have set out their reasons for resisting this amendment, but my underlying concerns remain. Prolonged postponement of local elections, for any reason short of genuine emergency, risks weakening democracy and the bond between our local councillors and the communities they serve.

My amendment does not seek to obstruct reorganisation or to prevent the short practical delays that can sometimes be necessary; it proposes only a clear and reasonable boundary. Democratic mandates should not be extended for more than one year as a consequence of changes under this Bill. That reflects long-standing practice, the guidance of the Electoral Commission and the public’s expectation that those in elected office are answerable to the electorate at regular intervals.

As I have said, I have some concerns about the drafting of the related Amendments 211 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, not least because they cover only the 2000 Act, not the 2007 Act. However, I hope we might be able to get together and work constructively on this shared interest before Report. Whatever view one takes on the amendments themselves, I hope the Government will reflect seriously and carefully on the strength of feeling expressed today. We should protect the integrity and predictability of our local democratic processes with great care.

On a similar note, I listened with interest to the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Fuller on his Amendments 216A, 216B and 216C, which seek to deliver full parliamentary scrutiny of proposals to cancel local, mayoral, and police and crime commissioner elections. Any electoral change has significant practical consequences for voters, candidates, authorities and political parties. Although my amendment would go further, it makes sense that any change still occurring should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Proper consideration should provide transparency, accountability and a clear timetable, allowing everyone involved in the electoral process to plan with certainty. That would certainly be better than the mess we face now.

I now turn to the amendments addressing changes to our voting systems. I thank noble Lords who spoke in support of Clause 61 and Schedule 28 not standing part of the Bill. I have nothing to add to my opening remarks, which covered the reasons that I disagree with Amendments 213 and 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 215, which propose the introduction of AV or PR voting systems. I will not repeat those arguments.

Last but not least, I will speak to Amendment 216D in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. Making sure that our local elections and their candidates more transparent and accessible to voters—by ensuring that every candidate provides a clear, convenient and free way for electors to contact them—can only be a good thing for democracy. As things currently work, it can often be quite difficult for residents to ask their local candidates questions or seek clarification on their views before casting their votes. By requiring returning officers to publish contact details, and by ensuring that candidates are given a designated address for correspondence, communications between candidates and the communities they hope to represent could be strengthened and facilitated. At the same time, candidates can be protected from some of the terrible things that we heard about from my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I am sure that we will return to this on Report.

Clause 61 agreed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

If I can help the noble Lord, at this point I think that we are expecting the two Opposition Front-Benchers to speak and then the Minister.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on a number of amendments in this group that relate to health. They illustrate just how far this Bill stretches and the breadth of its potential impact on matters of public interest. Health is now firmly brought to the fore. Clause 44 inserts new provisions into existing legislation to place a duty on all combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to the need to improve the health of the people in their areas and to reduce health inequalities when they exercise their functions. The same duty is applied to mayors of mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities.

This represents a welcome shift. It means that health and health inequalities are no longer seen as an issue solely for the NHS or public health bodies, but I hope that the Department of Health and Social Care is aware of these proposals. If it is not and is not fully engaged, we will not get too far. Instead they must be taken into account across the full range of decisions made by combined authorities, whether they relate to transport, housing, planning, skills or economic development. That is an important change, because many of the factors that shape health outcomes sit well beyond the health system itself.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 159, which seeks to broaden the list of health determinants and health outcomes to be considered as part of this new duty. The concerns that she raises are understandable and I am sympathetic to the desire to reflect the full complexity of what really drives health inequality. However, I ask the Minister whether she believes that combined authorities will have both the capacity and the practical power and resources to deliver against such an expanded list. In the Government’s view, is this expansion feasible? While ambition is welcome, we must ensure that any duty placed on local institutions is deliverable and affordable, rather than well intentioned and unrealistic.

In opening this group, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities. These issues are clearly important and, as always, he made a compelling case for the role that access to physical activity plays in improving health outcomes. Many noble Lords will agree with the principles that he set out. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether she believes that placing such matters in the Bill is either necessary or proportionate.

The amendments to Clause 44 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, seek to align the list of health determinants more closely with academic research. The points that she raises are thoughtful and well made. I would be grateful if the Government could explain how the existing list of health determinants was arrived at. Who decided what should be included and by what process? Was there any consultation and were academic experts involved? Understanding how this list was developed is important so that we have confidence that it is robust and evidence based. In particular, I found the reference to “educational opportunities and attainment” in Amendment 161A especially interesting. Education is widely recognised as a key driver of long-term health outcomes and I will listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has to say on this matter.

I also note the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, particularly those that relate to climate and pollution. These amendments raise issues that are often cited as having implications for public health. However, they also serve to underline a broader issue that runs through this group. The difficulty is not simply whether individual factors can be linked to health outcomes but how far such a list should extend. If climate-related risks and pollution are included, should the same apply to noise pollution, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman? What about resilience to heat waves, which was also raised in this group? Each of these can be argued to have relevance but, taken together, they illustrate the challenge of scope. At some point a judgment must be made on where the boundary of general health determinants is drawn. That judgment is important for maintaining clarity and focus within the Bill and ensuring that the resulting duties are workable.

This returns me to the underlying question raised by the group. Who determined which health determinants should be included and on what criteria? What evidence or metrics were used to reach these conclusions? Without greater clarity on this point, it is difficult to assess whether the approach taken is sufficiently defined and proportionate. In that context, will the Government commit today to publishing an explanation as to how these decisions were reached? In particular, will the Minister set out who was consulted in the development of this list, what evidence was relied on and what criteria were used to determine inclusion or exclusion? Providing that clarity would assist the Committee in understanding the rationale behind the approach taken and assessing whether the duty, as framed, is appropriately defined and justified.

Before I sit down, I go back to my plea in the last group. As I have said before, if any of this is going to work, the Department of Health and Social Care will have to be involved. It will also have to work with local government and, by working with it, be willing to devolve power and moneys locally. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have submitted amendments on health improvement, which is an important topic. I am pleased that we will have this duty on local authorities at mayoral combined authority and combined county authority level. As other noble Lords have said, it is an important step forward.

The Government are committed to building a fairer Britain. To do that, we must ensure that people can live well for longer and spend less time in ill health. Our response, our reimagined NHS, will be designed to tackle inequalities in both access and outcomes, as well as to give everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from, the means to engage with the NHS on their terms.

With our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, we remain committed to reducing the gap between the richest and poorest in healthy life expectancy—an ambitious commitment that shows that the Government are serious about tackling health inequalities and addressing the social determinants of health. We support NHS England’s Core20PLUS5 approach, which targets action to reduce health inequalities in the most deprived 20% of the population and improve outcomes for the groups that experience the worst access, experience and outcomes in the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, tackling health inequalities requires a whole-government effort, as does making sure that the best facilities are available across the country. That is why we are working across departments, from housing and education to employment and welfare, to make sure that health is built into all policies and runs as a golden thread through everything taking place.

I now come to the specific amendments, a number of which would make additions to the list of general health determinants. Before I turn to the individual amendments, I note that the scope and definition of “general health determinants” in the Bill has been intentionally and carefully crafted to be broad and flexible. I will write to noble Lords in answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about how those determinants have been drawn up and what consultations have been done on them.

The Bill lists some of the broad and interconnected factors that shape health, life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Combined authorities, combined county authorities and mayors can directly impact these factors, such as standards of housing, employment prospects and environmental factors, through the delivery of their wider functions. Given the importance of these factors as inarguable determinants of health, the Bill strengthens the duty and adds clarity by listing them explicitly. Although some examples are provided, it is not our intention to set out a definitive list—we feel that that would be constraining. We recognise that combined authorities and combined county authorities are experts in their local areas and are therefore best placed to decide how to determine and act on the factors most relevant to improving health and reducing health inequalities in their own areas.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling Amendment 158 and, as ever, for championing the importance of public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities. This amendment would require combined authorities to consider the level of public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities when exercising their functions. The general health determinants already include matters affecting lifestyle, access to services and environmental factors, and explicitly allow for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health. I am not being pedantic—nobody loves a clever clogs—but, to be specific and clear, I note that the amendment would apply only to combined authorities and not to combined county authorities, thereby creating inconsistency in how the duty operates. I apologise that I shall have to point that out with a number of these amendments, but it is important to clarify that.

I now turn to Amendments 159 and 167 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I appreciate that her intention is that the health improvement and health inequalities duty, and the definition of general health determinants within the duty, are broad and impactful. A driving purpose behind the health improvement and health inequalities duty is to support combined authorities and combined county authorities in reducing health inequalities and adopting a “health in all policies” approach. The effect the amendments would have is unclear because of the potential interactions with both “health inequalities” and “general health determinants” in Clause 44.

As I mentioned, the Bill has been drafted to provide a broad and flexible definition of “health inequalities” to ensure that differences in aspects such as life expectancy, general health, mental health and disabilities can all be captured in its scope. This allows combined authorities, combined county authorities and mayors to focus on the broad underlying causes of health inequalities and to tailor their responses to key local issues. Similarly, the framing of “life expectancy” or “general state of health” is intentionally broad and does not exclude mental health, disability or healthy life expectancy, all of which are legitimate dimensions of what one might regard as health and are reflected in mainstream methods for describing health states or health impacts.

I turn now to the large group of amendments: Amendments 159B, 160A, 161A, 163A, 163B, 165ZA, 165B, 167A, 167B, 167C, 167D, 167E, 167F and 167G. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, for her diligence in tabling them and recognise her assured intention to ensure that the definition of general health determinants reflects academic research and is impactful.

As drafted, the list of general health determinants already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to environmental factors, employment prospects, earning capacity and access to public services, and explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health. Health inequalities are already defined within the duty as inequalities between people of different descriptions living in an area, and it is therefore not necessary to restate this within the general health determinants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not disagree with the noble Baroness. I am saying that this is a local authority duty, and it does not need to go up to the strategic level of a mayoral combined authority. That is why we do not need the amendment for combined authorities, but I accept her point about local authorities. A statutory duty is probably not applicable anyway, but I will give that some further thought, if she is happy for me to do so.

We recognise all the benefits of allotments and community gardening, but we do not want to duplicate existing legal responsibilities or place burdens at the wrong tier of government, which would run counter to the Government’s approach to devolution. I am sorry for going on for so long, but there were a lot of amendments in this group. As I have explained the Government’s rationale for resisting these amendments in detail, I request that they are not pressed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is an important group of amendments, particularly if health does decide to devolve down either power or money in the future. But if local areas have specific health needs that the Government identify, and if they are not seen by the Government as dealing with them, do the Government intend to take a power to intervene?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not sure about powers of intervention. We have a very specific competence that points our combined authorities towards health issues. The Government have made it very clear that we want to see mayors, in particular, sitting on ICBs; I hope that this will start to address some of the issues raised by noble Lords about not having a voice around the table with health colleagues. I know that Manchester has new powers relating to health issues. We will want to monitor those, have a look at them and watch what is working. We will then decide whether we need to take any further action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, some time ago in the teens, from 2015 until about 2022, I was a member of the fire services pension fund, which exposed me to a world that I had had no real previous experience of. I learned that there were 40 fire and rescue authorities in the UK and it astonished me that, of the 40 fire and rescue authorities, there were seven different structural constructs within them. I am speaking in violent agreement with the noble Lord who has just spoken.

For example, there were the single county authorities such as Norfolk or Suffolk, and there were the joint county authorities such as Dorset and Wiltshire, working together under a single canvas. There were joint committees, for example, as you might find in the West Midlands—I am not quite sure whether the Yorkshire ones that the noble Lord just referred to are in the same bucket as the West Midlands or indeed whether they form an eighth different variant. There are the mayoral ones in Manchester, the London Fire Brigade stands alone and, of course, within the police and crime commissioners there is the one in Essex, for example, which is different from the one in Hertfordshire. We are now going to add combined county authorities, so I think that makes eight, and now within the mayoralties there will be a case A or a case B, each of which may have in addition a commissioner or a deputy mayor.

This is crazy. For 40 types of authority there are—I have nearly run out of fingers—10 different constructs, I think. The Bill should be bringing order to that complexity. Instead, it is obfuscating and adding a further cat’s cradle of complication. I know that we are in Committee and that we will come back on Report, and I understand the complexity and the interaction with the police, because the police and fire and rescue work together in so many cases, but we have to bring some order to this chaos.

Although I do not necessarily support the entirety of the text of Amendment 170, it has probed the necessity of bringing some sensibility to what is a nonsense in the way in which our brave fire and rescue firefighters deal with not just fires. During my tenure as a trustee of the fire service’s pension scheme, I learned that the average fireman goes to a fire once every 12 days or so; this is about the other important work they do, in prevention and in attending road accidents and other national emergencies. They deserve better than the structures they have today.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 170 would require a mayor who holds fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, creating governance arrangements that mirror those already in place for policing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raises a number of interesting and important points, as we have heard from this short debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on the issue of democratic accountability, as raised by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and on my noble friend Lord Fuller’s point about making sure that public services all work from the same geographic area. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that; it might take a little longer, but I am sure it is worth doing.

During our consideration of the Bill, it has become clear that fire and rescue services are not listed as statutory consultees in the devolution framework. For me, that raises a number of important questions for the Government. As we have heard, fire and rescue services play a central role in public safety, resilience, planning and emergency responses, yet when decisions affecting land use, building standards, transport corridors or climate adaptions are taken without any requirement for fire service input, there is a risk of the safety and resilience considerations being added only after decisions have been made, rather than being embedded right from the outset.

In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why fire and rescue services are not statutory consultees, whether the Government consider this omission appropriate, and whether steps are being considered to strengthen their formal role in devolution and governance arrangements.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving Amendment 170, which would require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue.

Mayors are best placed to determine how to use the people and resources at their disposal to deliver for their communities. This amendment would prevent that by mandating the delegation of these functions specifically to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. It would also, therefore, prevent mayors delegating these functions to a public safety commissioner. The effective delegation of fire and rescue functions to a commissioner can ease capacity constraints, ensuring that there is a dedicated individual with the time and expertise to focus on executing those functions. Fire and rescue functions are already held by deputy mayors for policing and crime in Greater Manchester and York—and in North Yorkshire, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She seemed to say that she was not quite sure where it sat, so I will definitely write to her to explain how it works.

If they wish, mayors will be able to make an existing deputy mayor for policing and crime the public safety commissioner, meaning that that individual could lead on both policing and fire. However, certain functions should be the sole responsibility of the elected mayor as the head of the fire and rescue authority. Functions with the most significant bearing on the strategic direction of the fire service—such as the budget, the risk plan and the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer—are, therefore, retained by the mayor. On statutory requirements, fire and rescue services still have the right to respond to any planning application at the moment, for example, so they play a key role in that area. It is important that decisions in these areas are taken right at the top and that the person taking them is accountable at the ballot box.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, every effort is made to make coterminous the public service boundaries when we lay out these plans. The position we have taken provides strong accountability and operational flexibility for the mayors, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s point about whole-society resilience in the security review is quite right in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There are resilience plans in all local authorities for such an incident, so these things are taken into consideration and reviewed constantly.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have two comments on the noble Lord’s response. First, the fire and rescue service is no longer a statutory consultee. Anybody can respond to a planning application, but that is slightly different from being a statutory consultee. Secondly, commissioners are not accountable at the ballot box. Therefore, why would we allow the role to go down to not deputy mayors—I do not think there are such things—but the commissioners responsible, when they are not accountable at the ballot box?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am not sure whether there were any questions there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Schedule 25 should be agreed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, by opposing Schedule 25, we seek to probe and clarify what functions may be delegated to mayors under future regulations. Prior to the changes proposed by this Bill, the principal mechanisms for conferring local authority and public authority functions on combined authorities were set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. More recently, equivalent provisions for combined county authorities were established through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

Under both frameworks, functions have generally been conferred on individual combined authorities or combined county authorities through bespoke statutory instruments, subject to the affirmative procedure. In other words, Parliament has been asked to scrutinise each discrete transfer of power on a case-by-case basis, authority by authority. However, in our reading, paragraph 2 of Schedule 25 marks a significant shift. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations conferring functions not on individual authorities but on categories of mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities, or to modify such functions once conferred. Clause 17 provides that those functions will then be exercisable by the mayor on behalf of the combined authority or combined county authority.

I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain in practical terms how this new approach differs from the position under the 2023 Act. In particular, how does conferring functions on a category of mayors differ, both operationally and constitutionally, from the authority-specific approach taken under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? What are the implications of this shift for democratic accountability, parliamentary scrutiny and local consent? Simply, will Parliament have more or less say and will decisions of this kind be subject to clearer democratic oversight than under the previous framework? My fear is that they will not. Additionally, is the Minister willing to illustrate this with a concrete example, perhaps in relation to transport, skills or planning, so that the Committee can better understand how Parliament’s role in scrutinising these transfers of power will change in practice?

The provision in paragraph 12 of Schedule 25 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying differing voting arrangements from those set out as the default in Clause 6 in relation to particular functions for one or more categories of combined authorities or combined county authorities. I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, in what circumstances do the Government envisage departing from the default voting arrangements and what criteria will guide those decisions? Secondly, how will local consent be secured where voting arrangements are altered by regulation, particularly if those changes materially affect the balance of power between constituent authorities and the mayor? Finally, what safeguards exist to ensure that such variations do not undermine transparency or local democratic accountability?

Part 6 of the schedule introduces yet another significant power: the ability of the Secretary of State to confer additional public authority or local authority functions on specific strategic authorities as part of a time-limited pilot programme. It also allows for the governance arrangements of existing functions to be modified on a similarly time-limited basis. Again, I seek assurances from the Minister. How will pilot authorities be selected and on what objective basis? What evaluation criteria will be applied before, during and after a pilot programme? Crucially, what guarantees are there that the time-limited pilots will not default and become permanent through inertia rather than explicit parliamentary approval?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The competencies are there, so the powers will stay the same as in the grid that we have set out. I ask the noble Lord to have a look at it and, by all means, to come back to me if he has any questions on it.

The Government will be able to confer functions across all areas on which we expect strategic authorities to act. Also, if the Government wish to create a completely new function and confer it on a strategic authority, primary legislation would be required. This strikes the balance between delivering further devolution and ensuring that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of more novel measures takes place.

I hope this answer is helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and ask her not to oppose the schedule.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response; however, I think we will need to go back to Hansard. My example, for instance, was not on the pilots. It was an example on the changes that have been made in this Bill to, in particular, the levelling-up Act. I will of course go through Hansard carefully and, if necessary, we will return to these matters.

The issue of oversight goes to the heart of how this House discharges its responsibilities, particularly in view of reorganisation and changes to how we are all governed. Processes in this place matter and, when we confer powers, particularly those that will shape local systems and local decision-making, we must do so with proper regard to localism and accountability, not just what the Secretary of State at the time would like.

Much of our consideration of this Bill has necessarily focused on the schedules. Schedules are rarely debated line by line in the same way as clauses. When powers are dispersed across multiple schedules, as they are in this Bill, it becomes more difficult for your Lordships to track precisely what authority is being granted, to whom and subject to what limits. That is not a criticism of this House, nor of the Government, but it does mean that we must consciously take the time to examine these provisions with care. Schedules also frequently rely on delegated powers, allowing Ministers to add, remove or modify functions through regulations with limited parliamentary oversight. Over time, this risks creating a ratchet effect, whereby more and more policy is shaped by executive action rather than by primary legislation. That is precisely why the questions raised in this debate deserve clear and substantive answers. When the Minister reads Hansard, maybe a letter would be sensible.

For those reasons, while I am grateful for the short debate that we have had today, I remain concerned that important issues of scrutiny and accountability have yet to be fully addressed. I hope the Government will reflect on these points as the Bill progresses. At this point, I will not press my opposition to the schedule standing part.

Schedule 25 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, before we complete this group, I just want to say that what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said by way of moving his probing amendment asks not only important questions but questions to which we will have to come back, if not in this Bill then on the NHS reform Bill. As I know the noble Lord will completely understand, in so far as that forthcoming legislation will transfer responsibilities back into the Department of Health and Social Care and, potentially, give specific statutory responsibilities to integrated care boards, neither of those will allow this legislation and the 2016 legislation to operate in the way he intends. We will, therefore, have to come back to that and how it will happen at the time.

As things stand, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care does not devolve any of his functions to local government. In effect, he devolves the functions that would otherwise be exercised by NHS England in Manchester to the mayoral strategic authority. If we are going to do that in other mayoral strategic authorities when NHS England has disappeared, there will need to be a new structure to see how this works.

In some ways, it is entirely dependent on how the Government intend, in the NHS reform procedures, to re-establish the relationship between the NHS and local government. Nobody—I heard the noble Lord say this quite recently—has satisfactorily created that relationship. In the coalition Government, it was a very complicated process, and it did not work. There have been positive outcomes in relation to public health, but, for local government, there have not been satisfactory outcomes in relation to the management of health services—particularly in so far as they can be combined satisfactorily with social care services. This is something that we will have to return to in the NHS reform Bill.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, turning first to Clause 53, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his probing stand part notice. As we have said more than once, the devolution of health is a complex matter that raises many important questions—particularly, as we have heard, around the relationship between local authorities and the NHS. I listened to the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on this issue. I assure him that I felt as passionate as him 15 years ago; I hope that, at the end of all this, he is not as disappointed as I was.

When I was going through this in Wiltshire, the interesting thing was that the staff on the front line—those in the NHS and in local authorities—really understood this issue. They understood the importance of devolution and how they could deliver much more efficient, better services for the people whom they wanted to serve. That pushed me to do this more and more. However, as I have noted previously, many of the determinants of public health sit outside the health system. We must be clear on who is responsible for what. As we have said many times, where additional duties and responsibilities are placed on local authorities, they must be matched with sufficient resources to deliver them properly. In addition, the Government’s approach must be evidence-based and must demonstrate value for money for taxpayers.

On previous groups, the Minister mentioned the mayor’s involvement in integrated care boards, and we all welcome that. But it has to go further than that. In my opinion, being a member of an integrated care board will not deliver what we need to be delivered on the ground with health and local authorities.

This brings me to Amendment 185 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I thank him for making the case so compellingly. This amendment would prevent the duplication of powers between local authorities and central government. In the realm of health, for instance, we cannot risk the lines of accountability being blurred, whereby functions and responsibilities are devolved down to local authorities, yet Whitehall does not equip them to deliver effectively or continues to do the same jobs itself, leading to duplication.

This is precisely the difference between the Government’s current approach to devolution and what genuine community empowerment ought to look like. This amendment aims to correct that by ensuring that, when a function is devolved, it is also relinquished by central government, while still permitting the appropriate oversight where needed.

If the Government truly believe in local community empowerment, there can be no greater vote of confidence than supporting the principles set out here, trusting local authorities to do the jobs devolved to them fully, and giving local people clear, transparent lines of accountability. This is a matter not of meaningful devolution but of efficiencies and effective government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on both these important amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their amendments. I turn first to my noble friend Lord Hunt probing whether Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 places limits on the devolution of health functions to strategic authorities to ensure that the health service remains truly national. I know the noble Lord understands that. For instance, it prevents the transfer of the Secretary of State for Health’s core functions in relation to health. Where health functions are devolved to a strategic authority, it requires that provision is made to ensure that they adhere to national service standards.

Protections against devolving these functions are not new; as the noble Lord indicated, they have probably been going since the health service was first set up. They have certainly been in place since central government first began the process of devolving functions to combined authorities. The Bill merely retains those protections. I know my noble friend wishes to probe the Government’s intentions on devolving health functions in the future, and he is right to do so.

Health, well-being and public service reform is an area of competence for strategic authorities, as set out in Clause 2. The Bill also confers a new health improvement and inequalities duty on combined authorities and combined county authorities. As health is covered within the areas of competence, the Government could use the powers in this Bill to devolve health functions to strategic authorities in the future, if they believed it appropriate to do so. Mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities would also be able to request the devolution of health functions and get a response from government.

This demonstrates that the Government see a clear role for strategic authorities and mayors in health, both now and going forward. The example of Manchester is a very good one, and we will continue to look at what is happening there to make sure that lessons can be learned and that, if we get requests from other mayors to devolve health functions to them, we pick up on any lessons from Manchester. At the moment, the process is looking positive. But it will always be right, I fear, that limitations remain to make sure that the health service remains truly national. Whether that is in targeting or some of the processes, we will see.

I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which seeks to prevent the doubling up of powers and responsibilities in strategic authorities and Whitehall. I heard the Secretary of State speak over the weekend and his view is definitely that devolution by default is the way he wants to move this forward. He was very clear on that, and on the advocation of subsidiarity that sees powers and funding always held at the most appropriate level for delivering any service. The funding settlement will be announced this week; it may be out today. It is out—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I had not kept up on that, although I have talked of nothing else all weekend.

Through the integrated settlement, we have instituted the principle that, where central government funding falls within the scope of an established mayoral strategic authorities’ functional responsibilities, that funding will be devolved. The Government are also committed to providing new strategic authorities with capacity funding to kick-start their organisations, so all areas on the devolution priority programme will receive mayoral capacity funding to help establish their new institutions once the legislation has been laid before Parliament. They will receive capacity funding in future years as well, so they are ready and prepared to deliver the benefits of devolution.

I agree with the noble Lord that, unless you have the funding to deliver these new functions, there is not much point in devolving them. We very much agree with the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. When responsibilities are devolved, they have to be devolved as thoroughly as possible to enable the true innovation and place-based approaches that we all want to see and that are the whole purpose of devolution in the first place. That is the position the Government have taken in the devolution framework in this Bill. The majority of powers will be exercised solely by the strategic authority or concurrently with the constituent authorities.

However, there are rare circumstances where the relevant Secretary of State and the strategic authority need to share powers. To give an example, the Secretary of State will retain the ability to provide funding in relation to adult education in addition to funding provided by the strategic authority. This will ensure that those areas in strategic authorities do not miss out on nationwide schemes. For example, I think there have been some announced today.

The amendment in itself is too restrictive and would prevent instances where it makes sense for powers to be held concurrently with government. I understand the noble Lord’s concern that, while functions may be devolved, funding may remain in Whitehall. However, the Government are committed to providing strategic authorities with the funding to deliver their functions.

We have committed to providing new strategic authorities with capacity funding, as I have said, and the integrated settlement institutes the principle that government funding will be devolved where the responsibilities fall within established mayoral authorities’ functional responsibilities. I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords are able to support the clause standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad that I am following the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, because I could not disagree more with his Amendment 196C. When I was the leader of a district authority, we had control over the business rates, and we were able to get full reliefs to the last pub, shop or community sporting club in a village with a population of less than 3,000. That was the source of a huge community empowerment. The effect of the noble Lord’s amendment would be another nail in the coffin for rural pubs and small businesses, and I reject it on that basis. I will also speak to my own Amendment 256A, which is a rag bag. We are talking about Clause 56 at the moment, but this would go right at the end, beyond Clause 85; perhaps I should have asked for it to be de-grouped, but here we are.

My amendment is consistent with the Government’s Clause 11, which relates to constraining the council tax-raising ability of the larger, newly created mayoral combined authorities. But I am looking at the other end of the spectrum, because I am concerned that, following local government reorganisation, the former district councils, which are currently defined as “billing authorities” under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, will disappear. In Section 39(2), they will become local precepting authorities. In other words, the district council, once abolished, will be converted to a third-tier parish or town council. This will affect places like King’s Lynn, a historic county borough; cathedral cities like Norwich or Oxford; county towns like Ipswich and Chelmsford; and coastal communities like Hastings, Eastbourne and Great Yarmouth.

Some of these places have large populations—for example, Norwich City Council, when it is abolished, will have a population of more than 150,000—and there will be lots of new large locals formed. The problem is that the majors are constrained in their ability to put up council tax—5%—but the locals are not. This amendment would change the definition of “local precepting authority” to include authorities with a population below 49,999. Where a local precepting authority exceeds 50,000, it would become a major precepting authority for the purposes of raising council tax and be subject to the same rules as other larger councils.

Of course, it is not just the former billing authorities that will flip into parishes; the former boundaries that flowed from the hundreds, the poor law unions, the urban and rural district councils, and the predecessors of the county boroughs in the Reform Act 1832 will disappear. This is why my amendment proposes a size scale, rather than being limited solely to the former district councils. These places will be joining that benighted club: Salisbury, Shrewsbury and Scarborough, which have all fallen out of previous rounds of LGR and must now stand on their own two feet in the sense that, unlike their predecessor billing authority constructions, they will get no formula grant in the future; they will need to earn what they spend.

We already know already that over 100 councils, existing principal authorities, want exceptional financial support this year as the Government shamelessly tilt the formula away from being population based. That is a denial of the simple truth that people consume services that need to be paid for and that it is more expensive to deliver them in the countryside, but that is a debate for another time.

But, under LGR, there will be a powerful incentive for authorities to cost-shunt the most expensive things to these newly created third-level authorities to get the liabilities off their books and on to the small fry. I am thinking of leisure centres, municipal theatres, parks and open spaces, youth groups, civic activity, and community pride events such as carnivals and festivals.

My wife was a parish clerk for over 10 years in a small parish with 500 souls, spending about £3,000 a year, so I know the value of what these unsung volunteers—real community champions—in parish councils can achieve. But I am focusing on the new large class of parish, town or even small city authority, with plenty of staff, plant and equipment, miles away from that “Vicar of Dibley” stereotype.

These residents need protecting from unconstrained tax rises, cost shunts from principal authorities and the smaller populations being made to afford the costs of facilities that have been previously amortised over a much larger canvas—that hinterland of surrounding parishes where people are able to chip in. This is not an idle concern. The noble Baroness has certainly mentioned Salisbury before, which has let rip. Its precept is up 44% in just four years. Its own website tells long-suffering residents that their council tax is the highest in Wiltshire. At £383 for band D, it is over twice the level of my own district council. I have looked at Shrewsbury. Following LGR, its parishioners’ band D is up 218% in 10 years—although I will concede that, at £87, it appears to be offering slightly better value for money. To those against my amendment, I say: look to Shrewsbury, because limiting council tax in these third-tier authorities can be done.

I have also looked at Stevenage, which is likely to be consumed and subsumed into the larger construct—taking power further away from residents and damaging the distinct identity that came from it being the first post-war new town, alongside all the other accoutrements. It is funny how all my examples begin with an S. In Stevenage, the band D was raised by just 3% to £246.41. If it carries on like Salisbury, a band D in Stevenage would pay £354 by 2030—a raise of nearly 50% or over £100.

We must be clear that these are burdens in addition to the new mayoralties that will be created—the huge new bureaucracies with the ability to raise precepts for things they are not even responsible for. There will be new mayoral CIL on top of existing CIL and new authorities where the effects of council tax equalisation within the canvas have not even been ventilated yet, and the costs of LGR have not been determined. We know it is going be subject to at least a £1 billion black hole from the accelerated pension strain costs.

Do not let the Government tell you there will be fewer layers; there will be more and at more cost. The public will be rinsed by LGR. People will pay more for less—that much is certain—but my amendment would at least seek to constrain those billing authorities that are already principal authorities and are constrained in their ability to raise council tax. That will still apply to them when they are transmogrified into third-tier councils, to make sure they cannot do a Salisbury too. That is right not only by residents but by the authorities, because as they approach this forced reorganisation, which will see a transfer of assets, they will know by this amendment that there is not a blank cheque. It will sharpen the minds.

This is not a dig at parish councils or the third tier. They do a lot of valuable work at a level that is closest to the people, but I have got their back, because it will stop those councils with the broadest shoulders from imposing liabilities and cast-offs on to those with the most limited means. That is an essential safeguard if the community empowerment part of this Bill is not to be undermined. I would be creating equity between the cathedral cities, the market towns, the new towns and so forth, so that council tax after LGR does not become an intolerable burden for those who live within the cities and provide perverse incentives for those just outside to become free riders.

I know the Minister is concerned about this and we have spoken for some time about it. I have suggested a £50,000 threshold in Committee, but as we move to Report I would be open to saying that perhaps there should be a £1 million precept or some other measure. But we have to have a measure between the small and the major authorities to protect parishes from having their leg lifted and, in turn, protect their residents from being rinsed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I would like to clarify something. You cannot compare Salisbury as it is now to Salisbury as it was before as a district council. It was a far larger area; it was Sailsbury and south Wiltshire, not just Salisbury city.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am staggered at the thought of a parish council with a population over 50,000; it does not make sense to me. I am also staggered at the thought that, if we are talking about getting back to place-based communities, we are denying to places the size of Scarborough or Harrogate, both of which I know well and which have or used to have important assets, in conference centres and major hotels, the sense of local community or parish, thus increasing the sense for most of our public of total alienation from the politics that we are providing them with.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can I just explain to the noble Lord that a parish council is a name given to parishes, towns and cities? It all comes under the same legislation as parishes.