HMT “Empire Windrush”: 80th Anniversary

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this Question and for her leadership in championing Windrush recognition. The 80th anniversary of the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” will be a significant national milestone. The Government will work with communities to mark Windrush 80 with care, respect and pride, acknowledging past injustices while marking a moment of reflection, learning and pride in a legacy we must cherish, recognise and pass on. The noble Baroness will know that we are already working on a project with the railway industry to reflect the Windrush journey and its enduring contribution to modern Britain

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. My Lords, I am so proud to be part of the Windrush generation who, like thousands of Caribbeans, have played and continue to play a part in British society, despite having faced hostility and rejection. It is great to hear that the Windrush Day scheme provides grants for local activities in recognition of their resilience and celebrates their invaluable contribution to Britain. However, the 80th anniversary in 2028 of the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” is a significant milestone which deserves far greater recognition to clearly define the occasion’s identity and the scale of its importance to modern British history. Will the Government consider providing additional funds for signature events for the whole country to recognise and show appreciation of the contribution made to the UK by the Windrush generation and really push the boat out, if you will excuse the pun? I am happy to meet the Minister to discuss this further.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s energy for this subject is well recognised and welcomed across the House, and I celebrate and support what she does. One of my very closest friends, who has sadly now passed away, was part of the second generation; her family came from Trinidad. I knew this lady from junior school, so all through my life I have been hearing these fabulous stories of the Windrush generation. The Windrush generation and their descendants have made a very profound contribution to Britain, helping rebuild the country after the Second World War and playing a central role in shaping the NHS, public services and national infrastructure. As the noble Baroness said, it is a story of resilience and contribution, reflecting both the hardships people faced and the barriers they overcame.

The noble Baroness asked a very important question about funding. The Government are looking very carefully at the programme for funding. We need to make sure that it is funded properly, but it would not be right to pre-empt the decisions on funding before we have spoken very carefully to the steering committee that is working on this and will be making sure that we mark this in a way that is relevant for the community. Once we have done that, we will be able to put some costs against it, and the Government are determined to make sure that we recognise it properly.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, as we approach this significant anniversary, can my noble friend the Minister update the House on the progress in delivering the Windrush compensation scheme? What is being done to speed up the claims, especially of elderly applicants?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right to raise this issue. As of January 2025, over £124 million had been paid across to 3,866 Windrush compensation scheme claims, and 94% of claims have now received a final decision. We remain committed to improving the compensation scheme to make sure that it reflects the lived experience of individuals. In response to feedback from the Windrush commissioner, communities and claimants, significant policy improvements were announced in October last year and implemented in January this year.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is right that we recognise the contributions of the Windrush generation to our country. The previous Government introduced the largest Windrush grant scheme to support charities, local authorities and community groups across the UK. However, we must ensure that these applicants genuinely intend to benefit the communities. Can the Minister clarify whether, under this scheme, grants have ever been awarded to the Muslim Council of Britain?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know that the grant system that the noble Baroness spoke about has designated around 700 lasting assets, from books and exhibitions to films, educational resources and help for communities to commemorate, learn and come together. I will respond in writing to her question about the Muslim organisation.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. Will there be some national recognition of what those who came over on “Windrush” have done for this country?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The answer to the noble and learned Baroness’s question is that the specific projects for Windrush 80 will be confirmed in due course. We are having further discussion across government and with the Windrush 80 steering committee. Whatever the legacy will be, it is critical that it is designed by the community. The Government are clear that Windrush 80 should leave a legacy that endures beyond 2028. I hope that answers her question.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for campaigning on this issue. Yesterday, with her, I had the privilege of meeting victims of the Windrush scandal at a round table. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about improvements to the compensation scheme, we heard that families are still struggling with an overly bureaucratic system and a lack of available legal support. If the Minister, with Home Office colleagues, will meet my noble friend, can we ensure that one of the ways of recognising the anniversary will be to ensure that, at that point, there are no longer any outstanding claimants to receive the justice that they deserve?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think what we all want to see is that the claimants’ claims are processed quickly and in the most straightforward way possible. I am very happy to meet the group that the noble Lord met yesterday. It is clear that compensation cannot undo the harm that was caused, but the Government remain committed to improving the Windrush compensation scheme to ensure that it reflects the lived experiences of communities and that it can be accessed simply and in a straightforward manner. The fact that 94% of claims have been dealt with now shows some progress in this area.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, given the fact that Windrush 80 is a massive opportunity for the Government to continue to welcome people from my community—I am second generation—what work are they doing to make sure that young people are seeing this celebration as an opportunity to lean into their Britishness and not be portrayed as other? We are British, we are proud of being British and we want the Government to acknowledge that in these celebrations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right to say that the important thing in all this is that we recognise the contribution of both the Windrush generation and the second generation in designing whatever the legacy of Windrush 80 is going to be. As he rightly suggests, that should include young people who are the descendants of the Windrush generation. I hope that significant work will be done with the steering committee to make sure that that happens and that it is the community that designs the lasting legacy.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

My Lords, I am very much in favour of these positive remarks, but please remember why we are making them and why we are having this discussion. In my time at the National Audit Office, we examined the treatment that many of the Windrush generation had, which cannot be described as anything but disgraceful, and we cannot forget that. We treated those people whom we asked to come to live in our country disgracefully, and we have taken a very long time, in my view, to put that even vaguely right.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right to highlight that issue. There has been a focus on the fact that, while we cannot take away the hurt and harm that was done, we can do our best to recognise the contribution made by the Windrush generation and deal with the issues outstanding from the hurts caused to them. I thought that it was very interesting, when I was reading up on this, to read the poem included on the Windrush memorial at Waterloo station. The last few lines of it are:

“Remember … you called.


YOU. Called.


Remember, it was us, who came”.


I think we all have to remember that.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading & Report stage & 3rd reading & Committee negatived
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the bereaved family members of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire, as well as survivors and members of the local community. Nothing that can be said in this House can diminish the loss they have endured or the impact this tragedy has had on their lives, but they have the respect of this House and of the country as a whole.

The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed the lives of 72 people, was a profound and avoidable tragedy. Its consequences continue to be felt by bereaved families, survivors, the local community and far beyond. Grenfell must never be forgotten, and we must continue to ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There remains much work to do on justice, reform and making homes safe, but this Bill is concerned with one clear and specific responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we ensure that remembrance is properly supported over the long term.

From the outset, I want to be clear with noble Lords. This is a simple Bill with a focused purpose. It exists to provide the statutory authority necessary to support the construction and long-term care of a Grenfell Tower memorial and related activities. The design of that memorial and the way it is shaped must remain with the bereaved families, survivors and the community. This Bill is intended to support that work, not to replace or override it.

Grenfell has never been, and must never become, a matter of party politics. It is about doing what is right and keeping our word. A commitment was made to support the bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower. This Government are honouring that commitment. That is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was established in 2019. From the beginning, its work has been community led: listening to bereaved families, survivors and the immediate community, and helping to shape a shared vision for the future of the site.

After extensive engagement over several years, the commission published its report, Remembering Grenfell, in November 2023. The report set out clear recommendations, including the creation of a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower: a private space where elements of the tower can be laid to rest with dignity and respect, and a physical and digital archive, alongside a permanent exhibition, to ensure that the story of Grenfell is preserved honestly, sensitively and with care.

This work has been guided throughout by those most directly affected by the tragedy, and it must continue to be so. Views about the future of the site are deeply personal and not always shared by everyone. The process supported by this Bill is one that remains firmly community led. The Government have welcomed the commission’s recommendations and will support it to carry them forward. Community led design work is now under way, following the appointment of a design team through a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and members of the local community.

This is a focused Bill. It provides the statutory authority required for the Government to spend public money on the construction of a Grenfell Tower memorial and on its long-term management and care. It also enables spending on preservation, an archive, an exhibition and a site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest, and allows for land to be acquired and works to be carried out where necessary. Although preparatory work and community-led design are already under way, Parliament must provide the statutory authority required to fund the delivery of this national memorial and ensure its upkeep over the long term. The Bill provides that authority.

I underline one important point for noble Lords. The Bill is deliberately narrow in scope. It does not determine the design of the memorial, make planning decisions or set governance or ownership arrangements. Instead, it does one essential thing: it ensures that the expenditure connected to the memorial is properly authorised, in line with the rules governing public spending and with Parliament’s consent.

Community-led design work will continue while Parliament considers the Bill, allowing progress to remain on course. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were permanently changed by the tragedy. It will be a place for remembrance, reflection and respect.

The memorial does not diminish the other work that must continue following Grenfell. Bereaved families and survivors have waited far too long for justice. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan Police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations it has ever undertaken.

We must continue to reform the system so that residents’ voices are heard and safety concerns are never ignored. The Government remain committed to implementing the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to deliver real and lasting change, and to ensuring that everyone can have confidence that their home is safe.

This is a modest Bill in form but it carries real weight. As I said, it is not about party politics but about how we remember Grenfell, what we learn from it and what we choose to do as a country. It does not address every issue arising from the tragedy, and we acknowledge that there is still much to be done. What it does is ensure that the national remembrance is properly supported and protected, with Parliament’s agreement and in a way that respects the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community. Above all, it helps to ensure that Grenfell remains part of our national memory and that its lessons continue to shape a safer and fairer future. On that basis, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving, thoughtful and serious debate. I begin by thanking noble Lords across the House. The contributions we have heard reflect the weight of Grenfell’s legacy for bereaved families, survivors, the local community and the country as a whole. I want to reflect on those very precious lives, brought to us so vividly in the testimony of my noble friends Lord Roe and Lady Hazarika.

Today’s debate has shown that, whatever our political differences, there is a shared understanding across the House that this Bill is not about party politics. It is about the lasting impact of Grenfell on our national conscience. It is about doing what is right and about keeping faith with those most directly affected by the tragedy. It is about the collective commitment made by Parliament that Grenfell would be remembered with dignity, truth and permanence.

Before I turn to the points raised during the debate, I want to restate very clearly exactly what this Bill does. It is a simple Bill with a focused purpose. It provides Parliament’s authority for the public spending required to deliver the Grenfell Tower memorial so that it can be constructed, cared for and sustained over the long term. It authorises spending on any site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest, in the peace that the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, so powerfully reminded us of, as well as spending on preservation, an archive, an exhibition and land acquisition in support of those activities where needed and for works to that land.

The Bill does not determine the design or location of the memorial, nor does it set governance arrangements for how it will be run. That is because, as many noble Lords have mentioned, this Bill is not about taking control; it is about supporting the community-led design work that is already under way and ensuring that it has the financial backing it needs, with Parliament’s consent. In doing so, the Bill helps ensure that Grenfell is not forgotten, and that remembrance of the tragedy continues to sit alongside and support the Government’s wider programme of reform following Grenfell. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned my honourable friend in the other place, Minister Dixon. I am so pleased that she has sat patiently in the Gallery all through our debates today to hear what your Lordships had to say.

I will respond to the detailed points raised by noble Lords in a moment. First, I turn to the very powerful testimony of my noble friend Lord Roe, who spoke about the courage of all those involved. I thank him for his service on that dreadful day; I thank all his colleagues in the London fire service and all those who have been involved in supporting the survivors, the families and the community since then. My noble friend put the emphasis on the responsibility to ensure that families, survivors and the community are front and centre of this project. We must honour their memory by ensuring that we continue to strive to move this on in all respects, so that the failure he highlighted is confronted, dealt with and brings justice, safe homes and the lasting legacy that says, “Never again”. I thank my noble friend Lord Roe for his work and testimony.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Nargund, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and my noble friend Lord Forbes and many others, raised concerns surrounding support for the Grenfell community going forward. Supporting remembrance does not detract from supporting bereaved and survivor families and the immediate community. I reassure noble Lords that we are continuing to work through local authorities, health partners and the community to ensure that those families are supported. The memorial forms part of a long-term national commitment, not an alternative to action elsewhere.

My noble friend Lord Forbes spoke about the centrality of the community whose voices have been ignored, leading to this dreadful tragedy. I reassure him, and others who have spoken about this, that the Department for Education and MHCLG have jointly issued additional funding to Grenfell-affected schools to support children, young people and the entire school population throughout the period of works to carefully take the tower down. Likewise, NHS England has confirmed that Grenfell-specific NHS services will continue to be provided as the tower is taken down. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned support for young people involved; that is very important. Departments across government will continue to work together to make sure that we provide the best joined-up service possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me about funding and whether we had a specific amount. The Bill authorises expenditure but does not approve budgets or set spending levels yet. I reassure the House that detailed funding decisions will be taken through the usual scrutiny and controls set out for managing public money. Introducing a fixed amount at this stage would be premature, particularly in the light of the fact that the community-led design work is still under way.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Boateng, raised the issue of the Lancaster West estate. To support the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate, MHCLG has already provided about £25 million in funding. This is in addition to other funding issued to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the Lancaster West estate, including from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Government have no direct management over the refurbishment of the estate, but I am sure that we will continue to work with colleagues in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as they complete the refurbishment works and deliver for their community.

Noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised the national oversight mechanism. We recognise that, in the past, inquiry recommendations have been made and accepted but, as one noble friend mentioned, are then left as dusty tomes on the shelf. That must not happen. The Government are continuing to explore ways to improve the transparency and accountability of recommendations made to them by public inquiries. I reassure the House that we will continue to listen to the views of groups that have been impacted by public inquiries so that the Government’s progress towards implementing inquiry recommendations is properly scrutinised. On the Grenfell Inquiry’s recommendations specifically, we will continue to provide progress updates until all the recommendations have been implemented.

My noble friends Lady Dacres and Lady Hyde raised community engagement. My noble friend Lady Dacres spoke about lessons from a community that had not been listened to, and my noble friend Lady Hyde spoke about a relentless focus on voices that had not been heard. I want to be clear that this Bill does not change who leads the design, vision or decision-making for the Grenfell Tower memorial. The Government’s role in the memorial is to facilitate, support and manage technical delivery of the programme; they will not lead memorial design. On behalf of the independent memorial commission, Freehaus, the appointed design team, is now working with the community to develop the design to honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were for ever changed by the tragedy.

My noble friend Lady Warwick highlighted the housing aspects in relation to the Grenfell tragedy, as well as the avoidable deaths and the need for a change in culture towards transparency. We are committed to continuing to work closely with social landlords and regulators to deliver the joint plan, backed by over £1 billion of investment, to speed up remediation, improve support for residents and maintain momentum against the plan’s target dates, so that unsafe homes are made safe faster and the lessons of Grenfell are never forgotten.

I am doing a specific piece of work around social housing stigma, which sadly still exists. In the case of Grenfell, this was further exacerbated by the racial inequalities powerfully highlighted by my noble friends Lady Nargund and Lady Hyde. We need to work with tenants and the sector to consider how we can tackle this stigma. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, raised qualifications in social housing; that is an issue that we are looking at very closely. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, quite rightly, that housing is a human right. I absolutely agree with her on that. We all have all to pick up the lessons we learned from Grenfell in our action on social housing.

I want to reflect on the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on corporate responsibility. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti also referred to corruption, cover-up, greed and negligence, as did other noble Peers. On accountability for building safety in the specific case of Grenfell, those responsible must be held to account, and the Government fully support the police in carrying out the investigation. I also flag the forthcoming remediation Bill, which will introduce new criminal penalties for people who refuse to remediate similar fire safety defects to those that existed on Grenfell Tower. I will also take up with the relevant Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade the issue of corporate accountability laws raised here today, and I am happy to take part in further discussions with the noble and learned Lord if he feels that would be helpful.

The Government are currently introducing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, usually known as the Hillsborough law, which is about public body accountability. The noble and learned Lord made an important point about the need for accountability in respect of corporate bodies too. While I mention the Hillsborough law, I should acknowledge that tomorrow is the anniversary of Hillsborough; I think we should reflect on that and take the action necessary to deal with the recommendations on that.

In relation to the current investigation, I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that 180 officers and staff are working on this in the Metropolitan Police Service. We want to see the justice that many noble Lords have mentioned during this debate, and I know that that inquiry is being progressed with appropriate resources and as quickly as the Metropolitan Police Service can do it.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Forbes and Lady Gill, mentioned cladding remediation—

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

If the Minister is moving on to cladding, I go back to the police investigation. Does she have an update on the position on the special grant and Operation Northleigh, and whether it has been granted or not? Could she write if she does not know that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will write, and I apologise for missing the noble Baroness’s point on that issue.

On the matter of cladding, a number of noble Lords mentioned failures caused by deregulation and a failure to listen to local voices. I reassure the House that for both me and the Minister and the other place, speeding up remediation is one of our top priorities. We are working to get buildings fixed faster and to allow residents to feel safer in their homes. Nearly nine years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sikka, have raised issues of negligence in building, and over the past year we have taken steps to remove barriers to remediation, strengthen accountability for those responsible for unsafe buildings, and support residents facing delays or uncertainty.

It is not for this Bill to legislate on remediation matters, but that work, as my noble friend Lord Forbes said, remains a moral responsibility for all of us, and the Government will bring forward a remediation Bill, which will drive forward the remediation of historic unsafe cladding by compelling responsible entities to remediate their buildings by clear targets or risk criminal prosecution. We will bring forward that remediation Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.

In respect of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Boateng as co-chair of the commission, and I thank his fellow co-chair, as he rightly said, for incredible service to the commission, and all the commissioners for the work that they have done, which was powerfully outlined in my noble friend’s speech, The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, also mentioned the commission, which is an independent, unincorporated, community-led body. I can confirm that the commission leads on the engagement with the community and the appointed design team is working with the community to determine the design for a lasting and fitting memorial. The Government’s role in the memorial is to facilitate, support and manage the technical delivery of the programme—but I hope that the positive comments made by my noble friend Lord Boateng will be reflected as we go forward with this work, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, mentioned the taking down of the tower—and I know what an incredibly sensitive issue this was. Work has been paused in a particular area of the tower in relation to a recent request to preserve certain elements. Subject to that, work to carefully take down Grenfell Tower is progressing and is due to complete in 2027. This will ensure that it is done respectfully, minimising noise and dust compared with other methods. I reassure all noble Lords that we continue to engage with the bereaved, with survivors and the immediate community during this very sensitive piece of work. I have met the co-ordinator, who is there on site, to discuss this with her. On the particular issue around the helpline, I will confirm the details of that in writing.

A very important matter that has come up during the debate has been the issue of justice. I think nearly all noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned it. I have spoken about the investigation by the Metropolitan Police. Those responsible—and I want to be very clear about this—must be held to account. The Government fully support the police in carrying out the investigation. Of course, it is important that the Government do not take any action that could risk prejudicing those processes, but we must all be focused on the justice that the memory of those lost and the lives of those who survive absolutely demands.

I am so grateful for the very thoughtful scrutiny and contributions offered in this debate. The legacy of Grenfell, the justice, the lessons learned and the memorial must lead us to the light mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boateng—the light of hope for a better future.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the first group of amendments in my name, which reflect the concerns that we have repeatedly expressed during the passage of this Bill about imposing top-down reorganisation of local government without local consent. Amendments 187 and 194 oppose Clause 57 and Schedule 26 outright. Schedule 26 as drafted enables the Secretary of State not just to invite but to “direct” local authorities to propose mergers of single tiers of local government. This throws into serious question whether the Bill does in fact enable community empowerment, or if it just gives the Secretary of State more power to bring councils into line with central government’s plans.

Many local people do not want their rural and urban areas to be merged under the same local government jurisdiction, or for councils which have been doing their jobs well and kept taxes low to be merged with other, less well-performing councils. Nor do they want to disaggregate district councils into pieces to suit the Government rather than the people, adding them to urban areas—in order to allow more greenfield development, we believe, and that again takes the pressure off use of brownfield.

Amendment 188 would remove “or direct”, allowing the Secretary of State only to make an invitation to local authorities. Amendment 189 would then require the express consent of all relevant authorities affected by the proposed reorganisation. Alongside the significance of local consent, it is important that democratic oversight of the changes occurs at national level too, and not just in the corridors of Whitehall. Amendment 190 would require the Secretary of State to show Parliament that any direction was in the interests of effective and convenient local government, while also representing the views of the affected authorities. Similarly, Amendment 191 would strengthen the requirement on the Secretary of State not only to believe that the direction was in the interests of local government but to be

“satisfied having regard to the views of affected authorities and local electors”.

We return to the point that we have made consistently throughout this process. Changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent. Can the Minister confirm whether the purpose of this legislation is truly to advance community empowerment? Can she also explain how these provisions will save taxpayers’ money, improve local service delivery and strengthen existing local geographic identities? These are questions that we will ask now and continue to ask as this project moves forward and this Bill becomes an Act. It is not clear why Schedule 26 has been drafted in this way, without stronger democratic safeguards. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on local government reorganisation. Before I comment on the amendments, I wonder if the House would indulge me for one moment so that I may pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham, who died during recess.

Jeremy Beecham’s passion for local government, his wisdom, kindness, fierce intelligence and sharp wit, as well as over 55 years of service to his community in Newcastle, with 17 years as leader of Newcastle City Council, made him a powerful and committed ambassador and advocate of local government, including when he came into your Lordships’ House. My thoughts are with his family, the people of Newcastle—to whom he committed a lifetime of service—and our local government community, where his legacy will be enduring and powerful. There was a wonderful levaya yesterday in Newcastle which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I attended, along with other Members of this House. I hope that Jeremy will rest in peace. May his memory be a blessing.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the Government are committed to fixing the foundations of local government. Our vision is very clear—stronger local councils that are equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities. We want all residents to benefit from strong unitary—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Is the Minister winding? A number of us wish to get in as part of the debate. I would hate to cut her off, but I think there are some contributions to be made.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It was my understanding that we had moved on to winding speeches.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I did not realise that we had moved on to winding speeches. I wholeheartedly endorse what the Minister said about the late Lord Beecham and add my condolences.

With the leave of the House, I would like to comment briefly on Amendment 187, tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson. I support the intentions of their amendments, which seek to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to direct mergers of single tiers of local government to cases where all the local authorities concerned have given their consent. I strongly agree with that. Of their amendments, I prefer the two which are more far-reaching, Amendments 188 and 194, because the provision for local authorities to merge exists already. Clause 57 and Schedule 26 are there only to implement the power of the Secretary of State to enforce such mergers, without the consent of the authorities involved.

The addition proposed by Schedule 26 of the Bill to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 concerns a

“district or county council for an area for which there is currently a single tier of local government”.

I understand that a county council can be a single tier, but I cannot understand how a district council can be a single tier. I would observe that the Bill is concerned with mergers of principal authorities. Can the Minister tell your Lordships if it also provides for the dismemberment or breakdown of principal authorities into smaller units, such as is happening under the current local government reorganisation? This is seeing many counties being divided up into smaller unitary authorities, which will certainly result in a massive increase in costs, which will have to be borne by hard-pressed council tax payers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there were an awful lot of questions there for the Minister to answer. It would be better for the House if she responds to them, in particular to the nub of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.

I hope the Minister will not mind if I pay tribute to the late Lord Beecham. He was a councillor in Newcastle for 55 years, 17 of which were as leader of the council. He was the first chair of the Local Government Association. I spent a number of years as leader of the opposition to Jeremy when he was leader of the council, and we enjoyed sparring, as indeed we continued to do after 2010 across the Floor of this Chamber. He was a new broom in the late 1970s in the era after T Dan Smith. He was young. He created the social services department. He fought an unrelenting battle against poverty, creating a welfare rights service in Newcastle, but he also understood the importance of growth in the city. We discovered yesterday—I did not know—that he convinced the Chancellor that there should be bus passes for older and younger people; I am particularly pleased about that.

I know that Jeremy’s family have appreciated the large number of tributes that have been paid to him nationally, locally and in the media. There is a book about what he did in those 55 years—there is a copy in the Library and, I think, in the Government Whips’ Office—to which I was privileged to contribute chapter 2. It is an interesting work on the history of local government over the past 40 years. I add my tribute to Jeremy’s huge contribution to Newcastle and to the country as a whole.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his comments. Indeed, we learned about the bus pass yesterday, for which I am eternally grateful, as was my dad, who loved his bus pass. That was just another of Jeremy’s achievements that many who knew him did not know about.

As I have said before, this Government are committed to fixing the foundations of local government. Our vision is clear: stronger local councils that are equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities. We want all residents to be able to benefit from strong unitary councils. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is a powerful advocate of this from her time in Wiltshire. In response to her specific questions, value for money and the strengthening of geographic identity came out very clearly in the submissions made by local authorities in response to the call for proposals for new local government structures.

On the community empowerment side of the noble Baroness’s questions, the neighbourhood governance proposals we have set out in the Bill will provide the most powerful basis for community empowerment in a generation. I look forward to further discussion about them, and we will provide further regulation to set out exactly how that will work.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I am not going to go into all the details of the Norfolk process but it was extremely rigorous. Locally submitted proposals were considered very carefully against the clear criteria that had been set. We have always said that the 50,000 population limit was a guideline, not a hard line that had to be met. When we looked at the proposals, it was clear that we needed to be flexible on that in some areas. We made our decisions against the criteria, and they are now back with the priority programme areas for them to have a look at.

We are not seeking to force reorganisation on areas. The power to direct councils to submit a proposal for reorganisation will be held in reserve and exercised only where an area has been unable to make progress in response to an invitation. Instead, the Bill creates a new route for unitary councils to be invited to submit proposals for merging with neighbouring councils. This will align with the existing reorganisation process for two-tier areas and ensure a consistent approach. As devolution and local government reorganisation progress simultaneously in some parts of the country, it is important that we have tools that allow these processes to operate smoothly and effectively. Without the power to convert a combined county authority to a combined authority for the purpose of implementing a proposal for the establishment of new unitary councils, there would be no efficient way to maintain the effective operation of existing devolved bodies where reorganisation proposals are also being implemented.

The power to abolish a combined authority or a combined county authority is tightly constrained. It provides a necessary safeguard so that where a reorganisation proposal would make a strategic authority redundant, that proposal can proceed and the strategic authority can be dissolved accordingly. I stress that any proposal that might require the use of this power must first be assessed for its implications for future devolution in line with the Government’s reorganisation criteria. This will ensure that areas are not left without a viable route to secure devolution arrangements. I hope that with these points in mind the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will be able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these Benches also align with everything that has been said about the great Lord Beecham. I wrote down a number of things to say, but it has all been said. He was a hero in local government. When I became a new young councillor, his was the one name that I was always a bit scared of, to tell your Lordships the honest truth. We from these Benches send our thoughts to his family and all his friends. May his memory be a blessing.

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller. I know he spoke for a long time, but he was explaining what has happened on the ground from local government reorganisation that started even before the Bill has finished its passage through Parliament. It is important that we hear what is happening on the ground. I happen to live in Norfolk at the moment, and I can tell noble Lords it has gone down like a lead balloon there. We are where we are and Norfolk will make it work, because that is what most local authorities do, but it certainly does not reflect what I hear from local people as to what they wanted or expected.

As I have said, our concerns with Schedule 26 reflect our wider concern about the true purpose of the Bill and its impact on local communities. As drafted, it shifts the balance of power in favour of the Secretary of State rather than local people when it comes to their local government and their services. This is contrary to the aims of a Bill titled “community empowerment”. Local government reorganisation should genuinely have the consent of all the parties it affects, in consultation with the local communities they are elected to represent. We are not here to try to frustrate reform. As the Minister said, I am an advocate of unitary authorities. I led one for 10 years and I led it into a unitary, but that was with the people of Wiltshire all the way through.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

192: Schedule 26, page 281, leave out line 15
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendment of this provision in my name would limit the regulation-making power conferred by the new section 11A of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. They would remove the ability to amend Acts other than the 2007 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. It is an extremely important group of amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling her amendments and, as always, making the eloquent case for them. These Benches are united with the Liberal Democrat Benches in wanting to see an expansion of parish and town councils, as well as a strengthening of their role in local government. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, it is much more important now than ever.

We have brought Amendment 213 in my name forward from Committee, with the support of my noble friend Lord Lansley, to secure the role of town and parish councils within what the Government are calling neighbourhood governance. As we have said previously, town and parish councils are the closest to local people, with unique insight into their needs and wishes. The Minister said in Committee that there ought to be more flexibility to design neighbourhood governance, but these are long-established, familiar and democratically elected bodies which deserve more of a role in the Bill. That said, I appreciate that the Minister has verbally recognised the crucial work that parish and town councils do for their communities.

This brings me on to my Amendment 214 to encourage the expansion of parish governance in currently unparished areas through existing processes and supportive guidance for principal authorities. If the Government are serious about valuing the work of town and parish councils, why do they oppose this amendment? It would require the Secretary of State to develop a strategy for parish governance for unparished areas in England, including the issuing of guidance on how to identify areas where this might be most appropriate, as well as examples of best practice when it comes to establishing those town and parish councils.

I do not believe that town and parish council governance has a proper place in the Bill. We believe this to be a balanced amendment to provide a reasonable way forward. If I do not hear the right decision to move forward from the Government, I intend to divide the House on Amendment 214. But I hope that the Minister will see, or has seen, the merits of this amendment and that we can rely on the support of not just noble Lords across this House but, perhaps, the Government.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, for their amendments on neighbourhood governance, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Lucas and Lord Shipley, who have spoken on these issues.

I will begin with Amendment 195. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that both the Government and I understand and value the very important role that parish councils across England play in their communities, and we recognise that this amendment is seeking to ensure that their effectiveness is maximised. However, I reject the amendment’s implicit assumption that central government knows best about the ideal coverage and role of town and parish councils in every local area. Through the community governance review process, local authorities are already empowered to evaluate parishing arrangements in their area. These are locally led and responsive to communities’ priorities, and they ensure that new town and parish councils are created only where there is a genuine local appetite. I hope that that responds to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

I must therefore oppose this amendment because it would undermine the principle of localism: local authorities are best placed to understand and respond to the needs of their communities regarding the creation of new town and parish councils, and to make decisions on how best to support these councils where they already exist.

I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 196, which seeks to ensure that where they exist, local authorities take into account the views of town and parish councils in their area. I recognise that given their proximity to their communities, as all noble Lords have said, town and parish councils are well placed to understand the priorities of their communities. They can therefore offer deeply valuable insight to principal local authorities when designing services and making decisions that affect their area. We want to see good partnership working between local authorities and town and parish councils to help ensure that decisions made about their areas reflect the priorities of their communities.

However, the wide-ranging duty to undertake consultation with town and parish councils on any decision which may affect their area would create an unnecessary bureaucracy that would restrict the ability of local authorities to make effective decisions in their area. The approach to mandating consultation is at odds with effective partnership working. It would create an excessive administrative burden for local authorities, leading in turn to further financial burdens for local taxpayers.

On Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, let me be clear: the Government really value the role of town and parish councils; where they exist, they play an absolutely vital role in local democracy and in championing the priorities of their communities. I therefore appreciate that the intent behind this amendment is to make sure that their role is reinforced through the new duty on local authorities to have in place effective neighbourhood governance arrangements. I reassure the noble Baroness that town and parish councils already have statutory functions and powers under existing legislation, and nothing in Clause 60 seeks to remove or diminish these; this amendment is not needed to retain their role and function.

However, requiring neighbourhood governance structures to strengthen the role of town and parish councils over other models of community partnership would constrain local choice; it would remove flexibility for places to design neighbourhood governance arrangements which will work in their areas and match their own local requirements. In its aim to strengthen local engagement, neighbourhood governance will ensure that all communities, whether or not they are served by a town or parish council, have effective ways to influence the decisions that matter to them in their local area.

On Amendment 214, the Government understand and value the important role of parish councils. However, as I mentioned in response to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, through community governance reviews, there is already a process in place by which local authorities can evaluate parishing arrangements for their area. I must therefore oppose this amendment because it would undermine the principle of local autonomy and that local authorities should come to decisions independently and based on the priorities of their communities.

I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to ensure that where local authorities are making neighbourhood governance arrangements, they consult and engage with town and parish councils. I recognise the valuable role that town and parish councils play in local democracy and service delivery, and I want to be clear that the neighbourhood governance duty we are introducing aims to complement the work of these councils. We expect local authorities to work with existing organisations in their communities, including with town and parish councils, in delivering effective neighbourhood governance.

However, in introducing statutory requirements to formally consult town and parish councils in their area regarding neighbourhood governance arrangements, this amendment would create unnecessary bureaucracy that would hinder the ability of local authorities to develop locally tailored approaches. We absolutely welcome and encourage collaboration between principal local authorities and town and parish councils. But for central government to dictate how this happens in local areas would be counterproductive to true partnership working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, which goes to the heart of what we mean by devolution and local choice.

On this side of the House, we believe in democracy and devolution. Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raises the fundamental question: do we truly trust local authorities to determine the governance arrangements that best serve their communities? This is not a radical approach. Rather, it is rooted in the simple, democratic principle that decisions about how councils are run should, wherever possible, be made locally and not prescribed from the centre.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and other noble Lords extolled the virtues of the committee system, and we can debate whether that is the best system. I was the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council, and we very successfully ran a leader and cabinet model. The fundamental principle underlying all this is that this should be a local decision involving local residents. That is why the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to reinforce an equally important principle: respect for local residents. Where a community has chosen through referendum to adopt or retain a particular governance model, it cannot be right for that decision to be set aside without further direct consent.

Amendments 198 and 200 in particular are designed to ensure that where a referendum has taken place, its outcome cannot be overridden. If we are to ask the public to engage in these decisions, we must be prepared to honour the result.

Similarly, the amendments adjusting the relevant time periods from one year to three years are not about obstruction; they are about stability. Constant churn in governance structures serves neither councils nor the communities they represent. A longer period allows new arrangements to bed in, to be properly assessed and to deliver for residents.

Taken together, these amendments and Amendment 197 form a coherent and principled case, one that champions democracy, devolution and stability in governance. If the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, presses his amendment, we are minded to support it. If the Bill is to live up to its title of community empowerment, it must do more than devolve powers in name only; it must embody a genuine trust for local towns, cities, rural areas and the people they serve.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I would like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Storey, Lord Faulks, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their constructive engagement during the Committee debate on the requirement for local authorities to publish notice of any proposed change to their governance arrangements. I think these issues have been debated for the whole of the 30 years that I have been in local government, and I am sure they will continue to be so.

Following that debate, the Government have reflected carefully and brought forward government Amendments 210 and 211. Together, these amendments will maintain the current requirement and align the policy with the Government’s recent commitments set out in the Local Media Action Plan, published last month. As part of that plan, a wider review of all statutory notices will be carried out by the Government to explore whether action is needed to better ensure that communities have access to journalistic scrutiny of local decision-making. To ensure that government policy on statutory notices is developed coherently and consistently, we will maintain the current requirement in this specific area, and in order to allow the review to determine the best long-term approach. This will ensure alignment with the Government’s wider work on the role of statutory notices and local media, rather than pre-empting any decisions that are properly a matter for that broader review.

Turning to Amendments 197 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the issues the noble Lord has raised were explored in some detail in Grand Committee, and the Government’s position remains unchanged. Clause 59 and Schedule 27 are intended to promote greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. At present, arrangements vary significantly, which can make it harder for residents to understand who is responsible for decisions and how accountability operates. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government continue to favour executive models of governance. In our view, the leader and cabinet model, now used by more than 80% of councils, offers clearer leadership, stronger accountability and more streamlined decision-making. Certainly, when my own authority moved to that model, it did all those things.

On scrutiny, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, of course, councils can use their overview and scrutiny committees for pre-scrutiny of decision-making if they wish. In the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, all decisions of cabinet in the leader and cabinet model are subject to review by scrutiny. We also know that good practice suggests that overview and scrutiny should not be chaired by the ruling party. I know that many authorities do not operate that system, but that is recommended as good practice.

The experience of individual councils helps to illustrate why this matters. When Cheshire East moved to a committee system in 2021, a Local Government Association corporate peer challenge found that the resulting structure was extensive and meeting- heavy, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving almost the entire membership of the council. That same review also highlighted ongoing difficulties with co-ordination, pointing to a siloed organisational culture and weak joint working across departments, which in turn affected service delivery and internal communication.

There are also examples of councils that have trialled committee arrangements and subsequently concluded that they were not delivering the intended benefits. Brighton and Hove’s decision to return to a leader and cabinet model in 2024 is a recent case in point. Repeated structural change of this kind is costly, disruptive and not in the interests of effective local leadership. Finally, where decision-making is dispersed across multiple committees, it can become less clear where responsibility ultimately sits. In my work as a peer reviewer, as I was for the LGA for many years, that was certainly my experience. It was less clear where the responsibility ultimately sat in most councils with complicated systems.

I turn now to Amendments 198 to 209, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government cannot accept these amendments as they run contrary to our aim of promoting greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. However, where the Government do agree with the noble Baroness is on the case for treating differently councils that have adopted the committee system more recently. As your Lordships will know, where a local authority has adopted the committee system following a council resolution or a public referendum, there is generally a moratorium on making a further governance change for a period of five and 10 years respectively, under the Local Government Act 2000.

Where local electors or councillors have voted proactively to adopt the committee system, following a public referendum or council resolution respectively, it is reasonable that they should expect those arrangements to remain in place for the duration of those so-called moratorium periods. The Government have therefore provided in this Bill for protections from the requirement to move to the leader and cabinet governance model for those councils that are currently operating a committee system and are still within their statutory moratorium period. This includes Sheffield City Council, Bristol City Council and the Isle of Wight Council. These councils will be protected from the requirement to change governance models for the duration of their current moratorium period. At the end of this period, they will be required to undertake and publish a review, setting out whether they intend to move to a leader and cabinet executive and, if not, why they consider the committee system to be an appropriate form of governance for their local authority, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in their area.

The Government believe that a one-year decision period provides sufficient time for a council to carry out the necessary work to support that assessment and to pass any resolution needed to continue operating the committee system. This is comparable with the time allowed in existing legislation when moving to or from a non-mayoral model, which provides by default for the change to take place at the next annual meeting of the council. Protected committee councils will also have the remainder of their protected moratorium periods to prepare for this review.

Separately, all new councils established as part of the local government reorganisation will be required to adopt the leader and cabinet model. For all other councils not subject to these committee system protections, the Bill requires a move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant provision in Schedule 27 coming into force. Here again, the Government believe that a one-year period provides sufficient time to allow for a smooth and orderly transition, in line with equivalent statutory processes, enabling councils to undertake all necessary preparatory work.

For all these reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I commend government Amendments 210 and 211 to the House.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lord, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and for reminding the House that the Government have agreed that three councils— Sheffield, Bristol and the Isle of Wight—can stay with the committee system temporarily. However, I remind the House that we are talking here of only three councils.

This is a simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it central government or local people? I submit that it is a matter for local people to decide what is best for their area. For that reason, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I note the dedication of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to this issue, but he will not be surprised to hear that we cannot support him on this group of amendments. The issue of electoral reform has been debated time and again. I do not believe it would be appropriate to insert these significant provisions in this Bill now. Our position on these Benches has been consistent in favour of first past the post as the preferred voting system.

As my noble friend Lord Trenchard highlighted, in 2011 a UK-wide referendum was held and 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal to introduce alternative vote. That result cannot be ignored. I recognise that this referendum was with regard to the voting system for Members of Parliament in the other place, but there is no basis to simply assume that there would be a majority in favour of AV if it had focused solely on local elections, or indeed a majority in favour of a supplementary voting system for councillors. Voters clearly stated their preference for first past the post, and it would be inappropriate to ignore them through amendments to this Bill now. I appreciate our differences on this issue, but I urge noble Lords to think carefully before supporting these amendments, regardless of their personal preferences for electoral reform.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for this group of amendments. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. I welcome the noble Lord’s interest in this topic and I respect his great knowledge and expertise.

We acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, especially for single executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. It is precisely for this reason that we are planning to reintroduce the supplementary vote system for these polls. This system has a proven history of successfully meeting the needs of the electorate and is well understood. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned the referendum that was held in 2011 with regard to parliamentary elections. I am sure we will go on debating electoral reform for some time to come—I do not think it is going to go away—but it is true to say that that 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal back in 2011.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about our devolved Administrations, the voting system used for elections to devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of those devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. For historical reasons the single transferable vote has been used for local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is appropriate for different voting systems to be used for different polls, but we believe that the supplementary vote is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors.

I noted the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the elections for police and crime commissioners. He rightly says that those positions will go. I have not had a definitive answer, but I assume that we are putting in the provision for PCC elections in case a by-election needs to be held between now and when the positions would normally come up for election, at which time those posts will go. We therefore do not support plans to introduce an alternative vote system for these particular elections, as we believe the supplementary vote is much more appropriate. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

I thank noble Lords for this short but succinct and apposite debate. As several have said, this is a long-running topic of discussion that I am sure we will return to on occasions in the future. I will not rehearse all the arguments, but given that reference was made to whether the supplementary vote or the alternative vote might be too confusing for people, I simply point out that the single transferable vote, which is a more complicated ballot paper than either a supplementary or an alternative vote, is used successfully without a problem by voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I certainly would not want to suggest in any way that if people in Scotland and Northern Ireland can manage it, somehow voters in England would not be up to the task.

We have rehearsed the main arguments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in particular, had some apposite comments about the practical experience we have of how problematic the supplementary vote can be when it is used in London. Given the importance of the democratic point, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I want to say one thing in response to this group and will try not to repeat anything that anybody has said. I am very puzzled by the Conservative Party’s stance on our first past the post electoral system. I think it has passed its use-by date. It is hopelessly out of date and inappropriate for candidates to be elected, as will happen a great deal in the local elections coming up, with less than 30% of the vote. Candidates who get elected and are then trusted to spend public money should have the confidence of a much larger number of people at the poll. To count on a system which is simply about the person who comes top in that ballot, when that could be on between 25% and 30% of the poll, seems totally out of date these days given the multi-party system that we now have.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments on elections. I will begin by discussing the government amendments in this group.

The history of reorganisation under the previous Government, as now, has taught us that the process typically gives rise to circumstances where there are strong reasons for postponement. Early on in the process, postponement can release vital capacity, as well as avoid the cost and disruption of elections to councils which are likely to be abolished. Later on in the process, structural changes orders provide for elections to new councils and avoid the confusion and waste of resources on parallel elections for councillors who would serve terms of less than 11 months.

The reorganisation process is not always predictable. For this reason, the Secretary of State’s flexibility to consider such an important question at each relevant point during the process should not be constrained by an arbitrary number. It must be considered on the particular merits of the question at that moment. The length of postponement will, of course, always be a consideration but should not be the sole consideration.

The Secretary of State said on 23 February that the Government would reflect carefully on the amendments that had been tabled at this stage and the concerns raised, and that is exactly what we have done. We have tabled an amendment that would prevent double postponement for reasons connected with reorganisation. Our amendments achieve the same aim as Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but within the requirements of legislative drafting.

I will set out in more detail shortly why the Government cannot agree the amendments tabled by your Lordships. We consider that it would be wholly disproportionate to remove the powers entirely or to be overprescriptive as to their use. However, the Government have listened to and understand your Lordships’ concerns about the use of powers to postpone elections to a council undergoing local government reorganisation for more than one year. We have heard, in particular, the concern that multiple delays to elections can reduce the democratic mandate of councillors. That is why we have tabled these amendments, which I will move in due course.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 219 and for his continued engagement on this issue. The amendment before us would significantly restrict the Government’s ability to change the year of local elections by requiring such changes to be made through primary legislation, except in very narrow circumstances. The amendment would require councils which are to be abolished in the current round of reorganisation to hold elections to seats that would be abolished less than 11 months later. This is because the current reorganisations are proceeding under existing powers rather than under the local government reorganisation, which will be enabled under or by virtue of this Bill, including amendments to existing legislation, as required by subsection (2)(b)(i).

The restrictions also rule out the use of powers in any other context, including, of particular concern, best value interventions in failing councils. These interventions require speed and agility. It is simply not proportionate to require primary legislation to implement the recommendations of statutory inspectors or commissioners. The Government fully appreciate that noble Lords have concerns about the postponement of elections. That is why we have introduced government Amendment 218A, which I have already explained.

Turning now to Amendment 220, I first reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her engagement on this issue. I know I have said this before, but it is an important point: the Government’s position remains that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise, and I hope that government Amendment 196A means that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendment.

Amendment 222 offers a disproportionate response to the concerns we have heard. In many time-sensitive situations, such as best-value interventions, primary legislation would simply be impractical. Even the narrow circumstances where secondary legislation would be permitted are over-prescribed. It would not, for instance, be possible to align parish council elections with those of newly created councils without fresh primary legislation. The resulting stand-alone elections would be at the expense of those parish councils, both financially and in terms of turnout.

The amendment does not define “local government election”. This creates an unhelpful ambiguity with regard to the use of the power to change a council’s scheme of elections, which necessarily involves changing the timing of council elections and has been critical to some best-value interventions. I gently remind the noble Lord of the well-established constitutional principle that a Parliament should not seek to bind its successors, which the final provision appears to attempt to do. In the light of these arguments and the Government’s own more proportionate and practical amendment, I hope he will feel able not to press his amendment.

I reiterate the Government’s position that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. That said, there have been and will continue to be exceptional circumstances where that high bar is met, in the context of government intervention in councils failing the best-value duty as well as during reorganisation. This is why Parliament has on many separate occasions granted the Secretary of State powers to act if and when the need arises. We have reflected very carefully on our debates on the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for such legislation. The Government’s priority is to ensure that arbitrary deadlines do not prevent the flexible use of these powers where this is essential, while of course meeting the concerns that have been expressed. The super-affirmative procedure is unsuited to statutory instruments, which implement a simple yes/no decision. There will be no meaningful recommendations that a committee could make as to the drafting of such legislation, beyond agreement or disagreement with the Secretary of State’s decision to change the timing of an election. It is sufficient that this question be considered once by each House under the affirmative procedure, as the Government are proposing with our amendment.

I remind noble Lords that last year, the Government announced that police and crime commissioners will be abolished at the end of their current term of office in 2028, and that police and crime commissioner functions will be transferred to mayors wherever possible, or to local leaders. There will be no further ordinary elections of PCCs, and legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. The provision in the Bill is to allow for the situation where a by-election may occur before 2028.

Turning now to Amendments 218 and 242, I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the Government’s priority is to equip mayors with the means and the authority they need to drive the growth and ambition of their areas. These leaders will be responsible for serving millions of residents and overseeing budgets worth many millions of pounds. Elections for these important roles must be built on a system the public can trust. After the May 2026 elections, the Bill will return mayoral and PCC contests to the supplementary vote system, ensuring clear accountability and a stronger personal mandate for those elected. This was the voting system in place when mayors were first established, and it is the best system for electing people to single executive positions.

Turning to Amendment 221, the Government are committed to improving participation in our democracy. To support this goal, we must continue to ensure that our democratic processes keep pace with technology and with the way people live their lives. The ability to test innovative electoral procedures in real polling environments, understand how voters use them and gather robust data on what works well is crucial. The power given to the Secretary of State to make pilot orders allows for a level of flexibility and working at pace in what is often a shifting landscape of local election timetables and technological advances. The legislation requires that at all times, pilots are designed and delivered in collaboration with the relevant local authorities. The Electoral Commission also has a statutory duty to evaluate pilots following their conclusion. There are therefore sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that pilots remain safe and secure and do not impact on the security or efficacy of the elections during which they are delivered.

The purpose of this amendment is to require such pilot orders to be made by an affirmative statutory instrument. This would add considerably to the timeline and severely impact the ability for electoral pilots to be delivered flexibly and at pace. The amendment would also repeal the Secretary of State’s order-making power to apply piloted procedures to other local government elections. Let me reassure noble Lords that there is already sufficient parliamentary scrutiny if we decide to roll out piloted changes at local elections—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, specifically asked me about this—as any changes must be made via affirmative secondary legislation. However, there is a strong precedent for keeping voting rules consistent across different election types unless the specific election specifically supports a different process, so we would be more likely to roll out changes to UK parliamentary elections at the same time, and this would require primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

218A: After Clause 61, insert the following new Clause—
“Limit on delay of election in connection with local government reorganisation(1) An election timing order (the “invalid order”) has no effect if—(a) the order relates to an election of councillors of an English principal council (the “affected election”), (b) the order is made for a reason which relates to a process of local government reorganisation affecting that council (the “reorganisation process”), whether that process is proposed or has begun at the time when the order is made, and(c) the order would delay the affected election by more than 53 weeks.(2) For the purposes of this section—(a) “process of local government reorganisation affecting” an English principal council means—(i) the Secretary of State giving that council an invitation or direction under section 2 or 2A of LGPIHA 2007, or(ii) the Local Government Boundary Commission making a recommendation for a boundary change relating to that council to the Secretary of State under section 8 of LGPIHA 2007;(b) it does not matter if the reason which relates to the reorganisation process is the only reason, or one of several reasons, for the election timing order being made;(c) the circumstances in which a process of local government reorganisation affecting a council “is proposed” include circumstances in which the Secretary of State has notified the council that the Secretary of State might give that council an invitation or direction under section 2 or 2A of LGPIHA 2007;(d) an election timing order delays an election by more than 53 weeks if, as a result of the order, the election would take place after the end of the period of 53 weeks beginning with the original election date;(e) it does not matter if the delay by more than 53 weeks would result—(i) solely from the invalid order, or(ii) from the cumulative effect of the invalid order and one or more previous related election timing orders;(f) an election timing order is to be regarded as delaying the affected election even if the election would not actually take place on the date to which it is delayed because of the eventual outcome of the reorganisation process.(3) In this section—“election timing order” means an order under—(a) section 87 of LGA 2000 (power to change years in which elections held),(b) section 7 of LGPIHA 2007 (implementation of proposals by order), or(c) section 10 of LGPIHA 2007 (implementation of recommendations by order);“English principal council” means—(a) a county council in England,(b) a district council, or(c) a London borough council;“original election date” means the date on which the affected election would have been held, ignoring the effect of—(a) the invalid order, and(b) any previous related election timing order;“previous related election timing order” means an election timing order which—(a) delays the affected election,(b) was made for a reason which relates to the reorganisation process (whether that was the only reason, or one of several reasons, for the election timing order being made), and(c) was made before the invalid order.” Member's explanatory statement
This would prevent elections of English principal councils from being delayed by SI for more than 53 weeks for reasons which relate to a process of local government reorganisation under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

243: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“ChapterGrants to joint committees of London councilsPower to pay grant to joint committees of London councilsAfter section 32 of the Local Government Act 2003 insert—“32A Power to pay grant to joint committees of London councils(1) A Minister of the Crown may pay a grant to an eligible London joint committee towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred—(a) by the committee, or(b) by an eligible sub-committee of the committee.(2) The amount of a grant under this section and the manner of its payment are to be such as the person paying it may determine.(3) A grant under this section may be paid on such conditions as the person paying it may determine.(4) Conditions under subsection (3) may, in particular, include—(a) provision as to the use of the grant;(b) provision as to circumstances in which the whole or part of the grant must be repaid.(5) Where a Minister of the Crown wishes to pay a grant towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by an eligible London joint committee or an eligible sub-committee, the Secretary of State may pay a grant under this section to one or more persons (other than the committee) to hold and use in respect of the expenditure by the committee or sub-committee.(6) The powers under this section are exercisable with the consent of the Treasury.(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations—(a) make provision for determining the question of whether a committee, or sub-committee, is “eligible”, including provision about conditions that must be met for a committee or sub-committee to become or remain eligible;(b) make provision about the constitution, procedures, administration and oversight of London joint committees, or their sub-committees, that are eligible.(8) Regulations under subsection (7)(a) may (in particular) make provision about conditions that relate to— (a) the power under which, or way in which, the committee or sub-committee is established;(b) the functions or purpose of the committee or sub-committee;(c) the kinds of persons who are members of the committee or sub-committee;(d) the constitution, procedures, administration or oversight of the committee or sub-committee.(9) Regulations under subsection (7) may amend any Act passed before, or in the same session as, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.(10) No regulations under subsection (7) may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether containing them alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(11) In this section—“eligible” has the meaning determined in accordance with regulations under subsection (7)(a);“London joint committee” means a joint committee established under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 by—(a) all the London borough councils, and(b) the Common Council of the City of London.””Member's explanatory statement
This would enable UK Government ministers to pay grants to joint committees of all the London boroughs and the City of London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for bringing forward this amendment, and to all noble Lords—well, my noble friend Lord Fuller—who have contributed to the debate.

We recognise the intention behind this proposal. As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, I look at many faces in 3D here, having seen them in 2D on a screen during Covid. Flexibility is important in exceptional circumstances, and when those exceptional circumstances arose, we had the powers for remote meetings. But we are not persuaded that it is the right approach in more normal circumstances. Local authority meetings are the cornerstone of local democracy. They are not simply an administrative exercise; they are forums for debate, scrutiny and accountability, conducted in public and rooted in the communities they serve. There is real value in councillors being physically present, in engaging directly with one another, officers and members of the public.

We are also mindful that existing arrangements already allow for a degree of flexibility in truly exceptional circumstances. Moving more routinely to remote or hybrid meetings risks diminishing the quality of debate, weakening transparency and weakening accountability and public engagement. For those reasons, while we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we cannot support it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her usual thoughtful submission of the amendment and her moving of it. This is an important issue about how local authorities conduct their meetings, and the Government, as the noble Baroness will know, are very sympathetic to the aim of her amendment, that local authorities should have the flexibility to hold meetings online where it is appropriate to do so.

The Government believe it should be local authorities themselves which determine whether to meet in person, online or in a hybrid format, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies when doing so. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pickering, and as the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, mentioned, I, too, have taken part in those 2D meetings; everyone looks so much better in 3D, so I am very pleased to not be doing that today. The sector is diverse and varied, and there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach that will work for every meeting at every tier of local government.

Our approach is therefore to enable, rather than constrain, locally responsive policy-making. That was the position we set out clearly in our consultation response last year, and it remains our position today. This will require legislation that specifically meets the needs of authorities of all types and tiers to ensure this flexibility. The Government are considering this matter separately and in slower time to ensure that, when parliamentary time allows for remote attendance to be legislated for, such provisions are robust, inclusive, and achieve an operationally effective outcome at a local level. The various examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, show exactly why we must work on this further with the sector, to ensure we have taken account of all the many issues and examples he raised. We do not believe that the noble Baroness’s amendment achieves that.

We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. I am afraid it is well above my pay grade to say what is in the King’s Speech and what is not, but that is why we are committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver that flexibility in a way that is robust, effective and appropriately scrutinised. With that explanation in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. On behalf of councillors in North Yorkshire who have approached me on this, I have to say I am deeply disappointed, for all the reasons that we have given. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure there will be other opportunities to bring this back.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

245: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“ChapterPavement parkingProhibition of parking on footways and vergesSchedule (Prohibition of parking on footways and verges) makes provision about the prohibition of the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges.”Member's explanatory statement
This would introduce the new Schedule that would be inserted after Schedule 29 by another amendment in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, at its heart this group of amendments speaks to something fundamental—the importance of preserving those local assets that bind communities together. Whether they are pubs, sports grounds, community halls or green spaces, these are important spaces for local people. They are the places of shared identity and connection. In that context, we see merit in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Her proposal to ensure that buildings designated as assets of community value are protected from permitted development rights that would allow for their demolition is both practical and necessary. Without such protection, there is real risk that assets could be lost before communities have a meaningful opportunity to act.

Similarly, her amendments to broaden the definition of sporting assets and to involve Sport England as a statutory consultee, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, reflect the importance of safeguarding grass-roots sports and recreational spaces. These are often the very facilities that underpin community health and well-being, yet they can be among the most vulnerable to loss.

We also recognise the intention behind the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to address the issue of so-called dormant assets. While these are important questions to consider around the use of compulsory purchase powers, the principle that communities should not be indefinitely frustrated in their efforts to acquire valued local assets is one that deserves careful attention by the Government.

The amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others, seek to expand the definition of community value to include culture and environmental well-being. We acknowledge their intentions, as we have throughout the whole Bill, and the important role that such assets play in community life. However, these provisions do not sit in isolation; they depend on a wider funding landscape if they are to be meaningful in practice. The Government have placed considerable emphasis on Pride in Place funding as the means of supporting local regeneration and community assets. Yet there remains a lack of clarity as to how this funding is being distributed and whether it is truly reaching all parts of the country fairly.

We understand that the Pride in Place programme offers £5.8 billion over 10 years to more than 300 areas. But what then of those communities deemed ineligible for this funding; what financial support is available to them, and how does the department intend to ensure that they are not left behind? Can the Minister also explain the three metrics used to allocate this funding and the rationale behind the weightings applied to them? Transparency in this respect is essential if confidence in the system is to be maintained. There is a further concern. To what extent has this funding been drawn from existing programmes? If that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact of the decisions to withdraw that funding?

If we are serious about empowering communities and protecting the assets they value, it is not enough simply to repackage funding or redistribute it from one initiative to another. Communities need certainty, continuity and a clear sense that support is being strengthened, not replaced. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their amendments regarding community right to buy an asset of community value, which I will refer to as an ACV, and to all noble Lords for participating in a very useful and thoughtful debate.

I will begin with Amendment 247. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I agree about the importance of ensuring that valued local assets can be retained and used for the benefit of the community. However, the ACV scheme is not designed to interfere with how asset owners are using their private property, nor to compel these owners to sell their property against their wishes. It is intended to empower communities while respecting the property rights of asset owners, and we do not consider it proportionate to restrict how asset owners use their property as long as the use is in line with planning requirements.

We also do not believe that the criteria set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment are a fair representation of a dormant asset. Asset owners may continue to own and manage an ACV for the benefit of the community, even if they indicated an intention to sell previously. Under the policy, it is within their rights to change their mind and withdraw the asset from sale completely. It is where asset owners do wish to sell their asset and the benefit to the community could be lost, or there is an opportunity to revive an asset that had value for the community in the past, that we want to ensure the community can take ownership of and protect the asset through the community right to buy.

Local authorities may already use their compulsory purchase powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to acquire ACVs where there is a compelling case in the public interest and negotiations to acquire the land by agreement have failed. Taking the example of the derelict property that the noble Baroness gave, in some circumstances that could be resolved through CPO powers. I am not pretending it is easy; there are steps that need to be taken, but those powers can be used for that purpose.

Placing additional responsibilities on local authorities, which would need to monitor and make potentially complex judgments on whether assets are genuinely dormant, would represent an unreasonable burden. This is especially true given the increase in the number of listed assets we expect to see as a result of this policy.

I turn now to Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It follows the same amendment made in Committee, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act. As noble Lords will recall, we do not need primary legislation to amend permitted development rights. We agree with the intention of protecting these important assets of community value, and we have already committed to consult on this. This will follow the proper approach to amending permitted development rights, allowing all interested parties to make representations on the proposals ahead of any secondary legislation needed to make such changes, should the consultation responses support it. There is a slight update on what I said in Committee—we intend to include this proposal in the next consultation on permitted development rights, which we will publish this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, are the Government actually saying that environmental assets, environmental benefits, are secondary to social and economic ones and that they are not all intertwined? I cannot believe such blindness on such an important issue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

No, I am saying that if an asset is of value to the community for environmental purposes, that would fit in with the economic and social purposes we have set out.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Will the Minister define more carefully the phrase “market value”? She said many times “market value” and “hope value” and that there could be negotiations about the value of a piece of land. I think that by “market value” she means current use value. Will she explain what market value actually is? What is the market value if it is not hope value and does not include hope value?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

This would be a negotiation, as I set out, involving an independent valuation process to determine a fair price for both parties based on the market value of that asset. That means that both parties get the opportunity to make representations to an independent valuer to support them. The final price will be determined by the independent valuation process. Community groups will have to decide whether they want to go ahead with that purchase, and asset owners will decide whether they wish to sell at that price.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

But surely the market value depends on what is going to be done with the particular playing field?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. First, I am a member of the All England Lawn Tennis Club; I am on the committee.

I will correct something that was said about the existing situation. To be absolutely clear, the courts made it clear that there is no statutory trust on that land, so I am afraid that what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said was not correct. I do not understand her point about parliamentary process, because this Bill will go to the Commons and then come back. I am confused if, after all my decades of dealing with legislation, I have missed something. I do not get that.

On the point about putting it to the Secretary of State, it is very important that that process means that they have to consult the local community and that the community gets its right to speak. I thought I should briefly say those three things.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for Amendment 248 and his engagement on this matter. It has absolutely not been a last-minute issue. The noble Lord raised this issue first in the debates on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill. There has been much engagement between me and the noble Lord—and between him and officials—over many months. Officials and I have also dealt with a large volume of correspondence on the issue.

As the noble Lord set out, and as was discussed during debates on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, currently there is no way of release statutory trusts where the original statutory advertisement procedure has not been complied with. The consequence is stark: land can remain bound by a statutory trust in perpetuity, even if that outcome serves today’s communities or the wider public interest. I point out—the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has already made this point—that, if the local authority follows the procedure and provides the advertisement, it can release the trust in the first place. This is only a backstop in case that procedure has failed.

The current position risks holding up important developments that may be in the public interest: for example, the building of important new amenities and facilities for the local community. The Government do not believe that historic procedural failures should indefinitely frustrate sensible, beneficial outcomes. In practice, this legal lacuna—I did not know that word until I started working on this, but I do now—can prevent the delivery of much needed homes, community facilities, transport infrastructure or environmental improvements, which may command strong local and national public interest support but are currently blocked by an inflexible legal position.

Since taking office, our Government have been clear that we are builders not blockers, but we are equally clear that development must be responsible, transparent and rooted in the public interest. The amendment would strike that balance very carefully. It would create a clear, lawful mechanism to address historic errors, while ensuring that statutory trusts are discharged only where it is right to do so.

Crucially, the amendment would introduce a rigorous, evidence-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions, robust publicity requirements and a broad public interest test at its heart. Communities would have clear opportunities to make representations. Environmental and heritage considerations must be weighed, and decisions would be taken transparently and published openly.

The Government are firmly of the view that green and open spaces play a vital role in well-being, recreation, nature recovery and local identity. The amendment fully recognises that value and acknowledges that some parcels of land, due to changes over time, no longer serve their original recreational purpose and may deliver greater public benefit if repurposed in a careful and considered way. By providing a structured route to resolve these cases, rather than leaving them in permanent legal uncertainty, the amendment would restore fairness, unlock stalled opportunities and ensure that decisions about public land were made deliberately, transparently and in the public interest.

While the amendment would provide a fail-safe for very specific instances where statutory procedures had not been followed, the failure to adhere to it is symptomatic of a wider issue regarding the protections for public spaces which requires examination. Existing protections for urban green spaces and recreational land are fragmented, complex and very difficult to navigate. There is no clear comprehensive picture of what land is protected, which can leave communities—and local authorities—struggling to safeguard valued spaces. It makes it harder for those local authorities to operate confidently within the planning system.

To address this, my department is undertaking an internal review of the legislative framework governing public recreational green spaces. The review will clarify current statutory protections, assess how effective and usable they are in practice and consider where the system can be simplified. Over the coming months, we will engage with stakeholders across local authorities, the parks and green spaces sector, as well as the development sector to inform this work, which is expected to map existing legislative protections and establish how each piece of legislation operates and interacts in practice, drawing on evidence gathered from stakeholder engagement. For those reasons, the Government strongly support the amendment, while taking forward work to review the wider framework for protecting recreational green spaces.

Amendment 248D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would make the exercise of the statutory trust discharge order power conditional on the completion and publication of a UK-wide review of open space availability. While I recognise the importance of protecting public recreational land, the Government cannot support this approach.

The power created by Amendment 248 is a targeted, balanced and proportionate response to a specific legal problem: historic procedural failures under the Local Government Act 1972. These failures have left some land subject to statutory trust in legal uncertainty. The amendment before us would risk delaying or even preventing entirely the use of that narrowly defined power, regardless of the circumstances of the land in question.

The difficulty of the amendment lies in the breadth and uncertainty of what is proposed. “Open space” is defined very widely in existing legislation and policy, covering a broad range of land types and engaging interests across multiple government departments. The amendment does not define the scope, methodology or frequency of the proposed review, leaving it unclear whether such a review would need to be undertaken once or repeatedly before the power could be exercised.

The UK-wide requirement of the amendment would provide a further difficulty. Land, planning and open space policy are largely devolved matters, and a review covering the whole of the United Kingdom would require the agreement and active co-operation of the devolved Administrations, over which the Secretary of State has no direct control. It would therefore be open to factors wholly outside the scope of the Bill to delay or frustrate the use of the power, even where all relevant conditions in England had been met. In practice, the provisions of the amendment would be highly complex, time-consuming and likely to stall the statutory trust discharge regime altogether. For those reasons, while the Government remain committed to the protection of public recreational green space, we cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the effectiveness and legal certainty of this targeted mechanism.

Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require the Secretary of State to obtain an express written consent of the relevant local authority before making a statutory trust discharge order following a separate local consultation and reporting process. While I recognise the importance of local engagement and protecting land held for public enjoyment, the Government cannot support this amendment. Amendment 248 is designed to address a very narrow but significant legal problem: historic cases where land remains subject to a statutory trust because correct procedures were not followed when it was sold or appropriated to a different purpose by a local authority. The purpose of Amendment 248 is to close a gap in existing law and allow such trusts to be released where specific conditions are met, including that it is in the public interest to do so. It provides a pragmatic route to resolve those difficulties where existing mechanisms have proved insufficient.

By making local authority consent a legal precondition, Amendment 249 could prevent the new power from being used in precisely the cases it is intended to address. It would turn a backstop statutory remedy into a process that could simply be blocked, even where it would be in the public interest for it to be exercised. Amendment 249 would give local authorities an effective veto over statutory trust discharge orders, even in cases where they no longer own or control the land. The land may have been lawfully sold or transferred decades ago, yet under this amendment a former owner could block discharge regardless of its lack of property interest or liability. Amendment 248 already provides that the Secretary of State must take into account any representations, including those from local authorities, about whether or not the order should be made. Amendment 249 would also duplicate advertisement requirements that are already built into Amendment 248, adding delay and complexity without improving outcomes.

I now turn to the amendments to Amendment 248 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, excluding Amendment 251A, which I will address separately. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the attention he has given to Amendment 248 and for his meeting at very short notice with officials in the department, which I hope he found helpful. Taken together, his amendments would significantly undermine the purpose of Amendment 248 and make the new statutory trust discharge order process extremely difficult to operate in practice. Amendment 248 is intended to provide a pragmatic and proportionate solution to the specific legal problem. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would recast that targeted remedy into a much more onerous regime, introducing new substantive tests and requirements that would go significantly beyond addressing the historic defects. In particular, the amendments would require applicants and the Secretary of State to satisfy additional conditions that are not part of the existing statutory trust framework, and which are not necessary to fix the lacuna that Amendment 248 is designed to close. The additional conditions proposed by the noble Lord would extend significantly beyond the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.

The amendments would also place significant practical barriers in the way of using the new power, introducing mandatory compensatory benefit requirements and expanded and prescriptive publicity obligations. These amendments would bar cases already before the courts, introduce a five year ban on repeat applications and expand the public interest test to require assessment of local open space need and the benefits of refusing an order. This would mean that many legitimate cases could never be resolved through the new route. Rather than reducing legal uncertainty, this would entrench it and encourage further litigation.

Finally, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord would make statutory trust discharge orders rigid and high risk for decision makers, including by preventing orders from ever being amended or revoked once made. Taken together with highly prescriptive procedural requirements, this would deter use of the power altogether. The result would be that Amendment 248 would exist in legislation but would be too rigid and difficult to use, leaving the underlying legal problem unresolved.

Amendment 251A seeks to preserve statutory trust protections where land subject to these protections is transferred between public bodies which intend that the statutory trust will continue. While I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue, the Government do not support this amendment. This particular issue is complex, and the Government need more time to consider it and work through the consequences of changing the law, including the implications for local authorities, national park authorities and wider government priorities. I will ask officials to investigate this issue, and I would welcome any evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that demonstrates when this has been a problem in practice. That will help us work out what the best solution is. If appropriate, we will consider this issue in our review of legislative protections for public recreational green spaces. For all the reasons I have given, while I fully acknowledge the noble Lord’s intentions, I ask him, and the other noble Lords who have submitted amendments, not to press their amendments, except for Amendment 248.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We share the Government’s ambition for more homes. On the specific proposal in response to the Day case, we recognise the need to resolve the situation. I am pleased that many noble Lords across the House seem to concur with that view. I appreciate the many protections that my noble friend Lord Banner has put into his amendment. However, I go back to a fundamental issue. The Government have committed to a review. It can only be right that the review takes place and is taken into account by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

252: Schedule 29, page 298, line 1, leave out “5” and insert “10”
Member's explanatory statement
This changes the time period during which an asset of community value is to be included on a local authority’s list from 5 years to 10 years.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

264: Schedule 29, page 319, line 38, at end insert—
1A “(1) A list of land of community value maintained immediately before the relevant day by a local authority in England under section 87(1) of the Localism Act 2011 (“the original asset list”) is to have effect on and after that day as a list of land of community value maintained by that authority under section 86A(1) of that Act (“the new asset list”).(2) Any land that is included in the new asset list by virtue of sub paragraph (1) is to be treated as entered in that list on the date on which the land was entered in the original asset list.(3) A list of land nominated by unsuccessful community nominations maintained immediately before the relevant day by a local authority in England under section 93(1) of the Localism Act 2011 (“the original unsuccessful nominations list”) is to have effect on and after that day as a list of land nominated by unsuccessful community nominations maintained by that authority under section 86I(1) of that Act (“the new unsuccessful nominations list”).(4) Any land that is included in the new unsuccessful nominations list by virtue of sub paragraph (3) is to be treated as entered in that list on the date on which the land was entered in the original unsuccessful nominations list.(5) This paragraph does not limit the power under section 92(10) to make any other transitional provision in connection with the coming into force of paragraph 1 of this Schedule. (6) In this paragraph, “the relevant day” is the day on which paragraph 1 of this Schedule comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This makes transitional provision so that the list of assets of community value and unsuccessful community nominations currently held by a local authority will become the list of assets of community value and unsuccessful community nominations under the new community right to buy provisions for England inserted by Schedule 29 to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

265: After Schedule 29, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleProhibition of parking on footways and vergesProhibition of parking
1 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of giving each English local transport authority the power to impose a prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles on the footways and verges which form part of the relevant highways in the authority’s area.(2) But parking regulations may not give an English local transport authority the power to impose a prohibition on parking in any place that is not in a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions under Part 2 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004.(3) Parking regulations may make provision about the meaning of “parking” (and cognate expressions) for the purposes of parking prohibitions.(4) Parking regulations may amend an Act passed before, or in the same session as, this Act.(5) Parking regulations are subject to affirmative procedure.(6) Paragraphs 2 to 9 deal with particular kinds of provision that may be made by parking regulations.Imposition of, and publicity for, a parking prohibition
2 Parking regulations may make provision about—(a) the process by which, and manner in which, the power to prohibit parking is exercisable;(b) the manner in which the imposition of a parking prohibition may or must be publicised.Exclusions: roads etc
3 (1) Parking regulations may exclude particular descriptions of relevant highways or parts of relevant highways from parking prohibitions (including parts of relevant highways designated by, or by virtue of, an Act or secondary legislation as a place where parking is permitted).(2) Parking regulations may give an English local transport authority the power to exclude—(a) particular relevant highways or parts of relevant highways, or(b) particular parts of the authority’s area,from a parking prohibition.(3) Parking regulations made in accordance with this paragraph may provide for an exclusion to apply only if particular conditions are met.Exclusions: vehicles and usage
4 (1) Parking regulations may exclude any of the following from parking prohibitions—(a) particular descriptions of motor vehicles; (b) motor vehicles which are used or parked for particular purposes or in particular circumstances.(2) Parking regulations made in accordance with this paragraph may provide for an exclusion to apply only if particular conditions are met.Traffic signs
5 (1) Parking regulations may make provision about traffic signs relating to parking prohibitions (“relevant traffic signs”).(2) Parking regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) may—(a) require traffic authorities to carry out functions in relation to relevant traffic signs (including provision giving English local transport authorities the power to give directions to traffic authorities to carry out such functions);(b) may require co-operation among, or between, one or more of the following in respect of functions relating to relevant traffic signs—(i) English local transport authorities;(ii) traffic authorities;(iii) local authorities.(3) This paragraph does not limit any power or duty relating to traffic signs arising under any other Act or secondary legislation; but that does not limit the provision that may be made under this paragraph.(4) In this paragraph—“local authority” means—(a) a county council in England,(b) a unitary district council, or(c) a metropolitan district council;“traffic sign” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see section 64 of that Act).Defences
6 Parking regulations may provide for defences to contraventions of a parking prohibition.Consultation and guidance
7 (1) Parking regulations may require English local transport authorities to carry out consultation in connection with the exercise of functions under parking regulations.(2) Parking regulations—(a) may give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance;(b) may require a person to whom the guidance is directed to have regard to it.Enforcement
8 (1) Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (road traffic contraventions subject to civil enforcement) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In paragraph 4 (contraventions outside Greater London involving stationary vehicles), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) Outside Greater London there is a parking contravention in relation to a vehicle if it is parked in contravention of a prohibition imposed by an English local transport authority in accordance with regulations made under Schedule (Prohibition of parking on footways and verges) to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (parking on footways and verges).”Repeal of existing legislation
9 Parking regulations may repeal an Act if, or to the extent that, it prohibits the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges, or any similar part of a road, whether or not a relevant highway as defined in paragraph 11, in England, or any part of England, outside Greater London.Crown application
10 This Schedule applies to the parking of—(a) motor vehicles in the public service of the Crown that are required to be registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, and(b) motor vehicles belonging to, or used for the purposes of, a Minister of the Crown or Government department.Interpretation
11 In this Schedule—“carriageway” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“cycle track” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“English local transport authority” means—(a) a local transport authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000 — see section 108(4) of that Act) in England, and(b) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;“footway” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“highway maintainable at the public expense” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 328 of that Act);“motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 136 to 140 of that Act);“parking” includes stopping (and “parked” is to be construed accordingly);“parking prohibition” means a prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles imposed by an English local transport authority through the exercise of a power conferred by parking regulations;“parking regulations” means regulations made under paragraph 1(1);“relevant highway” means any length of highway maintainable at the public expense, but does not include any special road;“special road” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“unitary district council” means the council for a non-metropolitan district for which there is no county council;“verge” means any part of a relevant highway which is not a carriageway, footway or cycle track.”Member's explanatory statement
This would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations which give English local transport authorities the power to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

269: Clause 65, page 66, line 4, leave out “minimum”Member's explanatory statementThis is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

271: Clause 66, page 66, line 29, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

273: Clause 67, page 67, line 28, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

275: Clause 68, page 68, line 9, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

279: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas(1) The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 is amended in accordance with this section.(2) Section 5 (duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).(3) In subsection (1), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) an English licensing authority (“the first authority”) becomes aware of—(i) relevant information, or(ii) information about a breach of a national standard,(aa) the information relates to a person who has driven in the first authority’s area in reliance on a driver’s licence or a relevant licence granted by another licensing authority or a relevant authority (“the second authority”),”.(4) In subsection (2)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “relevant information” substitute “information of which it has become aware”;(b) in the words after paragraph (b), omit “relevant”. (5) After section 6 insert—“6A Production and publication of collated data(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify descriptions of relevant collated data, and(b) require English licensing authorities to produce and publish that collated data.(2) In this section “relevant collated data” means—(a) data derived from information provided in accordance with section 5, and(b) data derived from information about actions taken in accordance with section 6.(3) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This would amend the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 by extending the duty to report in section 5 (so that it also applies to information about breaches of national standards) and enabling collated data to be produced and published.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

280: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Temporary suspension of licences
Power to suspend licence temporarily(1) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated driver licence if—(a) the licence relates to the driver of a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(2) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated vehicle licence if—(a) the licence relates to a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(3) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated PHV operator licence if—(a) the licence relates to the operation of a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(4) A power under this section to suspend a licence is exercisable by an enforcement officer in respect of a licence granted by any licensing authority in England (whether or not it is the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer).”Member's explanatory statement
This would give a taxi or PHV licensing authority a power to temporarily suspend a licence (whether it was issued by that authority or a different licensing authority) in the interests of public safety.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 280A (to Amendment 280)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

281: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily)(1) This section applies if an enforcement officer decides to suspend a licence under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily).(2) The enforcement officer must give notice of the suspension to the person the officer believes to have been driving the relevant vehicle at the time the officer decided to suspend the licence.(3) The suspension takes effect at the time when the notice is given to the person.(4) The effect of the suspension is that the licence holder may not exercise any of the rights granted by the licence.(5) The suspension ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when the notice was given. (6) But that is subject to section (Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence)(3).(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations—(a) amend subsection (5) so as to provide for suspensions to cease to have effect at a different time, and(b) make consequential amendments of section (Responsible licensing authority to be notified of suspension)(2).(8) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of suspension notices;(b) the manner in which suspension notices are to be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would set out how a licence is temporarily suspended and the duration of the suspension.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

288: Clause 70, page 68, line 32, leave out “Sections 65 to 67 do” and insert “This Chapter does”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

296: Clause 71, page 70, line 5, leave out “(whenever passed)” and insert “passed before, or in the same session as, this Act”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would limit the power to make regulations amending Acts of Parliament, so that it cannot be used in relation to future Acts.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

299: Clause 72, page 70, line 14, at end insert—
““enforcement area” , in relation to an enforcement officer, means both of the following—(a) the area of the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer, in relation to the suspension of any regulated licence;(b) the whole of the rest of England, but only in relation to the suspension of a regulated licence granted by the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer;“enforcement officer” has the meaning given in section (Enforcement officers)(1);“licence suspension provisions” means sections (Power to suspend licence temporarily) to (Enforcement officers) and this section;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add new definitions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

305: After Clause 72, insert the following new Clause—
“ChapterLicensing of gambling premisesLicensing of gambling premises: impact assessments(1) The Gambling Act 2005 is amended in accordance with this section. (2) In section 153 (licensing authorities’ functions: principles to be applied), in subsection (3), for “section” substitute “sections 165A and”.(3) After section 153 insert—“153A Gambling impact assessments(1) A licensing authority may publish a document (“a gambling impact assessment”) containing a statement that the licensing authority consider that the grant of any relevant licence, or of any further relevant licences, in respect of premises in one or more parts of their area described in the assessment (the “affected part or parts”) is not likely to be reasonably consistent with one or more of the licensing objectives because of—(a) the cumulative impact of relevant licences in respect of premises in the affected part or parts, or(b) other reasons which relate to that licensing objective, or those licensing objectives, and to the affected part or parts.(2) A gambling impact assessment must set out the evidence for the authority's opinion as set out in the assessment in accordance with subsection (1).(3) A gambling impact assessment may include a statement which is framed by reference to the grant of relevant licences in excess of a number specified in the statement.(4) A gambling impact assessment may relate—(a) to all relevant licences, or(b) only to relevant licences of a kind described in the assessment.(5) A licensing authority must—(a) from time to time review any gambling impact assessment published by them,(b) if they think it necessary in the light of a review, revise or withdraw the assessment, and(c) publish any revision.(6) Before publishing a gambling impact assessment (including a revised assessment), the licensing authority must consult the persons mentioned in section 349(3).(7) For the purposes of the consultation, the licensing authority must provide the persons mentioned in section 349(3) with the following information—(a) the reasons why they are considering publishing or revising a gambling impact assessment;(b) a general indication of the part or parts of their area which they are considering describing in the assessment;(c) whether they consider that the assessment will relate to all relevant licences or only to relevant licences of a particular kind.(8) In determining—(a) whether to publish a gambling impact assessment (including a revised assessment) or withdraw an assessment, or(b) the terms of a gambling impact assessment,a licensing authority may not have regard to the expected demand for facilities of the kinds that would require relevant licences to be operated lawfully.(9) If a licensing authority have published a gambling impact assessment, the authority must include a summary of the assessment in the three-year licensing policy.(10) For provision about the role of gambling impact assessments in the process of applying for relevant licences, see section 165A. (11) In this section—“relevant licence” means—(a) a bingo premises licence,(b) an adult gaming centre premises licence,(c) a family entertainment centre premises licence, or(d) a betting premises licence;“three-year licensing policy” means the statement published in accordance with section 349.”(4) After section 165 insert—“165A Rejection of application: gambling impact assessment(1) This section applies to an application for a relevant licence (the “prospective licence”) if—(a) the licensing authority have published a gambling impact assessment in accordance with section 153A, and(b) the licensing authority’s three-year licensing policy includes a presumption that the authority will reject an application for a relevant licence if the licence is within the scope of the assessment.(2) It is lawful for the licensing authority to reject the application solely on the ground that the prospective licence is within the scope of the gambling impact assessment (and therefore regardless of anything, including any legislation, which would otherwise support or require the grant of the prospective licence).(3) But a rejection of the application is not lawful on that ground (whether by virtue of subsection (2) or otherwise) if the person applying for the prospective licence —(a) asserts in the application that the grant of the prospective licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objective or objectives to which the gambling impact assessment relates, and(b) then shows that the grant of the prospective licence would be reasonably consistent with that licensing objective or those licensing objectives;(and, accordingly, inconsistency with that licensing objective or those licensing objectives cannot otherwise be a ground for rejecting the application).(4) For the purposes of this section, a licence is “within the scope of” a gambling impact assessment if the licence would (if granted)—(a) relate to premises in the part or parts of the authority’s area described in the assessment in accordance with section 153A(1), and(b) be a kind of licence to which the assessment applies in accordance with section 153A(1) (whether by virtue of section 153A(4)(a) or (b)).(5) But if the assessment is framed by reference to the grant of relevant licences in excess of a number specified in the statement, a licence is not within the scope of the assessment unless (additionally)—(a) the grant of the prospective licence, or(b) the grant of that licence and any other relevant licences for which applications are being considered at the same time,would result in that number being exceeded.(6) This section does not affect the powers of a licensing authority to decide what is included in their three-year licensing policy; and, in particular, it does not affect any powers—(a) to make other kinds of presumptions, and(b) to act lawfully in accordance with the terms of other kinds of presumptions. (7) In this section—“relevant licence” has the same meaning as in section 153A;“three-year licensing policy” means the statement published in accordance with section 349.”(5) In section 349 (three-year licensing policy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (3) does not require consultation in relation to a—(a) gambling impact assessment (within the meaning of section 153A) of which a summary is included in the statement being prepared or revised, or(b) a presumption of the kind referred to in section 165A(1)(b) included in that statement;and, instead, see section 153A(6).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend the Gambling Act 2005 to enable licensing authorities to adopt, and act in accordance with, policies aimed at preventing the grant of gambling licences in order to respond to (a) the cumulative impact of multiple gambling premises or (b) other reasons relating to the licensing objectives in that Act.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for raising the important issue of tackling gambling harms on our high streets. We have reflected on the points raised during previous debates about the need for local authorities to have the tools they need to tackle gambling harms and make licensing decisions that are in the best interests of their communities. We have therefore tabled this amendment to strengthen the ability of licensing authorities to issue what will be known as a gambling impact assessment.

The gambling impact assessment can set out that granting a licence for gambling premises in specific areas is not likely to be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. Such an assessment must be based on evidence showing that premises in a specific area risk undermining the licensing objectives; for example, by causing harm to children or other vulnerable people. This evidence must be published in the assessment.

We anticipate that gambling impact assessments will apply predominantly in areas where licensing authorities want to limit the granting of further gambling premises licences on cumulative impact grounds. However, it will also be possible to prevent the granting of a single licence in a specific area if the licensing authority believes there is evidence to show that this would not be likely to be consistent with the licensing objectives. This will help licensing authorities to more easily limit the number of gambling premises licences in their areas where this is justified.

Where gambling impact assessments apply, licensing authorities can adopt a policy that they will not grant any new premises licences in the areas covered by the assessment. However, this is in no way a blanket ban. Each application for a premises licence must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and a licensing authority would be required to grant a licence if the applicant provides evidence to show that the licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. This will deliver on commitments made in the English devolution White Paper and the Pride in Place strategy, and it will help local authorities to curate healthy and vibrant high streets that reflect local need.

I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for speaking in such great detail and with such knowledge on this. I also thank all my colleagues in local authorities who I know will be very pleased to hear that this is being done. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and as chair of Action on Gambling. I thank the Minister for her very kind words just now. As she said, giving local councils greater power to control the number of gambling premises on their high streets is something I have pursued for many years. For instance, 22 years ago in the other place—I was looking back at the record earlier today—when opposing what became the Gambling Act 2005, I said that there was a need to provide

“strong and absolute powers to local councils to specifically reject individual casino applications”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/04; col. 62.]

The need to provide greater powers to councils to control all forms of gambling premises remains. Large numbers of gambling premises on the high street, often in deprived areas, are closely linked with increased crime and gambling harm, causing great harm to individuals, their families and the communities in which they live.

Only a couple of weeks ago, the Observer reported on the closure of the very last bank in a historic coastal town. That bank is now being taken over by an adult gaming centre, providing gambling machines and all sorts of other opportunities to gamble. It is going to operate for 24 hours a day. Many members of the local community were violently opposed to this and, not surprisingly, the council itself was opposed to it, and the planning application and the licensing application for the conversion of the former bank into an adult gaming centre were rejected.

Nevertheless, Admiral, which was making the proposal, took its application on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. As a result, the rejection by the council—despite all the opposition—was overturned. Indeed, the Observer article pointed out that between 2021 and 2025 there have been 85 examples of similar planning applications refused by the local council, and yet 59 of them were overturned by the Planning Inspectorate and have gone ahead. There is still an urgent need to do something about it.

One of the reasons why the Planning Inspectorate overturned those rejections by local councils was because of a section in the Gambling Act 2005 that says councils must have an “aim to permit” gambling premises to open. Therefore, the best way of dealing with the problem will be to delete the “aim to permit” section from the Gambling Act, but sadly neither the previous Government nor the present Government were willing to do that. So I proposed an alternative: to use the cumulative impact assessment procedure, which had been successfully introduced many years ago to help councils stop the proliferation of premises selling alcohol. Clearly that is not a problem today as many pubs are closing, but at the time it was very effective, used in the way the Minister has described. I was absolutely delighted that the Government said that they would use the approach of the cumulative impact assessment procedure.

The Minister knows that I have a slight concern about the wording of the amendment, and we have had a discussion about it. But she assured me—and I quote from her letter to me—that she is confident that

“the amendment as drafted will clarify and strengthen licensing authorities’ powers during the licensing process, particularly in areas vulnerable to gambling related harm”.

I hope she is right. I am increasingly confident that she is. On the basis of that, I hope all noble Lords will support her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Government have come forward with this amendment. We believe it is right that the cumulative impact of gambling licences in an area should be taken into account. We are pleased that the Government have sought to respond to the amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. That said, we note that this amendment is somewhat longer and more complex than the original amendment proposed by the noble Lord. We fear that, as a result, it may lack some clarity—in particular what it means for an applicant to show consistency with licensing objectives and how the evidence would be assessed. The regulatory framework should be communicated in a way that is understandable and reliable for business and local authorities alike to prevent inconsistencies and confusion, which could then result in costly appeals or legal challenges. I ask the Minister to respond to that, but I thank her for bringing forward this proposal. We will also be supporting it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. To respond briefly to the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Jamieson, at the moment there is an aim to permit, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, in Section 153 of the Gambling Act. In effect, this amendment will flip the burden of proof in areas covered by gambling impact assessments, with a presumption in favour of granting a licence resulting from “aim to permit” then becoming a presumption in favour of rejecting the application. However, it is important to note that licensing decisions will continue to be grounded in the existing regulatory framework, requiring consistency with licensing objectives. That is the key point.

Gambling impact assessments will be an important first step in strengthening the powers that local authorities have to shape their high streets. They are part of the wide range of tools that local authorities have to regulate gambling in their areas. We will of course consider whether any further measures are needed in this area during the development of the high street strategy, which will be published later this year.

Amendment 305 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for tabling this amendment.

We are fully supportive of the importance of addressing climate change and protecting the environment. The targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 are rightly ambitious and play a vital role in shaping national policy. However, we are not persuaded that placing an additional statutory duty of this kind on local authorities is the right approach. Local government is already subject to a wide and growing range of obligations. There is a risk that introducing a broad, undefined duty to take all reasonable steps could create uncertainty, duplication and legal complexity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, raised the issue of that survey of councils which wanted a statutory duty and the funding. This amendment would do nothing to address the funding and would potentially place quite significant financial burdens on local authorities without any funding to deliver on the duty. It would potentially compromise other statutory services. We believe that progress in this area is best achieved through clear national frameworks, through targeted support and partnership with local authorities, rather than through the creation of additional statutory duties of this nature—particularly if they have no funding. For those reasons, while we recognise the intent behind the amendment, we are unable to support it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for Amendment 311 and for the useful engagement that I have had with her and with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this issue. I apologise that the response that the noble Baroness was waiting for was held up over the Easter period. I have chased it up and hope that she will get it shortly.

I have consistently made the point that many local and strategic authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. On net zero, the Government offer support for local government, including through the Local Power Plan, published by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which sets out the UK’s largest-ever public investment in community energy. Backed by up to £1 billion, the plan supports more than 1,000 local and community energy projects. Great British Energy’s support also includes the £10 million mayoral renewables fund. We are investing a landmark £13.2 billion in the warm homes plan up to 2030, including the £2.5 billion allocated to the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund. We fund five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net-zero projects and attract commercial investment.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to biodiversity targets, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. On climate adaptation, the Government work closely with local authorities, including strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts.

Given such existing support, it remains my opinion that adding a broad new statutory duty is not the right approach. Local authorities already operate within a wide range of environmental and climate-related duties. Introducing an additional, overarching obligation could increase administrative burdens and cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, and reduce local flexibility. Instead, we are focused on enabling councils to use their existing powers effectively. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

I thank noble Lords for this very short debate. I thank the Minister for her comments and the noble Lord for his. What I am hearing is that it costs too much to actually fulfil our climate change commitments. I find that extraordinary, given how much we are seeing climate change drive up so many other costs day in, day out.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have just set out a wide range of projects, some of them running into billions of pounds that the Government are spending on this topic.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply to that comment, but I also make the point that we are talking about devolved authorities. If we have climate change sceptics as the mayors of these devolved authorities, I can see very few of these opportunities being taken up. But I take the point being made and I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

312: Schedule 33, page 350, line 21, at end insert—
“18A In section 32(3) (consultation about proposed accounts and audit regulations)— (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) the Local Audit Office,”;(b) for paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) any external registration body.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add two minor amendments consequential on the new local audit regime.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in this group I will address several government amendments to Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, starting with government Amendment 312, which makes minor changes to an existing provision in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to ensure that it aligns with wider reforms to the local audit system. Technical amendments to the audit system at this time of night are guaranteed to be soporific, so I will get through as quickly as I can.

Section 32 of the 2014 Act enables the Secretary of State to make further provisions via accounts and audit regulations. These regulations can, for example, set requirements regarding the form, contents and publication of financial accounts. This amendment updates the list of consultees that a Secretary of State must consult before making or amending accounts and audit regulations. The amendment replaces the Comptroller and Auditor-General with the local audit office, and the addition of the local audit office reflects the fact that it will be central to the new audit system. The Comptroller, meanwhile, will no longer be responsible for the code of audit practice—that will pass to the local audit office.

The amendment also replaces recognised supervisory bodies with any external registration body, and this is in keeping with changes elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill maintains the concept of a register of local audit providers as the basis for the regulation, quality monitoring and oversight of professional conduct. The register will no longer be held by a recognised supervisory body. Instead, the local audit office will have the right to hold a register itself or to designate an external registration body to hold the register and deliver these regulatory functions on its behalf. The amendment would ensure that whichever body holds the register—either the local audit office or an external registration body—is consulted on accounts and audit regulations.

Government Amendments 319 to 324 are essential amendments to expand the scope of Schedules 7A and 7B to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to ensure that tenancy renewal arrangements entered into on or after 17 March 2026, and any subsequent rent reviews during the term of the tenancy, are also within scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type, such as options and rights of first refusal, may require the tenant to enter into a new tenancy on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used by landlords to avoid the ban’s effect and encourage gaming of the system, which we want to prevent.

Government Amendment 325A is an essential technical amendment to ensure that delegated powers across the Bill, which have been inserted into the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, are consistent with the intended position. This would bring them into alignment with the position described in the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum.

Government Amendment 327 will allow for regulation- or order-making powers within the Bill provisions concerning local scrutiny committees, charges payable by undertakers, executing works in maintainable highways and the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles to be commenced by commencement regulations at the appropriate time. The amendment achieves this by preventing these powers from commencing upon Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 318C. But in what is possibly my final contribution to the proceedings of this House, I want to make a couple of brief valedictory comments. It has been a privilege and an honour to have been elected to this place some 11 or 12 years ago and to take part. I do not say that lightly. I have had so many helpful tips and hints from Members on all sides of the House who have helped me stumble through the protocols. I include the doorkeepers and other officers of this place in my thanks and remarks.

I am disappointed that it should end with expulsion, not choice, but my family has form. I follow a tradition in that the first Thurlow in this place, in the late 18th century, was also expelled. He sat on the Woolsack at the time. I got off lightly.

I turn my attention to the Bill and thank the Minister for the meeting with the team last week. I refer to my interests as a former chartered surveyor who still has some practice in commercial property markets. My comments relate to Part 5 and banning upwards-only rent reviews, which has already been touched on by the Minister. This is a revision of the Landlord and Tenant Act and has no place in this unrelated Bill. It shows all the signs of an afterthought slipped in late in the day.

There was a lack of consultation. The Library briefing in the other place described it as a “surprise”, “not trialled” and “not a manifesto item”. Now before us and still with no proper consultation, it is being inserted into the Bill.

There was an impact study, but it was deeply flawed. I read it and it was very one-sided. There was not a single reference to the loss of capital value to landlords in this clause. Rental value is one of two principal elements of the valuation process for commercial property. Did the Government forget to consider it? Did they not understand how these values are arrived at? They should have consulted.

The clause is designed to help SMEs—small and medium-sized enterprises—and I agree 100% with that sentiment and with that sentiment being applied to banning upwards-only rent reviews. But the Bill treats SMEs in small properties as though they are the equivalent to office blocks in Canary Wharf or the City of London, data centres worth hundreds of millions of pounds, or other large logistics operations. They have nothing in common with SMEs. This is not a one-size-fits-all subject. SMEs need support, but the Bill should focus exclusively on them, not on big business.

There are good reasons for excluding large commercial properties. These days, large office blocks retail at over £1 billion each in these centres, and the buyers are sovereign wealth funds and big international investors. Removing upwards-only rent reviews rocks the stability of our landlord and tenant system and reduces the attraction of the UK versus competing centres abroad, and that, of course, impacts growth.

At the end of 2022, the IPF estimated the total value of the inventory of commercial property here at £900 billion. The property market was estimated at £138 billion by the LSE in 2024. I mention this to underscore the importance of the sector to the wider economy. If the Government really want growth, this clause is a clear act of self-harm. Destabilising the valuation base of the UK commercial property market will reduce inward investment. This clause adds risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I had not realised that the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Cromwell, may well be leaving. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has said, it has been a pleasure working with them over a long time on a range of planning and infrastructure Bills. Their level of expertise has been incredibly valuable, along with that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has retired, and they are going to be missed. I say to the Government that the House of Lords has to have the expertise required to undertake the examination of Bills like this. The quality of contribution has been very high, and I personally, like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, have appreciated that immensely.

There is an issue about upward-only rent reviews. I am, in theory, supportive of enabling SMEs to benefit from rent reviews that can reduce costs. The issue of the very big rent payers, huge property, is one that we need to think further about. For the moment, as I have been supportive of the Government’s intentions towards upward-only rent reviews, I will be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I add my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Cromwell, for their service to this House. In my relatively short time as a Minister, their expertise on all three of the Bills that I have brought before the House, and when I was a shadow Minister working on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, has been invaluable. Their engagement has always been constructive and thoughtful, if sometimes a bit more challenging than a Minister would hope for—but that is a good thing and I am not criticising it. I have truly valued the expertise that they have brought to this House, particularly about commercial property markets. That has been incredibly helpful to all of us. We will miss them.

It is true that tenants from larger businesses that do not meet the definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise are likely to be fully aware of the effect of upwards-only rent review clauses and have the ability to negotiate out of them if they so wish. However, the inflationary pressures on rents caused by such clauses affect all businesses, regardless of size or sector. Allowing exemptions of this kind for a limited number of businesses that meet certain criteria would risk creating a two-tier property market that would lead to significant geographical variation. While some effect on property values is possible as a result of the policy counteracting rent inflation, our analysis in the Bill’s impact assessment suggests that economic costs would be outweighed by the wider benefits, including to business competitiveness and market dynamism, and there is clear evidence around having a more level playing field with international investments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

313: Schedule 33, page 361, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 104(9A) (which is inserted by Schedule (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act and introduces Schedule 5AA to LDEDCA 2009), omit “and audit committees”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral combined authorities, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important issue on which we have tried to come to a solution. I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for bringing forward this amendment and explaining the issue so well. It speaks to the wider issue of ensuring that local identities rooted in geography and history, as we have heard, are protected amid local government reorganisation. The people of Rutland know and care deeply about this.

As I have said before, authorities are not just interchangeable abstract units on a map to be neatened out or tidied up for the convenience of any Government; they are places that people call home, with traditions developed organically over time and with all the inevitable quirks and differences that brings. They are not something to be glossed over but must be enshrined at the heart of any Government’s approach to local government and its reorganisation. That is true community empowerment, by recognising exactly what it is that constitutes community. I am really grateful to my noble friend for highlighting this issue with the current legislation. I hope that the Government will give this serious consideration and that the Minister can tonight make it very clear that there will be no time when the county of Rutland will be without its ceremonial county status and its lord-lieutenant.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her amendment. One of the reasons I love local government is the variety of unique and special issues that we come across all the time, and this is one great example of that. I acknowledge Rutland’s unique circumstances, given that its ceremonial status derives from its 1997 unitarisation rather than from direct reference in the Lieutenancies Act 1997. However, there is no need for this amendment as Rutland’s current ceremonial status is not under threat and remains as it has been for the last 29 years. No change is needed to preserve Rutland’s lord-lieutenancy or ceremonial status as it stands.

This amendment is also not the solution with regard to preserving ceremonial status through the ongoing local government reorganisation programme, and I am happy to repeat the assurances already given on this matter. There are existing legislative powers, including those provided under sections of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, that can be used to ensure the continuity of Rutland’s ceremonial status if necessary. The Secretary of State will consider using these powers following any decision he takes on proposals for local government reorganisation that affect Rutland, which are currently out for consultation.

I can reassure noble Lords that these provisions have previously been used successfully when there has been a change to a county during reorganisation, for example in Cumbria, to define the areas covered by a lord-lieutenancy. Should similar provision be needed for Rutland following any decision to reorganise local government in the area, its ceremonial position would be secured through secondary legislation. I can further reassure the noble Baroness that the Government intend the continuity of ceremonial arrangements and will ensure that Rutland retains its existing lord-lieutenant throughout the local government reorganisation process. With this explanation in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance of continuity. I would have been grateful for clarity that there cannot be the possibility of two sets of statutory instruments, because that is where the possibility of a gap exists, but I am grateful for those reassurances. I hope that that is the situation for the people of Rutland, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 318B, in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, is a modest and sensible proposal but one of constitutional importance. The amendment would simply require that, within five years of the Act coming into force, the Secretary of State conduct a review of its operations and impacts, publishing the findings and laying them before Parliament.

As we have discussed throughout this Bill, devolution is an evolving process. It is only right that legislation of this significance is subject to proper reflection and reassessment. Without such provision we risk locking in arrangements that may not work as intended. It would not weaken the Act; it would strengthen it by ensuring that it can be reviewed, understood and, if necessary, improved.

This is a sensible amendment. We are grateful to our noble friend for bringing it forward. I urge the Government to take the request from my noble friend seriously.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for Amendment 318B and I welcome the spirit in which it has been tabled. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are already required in law to publish an annual report on English devolution and to lay it before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament already has an annual report against which it can hold the Government to account for delivering on the objectives set out in the English devolution White Paper and this Bill. We have also committed to evaluating the outcomes of devolution as more evidence becomes available. For example, the Government will evaluate the impact of integrated settlements, and this will include various activities to understand whether they are achieving their aims, including an evaluation of integrated settlements as a funding model.

The amendment as set out would be overly burdensome and somewhat duplicative, as it would require the Secretary of State to publish an additional report on the progress of English devolution within five years, despite already being committed in law to publishing annual reports. With that reassurance, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, good law is a public good. It is essential that Acts deliver what they are expected to deliver, and not all do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was touching upon. They may be misinterpreted or misunderstood, simply have no effect or have unintended consequences. That is why post-legislative review is essential, and why I stress “review” rather than reports. Putting provision for review in a major measure such as this is a means of ensuring that it is checked to ensure that it is having the intended effect.

I therefore regret that the Minister has not followed her colleagues in recognising the value of doing that by putting provision for it in the Bill. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister reiterated the commitment to at least report, which involves some element of review, although it is not really an overall assessment of the effect, nor does it subject the Act to independent scrutiny to see whether it is delivering in the way that Parliament has actually intended. It is important that we monitor to ensure that the department delivers on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

319: Schedule 34, page 363, line 31, leave out from “if” to end of line 38 and insert “—
(a) at that time it is a business tenancy with a rent review,(b) the tenancy was—(i) granted, or(ii) varied so that it is subject to rent review terms,after this Schedule came into force, and(c) that grant or variation was not made under protected pre-commencement arrangements.(2) For that purpose “protected pre-commencement arrangements” means arrangements that were entered into before this Schedule came into force.(3) But arrangements under which the tenancy was granted are not protected pre-commencement arrangements if—(a) the tenancy is a new tenancy within the meaning of Schedule 7B, (b) the arrangements are a tenancy renewal arrangement within the meaning of Schedule 7B, and(c) the tenancy renewal arrangement was entered into on or after 17 March 2026,(and see paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7B for the meaning of “new tenancy” and “tenancy renewal arrangement”).”Member's explanatory statement
This would restructure paragraph 3 and make these changes: use “subject to” rent review terms (for consistency with paragraph 2(1)(b)); use “arrangements” (to catch any kind of arrangements, whether or not they would be regarded as a contract, eg. an option); and ensure that a tenancy is caught if granted by virtue of a pre-commencement tenancy renewal arrangement that is itself caught by Schedule 7B.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

324A: Clause 86, page 85, line 10, at end insert—
““LGA 2000” means the Local Government Act 2000;”Member's explanatory statement
This would add a definition of “LGA 2000” to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

325A: After Clause 88, insert the following new Clause—
“Certain orders and regulations provided for by Parts 1 and 2(1) Section 117 of LDEDCA 2009 (orders and regulations) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).(2) In subsection (2) for“An order to which subsection (2A) applies”substitute“Subject to subsections (2A) and (3), an order under this Part”.(3) In subsection (2A)—(a) for“This subsection applies to an order under this Part other than—”substitute “Subsection (2) does not apply to—”;(b) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) an order under section 107FA,”;(c) in paragraph (b), omit the second “or”;(d) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) an order under section 113E,”.(e) at the end of paragraph (c) insert“, or”(d) an order under Schedule 5BA.” (4) In subsection (3A), after “107K(1)” insert “or Schedule 5AA”(5) In subsection (5), for “(2A)(a) or (b)” substitute “(2A)(za) to (ba) or (2A)(d)”.(6) Section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) to (9).(7) In subsection (2)—(a) for “(8)(a)” substitute “(8)(aa)”;(b) before “, includes” insert “or (8)(l), or regulations under Schedule 1A”.(8) In subsection (5)(a)—(a) after “subsection” insert “(8)(ac) or”;(b) after “(c)” insert “or (8)(l)”.(9) In subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—“(ac) under section 33A;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that new powers added to LDEDCA 2009 or LURA 2023 by the Bill are subject to the intended level of Parliamentary scrutiny and do not include the power to amend any enactment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

327: Clause 92, page 88, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(1A) But none of the following provisions comes into force in accordance with subsection (1)(c)—(a) section (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) (and Schedules (Mayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) and (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees)) (mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees);(b) section 25 (and Schedule 7) (charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways);(c) Chapter 3 of Part 3 (licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles);”Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for a single subsection setting out which powers are excluded from royal assent commencement under clause 92(1)(c). In the new subsection, paragraphs (b) and (c) replicate the current effect of clause 92(2) and (3); and paragraph (a) relates to the new section and Schedules that would be inserted after clause 10 and Schedule 3 by other amendments in my name.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as co-president of London Councils and, like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, as a former borough leader. I think I was also the longest-serving leader in my particular borough at various times, and I am a former member of the London Assembly.

I rise particularly to address government Amendment 243, to welcome it and to say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for the consultations that she had with me and also with London Councils about the content of it. The amendment that has come forward is a welcome compromise. Obviously, there is a desire from London Councils that perhaps written in somewhere should be a formal requirement to consult. But I am very pleased that the Minister and the department have been able to respond in this way, and I am pleased that it is now going to be in the Bill.

To underpin the comments made by other noble Lords in respect of the other amendments, I think that what is being forgotten is that the basis of the settlement in London was that people should work together. I do not know whether that is a criticism of the three mayors that have been, the various iterations of London Councils or the relationship with government, but I suspect that that could be improved. Whether it requires the sort of review that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has suggested, I do not know. But all I would say is that noble Lords should be careful what they wish for in such a review, because it might produce outcomes that they do not like.

I will sit down by concluding again with my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward Amendment 243.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill, for their amendments on the functions and governance of the Greater London Authority and London boroughs.

I turn first to Amendments 81, 154 and 156. This Government are committed to delivering a permanent transfer of power from Whitehall to our regions. Strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government will be able, on a whim, to easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is, of course, sovereign. The Government will always be able to introduce primary legislation that changes which functions should sit with which level of authority. However, this Bill makes sure that the Government will have to make that argument through the various stages of a parliamentary Bill; it must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this Government and future Governments to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation so that they can be exercised again by central government. It would be wrong to single out the Greater London Authority and allow its functions, and only its functions, to be removed by secondary legislation.

On Amendment 82, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for meeting me to discuss this issue. Her insight into the governance of London was very valuable to me. First, I would note that the Mayor of London is already required to appear before the assembly 10 times a year for Mayor’s Question Time. This affords assembly members an opportunity to question the mayor on a regular basis. It is a tried and tested mechanism for questioning the mayor, and is backed up by a strong incentive for the mayor to attend, in that generally, if they fail to attend six consecutive meetings, they will be removed from office. This amendment would not remove the existing mayor’s Question Time mechanism; rather, it would represent an additional burden on the mayor of London potentially requiring them to appear before the assembly multiple times within a given month.

Secondly, this amendment would enable the assembly to summon witnesses who are not connected to the Greater London Authority or work on its behalf. In using a broad definition, it could allow the assembly to require attendance from virtually any entity linked to activity in, or related to, Greater London. The assembly’s power is backed up by powerful enforcement mechanisms. A person who fails to comply with the assembly’s request can be liable for a fine or even imprisonment for not more than three months. I am sure noble Lords can appreciate that the expansion of a power with such an enforcement mechanism needs to be considered very carefully. In London, the assembly has broadly either the same or similar powers to those being introduced for local scrutiny committees. As London’s devolution settlement continues to evolve, the Government will continue to work with relevant partners, including the noble Baroness.

I turn to Amendment 83, for which I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I recognise her very long and dedicated service to Bexley and to London. The Mayor of London is directly elected by the people of London every four years, alongside the London Assembly, which scrutinises the mayor’s work. This model is unique among strategic authorities, and it has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny, arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for London and Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, we want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities.

With this ongoing conversation already happening, it is not necessary to impose a formal review of London governance to be reported on at an arbitrary point. Indeed, it would be unusual to put such a requirement into primary legislation. The accountability arrangements for all mayoral strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will also be strengthened by revised guidance, such as new iterations of the English Devolution Accountability Framework and scrutiny protocol.

I turn to Amendment 84 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Simple majority voting in London would make it harder for the mayor to exercise executive authority and deliver for Londoners in areas where other mayors are being empowered. As I have said, London’s devolution settlement has served Londoners well for 25 years, striking the balance between the executive authority of the mayor and the scrutiny of the assembly. Mayors in combined authorities and combined county authorities can have their budget amended only by a two-thirds majority, and there is no reason why London should be different.

Finally, my Amendment 243 would enable central government to pay grant funding directly to a London joint committee, such as that run by London Councils. This will address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, among others, for bringing this issue to my attention, and I also thank him for his very long service to London government.

Where there are cross-borough initiatives which are outside the remit of the Greater London Authority, the committees established by London Councils are best placed to receive and direct related funding on behalf of boroughs. Among many other examples, this is evident in the Freedom Pass, which the London Councils transport and environment committee negotiates with Transport for London and pays for on behalf of boroughs. At the moment, when central government wishes to pay funding for initiatives co-ordinated by London Councils, it must use cumbersome workarounds, such as paying to a nominated lead borough or routing it through the GLA. This creates additional barriers in time and complexity to getting money where it needs to go. It also lacks transparency, making it hard for citizens to follow who is involved in the spending of their money.

This amendment is a simple yet significant change that will allow money to flow directly from central government to joint committees established by London Councils, speeding up and simplifying delivery for Londoners. It is important that any entity receiving public money has the appropriate governance and oversight in place. Therefore, this amendment enables payment to take place only once the Secretary of State has made regulations setting out eligibility requirements. Those regulations will be approved by resolution of this House and the other place.

I commend my own amendment to the House and ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, could she clarify something? With the new mayors of strategic authorities, I understood that the committees voted using a simple majority. Are we now saying that it is a two-thirds majority, the same as for London, in the new mayoral authorities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My advice, as I read out, is that it is a two-thirds majority.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I read the Bill yesterday and thought that it was a simple majority, but there we are.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for making the clear and compelling case for the need for change to specific London governance arrangements. These amendments are ultimately intended to help improve services for Londoners and to strengthen democratic scrutiny of the mayor, whoever he or she might be, by elected members.

I thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley for making the case for a full London governance review. I restate our support from these Benches for her amendments. We feel strongly that this is necessary in London, as is happening across the whole country. The Government may wish to contemplate further the possibility of that review, and therefore consider more seriously at the moment our proposed amendments to Clause 15, which would allow for the removal of functions from, as well as the conferral of functions to, the GLA.

If the London governance arrangements are so unique, as the Minister made plain in Committee, we believe Parliament ought to have further oversight and that democratic scrutiny should be strengthened in London. I hope that the Government will not dismiss these proposals but give them serious consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, would it be in order to make a correction in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has just said?

[Noble Lords]

Yes.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have double-checked the voting arrangements. It is a two-thirds majority for combined authority and combined county authority budgets. It is a simple majority, including the mayor, for most other things in a combined authority, and a combined county authority. The Bill does not override existing voting arrangements set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, or the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act. This has to be done by consequential SI. The existing voting arrangements are set out in Article 8 of the Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017, and will continue to stand. I hope that is helpful.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 84?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

88: Clause 21, page 25, line 28, leave out “one or more of the areas” and insert “any aspect of any area”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bichard, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Ravensdale, for amendments on collaboration. I will start with the government amendments in this group, which are minor and technical in nature. Their purpose is to align relevant definitions across the Bill. Taken together, they update wording in Clauses 21, 22 and 51. In doing so, they make the wording consistent with that used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 in the definition of “eligible function”.

The effect is to clarify that mayors may convene local partners, collaborate with neighbouring mayors or request an additional function in relation to any aspect of any area of competence. This reflects the Government’s clear policy intention to provide mayors with the flexibility that they need to use these powers effectively in addressing local priorities. For example, the health, well-being and public service reform area of competence should be read as covering its individual component parts of health and well-being and public service reform, rather than as a single inseparable policy heading. These amendments therefore promote consistency across the Bill, avoiding ambiguity or an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of how these powers relate to the areas of competence.

I hope that, with this explanation, the House will support these amendments. I will listen to the noble Lords introducing their amendments before I respond to them.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to talk to Amendment 181, which is grouped with this. Britain has an unwritten constitution, which gives us flexibility but also lacks constraint on changing Prime Ministers or Governments beyond trust in their behaving like good chaps. As we have discovered in recent years, not all Prime Ministers do behave like good chaps or chapesses. The Minister herself earlier today referred to the question of whether a future Government might “on a whim” change the way they operate in crucial ways. The purpose of this amendment is to entrench the role of the mayoral council in the future governance of England and to make sure that a future Government cannot simply muck things up on a whim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this group of amendments on collaboration. I will not comment on the government amendments, other than to say that we consider them to be technical and will not stand in the way of the Government. I must declare my interest as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.

Amendment 181 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raises a number of serious points that the Government need to respond to. However, we have some concerns that a mayoral council risks duplication of work that is already happening in other forums, such as with the Local Government Association, and therefore risks increased bureaucracy.

On Amendment 309 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, we share his ambition for joined-up public services that co-operate effectively. That will be important to deliver the high-quality services we would all like to see locally. The Government need to consider how best this can be achieved. However, we have some concerns about how this amendment would work in practice as regards the legal duty to attend meetings and the interpretation of “reasonable”. We are therefore not convinced that the amendment as set out is the right way forward, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that the Government need to think about how this can be made to work in practice.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the debate on this group. I will start with Amendment 181. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the overcentralisation of decision-making in England, and that is part of the whole rationale for bringing the Bill forward. I must be clear that I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I know how much good work the mayoral council has done since this Government established it.

I will say just a little bit about the mayoral council: the existing mayoral council, and the Leaders Council of local authority leaders, are non-decision-making bodies so do not need to be in statute. The current format of the mayoral council and the Leaders Council has received very positive feedback on their collaborative nature from members of all political parties. The mayoral council has run a shadow right to request process, ahead of that process being made statutory through the Bill, without needing to be a statutory decision-making body. As a statutory process, the right to request provides certainty that engagement will take place.

The mayoral council and the Leaders Council are still relatively new forums, and they have already adapted to respond to feedback from members and the Government. As more devolution is delivered across the country and we get more mayors with more powers, their needs and best use may change. Retaining flexibility by not having forums set in statute will allow us to once again respond quickly to feedback to make sure these continue to be useful forums.

The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen that devolution through the mayoral right to request process, so it is not necessary for the mayoral council to create a framework for further devolution. Funding is discussed regularly at the mayoral council, but it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the local government finance settlement process, where allocations of needs-based funding are done fairly across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she clarify one point? We are heading towards a model of English governance in which there will be roughly 35 elected mayors. Do the Government envisage that the Council of the Nations and Regions will then have the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Irish Government and, on the same basis, 35 English mayors?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Those bodies are new bodies, and they will be evolving and changing as we evolve and change the model. They are not decision-making bodies. That is the main reason for saying we do not want to put them in statute, particularly in view of the fact that they will change fairly rapidly as we increase the mayoral model across the country.

Amendment 88 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

89: Clause 21, page 26, line 20, leave out “one or more of the areas” and insert “any aspect of any area”
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

91: Clause 22, page 27, line 17, leave out “one or more areas” and insert “any aspect of any area”
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing forward Amendments 93, 119 and 183, which address regional collaboration and the vital issue of social mobility, as we have heard.

Amendment 93, in the name of the noble Lord and supported by my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is a very sensible amendment that will encourage and enable collaboration between strategic authorities. We believe that this can only be a good thing for regional economic development, to the benefit of local residents. I will not repeat all the points so ably set out in support of this amendment, but if the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, decides to press this amendment to a Division, he will have our full support.

Amendments 119 and 183 go to the heart of what devolution is ultimately for. It is not simply about shifting powers between tiers of government; it is about improving life chances, particularly, in these amendments, for young people who are not in education, employment or training. Amendment 119 was ably supported and explained by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and it highlights the importance of the partnership approach in tackling youth unemployment. This is an area where local knowledge and collaboration between authorities, employers, education providers and community organisations can make a real and lasting difference. Devolution should enable that kind of joined-up working, and it is right that the Bill reflects that ambition. Again, we will support this amendment if pressed to a Division.

Amendment 183 raises an equally important point about measurement and accountability. Taken together, these amendments remind us that economic growth alone is not enough. We must ensure that opportunity is shared and that devolution contributes to widening access to education, skills and employment. We are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these issues before the House, and we look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to embed social mobility considerations into the delivery of devolved powers.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for these amendments, and for taking a great deal of time and trouble to discuss them with me in recent weeks. The amendments relate to pan-regional collaboration, tackling youth unemployment and gathering social mobility data. I agree with the words of my noble friend Lady Blake: where you come from should not determine where you get to. I am a living example of that myself, and I know that there are many around your Lordships’ House. That should apply to anybody, wherever they start out—they should be able to get as far as their aspirations and their ability take them.

Amendment 93 is about pan-regional collaboration, which we have debated in Committee. I recognise the spirit of this amendment and its aim of empowering our strategic authorities to collaborate across administrative boundaries, to tackle shared challenges and to seize regional opportunities. As your Lordships will know, there is already significant pan-regional co-operation taking place between authorities, with mayors encouraged to collaborate across their regions, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. To give one example, the Great North was established last year by northern mayors as a mayor-led partnership to unlock jobs, opportunity and prosperity across the north.

I appreciate the intentions of the amendment before us, but it largely mirrors what has already been provided for in Clause 21, which gives mayors the power to convene meetings with local partners, and Clause 22, which provides a formal process for mayors to collaborate. These clauses establish a more formal framework for local engagement and partnership working, while allowing strategic authorities to determine their own methods and priorities for collaboration.

We will be publishing statutory guidance on the operation of the duty on mayors to collaborate. This guidance, to which mayors of strategic authorities must have regard, will elaborate on the importance of cross-boundary working and the benefits it can deliver for those who live and work across functional economic areas.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I am grateful for her words, which really encapsulated some of what we are trying to do. However, on pan-regional partnerships, we had to take very tough decisions on funding because of the legacy we were left. As she indicated, we believe that these functions should now fall into the mayoral remit and it should be for mayors to build up those clear partnerships. I know that some of the pan-regional partnerships continue to exist because they had moved themselves to self-funding, and I am sure our mayors will want to work with them.

In response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, regarding Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, he and I have discussed this on many occasions, and I have been to the Isles of Scilly with him. The Isles of Scilly are a sui generis authority, so they are not covered by the Bill. Nevertheless, we expect all areas to co-operate across boundaries, and I know there are useful discussions taking place between our friends in Cornwall and in the Isles of Scilly.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

94: Clause 22, page 33, line 19, leave out “one or more areas” and insert “any aspect of any area”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

101: Schedule 7, page 154, line 29, leave out “(5)” and insert “(5A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the other amendment of Schedule 7 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

106: Schedule 9, page 164, line 7, leave out “CCA” and insert “combined authority”
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about combined authorities, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “CCA” that appears here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will say a few words in general support of the principle of this amendment. We supported it during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, so it would make sense to do so here.

It was good old John Prescott who first promoted “brownfield first” and, ever since then, councils have been encouraged to promote it, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just outlined. But brownfield alone cannot meet our housing needs, and that is the real issue I have with this. Brownfield development is more costly. Decontamination and development costs alone make it much more costly. There is a fear of lopsiding development, and I would be interested in further discussion—but clearly not here now—about how we square the very emotional debates we have had over the last day on Report with rural issues, the lack of housing in rural areas and how people need it, for all the reasons given. This amendment squarely says, “Leave the green areas alone”, so I have a little problem with it, although we on these Benches absolutely support the overriding principle.

Given the large area of combined authorities, there will clearly be a massive range of sites, covering all sorts of greenfield and brownfield sites, so I will leave the Minister with the thought that perhaps the Government need to give more incentives to develop brownfield first. There are lots of ideas that I am sure she is aware of that would encourage that more, but the key thing is that brownfield alone will not meet housing needs. Rural areas need more housing, but clearly we need strong protections for our green belt and our countryside.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 121 about brownfield land. I agree that we should always use brownfield land wherever possible. As succinctly articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, one reason for promoting the development of town centres and cities is that there is more brownfield land there. We are trying to promote that kind of development as part of the reorganisation process, but there will always be a need for some development in rural areas. We have a rural housing crisis that we must tackle, and there are other uses, such as data centres, for which it might also be appropriate.

Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will be required to prepare a spatial development strategy. These strategies will provide the framework for local plans and will identify broad locations for growth, key infrastructure requirements and housing targets for individual local authorities, but they will not allocate sites for development. In preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need for consistency with national policy.

The effective use or reuse of brownfield land is strongly encouraged in the current National Planning Policy Framework, which expects substantial weight to be given to the benefits of developing suitable brownfield land within existing settlements. The revised National Planning Policy Framework, mentioned earlier, goes further still. New proposed policies on development within and beyond settlement boundaries are designed to promote a more sustainable pattern of development by directing growth to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable urban land and taking a more selective approach to development outside of settlements.

Mayors will also have the ability to grant upfront planning permission for specified forms of development on identified sites through mayoral development orders. We want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible to allow mayors to use these powers across a range of uses and land types in line with their ambitions for growth. It is right that we continue to promote the effective use of previously developed land. However, we should be cautious about introducing overly rigid legal requirements that may not be appropriate in all circumstances and could risk constraining the growth that this country needs. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, it is for these reasons that I do not consider it to be necessary or proportionate. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments and the Minister for hers. Let us be clear: this is about doing what everyone has said that we need to do, which is developing on brownfield first. It is not about preventing development anywhere else. This is about creating more sites, it is about getting more building done, but it is also about regenerating cities and providing the homes that we need. I am afraid that I do not agree with the Minister. This is not about blocking; it is about enabling. I therefore wish to test the opinion of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

128: Transpose Clause 41 to after Clause 50
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment of clause 2 in my name would add culture as an “area of competence” in the Bill, and it would appear as the last in the list of areas. Clause 41 falls more readily in the new “culture” competence and so this amendment would mean that its position in the Bill reflects the order in which the areas of competence appear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which all address an important and practical issue: the clear separation of duties between the mayor and the Local Government Pension Scheme. At its heart, this is about avoiding conflicts of interest, as we have heard.

Under the Bill, mayors will rightly have a central role in promoting investment opportunities in their regions, championing growth, attracting capital and supporting local economic development. That is an essential part of the devolution agenda. However, we must be equally clear about who is making investment decisions and on whose behalf. Pension funds exist to serve their members and local taxpayers. Their primary duty is fiduciary: to act in the best financial interests of those beneficiaries.

There is a distinction here that matters. The mayors may promote opportunities, but they should not be in a position to directly or indirectly influence the allocation of pension fund assets. In simple terms, one body promotes the opportunity and another independently decides whether to write the cheque. As has been noted, there are important differences between funding and financing and between providing the capital and structuring the deal. Both require clarity of responsibility and robust governance.

Co-operation between mayors and pension schemes is not only desirable, it is inevitable, but the co-operation must not drift into anything that could be perceived as pressure or direction. We must guard against any blurring of lines. What begins as collaboration must not become, even inadvertently, connivance. These amendments are therefore modest but necessary. They seek to put beyond doubt the separation of roles to protect the integrity of pension decision-making and to give reassurance to local taxpayers and scheme members alike. For those reasons, I support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for Amendments 129 to 131 and for the time he took to discuss them with me. I recognise his intention to clarify the roles and responsibilities of strategic authorities and pension funds in making local investments. I agree that it is very important for roles and responsibilities to be completely clear. We want strategic authorities to play an active role in bringing forward investment and guidance. We will further explain the Government’s expectations.

I just point out that there is in the Pension Schemes Bill a reciprocal requirement for local government pension funds to co-operate with strategic authorities. The wording of “identify and develop” in this context is consistent with that requirement, which makes it a bit late to change that just now. The meaning of “development”, however, can be clarified in guidance. Pensions guidance will confirm that there is no requirement to invest in assets that are not deemed suitable as pension investments. This should provide the noble Lord reassurance.

Schedule 20 includes a requirement for local growth plans to set out key projects for achieving economic growth through private or public investment. The guidance on local growth plans already makes clear the expectations and support available to mayoral combined authorities and to mayoral combined county authorities for developing and taking forward that pipeline of investment opportunities. Further, government guidance for local government pension funds will explain the meaning of this requirement for them. This guidance will further clarify our expectations in this context. I am very happy to discuss this with the noble Lord outside the Chamber as we develop the guidance. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rees for Amendments 135, 138 and 174 and for being available to explain why he has brought this forward from other mayors. He has passed on their views for us.

I will speak first to Amendments 136 and 137 in my name. As I set out in Committee, these are essential amendments to Schedule 23. They would not create a new duty or expand powers, but they would ensure that existing provisions apply consistently when a mayoral combined authority is acting as a fire and rescue authority. Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities—I do hope we can call them the same thing at some point, because I am getting fed up with saying it twice every time—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Make an amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes—that would be my amendment.

Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime into line with the existing exemptions for other fire and rescue authority governance models, maintaining consistency and fairness across England.

Amendment 137 would confirm that, where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority assumes fire and rescue responsibilities, it is treated in the same manner as established fire and rescue authorities. This amendment would extend the application of Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to mayoral fire and rescue authorities relating to companies in which local authorities hold interests. It would similarly bring them within Section 155 of that Act for the purposes of emergency financial support.

Furthermore, Amendment 137 would clarify the process for handling Section 114 reports for mayoral fire and rescue authorities and the corresponding duties under Section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. When a chief finance officer issues such a report, it must be provided to the relevant scrutiny committee. The authority’s response must then be sent to the chief finance officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised concerns about accountability in relation to fire and rescue authority functions, and I trust that her concerns have now been addressed by the introduction of local scrutiny committees.

Turning now to Amendments 135, 138 and 174, I stress that Clause 47 is a key provision, ensuring that fire and rescue services in a mayoral combined authority area are subject to clear and direct accountability through elected mayors. These amendments would cut across that approach by creating a separate legal entity for chief fire officers. Doing so risks blurring the lines of accountability and making it less clear who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of fire and rescue services. The amendments could also introduce unnecessary complexity into fire governance arrangements and move away from the integrated model of local leadership that the Bill is designed to support. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment. I do, however, recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and the interest in exploring alternative governance models. We will continue to consider this very carefully and work with partners across the sector to explore the model in due course.

With these reassurances, I hope my noble friend Lord Rees feels able to withdraw his amendments. I commend the minor and technical amendments in my name to the House.

[Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

136: Schedule 23, page 261, line 7, at end insert—
“Matters outside the scope of inspections
4A In section 28 (inspectors), after subsection (A8) insert—“(A8A) When carrying out an inspection under subsection (A3) of a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g), an English inspector must not review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of an excluded mayoral FRA function.(A8B) For the purposes of subsection (A8A), the following are excluded mayoral FRA functions in relation to a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority—(a) the issuing of a community risk management plan;(b) the variation of priorities and objectives set out in a community risk management plan;(c) the allocation of the draft or actual budget for fire and rescue functions in relation to any financial year;(d) the function of appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;(e) the function of holding the chief fire officer to account for the exercise of—(i) the functions which are delegated to the chief fire officer; and(ii) the functions of persons under the direction and control of the chief fire officer;(f) the function of approving a pay policy statement prepared for the purposes of section 38 of the Localism Act 2011;(g) the function of approving arrangements to enter into a reinforcement scheme under section 13;(h) the function of approving arrangements with other employers of firefighters under section 15;(i) the function of approving arrangements under section 16;(j) the function of approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—(i) so far as is reasonably practicable, the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to continue to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs; and(ii) the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to perform its functions so far as necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency, or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;(k) the function of approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other general Category 1 responders and general Category 2 responders in respect of—(i) the performance of the mayoral combined authority’s, or mayoral CCA’s, duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004; and(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act.(A8C) In subsection (A8B)—“community risk management plan” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1;“emergency” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for Part 1 of that Act;“general Category 1 responder” means a person who falls within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“general Category 2 responder” means a person who falls within Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“priorities and objectives” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1.”” Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for matters which inspectors of fire and rescue authorities may not review or scrutinise when inspecting mayoral combined authorities or CCAs which are fire and rescue authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

139: Clause 50, page 57, line 14, after “the” insert “GLA and the”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House for the seriousness with which our new proposed strategic licensing measures were considered during Committee. The attention given to the detail of these clauses and to their practical implications has been valuable.

I begin by stating clearly that this Government recognise the important role of local licensing authorities, which are often best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge. This is reflected in the design of the new strategic licensing functions for the mayor and the Greater London Authority—for example, by requiring the Mayor of London to consult London licensing authorities before determining the London-wide strategic licensing policy. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds in regulations of what is meant by “potential strategic importance” to Greater London.

London licensing authorities remain the default licensing decision-makers in Greater London, and the mayor will be able to “call in” decisions made by a London licensing authority only on applications of potential strategic importance to Greater London and in a limited set of circumstances. Even then, the mayor may choose to uphold the decision of the London licensing authority.

The Greater London Authority has launched a consultation on the new London-wide strategic licensing policy. I am pleased to hear that many London licensing authorities have responded. This will help to inform the criteria by which the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out in regulations what “potential strategic importance” to Greater London means. We intend to conduct further engagement with London borough councils and other licensing stakeholders before laying these regulations, as well as any other statutory instruments that are needed to determine the procedural elements of the call-in process.

Nevertheless, our amendments establish some important parameters that prevent the mayor encroaching on local licensing authorities’ decision-making unnecessarily. This includes preventing the mayor rejecting an application that would otherwise have been granted by a London licensing authority, reflecting our intention to establish a clearly defined role for the mayor in promoting London-wide strategic objectives to drive growth in London’s sporting, cultural, hospitality and nightlife sectors. The call-in power is intended to be used as a measure of last resort and only in specific circumstances—effective as much in its existence as in its use—to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to licensing across the capital.

I turn to some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, in Committee. While my time in local government was spent some 30 miles outside of London, I am acutely aware that large urban areas cannot be treated as homogeneous—least of all our diverse capital. I therefore recognise that the licensing priorities of inner and outer London boroughs will vary significantly, as will their demographics and local policing capacities. There is no inherent contradiction between this reality and the establishment of new strategic licensing functions at the mayoral level. When determining strategic licensing policy, for example, the mayor will be under a duty to have regard to the requirements on local licensing authorities when carrying out their licensing functions—including, for example, the setting of local licensing policies—as well as locally published cumulative impact assessments. The mayor will be required to state his reasons for giving any direction to ensure an appropriate level of transparency. New rights of appeal against mayoral directions will also be established to mitigate against improper use of the call-in power. The Government will monitor the new strategic licensing measures, and the Secretary of State will be able to repeal the measures up to five years after they come into force.

I must conclude by emphasising that licensing decisions are, by their nature, nuanced judgments. They involve weighing competing factors and exercising discretion, rather than arriving at a binary outcome. Through the piloting of new strategic licensing measures in Greater London, our intention is to give greater weight to economic growth and the reputational importance of London’s hospitality and nightlife sectors, while recognising the importance of promoting the licensing objectives to help ensure that people’s local concerns are protected.

I commend to noble Lords the amendments in my name, and I will listen to other noble Lords before I comment on theirs.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, our Amendments 140 and 148 seek to remove the London licensing provisions in the Bill. Talking to a number of London boroughs, I found that many of them were quite unaware of this proposed change, seeing it, in effect, as a power grab by the Mayor of London, potentially causing real issues locally in boroughs, where licensing can be a very sensitive issue.

Licensing decisions should be taken locally, with local context and knowledge. For example, in Kingston, I understand that for any licensed premises, their security staff are required to work closely with the police, street pastors, the VAWG team and VAWG charities. This is not just during operational hours but after closure and at local events. This is a detailed local arrangement that works for this borough. Having the Mayor of London call in a licence application and change conditions or impose longer hours on a community would simply not be right and would go against the spirit of this legislation, which is supposedly about devolving down local powers. Those are our concerns. Are the Government really confident that a future mayor, perhaps of a different political persuasion and approach, would not be far more interventionist, blocking the very growth opportunities it is claimed that these new powers are seeking to free up?

The Minister has talked just now about the important role of local licensing authorities. Licensing works best when it is grounded in detailed local knowledge, through local councillors and local communities working together. These proposed call-in or direction powers for the Mayor of London risk overriding this expertise, increasing tension and introducing uncertainty in the system for boroughs, businesses and residents. A key concern I have picked up is how potential conflicts between local priorities, which are reflected in a council’s licensing policy, and pan-London priorities, potentially driven by the mayor’s decisions, will be resolved. There is a genuine fear that this could lead to an additional burden on boroughs, including increased casework, appeals, additional workloads for borough staff and, no doubt, additional costs to the boroughs.

We talked earlier about this being strategic. What does that mean? Take sectoral activity zones, such as Wembley or Twickenham stadia, which sit in the middle of highly residential areas. Those boroughs work really closely with communities. They know what hours and noise levels are acceptable. I am concerned that centralising this in some way could cause a huge risk. We urge the Minister to think again on giving these additional powers to the Mayor of London at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their comments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendments 140 and 148. Our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing measures in London is clear: to enable a more strategic approach to licensing to boost London’s nightlife and hospitality industries. These industries are essential to London’s economy, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and generating £46 billion in economic activity annually. They also play a vital role in shaping the capital’s global reputation as a vibrant, diverse and welcoming city.

However, there is evidence of unmet potential, particularly when it comes to London’s night-time economy. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022 to 2025. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they might have ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wishing to stay out later. Of course, the reasons for this are multifaceted, and licensing is not by any means the sole factor at play. Nevertheless, the Government believe that licensing in London should operate as more of an enabling framework—one that allows responsible businesses to thrive, while continuing to protect residents and public safety. That is very important.

London operates across 32 boroughs and the City of London, with each rightly rooted in its local context and responsive to the needs of its communities. However, when licensing decisions are made in isolation within each of those authorities, the cumulative effect can be a fragmented and inconsistent approach to issues that may have consequences across the capital. For example, a venue of regional or international significance, such as the ones that noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned, a major cultural destination or a late-night operation tied closely to transport hubs and visitor economies, does not serve one borough alone. Yet, at present, the licensing system often means that proposals are assessed solely through a local lens, even where their impacts and benefits are distributed far more widely.

It is precisely to address this gap that a carefully constrained strategic role for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority is justified. Other major cities, such as Amsterdam and New York, have shown what is possible when licensing is approached not solely as a reactive regulatory tool but as part of a broader strategic framework for nurturing culture, hospitality and the night-time economy.

Our underlying aim is to enable London to be the best version of itself: vibrant, safe, inclusive and globally competitive. The measures before us are a necessary and proportionate step towards that end. I hope that my reassurance about the consultation we intend to carry out relating to the meaning of “potential strategic importance” to London will have helped reassure the noble Baroness. I ask her therefore not to press her amendments.

Amendment 139 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

141: Schedule 24, page 262, line 32, leave out “2 to 4” and insert “1A to 4P”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

149: Clause 51, page 57, line 22, leave out “one or more areas” and insert “any aspect of any area”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

171: Schedule 25, page 274, line 28, at end insert—
“Exercise of functions may begin at different times etc
16A (1) This paragraph applies to a power under this Schedule to confer a function on, or provide for a function to be exercisable by, a class of strategic authorities or mayors (the “relevant class”).(2) The power includes—(a) the power to provide for the function to begin to be exercisable by different members of the relevant class at different times or in different circumstances;(b) the power to make further regulations which specify the times at which, or circumstances in which, the function is to begin to be exercisable by different members of the relevant class.(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)(b) may be made in relation to different members of the relevant class at different times.(4) In this paragraph “different members” of the relevant class includes members of the relevant class that are of different descriptions specified in regulations made under the power.”Member's explanatory statement
This would make clear that regulations under Schedule 25 can provide for a function conferred on a class to become exercisable (a) by different members of the class at different times; and (b) by virtue of regulations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Two more votes: that always makes you feel better. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Government Amendments 171 and 180 are technical amendments that provide greater clarity on how Schedule 25 will allow the functions of strategic authorities to be updated and modified over time. Amendment 180 clarifies that Schedule 25 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to modify and confer functions on new mayoral strategic authorities during the period between their establishment and the inaugural mayor taking office. This amendment ensures that the functions of mayoral strategic authorities can be modified if needed ahead of the mayor being elected, ensuring that the authority is able to operate effectively during this period. A good example is the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to devolution priority programme areas whose mayoral elections will take place in May 2028. Where local government reorganisation will see the abolition of current fire and rescue authorities in April 2028, the amendment will ensure that we have a mechanism to provide for the new mayoral strategic authorities to become the fire and rescue authorities, thereby ensuring the continuity of service provision critical for public safety.

Amendment 171 clarifies that Schedule 25 allows the Secretary of State to specify whether a function which has been conferred on a particular class of strategic authority is to be exercisable by different strategic authorities within that class at different times. This flexibility will, for example, be important in enabling the appropriate transfer of fire and rescue functions from existing fire and rescue authorities to strategic authorities at the right time for each area. In some areas, strategic authorities may be established in advance of local government reorganisation being completed, and it may not be appropriate to transfer those functions until the reorganisation is concluded. The amendment therefore ensures that such functions can be commenced at a point when an individual area is ready to exercise them.

I turn to Government Amendments 192 and 193. I am grateful to members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their consideration of the Henry VIII power in Schedule 26, concerning the conversion of a combined county authority to a combined authority following local government reorganisation. The Government have carefully considered the committee’s recommendation to remove the Secretary of State’s power to amend primary legislation made in future Sessions as it relates to this power. We have concluded that any necessary transition of a combined county authority to a combined authority can be delivered without taking a delegated power. I am therefore able to confirm that the Government not only accept the committee’s recommendation in relation to this specific power but intend to go further, by removing the delegated power to alter any existing primary legislation when undertaking conversion, save for amendments to the 2007 Act that may be necessary. I beg to move.

I know that the House will sit tomorrow on the terminally ill adults Bill, but as I am not likely to participate in those debates, I wish all noble Lords a restful and relaxing recess, and we will continue our deliberations on this Bill on 13 April.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister for these amendments. They help to clarify certain things and are tidying-up amendments. We fully support them. I also wish the House a very happy Recess.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

180: Schedule 25, page 277, line 13, at end insert—
“Mayoral strategic authorities: period before first mayor takes office
26 (1) The fact that a mayoral strategic authority is in the preparatory phase—(a) does not prevent regulations under this Schedule from making provision which applies to—(i) the mayor for its area, or(ii) the mayoral strategic authority; and(b) where a provision of this Schedule requires consultation with the members of a class which includes the mayoral strategic authority or the mayor for its area, does not—(i) prevent that requirement from being complied with by a consultation that does not involve the mayor, or(ii) require further consultation with the mayor after the first mayor has taken office. (2) Any power under this Schedule to make provision in relation to mayoral strategic authorities or mayors (the “relevant class”) must be read as enabling regulations to make provision in relation to the relevant class which applies only to—(a) those of the mayoral strategic authorities in the relevant class which are in the preparatory phase, or(b) those of the mayors in the relevant class that are mayors for the areas of mayoral strategic authorities which are in the preparatory phase.(3) Regulations under this Schedule may make provision which applies only to—(a) mayoral strategic authorities which are in a preparatory phase that is of a duration specified in the regulations, or(b) mayors for the areas of mayoral strategic authorities which are in a preparatory phase that is of a duration specified in the regulations.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph a mayoral strategic authority is in the “preparatory phase”—(a) after the authority has been established, but(b) before the first mayor for the authority’s area has taken office.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that the powers under Schedule 25 are not affected by a mayoral strategic authority being in the “preparatory phase” (the phase before the first mayor has taken office).

Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing a code of practice under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.

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

It is me again, I am afraid. The Government are committed to raising standards in the private parking sector. Last summer, my department consulted on proposals to raise standards across the private parking industry, ahead of implementing the new code and accompanying compliance framework for parking operators. The consultation attracted over 4,500 responses—which was no surprise to me; I know people have a great interest in this subject—a significant volume, and it is right that these are considered very carefully before the code is finalised. I add that the Government intend to lay the code in the House in autumn 2026.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It certainly will not be illegally parked if I am doing it—I can promise the noble Lord that. In February 2022, the previous Government introduced a private parking code of practice, which reduced the level of private parking charges and banned debt recovery fees. However, as the noble Lord will know, the parking industry subsequently challenged the charge caps on the grounds that the economic impact on the sector had not been sufficiently assessed and that caps were not supported by robust evidence. In the light of that challenge, the previous Government took the decision to withdraw the code in order to review the level of charges and the ban on additional fees. That review has been thorough: there was a call for evidence, and an impact assessment, an options assessment and a full public consultation, which I mentioned earlier, were published. It has been necessary to minimise the risk of further legal challenge and, crucially, to ensure that the impact of any future charge caps is understood and achieves the intended objectives. I recognise that the noble Lord’s patience is being tested and the process has taken time. However, we are committed to raising standards across the private parking sector and will lay the code in autumn 2026.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, according to the RAC, private parking companies have issued a staggering 76 million parking tickets in the seven years since the Parking (Code of Practice) Act became law. In addition to this long-awaited code, what update can the Minister provide on work to introduce a regulator with appropriate powers to protect motorists and ensure transparency across the system?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

A parking regulator was considered as an option in the options assessment published last year. However, it was dismissed as disproportionate. Establishing a regulator would have involved significant cost, complexity and even further delay, duplicating functions that can be delivered more efficiently through the 2019 Act and existing sanctions, including access to DVLA data.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I put it to my noble friend the Minister that wheel clamping took some 20 years from the Scottish courts declaring it illegal in Scotland, against lots of obstructionism within officialdom in the Department for Transport and other departments, to finally being banned in England. We must know now what we want to do. Motorists are still being ripped off, companies are still behaving badly, and the appeals system often does not work. Should we not just take action and get on with it? It might even be rather popular.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It would be popular with me, but we need to make sure, once we put something in place, that it is legally robust and understands the impacts that the code will have—that is really important. We consulted on the appeals process last year to understand the concerns that motorists have with it—I have also heard many concerns from around the House when we have discussed this before—and we are working to address them. Is it very important that motorists have confidence in the appeals process and trust that they will get the right outcome as quickly as possible. For motorists, this means ensuring that appeal decisions are fair and, importantly, that those decisions are made independently from the private parking industry.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, on many new housing estates, the roads have not been adopted by local highways authorities, despite residents paying council tax. What are the Government doing to ensure that they are built to adoptable standards and then adopted? That would allow local authority enforcement of parking offences.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is slightly tangential to the Question. I know that this is a real frustration both for those living on new estates and for the local authorities that are sometimes charged with picking up the bill for the insufficient quality of roads. Steps will be taken in the forthcoming leasehold and commonhold Bill to address many of the issues with these so-called freehold estates. I am sure that we will have a very useful discussion on that when the Bill comes before the House.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister has heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, had to say. I think that his argument has prevailed. As was just demonstrated, parking covers a very wide landscape, so may I draw the Minister’s attention to the difficulty one has in parking electric bikes in London? They are now geolocated, so you park it outside a station, but the app will not let you close. Can the Government please sit down with the mayor and the London boroughs to create a win-win—for people who hate these bikes being parked randomly on the street and for those of us who depend on them, who would just like to see more parking places for them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the frustrations that people feel, but if you are parking the bike where you are supposed to park it, you should be able to log out of the system. It is absolutely unacceptable for bikes to be left in some of the places that I see them being left, and it causes a great obstruction, particularly to our residents with less mobility. If there is a bike in the middle of a pavement it is very hard to manoeuvre around it, particularly if you are in a wheelchair. We are looking at all these issues. New powers are being granted to local authorities as part of the Bill we will be debating later this afternoon, so I hope that will help the situation.

Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 and 12 February be approved.

Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.

Motions agreed.

Renters’ Rights Act: Definition of Court Readiness

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they define “court readiness” in the context of the answer by the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Matthew Pennycook MP, on 14 January 2025 (HC Deb col 258) during debate on the Renters’ Rights Bill.

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

My Lords, “court readiness” means ensuring that courts and tribunals can operate effectively and maintain swift access to justice under the new tenancy system. We are supporting the justice system with funding to ensure that courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the additional workload these reforms will generate.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, in the other place, the Minister, Matthew Pennycook, said that

“court readiness is essential to the successful operation of the new system”

and that he was working

“to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service is ready”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/25; col. 258.]

The Minister also gave this House that assurance during the passage of the Bill. Yet the time for a landlord to regain possession through the courts has increased dramatically across the country since 2024, particularly in London, increasing from 7.5 months to 15 months, and that is before bailiff delays. Given that the Government have failed to ensure that the courts are ready for this Act, will they now delay implementation until they are?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It certainly would not help tenants to delay implementation of the Act. Tenants are waiting for this, and have been for a very long time indeed. We are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on a number of fronts, including digitisation of the system, ensuring that more staff are prepared and making sure that we are ready for this. We are working closely with the judiciary and the ministry to ensure that the First-tier Tribunal has the capacity to deal with applications.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the private rented sector, with cottage lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. Sadly, there is not just the current delay of up to 15 months in the court granting a repossession; there is then an additional delay of up to seven or eight month waiting for a bailiff to carry out the eviction. What plans do the Government have to improve the bailiff service? A further point is the bankruptcy service’s increased granting of a breathing space to enable the tenant to put his affairs in order, though there is no consultation with the landlord on this. This can result in a further two-month delay in obtaining possession, along with the time necessary to appoint a bailiff. Is this the level playing field promised by the Government?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not think we should exaggerate the situation as it currently stands. The Ministry of Justice quarterly possession statistics show that median timeliness for claim to order is 7.3 weeks and that the median average time from landlord claim to repossession is 27 weeks. However, not all landlords will experience the whole court process. Of the landlord possession claims issued in 2024, only 28% progressed to the stage where bailiff enforcement was necessary. Bailiffs are responsible for a range of sensitive work. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is working to make sure that the timeliness of bailiff enforcement is improved.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s Question, the Master of the Rolls has warned that ending Section 21

“will undoubtedly create more contested possession cases than we have had hitherto”.

As we have heard, the average delay last year, according to the MoJ’s figures, was eight months. Ministers have repeatedly said that court readiness is a prerequisite for the success of the system. The courts are not ready. They will not be ready in six weeks’ time, when Section 21 will no longer be operative. What is the Minister going to do?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not know how many times I am going to repeat this, but I will carry on doing so. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to prepare county courts for implementation of the tenancy reforms. These are very important reforms for landlords and tenants; landlords do not want to see the actions of bad landlords helped and tenants want to make sure that they are secure in their tenancies. Existing possession processes will be updated to reflect the reforms in the Act and we will ensure that sufficient capacity is in place for the courts to handle new cases. There is an increase in capacity, including an additional 115 court staff, in anticipation of the increased demand for hearings under the Section 8 claim process. Staff managing possession claims are receiving detailed training, supported by refreshed training materials and process guidance. Working practices have been reviewed and best practice shared in readiness for 1 May, and the Judicial Office is taking forward judicial training on the new legislation.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has mentioned, the First-tier Tribunal clearly has a critical role to play here. Ministers have continually said that they will act if it is “overwhelmed by increased claims”, yet I was surprised to find that the MoJ does not even collect the data needed to assess its case loads. How can the Government credibly promise intervention without the basic monitoring information required to trigger some action? When will they begin collecting and publishing monthly data on rent appeals so that Parliament can assess mounting pressure? If the tribunal becomes overwhelmed, will Ministers commit to using the backdating safeguard immediately?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Data is collected and published—otherwise I would not have the figures for the current situation. MoJ statistics, as I said, tell us both the median time from landlord claim to repossession and how many possession claims progress to bailiff stage. Data is available. On the noble Baroness’s other point, the Government decided to put in place a proportionate safeguard if the tribunal system is on course to be overwhelmed, as we discussed during the passage of the Bill. That involves the creation of a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal in respect of new rent amounts.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, in response to a question during Oral Questions on 11 February about the risks of the First-tier Tribunal becoming overwhelmed by rent increase appeals brought by tenants who have nothing to lose, the Minister stated that

“there is a case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations”,—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. 216.]

yet an amendment to that effect tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, to the Bill was rejected by the Government on 1 July last year. What alternative body or mechanism is now being considered after all and how will it meaningfully be done without the force of legislation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for her contribution on the Bill. To ensure long-term sustainability, we have concluded that there is a case for the use of a non-judicial alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. We are continuing to work with partners across government to develop this rent determination function as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, this House has often said, and Ministers agree, that justice delayed is justice denied. Has it occurred to the Minister or her colleagues in government that the more rules they make and the more laws they pass, the more pressure they put on the judicial system, which is already overloaded? Ministers have expressed concern about delays at all levels of our judicial system. Perhaps the answer would be to stop making so many rules.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government are acting as they should according to their manifesto and putting the legislation in place. On top of that, we have had to correct the 14 years of decline of effective action in the justice system. We have had a lot of work to do and my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are taking that action urgently.

Given the need to provide families living in the private rented sector with greater certainty and stability, it is not appropriate to delay implementation while assessments of court readiness are carried out. An assessment of the possession process would provide no new insight or benefit to interested parties, and quarterly data on the operation of the court possession process for rented properties is already published by the Ministry of Justice and will continue to be. My department has allocated increased funding for the court service to enable it to deal with the increase in workload, and we are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make sure they are able to cope.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, some of the worst cases I had as an MP were to do with housing. We had children who had to move home every six months, absolutely wrecking their life chances. They were unable to stay in the same schools or with the same friends unless they travelled for hours on buses, going from stop to stop. Can my noble friend think of a single reason why we would delay the implementation of this Act?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right. Her experience as an MP was similar to mine as a councillor. I had client after client come to me to discuss the horrendous impacts of homelessness. But we are implementing this Act not just for tenants but for landlords. As I said, good landlords deserve support, and they do not like to see poor landlords not having action taken against them when they are not acting in the interests of tenants. This Act actually benefits everybody in the private rented sector.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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, particularly for such a positive response to the changes brought forward in this group. I hope we continue the evening as we have started; that would be wonderful. I thank noble Lords for their insightful and continued engagement on this Bill, both through Committee and since then, in the various meetings we have held.

In response to those debates, last week the Government tabled a package of amendments that address a number of the points raised during Committee. As I have said before, this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition for devolution. It will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Whitehall to mayors, local leaders and communities, and deliver on the Government’s commitment to fit, decent and legal local government. The amendments the Government have brought forward continue in that spirit, and I look forward to debating them with noble Lords throughout Report.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Freyberg, for their comments. Government Amendment 2 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within Clause 2. Culture—and its associated sectors, the arts, heritage and the creative industries—has been a topic of considerable debate during the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful to all those who have participated, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for their constructive engagement and valuable contributions.

This Government and I personally believe that culture in its many forms—visual arts, music, theatre, museums, libraries, combined arts, digital media, literature and heritage—enriches our quality of life, supports economic growth, and strengthens social cohesion and pride in place. As your Lordships will know, it has always been the Government’s position that mayors and strategic authorities can, and should, support cultural initiatives. By including culture as a distinct area of competence, the Government are codifying that role in legislation; this is a clear signal of this Government’s commitment to the cultural life of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) culture.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add culture to the list of “areas of competence” in the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for their amendments, for the many discussions that we have had and for their engagement on rural issues in the Bill.

Before I comment on the individual amendments, let me say that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Commission for Rural Communities. This body, which had primary responsibility for rural-proofing, was formally abolished in 2013, a decision taken by the coalition Government in the bonfire of the quangos. I mention this just in case anyone was left with the impression that it was this Government that had abolished it.

On Amendment 5, I have noted previously that strategic authorities will operate across a wide range of geographies in England, encompassing both highly urbanised regions and more rural areas. The Bill is therefore intended to equip mayors and strategic authorities with the powers that they need to support communities across their entire areas. That is why the areas of competence are deliberately broad. This allows a wide range of activity to fall within scope. In this way, rural issues are already reflected in, for example,

“transport and local infrastructure; … housing and strategic planning”,

and

“the environment and climate change”.

Already we are seeing strategic authorities support rural communities. The East Midlands Combined County Authority has set out a programme of rural affairs and farming projects. These include examining the potential to promote microgeneration and energy independence for farmers and small businesses and committing to convene rural partners to discuss solutions for flood prevention.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his welcome for the Government’s recent move to recognise the very sharp increases to fuel costs faced by rural communities because of the current conflicts in the Middle East. I welcome that too.

I turn now to Amendments 52 and 61. The Government have introduced amendments to increase the number of commissioners a mayor may appoint. This will increase flexibility by allowing multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence and ensure commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area rather than the area as a whole. Doing so will enable mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs and allow them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for example, two commissioners operating within transport and local infrastructure, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel.

However, commissioners are intended to be an optional appointment for mayors, whereas the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would mandate the appointment of a rural commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose. There is already considerable scope for a mayor to appoint a commissioner and provide them with a bespoke brief and title—for example, to position them as an advocate on rural matters within the combined authority or the combined county authority area. The areas of competence are intended to capture broad thematic priorities affecting all communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban.

The challenges faced by rural communities are addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary place by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. In fact, to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, you could have had a party in the bus stops in my area until very recently when, thanks to some active campaigning, we did get evening buses, but only a couple of years ago there were no buses after 7 pm at all.

Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities. This includes housing, where local authorities in local plans and mayors in strategic plans must consider the needs of rural housing and it will be mayors who set the strategic priorities for their area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the powers of the mayor and the land use framework. Of course, mayors, like all other planning authorities, will have to take account of relevant documents including the land use framework, which sets out clearly the need for land for food production.

I turn to Amendment 310. Supporting rural communities is a priority for this Government. We want rural areas to feel the benefits of devolution just as strongly as our major towns and cities. The Bill already equips strategic authorities and mayors with powers that can be used to respond to rural priorities, including in areas such as transport, housing delivery, economic growth and skills. We can already see how mayors and strategic authorities are using these powers to deliver for rural residents. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, may not like strategic authorities very much, but York and North Yorkshire is trialling new affordable housing models for rural communities and the North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural task force to ensure rural and coastal communities have a clear voice in investment decisions.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 326. The Government should not assume they have a better understanding of rural needs and opportunities within strategic authority areas than those areas themselves. Strategic authorities working closely with their constituent councils and communities are best placed to assess local rural circumstances. This amendment would add bureaucracy without improving outcomes. Therefore, I respectfully invite the noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered comments and thank all those Peers who have taken part in this debate. Between us, we have managed to cover nearly every aspect of the disadvantage of living in rural communities.

I was very disappointed to be reminded about rural-proofing, because we were championing that years ago—and here we are today, trying to get it back again. It is so important that those who live in rural areas have tailored approaches to those areas, as has already been said. We need to think about agriculture, food production and housing. Housing is so important, along with jobs.

I hear the Minister’s reassurance that rural areas are covered in all the other competences. I have not been here for as long as some people, but I have been here nearly 13 years. I have heard that phrase so many times, but it never happens for rural areas. I feel that it is really important that rural affairs are given the weight they deserve by being in the Bill as a competence. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I will just say very briefly: what a load of hypocrisy from the other side of the House. I was a member of Cumbria County Council from 2013 onwards. In 2021, a Conservative Minister took a decision to ignore our wishes and create two unitary councils in Cumbria instead of what would have been the most sensible solution: a single unitary council. I hope that when my noble friend on the Front Bench responds, she will agree with me that the Government are not proposing what previous Conservative Ministers did.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who I have great respect for, that I see the Bill as a foundation on which further devolution can be built. If you mess around with it, you will prevent the whole thing going ahead.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for these amendments on the establishment of combined authorities.

The Government are very clear that devolution has the potential to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver meaningful change, led by local leaders who understand their communities best—I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle. This is why we want more places across England to access devolution, ensuring that no area is excluded from its benefits. As I have said previously, it is to support that objective that we are introducing these powers, alongside clear safeguards to ensure that they are exercised appropriately and only when justified.

Our clear preference, and established practice, is to work in partnership with local areas to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local leaders and stakeholders. I hope that this will be evident from the orders that we have laid for new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in recent weeks: in Hampshire and the Solent, Sussex and Brighton, Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington. The Government have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill that the powers are intended to operate as a last resort. These powers would be used only where no viable locally led proposal has emerged.

The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would also remove the provisions in the Bill that simplify and streamline consent, consultation and statutory test requirements for creating and changing the arrangements of combined authorities or combined county authorities. That cuts across one of our core objectives, which is to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so that devolution can be delivered more efficiently and be less onerous for local authorities. Removing these measures would entrench the existing complex processes and risk delaying areas accessing the practical benefits that strategic authorities are already delivering.

Consultation and consent will remain key features of that process, where proposals are developed by a local area. A new, consolidated statutory test will also apply to the establishment of any new authority. These ministerial powers are therefore a backstop mechanism in the Bill, allowing the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how best to access devolved powers. This will help ensure that all parts of England can benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind. As I have made clear in many discussions on this subject, we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas from accessing devolution or would risk creating devolution islands.

Finally, I point to the oral evidence given to the Public Bill Committee following the introduction of this Bill in the other place. When asked whether these powers were necessary, opposition witnesses were clear that such powers were indeed needed to advance the course of devolution in England. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, so that the way is clear for all residents to benefit from the funding powers and functions that are set out in the Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Can the Minister explain what a “devolution island” is?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. Where local areas are putting together their proposals and a small area in between those areas is left out, it may be necessary to use the powers for that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support, and to the Minister for her reply.

I am afraid that I am not reassured by the Minister’s response. I return to the principle that underpins this group of amendments. Any reconfiguration of local governance must be rooted in the clear, explicit and democratically expressed consent of those authorities affected. Amendment 8 and the consequential amendments simply seek to protect safeguards, safeguarding the relationship and genuine partnership between local and central government.

The question is simple: should change to local government be based on consent or ordered by the Secretary of State? We stand firmly on the side of consent. For these reasons, I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments and would be grateful for the support of other noble Lords across the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

25: Schedule 1, page 108, line 9, leave out “combined authority” and insert “CCA”
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical amendments. Amendments 75 and 106 correct references to combined county authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined authorities. Likewise, Amendments 25, 26, 27, 32 and 37 correct references to combined authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined county authorities. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out this group of amendments. As has been outlined, they are technical in nature, correcting references between combined authorities and combined county authorities to ensure consistency across the Bill. We recognise the need for that consistency.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I commend these amendments to the House.

Amendment 25 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

26: Schedule 1, page 108, line 12, leave out “combined authority” and insert “CCA”
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

32: Schedule 1, page 113, line 21, leave out “combined authority” and insert “CCA”
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

37: Schedule 1, page 115, line 28, leave out “combined authority” and insert “CCA”
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Briefly, my Lords, this has been another important group of amendments. The response by the Minister will be important, because a lot of very good and important issues have been raised. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for remembering what I said in Committee. Like him, I have concluded that I was right on that occasion, but I will not repeat it now.

I want to say something about Amendment 307, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley, because I have signed it. This really matters: if you are devolving power over planning, including infrastructure planning, if you are serious about driving growth and want to improve local infrastructure, and if you want good-quality key decisions on land use, you need a very senior planning person named as a chief planning officer. This is not new. I have raised this matter on several Bills in recent years and still think it needs to be done, because it is about raising the status of the profession as a career option, but it is also about giving the general public the necessary respect for views expressed by a chief planning officer.

I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about my city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North East Combined Authority, and I agree entirely with what he said. He is absolutely right: it needs to be a statutory role. This is not a complex issue. The Government should just do it, and have the confidence to do it, because we want devolution to be a success—and to be a success, you have to have the right quality of decisions being made by the right level of senior officer, who recommends the right answers to politicians. With that, I hope very much that we shall hear from the Minister that the Government are minded to agree Amendment 307, at the very least.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for amendments relating to planning, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak first to Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125 and 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, moved or spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. While I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying and meeting growth opportunities, these amendments are not necessary. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy that they have published, and consider relevant, while preparing their spatial development strategies. This could include a local growth plan.

We set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should give

“spatial expression to strategic elements of Local Growth Plans”,

as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Further, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, local growth plans will be required to include a pipeline of investment opportunities to enable economic growth. We expect those pipelines to include investment opportunities linked to infrastructure or development. I hope the noble Lord contributed to the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework with the other points that he made.

I turn to Amendments 124, 127 and 186. As I have set out, the Government want arts and culture to thrive across the country. That is why we are introducing culture as a new area of competence for all strategic authorities. It is also why we have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector. Many are already supporting the cultural sector in their local growth plans, while some places are taking this further with dedicated culture strategies and industry partnerships. Local growth plans look across a wide range of needs and opportunities in their regions, including the cultural sector.

As I mentioned, our guidance on local growth plans asks mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set a pipeline of projects critical for unlocking growth. It must be up to local areas, working with relevant stakeholders, to determine which projects fit this requirement. That is why we have avoided being overly prescriptive about the content of local growth plans. The additional requirement proposed by these amendments would risk upsetting that approach, which is already under way in many places.

I turn to Amendment 120. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are firmly committed to taking a systematic approach to tackling drainage issues and to strengthening the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. However, these matters are more appropriately dealt with by local planning authorities, rather than strategic authorities. We are putting in place a robust framework to guide and support local planning authorities in this important work.

The National Planning Policy Framework already requires all developments that may have drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. However, we are proposing to go even further. The consultation on a new framework, which closed on 10 March, proposed that

“Sustainable Drainage Systems should be designed in accordance with the National Standards”

introduced last year to improve their design and implementation.

The consultation also included a proposed plan-making policy expecting early engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies to ensure that there is a clear understanding of drainage and wastewater capacity constraints and any additional infrastructure requirements, with particular regard to the impacts of planned growth and relevant infrastructure plans. We have recently laid regulations for the new plan-making system. These regulations prescribe water and sewerage companies under the new requirement to assist. They will be obliged to assist with plan-making where a plan-making authority reasonably requests it. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary, given the actions I have set out.

I turn to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I appreciate the strength of feeling which has brought this amendment before us again; it is an important issue. However, as I said in Committee, I do not believe it is something we can take forward in legislation without first having further engagement with local authorities and the sector to understand the full implications. New legislative requirements on local authorities in this area must have a clear purpose and add value. In particular, I am keen to monitor how our national scheme of delegation reforms from the Planning and Infrastructure Act works in practice and to get feedback from local planning authorities on the role of chief planners and the equivalent officers in this process.

As the noble Lord is aware, we consulted last year on reforms to planning committees, which will give chief planners a strong role in deciding which applications should go to planning committees. We hope to publish the statutory consultation on the draft regulations and guidance shortly. We welcome views about these important new arrangements, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the final regulations later this spring.

Turning to Amendment 246, I am sympathetic to the need to ensure that our drive for new homes does not come at the cost of existing business. However, I do not believe the statutory route is the most effective way forward. The issues the agent of change policy needs to address are inherently scheme-specific, requiring case-by-case assessments of potential impacts and mitigations as part of the overall planning balance, which lends itself to a policy approach. National planning policy already clearly enshrines the agent of change principle as a material consideration. The onus is squarely on applicants to provide suitable mitigation where existing development in the vicinity is likely to have significant adverse impacts.

Moreover, the new planning policy framework proposes to strengthen the agent of change principle. It sets out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and engage early with existing uses. Following analysis of the responses, we will publish the final version in the summer. Local planning authorities can require noise impact assessments when they consider that a proposed development is likely to be affected by existing noise sources. Guidance is clear that a range of mitigation measures should be considered, including good design to reduce the impact of noise from adjoining activities, incorporating noise barriers and optimising sound insulation.

Additionally, local authorities can already take the agent of change principle into account under the existing licensing regime. The legislation recognises that different areas face different challenges and licensing authorities may reflect the principle in their statements of licensing policy where they consider it helpful or necessary. We conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework, which sought views on whether it would be beneficial to strengthen the existing approach. A full analysis of responses to this proposal will be published in due course.

Finally, local authorities have a duty to take such steps as are reasonably practical to investigate a statutory nuisance complaint. They consider a number of relevant factors, including the noise level and frequency and the character of the local area. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of protecting cultural venues from the impacts of new housing nearby, I do not consider a statutory approach to be the right solution. Existing policy and legislation already give local authorities the tools to apply these principles in their decisions and we are taking further steps to strengthen implementation across the planning and licensing systems.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Before we test the opinion of the House, when the time comes, could I just ask: if it is working well in Scotland, where there is a statutory basis, why are the Government so opposed to this? Does the Minister not realise that the guidance is simply not being adhered to, and practitioners are at their wits’ end on that basis?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to take back the points about Scotland, but we have conducted an extensive call for evidence on licensing, and we are carrying out an extensive review of the National Planning Policy Framework, so there has been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute their views on that. In both cases, we will be analysing the responses and publishing our responses on the NPPF in the summer and on the licensing framework in due course.

Turning to Amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I do not believe this amendment is justified or proportionate. We are concerned that adopting it now could have unintended consequences. The Government have recently consulted on reforms to the statutory consultee system and consultation feedback is now being reviewed. It is important that we allow this process to conclude before taking any decisions on consultation outcomes. Introducing fire and rescue services as statutory consultees in the planning process at this stage would therefore run ahead of the review’s conclusions and impose additional administrative responsibilities on these services.

Of course, I am aware—we have discussed it many times—that battery energy storage system developments are a particular area of interest. These installations are already governed by a robust regulatory framework overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which places clear responsibilities on designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. In addition, planning practice guidance encourages developers of larger battery energy storage system schemes to work proactively with fire and rescue services. This guidance also encourages local planning authorities to consult with these services for these types of larger schemes and to take account of guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council when determining the planning application.

Alongside this, the Government are actively exploring whether further measures are needed to enhance the regulatory oversight of environmental and safety risks linked to battery energy storage systems. Defra’s recent consultation on modernising environmental permitting included proposals to bring battery energy storage system sites within the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is now considering the feedback received and will publish its response in due course.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 308. The Government’s position remains unchanged. Given the significant changes to local plan-making that we have recently set out, now is not the time to introduce neighbourhood priorities statements. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on when neighbourhood priorities statements will be introduced, we will consider the progress on them once the local plan reforms have taken effect.

The second aspect of this amendment would substitute arrangements made under Clause 60 for neighbourhood fora as the bodies permitted to prepare neighbourhood priorities statements. This is not the purpose of Clause 60. While neighbourhood planning groups, including neighbourhood fora, may be involved in arrangements made under Clause 60, their functions are separate, and should remain so.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

42: Clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “7” and insert “10”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a CCA may appoint from 7 to 10.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start by thanking noble Lords for their rigorous and detailed representations on the mayoral commissioners model that the Bill introduces. I think it is fair to say that there is a plurality of views on this important area, evidenced by the substance of the amendments tabled and the hours of considered debate in both Houses. The government amendments that I am introducing today follow considerable deliberation on those contributions. They focus on ensuring that we balance the operational flexibility of the commissioner model with appropriate accountability and scrutiny—issues that have been raised repeatedly in this House.

I will take these amendments in five groupings. First, government Amendments 42 and 46 increase the maximum number of commissioners the mayor may appoint from seven to 10. Secondly, government Amendments 50, 53, 55, 59, 62 and 64 allow multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence. Thirdly, government Amendments 51 and 60 ensure that commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area, rather than only the area as a whole. Fourthly, government Amendments 54 and 63 clarify that a commissioner must not carry out work in cases where a mayor ceases to hold office early, with the exception of winding down their office. Finally, government Amendments 56 and 65 clarify that an appointment can end in accordance with contract law if not otherwise provided for in the terms and conditions of their appointments.

These changes will increase the overall flexibility of the model, enabling mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs related to an area of competence, and allowing them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for instance, two commissioners operating within the transport and local infrastructure area of competence, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel. I emphasise that the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners recognises that we expect the devolution framework to grow over time, thereby providing a contingency as mayoral duties and powers expand. It does not mean mayors frivolously appointing people based on patronage. We know that mayors want high-calibre individuals whom they can trust to help them deliver for their regions. Therefore, to bring in people with a track record of success, these appointments should be on merit.

While combined authorities and combined county authorities will have the ability to remunerate commissioners, that does not give mayors carte blanche to pay them what they want. Commissioners may only be remunerated in line with the recommendations and maximum amount specified in a report from an independent remuneration panel.

To be clear, no additional funding is being provided for these appointments. We expect combined authorities and combined county authorities to make appointments prudently on the basis of where they determine that a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes. Part of that success relies on commissioners being accountable and their performance being open to scrutiny. That is why, alongside the mayor being able to terminate appointments, the overview and scrutiny committee may also recommend a termination. The decision on whether to accept that recommendation must then be put to a vote of the authority’s board.

Commissioners will also be subject to the strengthened accountability measures being introduced through local scrutiny committees. This includes removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties for failing to answer questions or provide information, or for misleading a local scrutiny committee. I beg to move government Amendment 42, and I commend government Amendments 46, 50, 51, 53 to 56, 59, 60 and 62 to 65. I reserve my right to speak later in response to other noble Lords’ amendments.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, this is going to be the shortest speech I have ever made in the Chamber, but it is really meant. I thank the Government and the Minister for the three amendments that I moved at an earlier stage, which are now tabled as government Amendments 42, 46, 51 and 62. These make three excellent changes that will very much assist the flexibility that will be enjoyed under the new devolution principles. Again, I thank the Minister very much for her and the department’s assistance with these three very good amendments—I think that is now probably the unanimous view—that will add to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I have expressed my strong reservations and serious concerns about the appointment of unelected commissioners on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill, and I again join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his criticism of Clause 9. Again, I ask the Minister: do we really want or need more unelected bureaucrats involved in running local authorities? To make matters worse, they now propose to increase the number of commissioners from seven to 10—why? What possible reason could the Government have for allowing mayors to appoint even more?

In Committee, we asked why senior councillors could not take on these roles, and we have not had a satisfactory answer. This is a perfect example of how, if you create a bureaucracy, it grows. We need to ensure that this does not happen, because it is all paid for by the taxpayer and we need to ensure value for money. That is why I, along with my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, tabled my Amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 44 would reduce the number of commissioners who can be appointed from seven to five. Reducing the costs of local government to taxpayers should be a priority. Amendment 45 would require the appointment process for commissioners to be fair, open and transparent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support in this. It is important that these appointments of unelected officials are transparent. The Local Government Association has expressed concern about the role of commissioners and wants assurances that there will be robust scrutiny arrangements to hold them to account, given their potentially significant role and remit. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that accountability is maintained in the appointment of commissioners? I am doubtful that the Government will be able to satisfy me that the process will ensure value for money and democratic accountability, so, when Amendment 45 is called, I will seek to divide the House.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I said earlier, I recognise that this is an important issue, and we want to get it right, not least because we care about bettering those places and communities that are personal to all of us.

Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to reduce the number of commissioners a mayor can appoint to a maximum of five. I remind noble Lords that ensuring that mayors have the capacity and capability to undertake the new responsibilities we are devolving to them is essential to ensuring that devolution is a success. Commissioners are a key part of a mayor’s toolbox. Reducing the number of appointments to a maximum of five simply limits the flexibility and scope of the model. In particular, it would mean that a mayor would not have the option to appoint at least one person to operate in each of the eight areas of competence should they want to. We have had much discussion, both in the Chamber today and during Committee, with noble Lords wanting other areas of competence, including rural and cultural areas. We do not want to inadvertently force mayors to neglect particular areas of competence because they lack the support they need.

I must reiterate that these are optional appointments. We expect combined and combined county authorities to make their appointments prudently, based on where they determine a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes.

To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why council leaders cannot do this work, commissioners are expected to be politically restricted posts, which means that they should not be able to undertake certain activities that someone sitting as a council leader would do, such as canvassing on behalf of a political party. It would therefore not be appropriate for a council leader to be appointed as a commissioner. Council leaders acting as portfolio leads play an important but distinct role from commissioners, and we expect both to work together and will detail this in forthcoming guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

46: Clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out “7” and insert “10”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a combined authority may appoint from 7 to 10.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments raises important issues concerning accountability and transparency within our evolving system of devolved governance. Amendments 49, 95 and 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, engage with the central principle that, where power is exercised, it should be subject to effective and visible scrutiny. I am sure that all noble Lords agree with that principle. These amendments would ensure that it extends directly to elected mayors.

Amendment 49 proposes dedicated scrutiny committees with powers to summons and to report. This reflects a desire to ensure that mayoral commissioners are properly held to account. Amendments 95 and 96 similarly seek to strengthen direct lines of accountability, whether through public-facing forums such as the People’s Question Time in London, which we have heard about, or through structured engagement with elected members of constituent authorities. We recognise the intent behind these proposals, particularly the effort to align arrangements more closely with established practices, as we have heard about on the Mayor of London.

Government Amendments 67 and 68 introduce substantial new schedules at a very late stage in the Bill. They set out an extensive and detailed framework for overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined county authorities. While the aim to strengthen scrutiny is clearly welcome, the scale and complexity of these provisions inevitably raise a number of questions that merit careful consideration. It is regrettable that this has been tabled at such a late stage in the parliamentary process of the Bill’s passage.

The proposed role for independent or external experts on scrutiny committees is notable. It would be helpful to understand more clearly who these individuals might be, how they are to be appointed and how their independence will be defined and safeguarded. Questions also arise as to whether there is sufficient capacity and expertise available across the country to support this model in practice. I look to the Minister for a response on these matters.

Further, there are important practical considerations about how members of these committees are to be appointed, the role of elected councillors within them and the extent to which their proceedings and findings will be made publicly accessible. The mechanisms by which members of the public can raise issues and engage with the scrutiny process are also of clear importance. There is perhaps a broader question as to whether lessons might be drawn from existing models, including the arrangements that have been in place for some time in Greater London for the scrutiny of directly elected mayors.

Finally, Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raises the interesting proposal of local public accounts committees. We believe that the principles of strengthening financial oversight and cross-agency accountability are important, although the precise design and implications of such bodies, as we heard from the noble Lord, would clearly require careful thought and planning. Therefore, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on this proposition.

This group highlights the central importance of scrutiny within any system of devolved governance. I look forward to the Minister addressing how the Government intend to ensure that these new structures are both effective in practice and clearly understood by those they are intended to serve.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on scrutiny and accountability. These have been recurring themes during debates on the Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Wallace, for their contributions to these discussions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Bassam, for their very constructive engagement and the insights they have shared with me on this issue. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the late introduction of these amendments, I felt that our discussions on scrutiny in Committee were too important for us not to respond as a Government.

In the English devolution White Paper, we committed to exploring a local public accounts committee model to provide a vehicle to scrutinise local public spending. This recognised that the powers afforded for local scrutiny were not commensurate to the increased scale of powers and responsibilities devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. Local scrutiny committees will replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities, providing an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight and a broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities, with greater teeth to hold mayors to account.

To answer the points about some of the detail raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as with the existing system, the chair of the committee must be from a different party from the mayor or be an independent person appointed through an open and fair competition. At least 60% of committee members must be councillors from constituent local authorities, rather than the current requirement that at least half of members must be local councillors. These committees must also reflect the political make-up of the area. They will be able to shape early decision-making and undertake value-for-money assessments across the full scope of a mayoral strategic authority’s work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was particularly interested in that ability to shape decision-making before things came before the boards for decision.

The committees will have the power to make recommendations on the quality of decisions and on the use of public funds. They will have the authority to challenge decisions taken by the mayor, commissioners and senior officials and to require attendance and information at evidence sessions. This will also extend to key stakeholders outside the mayoral strategic authority, who will be defined in regulations. Those who fail to comply without reasonable excuse will face a civil penalty, on which further details will be established in regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

50: Schedule 3, page 122, line 24, leave out “paragraphs 4(3) and 5” and insert “paragraph 4(3)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment to leave out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2A that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

53: Schedule 3, page 123, leave out lines 21 to 32
Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable more than one commissioner to operate in a particular area of competence (by leaving out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2A that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

59: Schedule 3, page 130, line 15, leave out “paragraphs 4(3) and 5” and insert “paragraph 4(3)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment to leave out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 5BA that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

62: Schedule 3, page 131, leave out lines 7 to 18
Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable more than one commissioner to operate in a particular area of competence (by leaving out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 5BA that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

67: After Schedule 3, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleMayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committeesPart 1New scrutiny regime for CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authoritiesIntroduction
1 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.The new scrutiny regime
2 After Schedule 1 insert—“Schedule 1AMayoral CCAs that are EMSAs: overview and scrutiny committees and audit committeeApplication of this Schedule
1 (1) This Schedule applies to a CCA if it is an established mayoral strategic authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following paragraphs of this Schedule— (a) “CCA” means a CCA that is an established mayoral strategic authority;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a CCA that is an established mayoral strategic authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of other CCAs, see Schedule 1.Functions of overview and scrutiny committee
2 (1) A CCA must arrange for the appointment by the CCA of one or more committees of the authority (referred to in this Schedule as overview and scrutiny committees).(2) The arrangements must ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to investigate matters of local interest;(b) to make reports or recommendations to the CCA or mayor on matters of local interest.(3) The arrangements must (in particular) ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to make reports or recommendations to the CCA with respect to the discharge of any functions that are the responsibility of the CCA;(b) to make reports or recommendations to the mayor with respect to the discharge of any general functions.(4) The arrangements must (in particular) ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the CCA;(b) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the mayor of any general functions;(c) to review—(i) the policy outcomes which were intended to result from action taken in connection with the discharge of any functions that are the responsibility of the CCA, and(ii) the effectiveness of that action in achieving those outcomes;(d) to review—(i) the policy outcomes which were intended to result from action taken in connection with the discharge by the mayor of any general functions, and(ii) the effectiveness of that action in achieving those outcomes;(5) The arrangements made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) must (in particular) ensure that—(a) where a decision or other action involves expenditure of the CCA, the review or scrutiny of it includes an assessment of value for money;(b) where the discharge of a function involves expenditure of the CCA—(i) any report includes a report on value for money;(ii) where appropriate, recommendations are made in relation to value for money.(6) When assessing value for money, an overview and scrutiny committee must have regard to any guidance issued by a public authority. (7) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under sub-paragraph (3)(a) or (3)(b) to make reports or recommendations with respect to the discharge of any functions includes power to make recommendations about the way that a function is, or is proposed to be, discharged.(8) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (4)(b) to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented includes—(a) power to direct that a decision is not to be implemented while it is under review or scrutiny by the overview and scrutiny committee, and(b) power—(i) to recommend that the decision be reconsidered, or(ii) to make recommendations about the way that the function is, or is proposed to be, discharged.(9) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of decisions made but not yet implemented and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers.(10) Before complying with sub-paragraph (9) an overview and scrutiny committee must obtain the consent of the CCA to the proposals and arrangements.(11) If—(a) an overview and scrutiny committee makes a recommendation to the CCA or mayor under sub-paragraph (7) or (8)(b), and(b) the CCA or mayor does not intend to give effect to the recommendation (at all or in part),the CCA or mayor must give the committee a written notice of that intention and of the reasons for not giving effect to the recommendation.(12) An overview and scrutiny committee may send a copy of any report or recommendations made by it to any public authority (including the Secretary of State or another Minister of the Crown, or any government department).(13) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA may not discharge any functions other than the functions conferred by or under this Schedule.(14) Any reference in this Schedule to the discharge of any functions includes a reference to the doing of anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of those functions.Overview and scrutiny committees: supplementary provision
3 (1) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may appoint one or more sub-committees, and(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by any such sub-committee.(2) A sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee may not discharge any functions other than those conferred on it under sub-paragraph (1)(b).(3) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA may not include a member of the CCA (including the mayor for the CCA’s area or deputy mayor).(4) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA is to be treated as a committee or sub-committee of a principal council for the purposes of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees).(5) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 apply to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA as they apply to a committee appointed under that section. (6) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may require a key person to attend before it to answer questions, and(b) may invite other persons to attend meetings of the committee.(7) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may require a key person to provide it with information or documents, and(b) may invite other persons to provide it with information or documents.(8) Regulations under paragraph 4(1) may make provision about—(a) information or documents whose provision may, or may not be, required under sub-paragraph (7)(a);(b) information or documents whose provision may, or may not be, invited under sub-paragraph (7)(b).(9) A requirement under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (7)(a) can only be imposed on a person by written notice given to the person; and the period between the notice being given and the date when the requirement must be complied with must be—(a) 10 working days, or(b) if that period of notice is unreasonably short, such longer period as is reasonable.(10) A person on whom a requirement is imposed under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (7)(a) is required to comply with the requirement.(11) If—(a) an overview and scrutiny committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required a person to attend a meeting of the committee,(b) the person does not attend the meeting in compliance with the requirement, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting,the committee must publish notice of the non-attendance in such manner as the committee thinks appropriate and a scrutiny officer of the committee (appointed in accordance with regulations made under 4(2)(d)) must give a copy of the notice to the person who did not attend.(12) For provision about the consequences of a failure to comply with a requirement imposed under sub-paragraph (6) or (7), see paragraphs 7 and 8.(13) A person is not obliged—(a) by sub-paragraph (6) to answer any question which the person would be entitled to refuse to answer in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or(b) by sub-paragraph (7) to provide any information which the person would be entitled to refuse to provide in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales.(14) In exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of its functions an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.(15) Guidance under sub-paragraph (14) may make different provision for different cases or for different descriptions of committee.(16) In sub-paragraphs (3) to (14) references to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA include references to any sub-committee of such a committee.Power to make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees
4 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees of a CCA. (2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) may in particular include provision—(a) about the membership of an overview and scrutiny committee and the voting rights of such members;(b) about the payment of allowances to the members of an overview and scrutiny committee;(c) about the person who is to be chair of an overview and scrutiny committee;(d) for the appointment of persons to act as scrutiny officers of an overview and scrutiny committee;(e) about how and by whom matters may be referred to an overview and scrutiny committee;(f) requiring persons (whether members of the CCA or other persons) to respond to reports or recommendations made by an overview and scrutiny committee;(g) about the publication of reports, recommendations or responses;(h) about information which must, or must not, be disclosed to an overview and scrutiny committee (whether by members of the CCA or by other persons);(i) as to the minimum or maximum period for which a direction under paragraph 2(8)(a) may have effect.(3) Provision of the following kinds must be made under sub-paragraph (1)—(a) provision about when and how an overview and scrutiny committee must involve independent experts in its activities;(b) provision about how an overview and scrutiny committee must take account of the work undertaken by the independent experts involved in its activities;(c) provision for the remuneration of independent experts.(4) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) so as to ensure that at least 60% of members of an overview and scrutiny committee are members of the CCA’s constituent councils.(5) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(b) so as to ensure that all the members of an overview and scrutiny committee are entitled to be paid allowances in respect of activities of the descriptions specified in regulations under this paragraph.(6) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(c) so as to ensure that the chair of an overview and scrutiny committee is—(a) an independent person (as defined by the regulations), or(b) an appropriate person who is a member of one of the CCA’s constituent councils.(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(b) “appropriate person” means a person who is not a member of a registered political party of which the mayor is a member.(8) In sub-paragraph (2)(d) the reference to a “scrutiny officer” of an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to a person appointed with the function of—(a) promoting the role of the committee, and(b) providing support and guidance—(i) to the committee and its members, and(ii) to members of the CCA (so far as relating to the functions of the committee).(9) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(d) so as to ensure that an overview and scrutiny committee has at least two scrutiny officers. (10) Provision under sub-paragraph (2)(g) may include provision for descriptions of confidential or exempt information to be excluded from the publication of reports, recommendations or responses.(11) In this paragraph “registered political party” means a party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.(12) In this paragraph references to an overview and scrutiny committee include references to any sub-committee of such a committee.Style by which committees to be known
5 (1) The overview and scrutiny committees are to have—(a) the style “local scrutiny committee”, or(b) any other style that is specified in regulations under paragraph 4(1).(2) The specified style may (in particular) be—(a) a variant of “local scrutiny committee”, or(b) “overview and scrutiny committee” or a variant of it.(3) The power under section 252(1) to make different provision for different purposes includes power to specify different styles under this paragraph in relation to overview and scrutiny committees of different descriptions of CCAs.Petitions
6 (1) A CCA must make arrangements (“petition arrangements”) in relation to its overview and scrutiny committee, or each such committee, under which—(a) a local elector is able to start a petition calling upon the committee to exercise its functions in relation to a matter of local interest that is specified in the petition, and(b) other local electors are able to indicate their support for the petition within a period specified in the petition arrangements.(2) Petition arrangements must secure that—(a) a local elector is able to start any petition by electronic means or non-electronic means, and(b) other local electors are able to indicate support for any petition by electronic means or non-electronic means.(3) An overview and scrutiny committee must reject a petition in any of the following cases—(a) the petition is explicitly seeking new or increased expenditure of the CCA;(b) the specified matter is not a matter of local interest;(c) the committee could not exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter without prejudicing civil proceedings or criminal proceedings which have been brought or which, in the view of the committee, are likely to be brought reasonably soon (whether in England and Wales or elsewhere);(d) the petition is offensive, abusive or vexatious.(4) In a case where the number of local electors who are petitioners is at least 0.1% of the total number of local electors, an overview and scrutiny committee must decide whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the matter of concern to which the petition relates.(5) In any other case, an overview and scrutiny committee may decide whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which the petition relates. (6) In deciding whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which a petition relates, an overview and scrutiny committee must (in particular) take into account the effective use of the committee’s time and resources.(7) Within the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which an overview and scrutiny committee makes a relevant decision about a petition, the committee must—(a) publish written notice of the following matters—(i) the relevant decision;(ii) the reasons for making the relevant decision;(iii) how the committee proposes to exercise its functions (in the case of a relevant decision to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which the petition relates); and(b) give written notice of those matters to the person who started the petition.(8) Regulations under paragraph 4(1) may make provision about petition arrangements and petitions, including—(a) provision about grounds on which an overview and scrutiny committee must or may make a relevant decision about a petition;(b) provision about matters which must or may be taken into account in making a relevant decision about a petition;(c) provision for an overview and scrutiny committee to be able to combine petitions relating to similar specified matters;(d) provision about verifying whether persons are local electors;(e) provision about whether the number of local electors who are petitioners is at least 0.1% of the total number of local electors;(9) In this paragraph—“local elector” , in relation to a petition, means a person who would be entitled to vote as an elector at an election for the return of a mayor for the area of the CCA concerned;“petitioner” means a local elector who has—(a) started a petition, or(b) indicated support for a petition,in accordance with the petition arrangements;“relevant decision about a petition” means—(a) a decision by an overview and scrutiny committee to reject a petition, or(b) a decision by an overview and scrutiny committee whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which a petition relates;“specified matter” means the matter that is specified in a petition in accordance with the petition arrangements.Financial penalties for failure to attend committee meetings, answer questions or provide information etc
7 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, give overview and scrutiny committees the power to impose a civil penalty on—(a) a person who fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting;(b) a person who fails to answer a question put at an overview and scrutiny committee meeting;(c) a person who fails to provide an overview and scrutiny committee with information or a document;(d) a person who misleads an overview and scrutiny committee. (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required the person to attend the meeting,(b) the person does not attend the meeting, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting.(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to answer a question put at an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required the person to attend the meeting,(b) the question is properly put to the person at the meeting,(c) the person does not answer the question, and(d) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not answering the question.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to provide an overview and scrutiny committee meeting with information or a document if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(7)(a), required the person to provide the information or document,(b) the person does not provide the information or document, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not providing the information or document.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person misleads an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(7)(a), required the person to provide information or a document, and(b) the person intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys the information or document.(6) Regulations under this paragraph—(a) must provide for the amount or maximum amount of a civil penalty — and such an amount or maximum must not exceed £5,000;(b) may provide for the power to impose a civil penalty to be exercisable only in relation to persons of a description specified in the regulations; and such a description of person may (in particular) consist of all or any of the following—(i) mayors for the areas of CCAs;(ii) deputy mayors appointed by such mayors;(iii) commissioners appointed by such mayors;(c) must make provision for appeals against the imposition of civil penalties (which may include provision enabling a civil penalty to be confirmed, withdrawn or varied in its amount on an appeal).(7) In order to take account of changes in the value of money, the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for the sum for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (6)(a).Termination of office for failure to attend committee meetings
8 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who holds one of the following offices in relation to a CCA (the “relevant CCA”)—(a) mayor for the area of the relevant CCA;(b) deputy mayor appointed by such a mayor;(c) commissioner appointed by such a mayor. (2) The person ceases to hold the office if—(a) the person fails to attend six overview and scrutiny committee meetings (the “six missed meetings”), and(b) there is the required link between the six missed meetings.(3) The person who holds the office fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee is a committee of the relevant CCA,(b) the meeting is a compulsory meeting for the person as holder of that office,(c) the person does not attend the meeting, and(d) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting.(4) There is the required link between the six missed meetings if—(a) the six missed meetings are consecutive overview and scrutiny committee meetings that are compulsory meetings for the person as holder of the office, or(b) the period between the first and last of those six missed meetings is 12 months or shorter.(5) In determining whether there is the required link by virtue of sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b)—(a) it does not matter if the six missed meetings are meetings of the same committee, or different committees, of the CCA;(b) it does not matter if there are any meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee that—(i) fall between the first and last of the six missed meetings, and(ii) are not compulsory meetings for the person as holder of the office.(6) If a person ceases to hold office by virtue of this section—(a) the CCA’s monitoring officer (within the meaning of section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) must—(i) publish notice that the person has ceased to hold office in such manner as the monitoring officer thinks appropriate, and(ii) give a copy of the notice to the person who has ceased to hold office;(b) the person ceases to hold office at the end of the day of the last of the six missed meetings.(7) If a notice given under paragraph 3(11) of a person’s non-attendance at a meeting of an overview and scrutiny committee relates to the last of the six missed meetings that result in the person’s loss of office by virtue of this paragraph, the notice must include a statement of that fact.(8) If a person ceases to hold an office by virtue of this section, that loss of office does not prevent that person from subsequently—(a) taking that office again, or(b) taking any other office referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(9) An overview and scrutiny committee meeting is a “compulsory meeting” for a person if the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required that person to attend the meeting.(10) This paragraph applies to a commissioner whether appointed—(a) under a worker’s contract,(b) under a contract other than a worker’s contract, or(c) otherwise than under a contract; and references to the office of commissioner (including holding office) are to be read accordingly in the case of a commissioner appointed under a contract.Audit committees
9 (1) A CCA must arrange for the appointment by the CCA of an audit committee.(2) The functions of the audit committee are to include—(a) reviewing and scrutinising the CCA’s financial affairs,(b) reviewing and assessing the CCA’s risk management, internal control and corporate governance arrangements,(c) reviewing and assessing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources have been used in discharging the CCA’s functions, and(d) making reports and recommendations to the CCA in relation to reviews conducted under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—(a) the membership of a CCA’s audit committee;(b) the appointment of the members;(c) the payment of allowances to members of the committee who are members of a constituent council.(4) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (3) so as to ensure that at least one member of an audit committee is an independent person (as defined by the regulations).Interpretation
10 In this Schedule—“commissioner” means a commissioner appointed under section 29A;“key person” , in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA, means—(a) the mayor for the area of the CCA;(b) the deputy mayor for that area;(c) a commissioner appointed by the mayor for that area;(d) the officers of the CCA;(e) a member of the CCA who has responsibilities in relation to a particular area of policy;(f) a person of any other description that is specified in regulations;“matter of local interest” , in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA, means a matter which both—(a) relates to the area of the CCA, and(b) relates—(i) to functions that are the responsibility of the CCA (whether exercisable by the CCA or the mayor), or(ii) otherwise to any aspect of any area of competence set out in section 2 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;but it does not include any matters which relate to the functions of police and crime commissioners;“value for money” means the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the expenditure of the CCA.”Part 2Amendments consequential on Part 1 of this ScheduleIntroduction
3 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Section 15: overview and scrutiny committees
4 (1) Section 15 is amended in accordance with this paragraph. (2) In subsection (1), after“CCAs”insert“that are not established mayoral strategic authorities”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Schedule 1A makes provision for CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities to have overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees.”(4) In subsection (2), for “that Schedule” substitute “those Schedules”.(5) After subsection (2) insert—“(3) In this section and Schedules 1 and 1A “established mayoral strategic authority” has the same meaning as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (see section 1(6)(b) of that Act).”Section 29: deputy mayors
5 In section 29(3)—(a) in paragraph (b), omit “or”;(b) in paragraph (c), at the end insert“, or(d) the person ceases to be deputy mayor by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A.”Schedule 1: overview and scrutiny committees
6 (1) Schedule 1 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, after “Authorities” insert “except EMSAs”.(3) Before paragraph 1 (and the italic heading preceding it) insert—“Application of this Schedule
A1 (1) This Schedule applies to a CCA if it is not an established mayoral strategic authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following provisions of this Schedule—(a) “CCA” means a CCA that is not an established mayoral strategic authority;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a CCA that is not an established mayoral strategic authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities, see Schedule 1A.”(4) After paragraph 3 insert—“Style by which committees to be known
3A (1) Regulations under paragraph 3(1) may (in particular) specify the style which the overview and scrutiny committees of CCAs are to have.(2) The specified style may (in particular) be a variant of “overview and scrutiny committee”.(3) The power under section 252(1) to make different provision for different purposes includes power to specify different styles under this paragraph in relation to different descriptions of CCAs.”Schedule 2: election of Mayors of CCAs etc
7 In Schedule 2, after paragraph 11 insert—“Failure to attend meetings of overview and scrutiny committee: loss of office
11A Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A makes provision for a person’s term of office as mayor to end because of repeated failure to attend meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee.” Schedule 2A: commissioners
8 In Schedule 2A (inserted by Schedule 3 to this Act), in paragraph 9—(a) in paragraph (d), omit “or”;(b) after paragraph (d) insert“, or(da) the person ceases to be a commissioner by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A, or”Part 3Extension of new scrutiny regime to all mayoral CCAsIntroduction
9 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Amendment of section 15
10 (1) Section 15 (as amended by paragraph 4 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for“CCAs that are not established mayoral strategic authorities”substitute“non-mayoral CCAs”.(3) In subsection (1A), for“CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities”substitute“mayoral CCAs”.(4) Omit subsection (3).Exclusion of all mayoral CCAs from scrutiny regime in Schedule 1 LURA 2023
11 (1) Schedule 1 (as amended by paragraph 6 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, for “Combined County Authorities except EMSAs” substitute “Non-mayoral Combined County Authorities”.(3) For paragraph A1 substitute—A1 “(1) This Schedule applies to a non-mayoral CCA.(2) Accordingly, in this Schedule “CCA” means only a non-mayoral CCA.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of mayoral CCAs, see Schedule 1A.”(4) In paragraph 1 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees)—(a) omit sub-paragraph (3);(b) in sub-paragraph (4), omit “and (3)(a)”.(5) In paragraph 2 (overview and scrutiny committees: supplementary provision)—(a) in sub-paragraph (3), omit “(including, in the case of a mayoral CCA, the mayor for the CCA's area or deputy mayor)”;(b) in sub-paragraph (6)(a), omit “(including, in the case of a mayoral CCA, the mayor for the CCA's area and deputy mayor)”.(6) In paragraph 3 (power to make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees), for sub-paragraph (5) substitute—“(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) “appropriate person” means a person who is not a member of the registered political party which has the most representatives among the members of the constituent councils (or, if there is no such party because two or more parties have the same number of representatives, is not a member of any of those parties).” Inclusion of all mayoral CCAs in the new scrutiny regime
12 (1) Schedule 1A (as inserted by paragraph 2 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, for “CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities” substitute “Mayoral CCAs”.(3) For paragraph A1 substitute—A1 “(1) This Schedule applies to a mayoral CCA.(2) Accordingly, in the following provisions of this Schedule—(a) “CCA” means a mayoral CCA;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a mayoral CCA.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of non-mayoral CCAs, see Schedule 1.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, it seems to me that all the amendments in this group would amount to good practice; this is what should happen. I hope the Minister will confirm that the amendments are agreeable.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Amendments 69 to 74. While I recognise her commitment to accountability in local government, the Bill provides that combined and combined county authorities and independent remuneration panels must take account of any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for this clause.

That guidance will be issued in due course and will provide further details on the matters raised in these amendments. None the less, on the principles raised, I agree with the noble Baroness’s point about transparency. We will seek to be pragmatic, ensuring that we balance clear accountability and transparency against overburdening the authorities in their reporting arrangements. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 69.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have heard from the Minister that the functions may already exist to provide a degree of oversight. However, the question before us is not simply whether information is recorded; rather, it is whether that information is made very visible, accessible and consistently available to the public.

These amendments do not seek to impose unnecessary burdens. They set out a reasonable expectation that reporting should be regular, transparent and accessible; in short, that it should meet the standards that the public are entitled to expect. This is not about questioning the integrity of those involved. It is about ensuring that the systems within which they operate command public confidence, and that confidence rests on transparency.

I listened to the Minister. We will wait until the guidance comes out to ensure that it reflects what we think the public deserve. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

75: Clause 10, page 14, line 31, leave out “CCA” and insert “combined authority”
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about combined authorities, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “CCA” that appears here.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

76: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees(1) Schedule (Mayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) changes the system of overview and scrutiny committees for mayoral CCAs. (2) Schedule (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees) changes the system of overview and scrutiny committees for mayoral combined authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would introduce the new Schedules about overview and scrutiny committees of mayoral CCAs and combined authorities (which would be inserted after Schedule 3 by other amendments in my name).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on this matter, which I have raised on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House because I have never been clear about who will actually pick up an overspend when one exists. So this partly about the ability to repay debts incurred and partly about who is actually responsible. In other words, are council tax payers of the constituent authorities liable to help to repay debt?

My understanding is that the scrutiny function can now stop this happening in the first place. In other words, one of my concerns about the failure of the scrutiny system has been that it would not be certain that a scrutiny committee would prevent bad financial investment decisions. But what the Government have done by introducing further amendments makes it possible for the overview and scrutiny function to work effectively in that respect.

So I hope the Minister will clarify those matters. I am worried about who is liable for debt and about who is able to authorise substantial expenditure without certainty that a debt can be repaid. But, in the end, will the scrutiny function the Government have now introduced actually prevent the problems the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has identified?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for this amendment, requiring the Secretary of State to report on strategic authorities’ exercise of powers to borrow money. I recognise that this is a well-intentioned and well-reasoned amendment, but I do not believe the provision is necessary. Like the rest of local government, combined authorities and combined county authorities must operate within the prudential framework. This comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. The framework already provides robust oversight and accountability. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that pre-scrutiny of key decisions by local accounts committees will also help.

In addition, this amendment contradicts the Bill’s aim of furthering devolution and increasing financial autonomy for these authorities, because it would shift reporting requirements up to central government. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is burdensome and duplicative, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I just have a quick question before I make my closing speech. Local authorities are required to have a Section 151 officer. Will the strategic authority be required to have one?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not want to give a definitive answer to that from the Dispatch Box, but I think the answer is yes—it would certainly be in accordance with local government accounting procedures and practice for anybody involved in spending local government finance to have the professional assistance of a Section 151 officer. I will reply in further detail to the noble Lord.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response on this matter and her continued engagement since Committee. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his comments.

We will not push this further beyond reminding the House that this is an aspect of local government finance that deserves continued scrutiny and oversight to ensure that authorities can repay the debts incurred through their powers to borrow. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions on this first day on Report and thank the Minister for her responses. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026.

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

The most exciting ones always come at the end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

At a time when we see unemployment increasing and growth flatlining, it is concerning that the Government’s approach appears to shift that balance decisively towards redistribution and against growth. The risk is that, in doing so, they weaken those very incentives that drive local economic activity and, hence, the Government’s objective of growth. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that this balance has been properly thought through and give assurance to councils across the country that want to do the right thing that they will be rewarded for doing so. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all those comments. It is absolutely important to get the balance right between incentivising growth and ensuring that areas needing it benefit.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I took the decision to go into a pooling arrangement. I will cite my area as an example of the difficulty. These are figures from a few years back, because I am not involved with it now, clearly. Our collection of business rates was around £44 million, and we got about £2 million back. We need to make sure that we continue to incentivise the growth we want to see. I will cover in a bit more detail some of the points that noble Lords raised.

On the impact assessment that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, the changes made by the instrument will put in place reforms delivered via the local government finance settlement. More information on the impacts of the charges is included as part of that settlement. The instrument will put in place the technical figures and formulas relating to that. I add that because these are technical regulation amendments, policy officials in the department have undertaken extensive engagement to prepare for their implementation, including consultations and targeted technical engagement with sector representatives and specialists, to make sure the proposed amendments achieve the correct policy intent. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s points on impact assessment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his welcome for multi-year settlements. He and I both argued long and hard for that over the years, and I am very pleased that we have been able to deliver that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about local authorities being affected by the Government changing how they are compensated for business rates relief. Now that we are compensating for reliefs via Section 31 grants, based on data collected from the authorities themselves, they will receive pound-for-pound reimbursement. They will be compensated by the usual annual data collection process, based on their returns, and this mirrors the way compensation for reliefs via Section 31 grants currently operates. Previously, authorities were funded for most reliefs through a reduction to their tariff or an increase in their top-up. Given that these amounts remained fixed in real terms over time, they were expected to absorb some of the costs associated with certain reliefs. We think that this will actually be of benefit to local authorities.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised questions about the pooling method used. Transitional arrangements are in place to take local authorities, including those in pools, from current arrangements to their new arrangements, and this includes a measurement of the income they started from, including any income from pooling. Following consultation, we are making a change to better reflect income from business rates pooling, which is included in local authority transitional funding baselines.

The Government’s objective across this process has always been to make the best possible estimate of current local authority income. The revised method will still ensure that pooling gains are allocated across the locally pooled area. Within each pool, 50% of levy savings will be allocated between tariff authorities and 50% will be allocated between top-up authorities. The complexity and variety of pooling arrangements, which the Government are not directly involved in, mean that a central assumption is used to estimate pooling gains for this specific purpose. To help councils adjust for the change, the Government will provide a one-off adjustment support grant in 2026-27 to authorities that would otherwise see their core spending power reduce in 2026-27. The pooling assumptions for 2027-28 and 2028-29 will be subject to consultation at the next settlement. I have already started talking to local authorities about this.

I think all Peers who have spoken referred to the potential for growth disincentive. The business rates retention system was designed to be reset periodically to update the way it redistributes locally retained business rates between local authorities, which is a core aspect of the system. The reset will move business rates income, which is retained locally by local authorities, to where it is needed most, based on an updated assessment of need. Recalculating available business rates alongside a new assessment of funding need will ensure that business rates income is reallocated to meet changes in relative need, restoring the business rates retention system to its intended purpose of providing a responsive funding stream for local government while also rewarding authorities for business rates growth. Business rates growth can be realised. A proportionate levy will be applied to growth to ensure that income protections can be offered to local authorities. Of course, business rates growth generated within designated areas such as freeports, enterprise zones and investment zones will be exempt, in line with the current policy.

In setting levy rates, the Government are balancing the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections. This will always be a balance. I think all noble Lords agreed that the reset was necessary. The approach we are taking will better support growth across the sector, with a lower percentage levy charge for early business rates growth in comparison with the current scheme, and the highest margin at a lower rate than the current 50% levy that many authorities are currently subject to.

To conclude, the technical amendments made by this instrument are necessary to ensure that the business rates retention system operates as intended for the coming year. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting it.

Motion agreed.