New Housing: Flood Risk

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to mitigate the risks arising from new housing being built in areas of medium or high flood risk.

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

My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that inappropriate development in flood risk areas should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. If necessary in such areas, development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The framework also requires any development which could have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are consulting on a clearer, more rules-based framework, including a dedicated chapter on flood risk.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The framework may suggest that, but reliable figures from the insurer Aviva reveal a trend of more and more new homes being built in medium and high flood risk areas, up from 8% 10 years ago to 11% last year, and potentially rising to 15% of new homes by 2050. In addition, of course, the Flood Re insurance scheme does not apply to houses built after 2009 and is due to end in 2039. Will the Government publish their own figures on this worrying trend, and what will they do to ensure progress towards reducing housing construction in flood risk areas?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications comply with Environment Agency advice, so we are making progress with this. I accept his point that it is very important, as we continue to work towards our target of 1.5 million new homes in this country—desperately needed because of the housing crisis—that we continue to push forward with the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines that homes should not be built in flood risk areas. The sequential test still applies to new-build homes and the planning applications for them, as does securing high-quality sustainable drainage systems to support flood risk management. It is impossible to push forward with this without sometimes using areas that might be at risk of flooding. The important thing is that the mitigation is put in place properly when that happens.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, given that flood risk and housing demand are only going to increase, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to allow flooding and housing to coexist? Are they considering the urban planning model of sponge cities, using nature-based solutions such as permeable pavements, planted roofs and urban wetlands to absorb, store, purify and reuse rainwater to mitigate both flooding and drought?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I had heard about that very interesting concept. We need to make sure that all steps to mitigate flood risk are taken, even in areas that are not subject to traditional flood risk. The increase of surface floodwater is an issue and we need to make sure that, where possible, permeable surfaces are laid down. It is very helpful that both the building guidelines and the National Planning Policy Framework direct as much attention as possible to make sure that applications mitigate the flood risk when they come forward and that buildings are built with that mitigation built in.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s White Paper A New Vision for Water gives a case study on page 40 of how a housing development was stalled on a habitat site with protected species. The Government’s water delivery taskforce was able to unblock it, resulting in 4,000 houses being built. Unblocking challenges could result in additional flooding, endanger protected species and ultimately result in new home owners being refused access to Flood Re, which has only 15 years left to run. How will the Minister ensure that this does not happen?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question that we cannot protect the biodiversity arrangements at the same time as dealing with flood risk. Defra established the water delivery taskforce to make sure that water companies delivered on their planned investments to provide water and wastewater capacity. The Government have worked hard to secure £104 billion of private sector investment into this and, in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, we will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the whole system. That will make it fit for decades, leading to clean rivers, stronger regulations and greater investment. We are focusing on both the provision of good water supplies as we build the homes that we need and protecting biodiversity. These things go hand in hand; they are not mutually exclusive.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I do not want to get into the water reform Bill too much—it is a terrible Bill and the Government ought to withdraw it—but on this issue of flood risk, the fact is that houses are still being built on places that risk flooding. Some of the solutions are much wider than just putting a few ditches around the housing project. We must think very big when considering floods, because we have to look uphill and downhill. At the moment, I feel that some of the measures are very limited in scope. Do the Government agree?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not agree with the noble Baroness. Some amazing work has been done by the development industry to tackle and mitigate the risk of flooding. I have been to visit sites with very attractive-looking sustainable drainage systems; they not only deal with the issue of surface water and floodwater but provide fantastic environmental features for those estates. That encourages people to get involved and—to speak to the previous questioner’s point—encourages biodiversity, as well as tackling the flooding issues. Developers are doing that. We need to make sure that we share the work of those providing the best practice in this area and that everybody is working to enhance that best practice.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time is right for a review of the Flood Re programme? As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it does not apply to buildings which were built after 1 January 2009; it also does not apply to blocks of flats that have more than three dwelling units within them or to buildings that have any elements of small or micro-commercial businesses within them. These are all things for which it would be very helpful to have the availability of the Flood Re insurance, which is a very good programme. Is it time now for this to be looked at very hard?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We know that Flood Re has provided cover for 346,000 household policies and 650,000 properties have benefited since the scheme’s launch, so I agree with the noble Earl that it has been a very valuable scheme. We know that all homes built since 2009 are excluded from Flood Re, as that would be inconsistent with current policy. With the planning policy, we are trying to make it clear that inappropriate development in flood plains should be avoided and, where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it should be made flood resistant, resilient and safe for the lifetime of the development.

Build Back Better is the UK home insurance sector initiative, which I am sure the noble Earl is aware of, and is designed to help home owners recover from flooding in a smarter way. It enables eligible policyholders to access £10,000 to install flood measures during repairs over and above the usual cost. We are looking at supporting those who have been at risk of flooding and, through the National Planning Policy Framework, making sure that we absolutely reduce that risk to a minimum.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, flood risk management is a complex issue that requires co-operation and collaboration between developers, local authorities, insurers and home owners. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that institutional knowledge and specialist risk management expertise is not lost during local government reorganisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that my colleagues in local government, who address these issues every day through the planning system, as the noble Lord will be well aware, are more than alert to this issue. When the new authorities are set up, they will have more resilience in their planning functions because there will be fewer of them and they will be able to focus on planning issues using the capacity funding that the Government have put into planning. As importantly, there will be a strategic level enabling planning across a combined authority area, which will make sure that issues of flood risk are taken into account right from the strategic level to the local plan. We are developing our new National Planning Policy Framework and making sure that it supports local authorities to do just that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the sequential test. She will be aware that that was overturned recently in the case of Gladman in the High Court. Will her department respond to that case and ensure that the sequential test is met in every case?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That High Court judgment has been raised in recent debates on the English devolution Bill. I cannot comment on specific cases, but the case does not disapply the strong protections in the National Planning Policy Framework relating to development in areas of potential flood risk. The sequential test is a procedural step to assess relative degrees of risk and is used to steer development to areas of lower risk where possible. However, where development is necessary in such areas, the framework is clear that it should proceed only if made safe for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, which is the other danger. I reassure the noble Baroness that the sequential test remains firmly in place as part of the planning process.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments on the Statement. Your Lordships have now heard in full the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place, and the House has raised a number of thoughtful and serious points about process, legality and democratic principle, which I appreciate.

I wish now to draw together the key arguments and restate clearly why the Government acted as we did, in answer to the questions that I have been asked, and why we have now changed course. First, as noble Lords will know, this sits in a much wider programme of reform. The Government are determined to fix local government through a fairer funding settlement based on need, through devolving power out of Whitehall and into the hands of local leaders and through reorganisation designed to deliver stronger, more sustainable unitary authorities and better services for residents.

It was in that context that the original decision was taken, and the Government were guided by two clear principles. First, the postponement of elections should occur only in exceptional circumstances. I repeated a number of times in this House that it would be only in exceptional circumstances and only where there is compelling evidence-based justification. Secondly, as a Government committed to devolution, we should be guided by local leaders themselves. Following extensive engagement with councils in the areas concerned, a number from across the political spectrum expressed serious anxiety about their capacity to run elections while simultaneously undertaking structural change. They warned of duplication, uncertainty, additional cost and the risk of impeding the reorganisation process at a critical phase.

On the basis of those representations and on the legal advice then available, the Secretary of State concluded that statutory tests were met in 30 cases. An order was therefore brought forward using powers provided by Parliament that had been exercised by previous Governments in comparable reorganisation contexts. However, as is entirely proper, the legal position was kept under review and further legal advice was subsequently received. At that point, the responsible course was clear and the proposal was withdrawn.

After reconsideration, the conclusion was that elections in the affected areas should proceed as scheduled in May 2026. A further instrument has been laid to give effect to that decision. I recognise, as the noble Lords have said, and as our friends in the other place said, that this has been a significant change for councils, and it will of course mean some additional pressures for them in making sure they are ready for elections. That is precisely why the Government acted swiftly once the new advice was received so that clarity could be provided as early as possible. We are working very closely with returning officers, suppliers, the Electoral Commission and sector bodies to ensure that elections are delivered safely and effectively.

Local authorities have a strong track record of administering polls within compressed timeframes—as I know only too well from my experience—including snap general elections and by-elections, and we are confident in their ability to do so again. At the same time, our focus remains firmly on supporting reorganisation itself. Last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in additional capacity funding—to answer the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—building on the £7.6 million previously provided to develop proposals. That is substantial support, and no previous Government have provided dedicated capacity funding for reorganisation on this scale. This funding is there to help councils manage both the transition and service delivery sustainably. We will continue working hand in hand with councils across the 21 reorganisation areas to progress toward unitarisation. As has been made clear, subject to Parliament, for Surrey there will be elections to the new unitary councils as planned this year.

Noble Lords also raised the question of ministerial powers over the timing of local elections, and both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked me a specific question about the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. As the Secretary of State set out in his Statement, our Bill provides an opportunity to look again at the statutory framework, and the Government are reflecting seriously on the amendments tabled and the concerns expressed by noble Lords. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, we will do that as quickly as possible. Reforming local government is not optional. Councils are the front line of the state; they shape whether communities feel they are thriving or falling behind. The public are entitled to expect better local services, and rightly so.

When we received the legal advice, the Government acted swiftly. I do not pretend that this has been easy for the councils concerned—I spoke to many of them—and nor do I dismiss the disappointment that has been expressed, but responsible government requires that when the legal position changes, we respond accordingly. Elections will go ahead in May 2026. Reorganisation will continue, and we will proceed in a way that upholds both democratic accountability and the long-term sustainability of local government. I hope I have picked up the noble Lord’s questions as I have gone through.

On the election pilots, as far as I know, only one council has pulled out of the pilot, but for a reason that has nothing to do with reorganisation and is a specific local issue. If that is not correct, I will respond to the noble Baroness in writing.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about last May’s election, there are legal powers to cancel elections. Each situation is taken on its merit. I do not have any detail, and I could not give legal detail because this year’s is privileged information, so I do not know what the difference is.

On prejudging the outcome in a Times article, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, that the Secretary of State, other Ministers and I received many representations from councils about the possibility of cancelling elections, so it may be that the Secretary of State was reflecting on that rather than prejudging the extensive consultation that we carried out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the powers. They come out of Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. In its present form, those powers have existed for more than 25 years. Custom and practice and advice have been consistent throughout, so what was this new legal advice to suggest that this blanket postponement, and particularly the double postponement, would have been possible? Why did the Secretary of State not pay some attention to the Electoral Commission and question this advice? It has taken a junior Minister only a little bit of time to look at the advice and come to the conclusion that most people in that office would have come to, which is that this was not right. Am I being unfair to the Government in agreeing with Jonathan Carr-West, the chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, when he said that the Government are

“reckless … to play fast and loose with the foundations of democracy”?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have the greatest respect for Jonathan Carr-West and have worked with him on many occasions, but he has not seen the legal advice. It is a long-standing principle, as the right honourable Gentleman James Cleverly said at the other end—I could quote him if I had the quote in front of me—that the Government do not comment on or publish legal advice.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the concerns expressed to me by colleagues in local government has been about the cost of preparing submissions and scoping work for local government reorganisation. My noble friend talked about the £63 million of additional funding that will go to local government to support it going forward. Can she give reassurance to those in local government that the £63 million will meet the costs that they are going to incur? As I say, some of the concerns expressed to me have been that previous government tranches of money have not met all the costs incurred.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can reassure my noble friend that an unprecedented amount of funding has been provided to support the capacity that local councils will need to help them as they go through this transition process. It is important that we have also been working closely with those councils. I have done much of the engagement myself, and Minister McGovern has done an awful lot of engagement with councils as well. Our officials in the department have been hugely supportive to local government as they have gone through this process, so it is right that we provide some funding to support that as well. The £63 million is to undertake that reorganisation to support the implementation, and it will include those councils that have been impacted by the changes that were made on Monday.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to add to the embarrassment that the Government must be feeling about the U-turn on the election cancellations, but I am grateful that the Secretary of State is going to look at some of the amendments, including those in my name, that would extend the cancellation to PCCs and mayors. Now is the time to look at what the cost of LGR may be, not only to the individual but in terms of council tax. Those who said LGR would save money now say it will not. We know that there will be about a billion pounds-worth of pension strain costs from those retiring on efficiency grounds. We know, from arithmetic, that nobody will pay less council tax as a result of this, but 50% will pay more, and there will be more layers of local governance, each able to raise council tax without limit. What assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of all this? When will the Minister honestly explain to the electorate that LGR is going to cost them more? They have been kept in the dark, but at least they will have an opportunity to express their views at the ballot box in May.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is a shame that the noble Lord has not had a chance to look at the proposals as I have. They set out very clearly the anticipated savings. More importantly, they provide a much more cohesive form of local government for those who will be on the receiving end of these services. Taking out layers of chief executive and finance director salaries all helps to push money back to the front line, where it is needed to deal with much-needed services such as filling in potholes, looking after vulnerable adults and children, and making sure that our environment is taken care of. All the things that local councils do so well will be done more effectively and the public will understand where to go to, instead of having two councils responsible for their area.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of MHCLG. Can my noble friend the Minister remind the House of the original purpose of local government reorganisation? It is surely not just for the sake of it but for a wider purpose. Does she think it is a coincidence that, with the exception of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, all other areas of England that have pioneered regional devolution arrangements have been in areas with only one tier of local government? Does she agree that two-tier areas can struggle to align strategic combined authority-wide ambitions with fragmented delivery arrangements, and often lack the bandwidth and staffing capabilities to deliver ambitious combined authority-wide programmes at pace and at scale? Furthermore, does she share my concern that a failure to address the inefficiencies of the two-tier system in this context creates unnecessary complexity and delays in delivering this Government’s ambitious devolution agenda?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend—of course I do—that driving forward the strategic ambitions of our country and our Government, to ensure not only that we see the economy grow in the way we all want and get the housebuilding that we need to deal with the housing crisis but that the key public services that are so needed by vulnerable adults and children are taken forward efficiently and effectively, required us not just to tinker at the edges but to do the most radical reorganisation of local government for at least half a century, which is what we are doing. This has been kicked into the long grass nearly all the time that I have been in local government. I think there have been some four attempts to do this and they always stopped short of doing what is needed, which is to create local government that will drive the economy of our local areas and support the public services that people deserve.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, Conservative county councillors in Norfolk have no fear of democracy, and in fact are very much looking forward to these elections in 74 days’ time. It is worth pointing out that the elections will be conducted by the district and borough councils. Certainly, the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk is incredibly professional and competent at handling those elections; it will take this in its stride and deliver a professional service.

The Minister did not reply to the point put forward by my noble friend a moment ago. This legal case cost a lot of money. She said herself that front-line services are under a lot of pressure. It was egregious that this case ever took place. Can she tell the House what those legal costs were?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for recognising the way in which local government responds to things such as this—and I know that colleagues in electoral services and on the political side of local government will do what they need to do and be ready for these elections. As I said, they are more than used to responding to very short-notice elections, including snap general elections; they work very well in those circumstances. In my experience, councils’ electoral services departments are extraordinarily efficient and effective, so I welcome his comments in that regard.

The costs are now being assessed, although I cannot give the noble Lord a figure at the moment. I am afraid that that will have to wait.

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association. As my noble friend will know, councils of all colours have worked together with communities to put forward proposals, knowing the opportunities and benefits that local government reorganisation will bring. Whatever the outcome of the elections in May, can my noble friend the Minister provide reassurance to those councils and communities on the timeline of the local government reorganisation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is no dimming of the Government’s ambition around devolution and local government reorganisation. We are pushing on with the agenda. I thank my noble friend for recognising how well councils have worked together. I have been in meetings with many groups of councils, and they have said to me that this has got people talking together. They may have had a falling out 20 years ago and they could not even remember what it was about, but having to sit around the table and work on these proposals has been a really positive experience right across local government. I welcome that and think that it bodes well for the future. Certainly, the Government’s intention is to carry on with both the local government reorganisation and the devolution process.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said that she recognised the value of the electoral returning officers. I absolutely agree with that, but the fact is that they are always looking at the next set of elections, so the fact that they stood down some elections would have caused a difficulty. The Minister said that the Government got legal advice before they proceeded to cancel the elections. If they did, what changed in that legal advice to make the change to reinstate them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is usual practice continually to review legal advice. The legal advice came forward and, as I have said before, there is a long-standing convention not to reveal the content of or publish legal advice, so I cannot enlighten the noble Baroness any further on that. When the legal advice was received, the Government took a very prompt decision to withdraw the cancellation of the elections, because we knew how important it was for local authorities to deal with this promptly.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Would my noble friend agree that, although the proposal to cancel the elections has been dropped, the Opposition have no basis to complain about such proposals because they have done this themselves? I bear personal witness to this, as I was a member of the Greater London Council—I am always grateful for the opportunity to remind people of that. I was due to stand for re-election, and the elections were cancelled by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. So both parties do this, and on both occasions it was probably a reasonable thing to do, but to make the criticism is really a bit thick.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right. There is precedent for cancelling elections. We have seen it done because of reorganisation and for other reasons. However, we have the opportunity, during the process of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, to look at that, which we will continue to do.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, local government reform is essential and should have happened years ago. That is why I am delighted to hear the Minister say tonight that it is the Government’s intention to carry on with it. I hope that it is at the same speed that they have shown so far.

I am from Leicestershire. The settlement that was reached 50 years ago was monstrously unfair to a number of cities—my own, Leicester, but other cities too—which were not given special status and their boundaries were kept the same. It is almost impossible for those cities to provide the services that they are duty bound to provide on the present boundaries. I hope that it is still very much in the Government’s mind that some of those cities need their boundaries redrawn so that they are fair and do justice to their citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment specifically on any of the proposals that have come forward at this stage—I would get myself into very hot water indeed. However, we are looking closely at all the proposals. The priority programme has now completed its consultation, and Ministers are reviewing all the responses to it. The other proposals are out for consultation. No doubt we will receive some very robust feedback, as we have on the priority programme, but my noble friend is quite right. We have attempted partly to respond to the issues that he raises in the fair funding formula. We have completely changed the funding system for local government. Those areas that were least able to raise the revenue they needed to provide good services to their citizens were also penalised through the funding system. We have changed that, to be much more closely linked to the indices of multiple deprivation. I do not know whether he has had a chance to talk to Leicester City Council yet, but I hope that this has provided some additional revenue to enable all councils to deliver their services properly.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

The current Secretary of State was held in quite high regard across the whole of the sector before we started this. Let us not allow him to take the blame for this. It was not the department’s idea to cancel the elections but No. 10’s—and it was No. 10’s decision to reinstate the elections. Can I tempt the Minister to agree with me that perhaps the blame for this should lie with somebody sitting in No. 10 rather than with MHCLG?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I simply say in response that I hold the Secretary of State in the highest regard. I have known him for decades. We were deputy leaders together when the noble Lord was the chairman of the LGA and were deputy leaders of the Labour group at the same time. He is determined to carry on with this devolution programme and with local government reorganisation and has a passion for local government. I am delighted that he is now our Secretary of State in the department. I am sure that he will progress this with the passion that I know he feels for localising services and making sure that decisions are taken by people who have got skin in the game out there—like most of us I see around the Chamber who have been involved in local government. We want to make sure that the people who take the decisions are those closest to the communities they affect. I know that is the Secretary of State’s mission.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I am quite heartened that the questions from across your Lordships’ House have not descended into an attack on local authorities’ electoral registration officers and their ability to carry out these elections. Many of us in the House tonight have spent years working with those officials and have seen them turn around elections quickly, whether by-elections or snap general elections. The fact that that has not been called into question heartens me.

I want to take my noble friend the Minister back to the guiding principle that has got a bit lost but deserves to be pulled out, which is the devolution aspect of what His Majesty’s Government, through the Secretary of State and the ministerial teams, are looking to do. Can I tempt the Minister to talk a bit more about the principles of devolution and the move away from those centralised powers down to local levels and more local decisions affecting the daily lives of local communities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are strong guiding principles here that have been part of the core mission of this Government. Our belief is that, to drive the economic growth we want, decisions have to be taken at local level, where people understand the economies, the base of the workforce and skills, and the way that they can shape the economy in their local area.

With regard to the delivery of public services, back in 2015, I did a report with another member of my ministerial team and other people, including the leader of Manchester City Council and the then mayor of Hackney, which talked about making sure that we start tackling public services from the prevention point of view, which is much better done at local level than at national level, and that we deliver services properly. These key services—adult care, children’s services and, to some extent, community safety services—are delivered much better at local level. The result of all that is that we get economies and local services that are tailored to local need far more effectively and efficiently. That is our mission. That is what we want to do. Britain has been one of the most centralised countries in Europe for as long as I can remember, and it is time that we turned that around. That is the mission of this Government, and it will be good for the country and for the communities that we all serve.

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this QSD. As many Lords have said, it is timely indeed, as we are pleased to introduce the Representation of the People Bill today; I look forward to many further discussions as that Bill works its way through our House.

I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for opening the debate, and other noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend always brings an interesting approach to this subject. Although I do not quite share his conspiracy theory approach to matters, I would say, as a veteran of many elections, that the power of the vote is still as strong as ever. We all need to inspire confidence that the vote is mightier than the pound; I hope that we will all strive for that.

The speeches we have heard today illustrate a shared desire to protect our democracy from those who seek to disrupt it. We all know that this is a clear and present danger, which our Government are resolutely determined to tackle. The Government committed in their manifesto to strengthening the rules around donations to political parties, including enhanced safeguards against foreign donations. The threat of foreign interference is evolving and is becoming increasingly hostile and sophisticated, while the current rules are no longer sufficient to address these risks.

The Government take a zero-tolerance approach to foreign interference, and we cannot afford to wait. That is why the reforms set out today in the Representation of the People Bill put prevention first, reducing pressure on law enforcement, protecting parties from exploitation and delivering greater transparency and stronger safeguards against malign foreign actors. These reforms implement a number of recommendations made by stakeholders, including the Ethics and Integrity Commission, formerly the Committee on Standards in Public Life; the Electoral Commission; and the National Crime Agency.

I turn to the specific measures set out in the Bill. Current electoral law sets out who may donate and the basic checks that campaigners must make, but these rules no longer reflect modern anti-money laundering standards. So, we are strengthening the system by introducing new “know your donor” checks for donations over £11,180. I know that is a random amount: I did raise that. Recipients will now have to carry out a risk assessment, checking for signs of foreign or unlawful funding, before deciding whether to accept or return a donation.

Key stakeholders have warned that the current eligibility criteria for companies to donate are far too weak and expose political parties and other recipients to the risk of accepting foreign donations and proceeds of crime. This means that shell companies—companies that are registered today, owned by anyone and funded from anywhere, without a single day of trade—could donate to our political parties. That is why we are introducing new stringent eligibility criteria for companies wishing to make political donations. Companies will have to show sufficient revenue to cover their donation, be headquartered in the UK and be majority-owned or controlled by UK electors or citizens in order to be eligible to make a donation.

Stakeholders are also concerned that unincorporated associations could be used to funnel illegitimate foreign funding into our political system. Unincorporated associations can currently give large sums with limited transparency. This leaves clear vulnerability to foreign or illegitimate money, so we are tightening the rules. We are reducing the thresholds for when unincorporated associations must register with the Electoral Commission and for when unincorporated associations must report gifts to the Electoral Commission. We are also requiring unincorporated associations intending to make significant donations to check the permissibility of the political gifts they receive to ensure that they come from permitted UK sources. We are also reinforcing the principle that only permissible donors may fund UK politics.

Where illicit funds enter the system via impermissible donors, such as individuals not on the electoral register, they will be subject to full forfeiture, providing a clear deterrent and supporting compliance by political parties and campaigners. Beyond these measures, we will commence existing provisions in law, which will require anyone making contributions of more than £11,180 to declare any benefits linked to their donation. This will ensure that we can identify the true donor and prevent people acting as fronts for others. Forced declarations will be a criminal offence, supporting enforcement authorities to take action against illegal donations.

Robust regulation and enforcement of political finance rules are crucial for combating the threat of foreign interference. That is why we are addressing enforcement gaps by extending the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role and civil sanctioning powers. This will enable police resources to be directed towards the most serious criminal offences. We will also increase, via secondary legislation, the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine from £20,000 to £500,000 per offence, with safeguards to protect against disproportionate burdens on campaigners with fewer resources. This will create a more meaningful deterrent against serious breaches of the rules.

Finally, to ensure that we are leaving no stone unturned, we have launched an independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics, which will make recommendations to government by the end of March. The Rycroft review will focus on the effectiveness of the UK’s political finance laws, as well as the safeguards in place to protect our democracy from illicit money from abroad, including crypto assets. The Government will carefully consider all recommendations made in that report.

I want to respond to a few of the points made. If I do not get to them all, I will reply in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked about polls. Transparency requirements under electoral law exist for third-party campaign spending, including market research and canvassing. They are all in scope of the spending rules. The imprint rules also apply to those market research issues. On leadership elections, I am afraid they are a matter for political parties.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked about donations and registers of interest. Parliament sets the rules around registers of interest, so that is a matter of parliamentary rule-making. I thank my noble friend Lady Shah for her points about voting for 16 year-olds. She hit on a crucial point. Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds means that we must make sure that they have trust in the system, and we are increasing civic education to provide that background to their voting.

On the question from my noble friend Lord Watson, I am sure the Rycroft review will be looking at international models to make sure we learn from them.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, Irish citizens remain permissible donors in Northern Ireland, and political parties there can also accept donations from Irish sources, such as Irish companies, that meet the prescribed conditions. That is consistent with the Good Friday agreement.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, the issue about China is a Home Office question. I will revert to colleagues in the Home Office and get back to him on that one.

In reply to my noble friend Lord Sahota, there is no intention from the Government to cap donations at the moment. The new Bill is all about transparency, so I hope I have covered some of those issues.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, political parties and other campaigners will remain able to raise sufficient funds to communicate their views to the electorate, while protecting our democracy against those who seek to covertly undermine it. We do not consider tax relief on political donations to be part of the solution, I am afraid.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I think I covered overseas interference in my speech. Overseas electors are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identity confirmed as part of the registration process.

I hope that I covered most of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in my speech. I will check Hansard, though, and respond further if I missed anything.

In closing, I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for raising such an important debate and Members across the Committee for some very key contributions. I am sure we will have more of those as the Bill makes its way through the House.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until at least 2 pm, in the hope that we can get the clocks fixed.

Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Orders laid before the House on 18 December 2025 be approved.

Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.

Motions agreed.

Renters’ Rights Act: Implementation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure landlords, tenants and local authorities are prepared for each phase of the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, including funding allocated; and what plans they have for communicating changes ahead of the tenancy reforms this spring.

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

My Lords, we have given the sector a clear timeline for reform in our implementation road map. Ahead of phase 1 of implementation in May, we have already published guidance for landlords and local councils, and launched our communications campaign using social and main- stream media and partners to raise awareness. We have also allocated £18.2 million in new burdens funding to local councils in 2025-26, alongside funding for the justice system and Shelter’s expert housing advice line.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her response. Unfortunately, landlords are voting with their feet, exiting the market in ever higher numbers: 93,000 in 2025 and a forecast 110,000 this year, according to the Black & White Bridging report. The English Private Landlord Survey reports that 31% of landlords are looking to reduce their portfolio and 16% to exit completely. Can the Minister explain how this helps those desperately looking for a home to rent?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We know that landlords need time ahead of the implementation to make sure they are compliant with the reforms, and that is why we have published a full package of landlord guidance on GOV.UK to support the first phase of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May this year, including a draft written statement of terms so landlords know what information must be included in new tenancy agreements.

We continue to work constructively with the landlord sector. Officials recently spoke to over 1,000 landlords and letting agents at a webinar organised by Rightmove and attended the National Residential Landlords Association conference to speak directly to landlords impacted by the reforms.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, the Master of the Rolls, who oversees the efficiency of our civil justice system, recently said that the Act creates an incentive for tenants to appeal every increase in rent to the First-tier Tribunal because, even if the appeal fails, the increase in rent will not be backdated. Ministers have said that they will intervene if the tribunal becomes “overwhelmed”, but, in response to a Written Question, they said they did not hold data on the average time the tribunal takes to process rent appeal cases. So how will the Minister assess whether the tribunal has become “overwhelmed”, so as to prevent the whole system falling into chaos, with longer and longer delays in the tribunal?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are working very closely with the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice. We had lots of discussion about this during the passage of the Bill. We want to ensure that the First-tier Tribunal has the capacity to deal with any increase in cases as a result of the rent increase changes. In the Property Chamber, work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as reviewing resource and working practices in readiness for that increase in demand. To ensure long-term sustainability, we have concluded that there is a case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations, and we are continuing to work with partners across government to develop a rent determination function as quickly as possible. Hopefully, that process will take some of the pressure from the First-tier Tribunal.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, first of all, before I ask my question to the Minister, I congratulate the Government Chief Whip on continuing, on the excellent daily list, to refer to “His Majesty’s Government”, and on having no truck with the nonsense rebranding of “the UK Government”. Long may it continue.

I ask the Minister in His Majesty’s Government: does she think the changes in the Renters’ Rights Act are going to lead to more houses being available for rent or fewer?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It will lead to better conditions for renters and will remove some of the barriers that stop people renting, as well as barriers that can prevent renters maintaining a tenancy. We have banned rental bidding, levelling the playing field for renters; landlords will no longer be able to encourage prospective renters to stretch themselves beyond their means; they cannot discriminate against the prospective renter because they are on benefits or have children; and rent increases will be limited to once a year at market rate, with tenants able to challenge unfair rent increases at First-tier Tribunal.

The work we have done with landlords and with tenant bodies—we have worked with both, through the whole passage of the Bill—means that we have a fair system that rewards good landlords and tenants but makes sure that bad landlords are held to account for the bad practices they have had in place.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, tenants are a group of people close to my heart. They have been promised that the Renters’ Rights Act will transform their security and will do so from 1 May this year. They will be relying on local authorities to enforce those rights. But I say to the Minister that there is still no evidence from government that local authorities have the staffing or capacity to use effectively the new powers in the Act that they gained at the back end of last year. So I ask the Minister: what confidence can the House have that on 1 May, tenants will not once again be left with protections only on paper that they cannot realistically enforce? Without that data, how do the Government know that the new burdens funding, designed to support enforcement activity, is actually sufficient?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was with a group of over 300 councillors at the weekend, mainly council leaders and other councillors, who were very pleased to see the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force on 1 May. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that local councils will play a crucial role in making sure that this Act actually works on the ground. To help councils build enforcement capacity, we have provided new burdens funding for 2025-26 and a further funding allocation for 2026-27, which will be confirmed early this year. We have also funded the Operation Jigsaw network to deliver bespoke training on the Act, so that councils understand their new responsibilities. Detailed guidance covering the enforcement measures, like the new investigatory powers, has already been published.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, has it not been the case over recent years that many young couples have been outbid by private landlords for properties and therefore have been forced to rent and denied the opportunity of owner occupation? If these properties are now being put on the market and are available for couples, should we not be welcoming that, as they will then have a real chance to have a home of their own?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We want to improve all parts of the sector and make sure that home buying is available for young people, as well as making the rental market fairer for them. I had a big round table last week with a group from across the sector —agents, conveyancers, the legal profession, financial services and developers—to see what we can do to make it both a faster and more accessible process for young people to be able to realise the dream, which many of us were able to realise, of buying their own home.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in the private rented sector in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire.

The Minister refers to the Renters’ Rights Act as producing better conditions in the private rented sector. Surely, this very much depends on the ongoing consultation on the home energy model methodology for assessing existing dwellings and producing new energy performance certificate metrics. I gather that this will conclude at the end of March. Will the Government commit to publishing their response and detailed guidance within six months of this date, so that landlords can have the clarity and confidence to prepare and budget for the necessary improvements?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If the noble Lord is referring to the minimum energy efficiency standards implementation, we have published our response to the consultation on those standards in the private rented sector. We have listened to the voices from across that sector. The response confirmed our decision to set new regulations in the private rented sector for landlords to meet EPC C or equivalent by 1 October 2030 for all tenancies unless a valid exemption applies. The consultation also confirmed that landlords will not be required to spend more than £10,000 per property. Exemptions will last for 10 years.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the housing crisis has been caused—

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

It is nice to see that my fan club is still here. Has not the present crisis been caused by the Tory Government selling off social housing? This has led to a shortage of housing and also pushed up benefits, costing billions of pounds to the taxpayer.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend puts his finger on one cause of the housing crisis: there are many. Not building enough homes was a fundamental cause as well. We have taken steps already to address some of the issues around right to buy and to make sure that councils get the funding back for houses that they sell under right to buy. We are consulting on the other steps and will bring something forward later in the year. The Renters’ Rights Act was the biggest package of reforms to the private rented sector in nearly 40 years. It will improve the sector for 11 million private renters and 2.3 million landlords in England.

New Homes Target

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent progress they have made towards delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.

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

My Lords, an estimated 309,600 net additional homes have been built in this Parliament, but we recognise the need to push further. We are driving progress through bold planning reforms, including the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, and a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable housebuilding. Investment in construction skills, our £16 billion national housing bank, rapid transformation of the building safety regulator—under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Roe—and initiatives such as the new homes accelerator programme will remove barriers and ensure that we build the homes we need.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Up to 100,000 new homes could be built were the Government to scrap the old, outdated EU-era nutrient neutrality regulations. Will the Government bring in new regulations to protect the environment, and scrap these old ones which are helping to deny young people and families the homes they desperately need?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

New measures were introduced in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to make sure that we deal effectively with nutrient neutrality. We have had to do this without causing the impact on housebuilding that had been done under the previous Government. We have taken the steps needed. We have the nature restoration fund. Developers can work as part of this to make sure that they are able to deliver the homes and meet the needs of the environment at the same time.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, in order to deliver these homes, local authorities need to co-operate with the Government, particularly in preparing local plans, allocating land, speeding up planning decisions, working with developers and communities, and so on. Are local authorities co-operating with the Government to deliver these 1.5 million homes in this Parliament?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I stated, I remind my noble friend that we see our partnership with local authorities as critical to delivering the housing numbers we need. The Planning and Infrastructure Act that we passed last year will accelerate housebuilding while preserving important environmental protections, making sure that we get the consenting process sped up and a more strategic approach to nature recovery, and improving certainty in the decision-making and planning system. We have supported local authority planning capacity with the funding and training that are needed. We are working together with our partners in local authorities to make sure that we get this moving as quickly as possible.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that local authorities are vital to the production of homes. She is right, but how is it that the Labour-controlled Greater London Authority has produced only a third of what it had as a target? Do the Government understand that a large number of young people want to own their own homes? Where is the help-to-buy scheme? By all means, have a Labour help-to-buy scheme, different from the Conservative one. Surely, those two points would enable us to provide some decent housing for people who are desperate to have a home of their own.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have introduced a whole package of support, working with our colleagues in London to make sure that they are supported and helped to get building the homes they need.

In the previous Question, perhaps the noble Lord heard me say that I am working very closely with a whole partnership of people from across the sector on developing the support that young people need to get into home ownership, including on a new ISA that will help with this and making sure that the whole industry is focused on freeing up the system so that it is possible for young people to buy homes. It was good to hear, when I spoke to the sector last week, that both Lloyds and Santander have brought in very low-start mortgage packages. That was just last week. I am very pleased to see that, and I hope that will help some of our young people get out of high-cost renting and enable them to buy their own property.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the 1.5 million new homes target is only part of the big housing jigsaw. It is about quality as well as quantity and regeneration as well as new build. All this is meant to come together in the Government’s long-term national housing strategy. This was due out about a year ago. I ask the Minister: when we will see the national housing strategy?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience on the long-term housing strategy. We will be publishing that in the first quarter of this year.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, obviously, the noble Lord was not quick enough today.

Research by Crisis and the National Housing Federation found that we need to build 90,000 social homes a year to tackle the current homelessness situation. We know that councils are spending around £2.8 billion a year on temporary accommodation. I ask the Minister: will the Government commit to a specific target for social housing within their overall 1.5 million homes target, alongside a detailed pathway to deliver these homes? We all know that that end of the housing market is the real logjam in the housing crisis.

Picking up on what the noble Lord said with regard to London, will the Government commit to looking again at their disappointing decision to slash the proportion of social homes required for all new developments in London?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The target for the £39 billion spend that we have is that 60% of that will be social housing. The whole amount will be spent on social and affordable housing. That is the most money that has been invested in social and affordable housing for a very long time, and I am very proud of that record.

In relation to the noble Baroness’s question on London, having discussed this extensively with London councils, the important thing is to get housebuilding moving in London. London authorities will decide the percentage of social housing. We are working closely with them on that.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has outlined very clearly what a great opportunity this target is, for not only local jobs but local training schemes and use of local materials in building the houses. She mentioned local authorities, but what discussions are being held with developers and housebuilders to ensure that they commit to using local labour, putting on proper training schemes and using local materials whenever they can?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that as we go through this process of building more homes, we also create the jobs to go alongside that. We have been working very closely with the sector and particularly with the developer skills group to make sure that we invest in skills as we go along this path of building. It has been very supportive, to the extent of investing £140 million in skills alongside the skills funding that the Government have put in. It is very much committed to this. We welcome the Home Builders Federation statement in July 2024 looking to rapidly increase the pace at which homes are built, deliver the high-quality affordable homes that the country needs and provide the skilled jobs that we know we need to deliver that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, only a little over 300,000 additional homes have been delivered in the first 18 months of this Government. Given their target of 1.5 million homes, they will have to deliver at the rate of 342,000 homes a year. Previously, in response to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, the Minister said that they would achieve this by speeding up existing planning permissions. Given that housing starts continue to run at well below the average rate under the previous Conservative Government, can the Minister say when this will happen?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It ill behoves the Government who caused the housing crisis to be pressing us on this. We have already taken very significant steps, which I have outlined, to move this forward. We updated the National Planning Policy Framework. It is early yet to see an impact from those changes. We expect to see the effects feeding through into a higher number of homes being granted permission later in the year. However, new figures show that already we are seeing some green shoots of recovery, with a 29% increase in housing starts compared with 2024. It will take time to turn the tide after decades of underinvestment and a failure to build the homes and infrastructure that we needed to keep up with demand. We expect housebuilding to ramp up, particularly in the later years of the Parliament, as our reforms take effect. We will continue on our mission to deliver those 1.5 million homes.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I return to the question of social housing. Since 1990, the UK’s population has grown by around 20%—an additional 12 million people. In that same period, our stock of social housing has not grown but contracted by nearly 10%. We now have fewer than 400,000 units of social housing than in 1990. Precisely how many additional units of social housing do the Government expect to have by 2030?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. That £39 billion social and affordable housing programme I spoke about will combine the best elements of previous programmes with new design elements to make sure that we maximise the delivery that we want to see, enabling providers to build the types of homes that the country needs. The ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes with at least 60% social rent. We have also provided long-term income stability for social housing providers with a 10-year rent settlement, which will help to give them the stability and confidence they need to invest even further in funding for social housing. It is a comprehensive policy package. We want a simpler, more transparent system and are driving forward. We know that social housing is important.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

The House of Lords has now raised these concerns repeatedly. At Second Reading and throughout Committee, we have been patient, but we cannot continue to pass legislation on trust alone, particularly where it reshapes local democracy. If the Government are serious about devolution, they should have no objection to placing basic safeguards in the Bill. If they are confident that these powers will be used responsibly, transparency and restraint should be welcomed, not resisted. This is a moment for clarity: either the Bill reflects consent, local identity and democratic sustainability, or it does not. I look forward to hearing assurances from the Minister on these important issues.

[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 Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton for addressing the local government reorganisation measures in the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, opposes Clause 57 and Schedule 26 standing part of the Bill. Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government, creating unitary councils that can be sustainable for the future and deliver the high-quality services that all residents deserve. The Bill amends the existing legislation to enable the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise.

We are committed to working in partnership with local areas and are already doing so on this current round of reorganisation. All two-tier areas that were invited in February 2025 have now submitted proposals for reorganisation, which have either been consulted on or are now subject to consultation, because they acknowledge that the status quo is not feasible or sustainable. Therefore, this power would only ever be used in the future, where areas had failed to make progress following an invitation.

The new merging provisions enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change will be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. This aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas. With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed to ensure that these reforms work in harmony.

The ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority is a common-sense and necessary measure. Without it, there would be no streamlined route to ensure that the existing combined and combined county authorities remain intact once their constituent authorities implement reorganisation. The ability to abolish a combined authority or a combined county authority could be used only in very limited situations. It ensures that, if a reorganisation proposal would render a strategic authority obsolete, the proposal can be implemented and the strategic authority abolished as necessary. Any such proposal requiring the use of the abolition power would need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as the Government’s reorganisation criteria set out. This ensures that these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Government’s approach to funding. This week we publish the local government finance settlement, which has restructured local government funding to ensure that the areas that need it get the most funding. We have put more than £5.6 billion of new grant funding over the next three years into local government. We know that unitarisation can unlock significant savings. Unitary councils reduce duplication, cut waste, improve services and give better value. Of course, exact savings from each proposal will vary from place to place, depending on the proposals implemented.

The noble Baroness also mentioned casework. I take her point and I know the bit about growing daffodils out in the garden—I still often get stopped when I am doing my garden and I am not even a councillor now. Casework support varies from council to council, but it is perfectly possible to provide support for casework at any level of local government. I know that many councils do this extremely well—I hope that those that are not so good will learn from the best.

I turn to Amendment 196EC, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam. I shall correct myself, because I did not thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, as I should have done at the beginning, so my apologies. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to introduce criteria that the Secretary of State must consider when taking a decision on the merger of existing unitary councils. The new merging provisions set out in this Bill enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change will be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. This aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.

I reassure my noble friend that having regard to the size, geography, public services and local identity of an area is already embedded in our approach and decision-making when it comes to reorganisation. This is demonstrated by the statutory guidance that we have issued to areas that have been invited to prepare proposals for local government reorganisation.

My noble friend mentioned the size of areas. I point out that the invitation letter to two-tier areas in February made it very clear that the aim for new councils to have a population of 500,000 or more is a guiding principle. Instead of presenting a top-down solution for each area, our starting point is to support and empower local leaders and respect their knowledge, expertise and insight. This approach is in line with the new partnership between government and local government. In discussions with individual councils, with parliamentarians and in interviews given throughout the process, the Government have further reinforced that position to aid the local discussions. I have seen a huge variation in the proposals that have come forward in terms of size. People have taken that as guidance and taken it very seriously. Yesterday, we had a debate on the new authority that has been set up, Cumbria, which has a population of much less than 500,000, because that was appropriate for that area.

Furthermore, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already requires that the Secretary of State may invite or direct a relevant principal authority to make a proposal for the merger of single tiers of local government only where it would be in

“the interests of effective and convenient local government”.

The 2007 Act also requires that affected local areas must be consulted before a proposal for local government reorganisation can be implemented. This gives local residents the opportunity to voice their opinions on the criteria outlined by the noble Lord in his amendment.

Next to my council is a council called North Hertfordshire, which includes four towns. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will know these towns very well—Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock and Royston. These places have not ceased to exist because their council is called North Herts. The noble Baroness mentioned Wiltshire, which I know she feels was greatly strengthened by the introduction of unitary government. Wiltshire has survived in spite of its unitary status and I am sure that Hertfordshire will equally survive long into the future, no matter what happens with local government.

My noble friend’s questions can all be answered by the criteria that local authorities have been asked to respond to as part of the invitation process, including issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance. Although I appreciate the spirit in which my noble friend has tabled this amendment, it is the Government’s view that placing further legislative conditions on the merger of unitary councils would be duplicative and unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I know she has huge experience of local democracy and councils, but there is quite a lot of experience in this Room as well. If noble Lords from the Conservative Party are agreeing with the noble Lord over there, I think there might be a problem. I just hope the Minister can perhaps think about some of the things that we have said and that we are concerned about. The Government are doing quite a lot of good things, but they are very bad at telling us about them, and that is part of the problems that they face at the moment. I will not come back on all these things. My concerns are still very much there, so this might come back later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to continue what seems to be an emerging consensus and a Sheffield love-in. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was the leader in Sheffield when I was at Sheffield University and I will always be grateful for the 10p bus rides that I was able to take.

As we have discussed, these amendments concern the committee system. Let us be frank: this is a devolution Bill. I reiterate yet again that this side of the Committee and these Benches believe in democracy and in devolution. If you believe in those two things, this is about allowing and empowering local communities to decide what is best for them.

I was leader of Central Bedfordshire and operated under the strong-leader model, which worked well for Central Bedfordshire. I am sure it will work well in many other places but, if local communities believe that the committee system is best for them, they should be given that opportunity. Does the Minister believe in devolution and local democracy and will she allow local communities to decide the governance model that best meets their needs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I turn first to my noble friend’s intention to oppose the clause and Schedule 27 standing part of the Bill.

This clause and the related schedule will bring further consistency to local authority governance arrangements across England. As your Lordships may know, the Government still have a strong preference for executive models of governance. We believe, and I believe because I have operated in both, that the leader-and-cabinet model, already operated by over 80% of councils, provides a clearer and more easily understood governance structure and can support more efficient decision-making.

To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meeting-intensive, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving 78 out of 82 councillors. Co-ordination across individual committees is a persistent challenge. The same peer challenge for Cheshire East flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments, contributing towards challenges of service delivery and communication.

Several councils that have tried committees have later reverted to the leader-and-cabinet model, for example Brighton and Hove in 2024. This is wasteful of both time and resources. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge. Councils that return to the leader-and-cabinet model, such as Newark and Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, have judged it to be more transparent, agile and accountable.

At the same time, we recognise the genuinely held concerns of those councils that have adopted the committee system following a public referendum or a council resolution. That is important and I take seriously the words of noble Lords who have raised that. The Government’s amendments made in the other place to these provisions were intended to allow some councils that have recently adopted the committee system, following either a council resolution or a public referendum, to continue operating that governance model until the end of their moratorium period. At that point, the local authority will be required to undertake and publish a review of whether it should move to the leader-and-cabinet executive model or retain its committee system. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent governance model for local authorities across England and respecting local democratic mandates and voter expectations where councils are currently operating a committee system and are within their current moratorium periods. With these points in mind, I invite my noble friend to support these measures.

I turn to the government amendments in this group. As I have set out, the Government introduced an amendment in the other place to allow certain councils operating the committee system to continue to do so where they were within their statutory moratorium periods. The Government are now bringing forward additional amendments to clarify the circumstances in which a local authority’s committee system may be protected from the requirement to adopt the leader-and-cabinet executive model. This will mean that the protection period applies only where the council has previously adopted the committee system following either a council resolution or a public referendum and is within its statutory moratorium period at the point this provision is commenced.

The amendments clarify that the prior resolution to change governance must be made under Part 1A of the 2000 Act. This will ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England and respecting more recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations. It will also reduce disruption where councils are operating a committee system within their statutory moratorium period.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that response. I shall of course not press my amendment at this stage. I cannot promise the Liberal Democrats what I shall do when we reach Report, not least since—as I said in a meeting a couple of days ago—I am a critical friend working very hard on the friend bit rather than the critical bit, and I will continue to be so.

I have only one further remark to make; I think it will be well worth my noble friend taking this back to the Secretary of State. Sadly, from my point of view, from May, there will be a large number of local authorities that will have possibly five substantive representations of political parties. In those circumstances, the cabinet form of government will be extremely difficult. With just three big groups in Sheffield, the only way that the current leadership of the council has been able to make it work effectively is by sharing the committee system. I think we should bear that in mind as we move towards a very turbulent time in local government.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

198: Schedule 27, page 283, line 10, leave out “or remained”
Member’s explanatory statement
The Local Government Act 2000 does not provide for a local authority to pass a resolution to retain the Committee system and so this provision does not need to deal with such a resolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Baroness maybe somewhat misunderstood what I said. I actually asked her—this is part of the provision in the Bill—what she thought the local authority would think appropriate for the way the information is published. That is a matter for the Government rather than for local newspapers.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is, and this part of the Bill suggests that it is for local government to decide the most effective way to communicate these governance changes to its residents.

The Bill gives councils the flexibility to publish notices of governance change in whatever manner they consider most appropriate for their local circumstances. That may still include local printed newspapers, where they continue to play an important role in our local communities, but it also enables councils to use other channels—such as digital and online newspapers, council websites, and any other local community platforms—to help set out the governance changes. Crucially, the provision does not prevent authorities continuing to use local newspapers if they consider that the best way to reach their residents; it simply allows them to exercise their judgment in choosing the most suitable communication method for their area.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in moving the amendment, took me back to my very first Select Committee appearance as a local government leader, on exactly this issue. Substantial costs are incurred. I am talking not just about governance arrangements but for the breadth of local government statutory notices. It was around £28 million in the last year we have figures for, and some estimates suggest that it may be a great deal higher than that, so a lot of cost is involved.

In practice, this issue of governance arrangements will affect very few councils. More than 80% of councils already operate the leader-and-cabinet model of governance; the majority of the remaining councils will undergo reorganisation and the new councils will automatically adopt the leader-and-cabinet model. This is a proportionate and practical reform for the small number that may need to change their governance arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her kind remarks about me. It has been a pleasure to work with her and with predecessor Ministers from her department and their various Bill teams over a very large number of years. This is not the time for me to make a valedictory speech, or anything even approaching it, or for me otherwise to bore the Grand Committee. However, depending on the scheduling of the Bill’s next stages—and because I do not disappear until the end of March—there may be a bit of wiggle room for me to come back and have another go at some of these amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very pleased to hear that. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me earlier whether the Bill will go to Report, and I confirm that is the case. I hope that the noble Earl will still be here to participate on Report, and we look forward to his contributions. He has a great deal of knowledge and experience of the property sector and many other areas related to all of the issues we have debated on this and other Bills. I particularly valued his expertise on property safety and his knowledge of construction when debated the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I am very grateful to him.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with that. Do the Minister and the noble Earl realise that the last place in the UK named Lytton—spelled with a “y”—is in Stevenage?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is actually in Knebworth, north Hertfordshire, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my unease has not been lessened by the Minister’s answers, and I suspect that others will feel the same way.

The Minister says that they do not want to impose a single model. I thought that this Bill was about imposing a single model on the governance of England. It was certainly made clear by the Conservative Government —let us accept that this is a Conservative model that which the Labour Government are introducing—that, unless east Yorkshire and North Yorkshire accepted the mayoral model, they would not get the deal for which they were asking. There is a large question there.

When I heard the Minister say that the role that town and parish councils play in neighbourhood governance is recognised, I want to know who else is playing a role and how important the town and parish councils’ role might be. Will it be marginal or major? We do not know what the other bits of neighbourhood governance are intended to do. I am happy to hear that the Government want town and parish councils to continue to play an important and valuable role, but I think more of us want to ensure that they play a significant and leading role in local democracy. At the moment, Clause 60 does not provide us with that reassurance. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but this is something to which we will want to come back if and when we manage to reach Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

We need to recognise where we are. If we want mayors to have public acceptance and credibility, they had better not be elected on less than a quarter of the vote. If we have a five-party system, the opinion polls—my nerdy noble friend here does his best to educate me about public opinion polls and I therefore follow them in some detail—show that if you look at second preferences for Reform, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters, they are very diverse, and one cannot guarantee that votes will easily transfer from one party to another definite party. Jack Straw was prepared to accept the supplementary vote in the belief that, in London elections, the Liberal Democrats were more likely on the whole to vote Labour as their second preference than the Conservatives, and therefore it was acceptable. The supplementary vote is half way to where we need to go but it is neither one nor the other.

I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the old argument that the English people would not understand something more complicated than first past the post is for the past. The Irish understand a more complicated voting system very well, as do the Scots. The idea that the English education system is so poor that our voters will not understand simply does not begin to stand up.

If mayors are going to be key elements in devolution, we need to face up to a system that will provide us with the assurance that mayors will be elected in such a way as to gain the acceptance and credibility they need to have their posts. The current first past the post system does not guarantee that nor does the supplementary vote system. The Government need to recognise that that is where we are.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin by addressing the amendments in this group concerning voting systems.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposes Clause 61 and Schedule 28 standing part of the Bill. These provisions will reinstate the supplementary vote system for the elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners. This was the voting system in place when these roles were first introduced. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance, which has been reflected in today’s debates.

Given the large population that each regional mayor represents—far exceeding that of Members of Parliament —and that they act individually rather than collectively as part of a council or parliament, the Government believe that mayors should have a broad base of support among their electors. We believe that the supplementary vote system, which is a preferential voting system, will achieve this and is appropriate for electing candidates to single-person executive positions, such as mayors. The supplementary vote helps to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose a first and second choice candidate. It requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted, which ensures a broader mandate from the people they are representing.

Currently, mayors are elected using the first past the post system. We recognise that that system, while not perfect, has its merits: it is a well-understood system that provides a direct relationship between a Member of Parliament or a councillor and the local constituency or ward. Therefore, we believe that first past the post is appropriate for elections where there are a number of seats to be filled, such as in councils and parliaments, as the likelihood is that candidates representing a range of views and parties will be elected. However, this clearly does not apply when electing someone to a single-person executive position, as is the case for mayors and police and crime commissioners. Therefore, we believe that the supplementary vote is the right system for electing mayors, which is why the Bill reverts the voting system back to the supplementary vote.

Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, seeks to introduce the alternative vote system for the election of mayors. While I agree that mayors should be elected using a preferential voting system, the Government believe that the supplementary vote system is the right preferential voting system for electing mayors. The supplementary vote was the voting system implemented on the introduction of mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, which was in place until 2022, when the voting system changed to first past the post. We are reinstating the voting system that was originally used for these elections, which will be familiar to many voters. I note that, when the public were asked for their view on the alternative vote system, albeit in relation to UK parliamentary elections, they did not support the move to the alternative vote system. In the referendum held in 2011, 67.9% of voters rejected this proposal. The alternative vote system is not in use in any polls in the UK.

Amendments 214 and 215, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, would allow for the introduction of a proportional representation voting system for local authority elections. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local council elections in England. As I have already laid out, the first past the post system is a clear way of electing representatives to a council and provides for a direct relationship between a councillor and their ward. Therefore, for local council elections, the Government believe that first past the post remains the most appropriate system.

I turn now to the amendments that concern the timings of elections. We will of course have a debate on this on 23 February, the first day back after the Recess—I hope we all come back refreshed. Before I speak to the specific amendments, I remind your Lordships that the Government have embarked on the most significant programme of council reorganisation in England in 50 years. We are determined to streamline local government for the remaining one-third of people who still live under the two-tier system. It is in this unprecedented context that the decisions to postpone certain council elections for one year have been taken.

Our view is that it is time for bold action on both local government reorganisation and devolution, but we recognise that reorganisation is resource intensive at all levels, political and administrative, within a council. We have listened to those councils that have told us that postponing their elections this May will release vital capacity to deliver reorganisation effectively. It will also avoid the cost and distraction of elections to councils which are likely to be abolished shortly.

I reiterate that the Government’s position is that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that is the sentence I have always used when I have talked about elections. The Secretary of State recently announced that the high bar we set for taking a decision to postpone has been reached in a number of councils. The legislation to implement these decisions was laid in Parliament on 5 February.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Between 8 and 18 December, was there no consideration whatever of the possibility of delaying the elections? If that is the case, what changed between 8 and 18 December that resulted in the letters going to the 63 councils?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026.

Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I will speak to both this draft order and the draft Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026, which were laid on 18 December 2025. For both the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority and the Cumbria combined authority, I will use the term “strategic authorities” hereafter, unless there is a reason to be specific in the debate.

These orders provide for the establishment of two new strategic authorities and provide for their mayoral elections, as part of the Government’s commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England. This commitment is being delivered, in part, through the devolution priority programme, which provides a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington are two of the areas on the devolution priority programme, and taking forward these statutory instruments represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best. The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils within Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria on these instruments. All the respective constituent councils have consented to the making of their instrument, and I thank the local leaders and their councils for their support.

The instruments will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provisions in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Both strategic authorities will be established the day after the day on which the instruments are made. The inaugural mayoral elections are due to take place for both on 6 May 2027, and their elected mayors will take office on 10 May 2027 on a four-year term.

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

The instruments provide some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong interrelation here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent to that Bill, these strategic authorities will be classed as mayoral strategic authorities, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred to the strategic authorities. Even before the mayor is in office, these strategic authorities will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are specifically reserved for the mayor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their comments on this statutory instrument. I will try to answer all their questions, but, as usual, I will check Hansard and make sure I have replied to the issues that they have raised.

The noble Baroness raised the issue around the differing sizes of the authorities. I appreciate the points she makes on that. Of course, she will know—as I do, since I worked extensively with my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—that Cumbria is a very sparse rural area. When the Government look at the sizes for these local authorities, we need to agree sensible devolution geographies. The Government consider the scale, the economy, the contiguity, making sure we have no devolution islands, how we are going to deal with delivery, the alignment and the identity. It is not possible to meet all the principles. We prefer these combined authorities to have a population of around 1.2 million to 1.5 million, but that is not possible in all areas. We recognise that with Cumbria. It is important that we take account of local circumstances, so we work with the authorities to make sure we find optimal solutions to their issues.

On the constituent members, they are agreed with the constituent authorities concerned. They will vary because the areas vary, but it is important that constituent members play an important role in those local authorities. We set them up as bespoke arrangements depending on local circumstances.

On the noble Baroness’s question about commissioners, we will have a system where all mayoral combined authorities can appoint up to seven commissioners. Some may choose not to do that if it is not appropriate for their area, but we want the flexibility for those who wish to do it.

The noble Baroness asked about the assessment of effectiveness. There is an ongoing evaluation programme for the devolution programme. It is important that we do that. We have a number of authorities at different levels of devolution, including some established mayoral combined authorities. We continue to look at the programme, but the evaluation so far has told us that it is genuinely delivering for the communities involved. I am sorry if the noble Baroness does not feel that that is the case in her area; there may be people who have a different view on that locally.

The noble Baroness also asked me about the public responses to the consultation process. I take her point, but the purpose of the consultations is to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral combined authority over the proposed geography. A range of views was provided by respondents, including evidence setting out the potential benefits, as well as some of the concerns raised, and the Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation very much formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State—it needed to do so because it must meet the relevant statutory tests set out in Section 110 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act. For both Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria, the tests were met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

In conclusion, these instruments deliver the commitment made—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister kindly answered my question on the investment fund. The two issues I had with it included that it is 30-year funding. If you are going to come up with a programme of infrastructure funding over 10 or 15 years, you need certainty that you will get that £27 million or that £11 million every year. I know it is a difficult question to answer, but what assurance or certainty will the new mayor have that that funding will be available for those 30 years? I appreciate the intention, but is there certainty? The second part of that question was: will a similar level of funding be available for all the other combined mayoral authorities as they go forward, accepting the point that the Minister made about population?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The purpose of devolution is, of course, to get the powers and funding out to local areas to do the investment they need. I am not going to guarantee exact amounts for funding settlements that we have yet not agreed with local areas, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, but it is the Government’s intention that all the new areas will have investment funds, and of course they also have powers to borrow. Provided they meet the prudential requirements that all local government borrowing has to meet, they will have those powers as well.

In conclusion, these instruments deliver the commitment made to Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria to establish combined authorities in their areas, and I hope that the Committee will welcome these orders.

Motion agreed.

Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026.

Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the Minister, but half of the amendment is not about allotments. Having run this scheme in London, I know that allotments are almost impossible to get. It is also about the right to grow on meanwhile lease bases within communities and councils. Meanwhile leases are available online. It is extremely easy: it just needs the local authority to agree that wasted spaces can be used for growing and then taken away if a builder, developer or council wants them back.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

At the end of the clause, in the list of health determinants, there is a particular exclusion for genetically inherited characteristics. Is that supposed to exclude people suffering differences in health due to the colour of their skin?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that that is not what is intended, but I will revert to the noble Baroness with a written reply.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

172: Schedule 23, page 259, 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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, for their comments. We have seen a lot of changes in governance in both policing and the fire service. I worked in policing for a long time and during my time policing went from police committees, which were local authority committees, to police authorities, which were more widely representative of communities, and then to police commissioners. Fire and rescue services have been with local authorities; in some areas they moved to police commissioners and responsibility for fire sat with police commissioners. But the mayor will be the only person elected by the whole of that combined authority area, so there is a democratic mandate there.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

174: Clause 50, page 55, line 31, 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, the Government are committed to supporting the high street economy, a key part of which is the hospitality sector and the night-time economy. Amendments introduced on Report in the other place established a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. This included a duty on the mayor to publish and set out his licensing priorities in a new London-wide statement of licensing policies.

There was also an amendment that served as a placeholder for a new call-in power, which provided the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to confer on the Mayor of London the function of determining relevant licence applications in certain circumstances. Government Amendments 174 to 181 replace this placeholder and provide more detail around the types of circumstances in which the mayor may call in or determine relevant licence applications.

The amendments also add the Greater London Authority as a responsible authority in certain circumstances under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003. They place a requirement on the GLA to notify interested parties, including the applicant and the relevant licensing authority, of applications that the GLA considers to meet the definition of potential strategic importance to Greater London. This will be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. If a London licensing authority decides not to grant an application of potential strategic importance as applied for, including, for example, by rejecting the application or applying additional conditions to it, the mayor is required to decide whether or not to call in the decision.

If a decision is called in, the mayor must issue a direction to the relevant licensing authority, having given regard to his licensing policy and the importance of promoting the licensing objectives. New rights of appeal in relation to directions issued by the mayor will also be introduced to help ensure the call-in power is used judiciously. The new call-in power will initially be given effect in London to help unleash the full potential of our capital’s world-renowned cultural venues but could be deployed in mayoralties across the country in the future to help prevent decisions from being blocked by unnecessary red tape or short-term thinking.

Separately, at a national level, the Government launched a joint government and industry licensing taskforce last year and are considering more than 2,000 responses to a call for evidence that sought the public’s views on its proposals. We expect to consider those views before making any future reforms to the national licensing regime, including on aspects such as pavement licensing. For the avoidance of doubt, the amendments being discussed today concern the licensing regime in Greater London, not national licensing reforms. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in the Minister’s name would insert a new provision into the Licensing Act 2003 for additional powers for the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. We are not opposed to a greater strategic role for the GLA and the mayor, particularly where that role helps to identify key applications and promote consistency across London.

However, we harbour significant concerns about Amendment 179A, which would establish a London-wide strategic licensing oversight system. We are not persuaded that the mayor should be granted such extensive powers to intervene in and potentially overrule decisions taken by local licensing authorities. Although applicants will have the right of appeal, these provisions introduce a new layer of bureaucracy and uncertainty into what is already a complex licensing regime. We struggle to see why the mayor should be given such a decisive and potentially determinative role in local licensing decisions, particularly where those decisions are currently taken by local authorities with detailed knowledge of their communities, as my noble friend Lady O’Neill made clear. The mayor will not have that, and we are overriding local accountability. I am concerned by the provision that allows certain applications to be deemed “of potential strategic importance” when the definition of that term is to be set out not by the GLA or the mayor but through regulations by the Secretary of State.

I have similar scepticism to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether this actually is a devolution Bill. It is supposed to be about local democracy and trusting local people to make the right decisions for their local area. It should not be about transferring powers upward to mayors and Whitehall. Why is London again being put on a pedestal and treated differently to the rest of the UK? I appreciate that the Minister said that this could be extended to the rest of the UK. Again, I very much defer to what my noble friend Lady O’Neill said: it would make a lot of sense for this to be part of a broader review of the governance of London.

Moreover, it is not clear why the Government have chosen to introduce these provisions at such a late stage, or how they interact with existing licensing frameworks. At the very least, the Committee needs more time to consider the implications of these amendments, alongside fuller guidance from the Minister about how these powers would operate in practice.

At present, I do not believe that the justification for these amendments has been made, so I look forward to the Minister’s response and to further explanation of the rationale behind the operation of these amendments. However, we cannot support any of these amendments being made at this stage.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on these amendments. I will be very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss the proposals further and in more detail. I will give a little more information now and, I hope, answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked.

On why we feel that the new call-in power is needed, there is evidence of unmet potential for London’s night-time economy. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they had ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wanting to stay out later—I never do but, obviously, there are people who do. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022-25. London also has a lower premises licence approval rate than the rest of England and Wales. Of course, the reasons for that are multifaceted but, through the establishment of a new mayoral call-in power, intended to be used only in specific circumstances, as a measure of last resort, we would hope to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to premises licensing that unleashes the full potential of London’s cultural hospitality and night-time economy sectors. I know we have talked many times in your Lordships’ House about the restaurant and pubs business, and so on. We particularly want to encourage that sector in London—and everywhere else, but it is important to do that for the capital’s tourism and other trades.

In answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government support the principle of localism in licensing decisions, but we are committed to putting the right powers at the right levels to drive economic growth that we want to see. Local licensing authorities are often, or in fact nearly always, best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge and in consultation with other responsible authorities, including the police and enforcement authorities. But where the licensing system affects sectors with a strategic economic role—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, mentioned that aspect—it is important that city-wide considerations can be taken into account. The new strategic licensing role of the Mayor of London would enable this and provide an opportunity to adopt a similar approach to those that have worked effectively in New York, Amsterdam and Sydney.

To pick up on some specific points about how this is going to work—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked a couple of questions about this—the mayor will draw his strategic licensing policy by consultation on it before it is published. The mayor will be required to consult each London licensing authority, which will be able to make representations about its local circumstances. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds of what that

“potential strategic importance to Greater London”

actually means in regulations. That will provide further detail on the types of licence applications that will potentially fall within the scope of the mayor’s call-in power.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why this issue has not come forward before, that is a fair point. Further time is required to develop the new mayoral call-in process, including how it would interact with existing licensing legislation. In thinking about bringing this forward, the Government have considered that sometimes the best way in which to deliver devolution across the country is to test out new powers or approaches in one or two places first. As a globally renowned centre for culture and nightlife, London represents an ideal location to test new strategic licensing powers and duties. Nevertheless, it is very much our intention to ensure that it will be possible to roll these out to other mayors across the country, subject to the provision of appropriate evidence via provisions in the Bill. Piloting things is a very good way in which to see how effective they are, and whether they get the balance right between the local decision-making to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred and what we might think of as a strategic call-in power—so it is very important to do that.

I thank my noble friend Lady Dacres for her comments about licensing. She and I had an informal meeting with some London leaders on Saturday. They were not all London leaders, so I will not use that as evidence because that would not be fair, but, broadly, their view was similar to that of my noble friend Lady Dacres: although you would not want this to be used all the time, it is an important power to have in a key city such as London. However, a call for evidence is out and is currently being reviewed.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

Were all those whom the Minister consulted inner London authorities, or did they include outer London boroughs as well? My frustration is with the fact that everyone assumes that London is all the same, yet Westminster is certainly not like Bexley; and Lewisham, where the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, comes from, is not like Bexley. Bexley has a night-time economy, yet the Mayor of London is considering closing our police front counter but will not close Lewisham’s because it is that much closer. The police in Bexley are closing down and not working past 10 pm, yet obviously the nightclubs are open till 2 am. Those sorts of things have to be considered for the benefit of all local people, but the mayor will not be aware of them. I apologise, but I felt I needed to say that.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

Just to correct some of what the noble Baroness alluded to, I see Lewisham as a mix of inner and outer London because we have the south circular and diverse aspects to our borough. She mentioned the police station. All our police station fronts, bar one, have been closed. Lewisham has the largest police station in London—in fact, in Europe—and I am sure that is the sole reason why it has not been closed. It includes horses, as well as other back-office support for the police. I wanted to correct that for the record, because the noble Baroness made it seem as though we are open because of our distance from central London, and that is not the case.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend for those helpful comments. I want to be absolutely clear that it was not a formal consultation I had on Saturday; it was an informal meeting, but a number of London leaders were there. It was not representative, so I will not pretend it was, but it is clear to me that there is more work to do before moving forward with this. Between now and Report I am happy to meet all those who have spoken in this debate but, for now, I will withdraw Amendment 174.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It is perfectly reasonable that the Minister has suggested that there should be a more joined-up set of regulations, but I tabled an amendment that would have achieved this through the agent of change. Will she reconsider her views on how we can balance the late-opening nightclubs with the new residences next door to them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had extensive discussions of the agent of change; it is a slightly different proposal. I know it could potentially be linked to this, so if the noble Baroness wants to get involved in the discussions on this, I am happy to include her.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s very positive response to our comments. She said that this is a pilot. You would normally have a review at the end of a pilot to work out whether it has worked and the consequences thereof. I appreciate that she intends to withdraw her amendment, but it would be helpful, if these amendments were to come back on Report, to be clear about what the pilot means and what the review process is.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is a very fair point. I was indicating that we will have some further discussions about it. If I bring further amendments back on Report, we will need to be clear about putting some flexible powers into the Bill so that we can extend it if we need to. If we look at the London project and it has not worked, clearly that does not mean that it will be extended. But we need the powers because, as all noble Lords will be aware, getting primary legislation on to the statute book is quite a process. We would rather have a permissive power that enables it, if it is needed, and then we are able to do that if necessary.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Or it could be withdrawn.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, it could be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not seek to repeat what has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

The issue is quite simple. This is supposed to be a devolution Bill about local empowerment; it is not supposed to be about giving the Secretary of State huge powers, in particular to amend things that have not even been thought of yet. On restricting things in the way that has been suggested, there are some flexibilities in this Bill, historical Bills and Bills for the current Session, but having the power to amend something that is not even a twinkle in the eye of a new Minister— whoever they may be—is just going too far. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also said this.

This matter needs very deep thought on the part of the Government. We will come back to it if the Government do not seek to address this issue of a Secretary of State having the ability to amend something that has not been thought of yet. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand why you would want to amend a law you have not written yet, because you could always bring in powers that are relevant to that law as part of any legislation you then bring forward.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their proposed amendments to the delegated powers in the Bill. I also thank the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report and its recommendations regarding the delegated powers in the Bill, to which these amendments relate. I will consider its report ahead of Report and will make sure that all noble Lords who have joined this debate on delegated powers have sight of that response.

I turn to Amendment 180A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which seeks to limit the ability to make consequential, supplementary or incidental provisions that would follow a decision to repeal the strategic licensing regime. This amendment would prevent such provisions being made to future legislation. Our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing pilot in London is clear: to trial a more strategic approach to licensing in London.

However, we recognise that any significant change to long-established arrangements may, in practice, give rise to operational or policy difficulties that could not have been fully foreseen at the point of legislating—I referred to that on an earlier group. It is for that reason that we have provided a power for the Secretary of State to amend the new strategic licensing measures within the first five years of them coming into effect. This will ensure that the Government can act swiftly and proportionately to protect the effectiveness of the wider licensing framework if necessary. The Secretary of State must be able to make consequential, supplementary or incidental provision that repeals or revokes legislation made at a later date, if necessary, in the event that the strategic licensing measures are repealed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I, too, support what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was saying. I recall that she was responsible for Sections 18, 19 and 20 of LURA, on the conferral of functions on county combined authorities—as they were at that time—so she has been down this track.

I have three quick points. First, and I think my noble friend touched on this, the existing legislation, by which the Secretary of State can confer functions on combined authorities or combined county authorities, operates on the basis of a proposal from those authorities to the Secretary of State for the functions to be conferred. After consultation, the Secretary of State requires the consent of those authorities for the functions to be conferred. I cannot find that in Schedule 25, so the conclusion that one reaches is that, in this devolution Bill, the authorities do not even have the power to decide whether the functions are theirs or not. They will just be given to them or modified without anything beyond consultation; it does not require a proposal or consent. That is a very odd way of proceeding.

Secondly, we had a discussion in an earlier group about the structure of the voting arrangements in Clause 6, but we suddenly find in Schedule 25 that the Government want a power to change them on potentially quite important issues. I cannot for the life of me understand why that is necessary here, because the individual strategic authorities can change their constitutional arrangements anyway, if they really wanted to. I think that we established that in the earlier group. So why do the Government want to be able to change the voting arrangements?

Thirdly, on the pilots, there is a requirement in paragraph 21 for the pilot schemes to produce an impact report but, as far as I can see, it has to be given to the Secretary of State. It does not appear to have to be given to anybody else and it certainly does not have to be published. The Government should come back and make it clear that, when produced and given to the Secretary of State, the impact report should then be published.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for probing whether Schedule 25 should stand part of the Bill. Schedule 25 is central to the objectives of the Bill and the Government’s ambitions for devolution in England. We have been clear that the devolution framework delivered by this Bill is the floor not the ceiling of our ambitions for devolving powers to our communities. Schedule 25 provides the Secretary of State with the power to confer new functions on strategic authorities and to modify these functions. This will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors have the powers that they need to deliver for local people.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, wanted to question which functions could be conferred using these powers. As outlined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25, a function can be conferred if it

“is a function of a public authority, and … relates to any aspect of any area of competence”.

It might help if I go into a little more detail on that. The current list reflects the areas under which the Government believe strategic authorities should hold powers and functions. Functions and powers held under these areas will best empower mayors to act strategically, to drive growth and to help shape public services for their local communities. The current list of thematic policy areas is deliberately broad and allows for a wide range of activities to fall within the areas of competence. The Government remain open to considering whether the list could be expanded in future.

Questions were asked about the conferring of functions on to a strategic authority and how that will work.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt but I have a question. When the Minister talks about extending the list in future, is that the list of functions within areas of competence, or is she talking about the ability to extend the list of areas of competence?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am talking about the functions within the competence.

The Secretary of State will be required to consult relevant parties, including the strategic authority, the constituent councils and any body that currently holds the function. The Secretary of State will then need to determine whether to confer the function, paying regard to the need for the effective exercise of the function concerned. Regulations made under Schedule 25 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny takes place.

In some instances, it will make sense to pilot functions with a smaller number of strategic authorities for a time-limited period. I will try to answer the questions about piloting, but I will look at Hansard later and come back in writing if I have not answered them all. Where we are piloting, strategic authorities will be required to provide an impact report on the pilot, which the Secretary of State will take into consideration before deciding whether to confer the functions permanently; I will consider whether those reports should be public.

As an example—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked for an example of this—development corporation functions are held by mayors. If we wanted to move those functions to foundation authorities, for example, we could use these powers. What will happen with a pilot is that an area will make a request for a function. Pilots will need to be consented to by both the Secretary of State and the relevant local authorities. When a pilot has been completed, there will be an impact assessment of that pilot.

I will come back to the noble Baroness in writing on her questions about default voting arrangements, balance of power and the safeguards.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about a grid setting out the different powers between different layers of local authorities. We have already produced one; it is on GOV.UK. Perhaps the noble Lord might like to have a look at it and, if he has any further questions, to come back to me.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

In view of the points made in the debate on this group of amendments, is it going to change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. It has been a really interesting and encouraging debate. I share the view, concern and thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I thought my noble friend was pretty positive in response.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made a very pertinent point about the difference between delegation and devolvement. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, although we talk about devo Manchester in relation to health, it was actually delegation, with the Secretary of State retaining responsibility.

I do not think that in the short term we will be able to move off the Secretary of State’s responsibility. That goes back to 1948. However, I think a lot more could be delegated, and there are issues where we could start to look at real devolvement. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, reminded me that we have the joys of another NHS reform Bill coming to us in the next few months, and we will have an opportunity to discuss and debate this further. I will be looking particularly to see whether the Bill tries to nibble away at what is already contained in Clause 53.

One has to say that, at the time of the agreement over Greater Manchester, it is well known that NHS England was not in the loop in the original decision-making. I am afraid that, because of that, it has not been keen to see progress such as has occurred in Manchester. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that Manchester was essentially a pilot and we should have a proper assessment; I agree with that.

My noble friend was very encouraging. I understand this whole question about the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament for the running of the National Health Service and how that squares with giving more authority to local authorities to have a role in it. We can find a way through. For instance, this always struck me: if we are going to have pilots, why on earth can we not have one mayoral authority taking on responsibility for an ICB—not having one place on it but actually doing it? Albeit it might be under delegated powers from the Secretary of State, at least let us dip in the water of freeing up the system. Looking at how the NHS is run at the moment, how many restructurings do we need to show that central command control simply does not work? Having said that, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 53.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken on this group of amendments. We keep coming back to the same sorts of issues as in the previous group. We were talking about devolution in relation to health, and fiscal devolution and trying to extract money out of the NHS.

Now we come to a different level of fiscal devolution, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne raised the point that a lot of people outside the London bubble are frustrated. I emphasise that it is not just in the north; I was on the south coast in Southampton this weekend, where there are lots of frustrated people. I can assure you that if you drove along the pothole-encrusted roads of Bedfordshire, there are lots of frustrated people there as well.

This is important because people care about their communities and they want their communities to be better. They care about place, and you cannot create great places by diktat from Whitehall. I recall saying that two or three times earlier in this Committee. That means you need real devolution and real powers. It also means real fiscal devolution; we have a number of suggestions on fiscal devolution here.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Scott made the point that parish councils, particularly small parish councils, are very close to their communities. People can easily see what that extra £10 or £20 or £50 is being spent on—such as extra grass cutting or improvements to the village hall—and they are quite amenable to it. As you start moving away from that and you start breaking that relationship, it becomes much more difficult.

One of the great dangers with fiscal devolution, much as I believe in it, is that central government—I am not making a political point here, but I am blaming Whitehall and the Treasury—see that as an opportunity to raise tax by the back door. We have seen government regularly passing additional responsibilities to local government with a short-term grant and then expecting the council tax payer to fund that burden.

One of the big issues that we have in local government at the moment is that a lot of responsibilities have been passed down; responsibilities are then growing quicker than the tax base, which means many of these issues of place are facing a fiscal squeeze. We have this dichotomy or dilemma: we may want fiscal devolution, but how do we avoid central government cost shunting?

My noble friend Lord Fuller was implying the same thing. It is great to have fiscal freedoms for parish and town councils, but we do not want cost shunting from overpressed district, unitary and county authorities. How do we protect against that cost shunting, where people see higher tax bills but no benefits? Place is important. I am desperately keen for genuine fiscal devolution, but how do we protect our residents from, in effect, cost shunting from Whitehall down the line?

I will talk briefly about some of these amendments. My noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment is really important, because it is not just about the Secretary of State making a judgment—that is what the Secretary of State would do anyway, if he were to devolve powers—but placing a burden on him to say that he genuinely believes that a council has the financial resources, financial capacity and management resources to do what is being entrusted upon it. It is not just a case of going, “Get on with it. Bye. It is not my fault; it is your fault”, then, a year later, not giving it the money that it needs to deliver those things.

Forgive me, because I cannot remember whether it was from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, or the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but I accept his point. However, the contra argument is that it places a burden on the Secretary of State to make sure that it is feasible. We need to think about that very important distinction.

The other point to make is that we are going through reorganisation here and we need to ensure that this is not shuffling the deckchairs on the “Titanic”. It has to be about meaningfully improving services for our residents and about better value for money. We should not have reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake, which is why I think this amendment is the right approach.

We have had a number of amendments on fiscal devolution, but I will not go through them all. I have a concern about cost shunting and we have to protect against that. We need to give people real fiscal powers in order to deliver better services for their residents. What we do not need—some of the announcements that have been made today are like this and our Government were the same—is to have to appeal to the Government to get funding to do something. That means the Secretary of State is still in charge and that you are not determining your local priorities but, by the way, all the councils will do it because they want as much money as they can for their residents to deliver as best they can.

This must be underpinned by a real understanding that there are both costs and benefits from devolution, and that the funding arrangements are fair and transparent to local government. One of the biggest fears I have in local government is that the resident and local taxpayer does not see what their funding goes on, because far too much of it is dictated by the Government. These are responsibilities and duties with no funding and no powers, which is something that I might come back to on the next group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Wallace and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for their amendments in this group.

I will comment briefly on the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, made. It does not happen as rarely as one might expect, but I do agree with some of what he said. Nobody much cares about the architecture of local government; when I knock on people’s doors, they do not say, “Can you change the structure of local government, Sharon?” That does not happen. They do care, however, about their public services being delivered effectively. They want to see new homes built, their streets cleaned, their potholes fixed—as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, pointed out—fly-tipping sorted and work being done to tackle the decline of our high streets. The current system was just not sustainable. It was not working in terms of either finance or efficiency, so we have to make some changes to tackle that issue. Both making the structures work better and devolving power to local authorities are needed to make sure that they can tackle the things that are important at the local level.

Amendment 186, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, seeks to place barriers on conferring new functions on strategic authorities. As per paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 25, the Secretary of State cannot confer a new function on a strategic authority unless they are

“satisfied that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the need to secure the effective exercise of the function concerned”.

That provides an adequate test to ensure that, when functions are conferred, it is with the effective delivery of that function in mind. It also enables the Government to pilot new functions with strategic authorities. We talked about some of that earlier. In these instances, strategic authorities will be required to provide an impact report on the pilot, which the Secretary of State will use to help decide whether to confer the function on a permanent basis.

The pilot process provides an adequate opportunity to test devolution before rolling it out more widely. We believe that requiring each strategic authority to have a specific plan for each function effectively signed off by the Secretary of State runs counter to the principles of devolution that underpin the Bill. It risks micromanagement of strategic authorities from Whitehall and slowing down the progress of devolution. I do not say “micromanagement” with any political side because, the last time that my party was in power, we ended up with about 160 performance indicators for local authorities. I am not in favour of that either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

As the noble Baroness rightly says, they are legally binding targets that people need to take into account. We do not necessarily need to do it again. But I come back to my central point: do not place a duty on somebody if you do not provide the capacity for them to deliver it.

My second point is on devolution. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made some interesting points about local wealth building and it probably is a very good model, but it may not be the only model. There may be other models and there may be other models that work locally, so why are we doing a one size fits all? We should trust people to deliver for their residents; that is why they get elected and re-elected. Sometimes we will make mistakes, and we do it differently the next time because we made a mistake the first time.

Those are my two key concerns that we need to focus on. First, if you provide a duty to somebody, you need to provide the means and capacity to do it. Secondly, on the issue of democracy, if we are genuine about devolution, we should be very careful about providing a centralised diktat about what we should do. That has nothing to do with the proposed areas of concern, which I have a huge amount of sympathy with.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, for Amendments 192, 193, 194 and 241B. I will respond to Amendments 192 and 241B together, as their aims are somewhat shared.

During the Bill’s passage, the Government have consistently made the point that many local authorities have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring.

The Government offer net-zero support for local government. That includes through Great British Energy, which will work with local government to help to increase the rollout of renewable energy projects. Furthermore, the Government will also partner with strategic authorities and local authorities to roll out the ambitious warm homes plan, which will upgrade 5 million homes over this Parliament to help them to save money on their bills and benefit from cleaner, cheaper heating. To strengthen our engagement with local government on net-zero strategy, policy and delivery, and to support local government to drive forward net-zero action at the local level, the Government also run the Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which last met on 9 December last year.

Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central government, air quality in the UK has improved. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects. It is worth noting that in London, as the noble Baroness will know, the air quality target, which it was estimated would take 193 years to achieve, was accomplished in nine years. Concerted effort and clear decision-making can make a real difference.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October last year, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.   

I will respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, about the mayor not abiding the climate change duty. There is a specific competency on environmental climate change in the Bill. A mayor of a strategic authority, as well as having the overview and scrutiny powers that the body has, could be subject to a challenge by way of a judicial review for failure to meet an existing duty. There is significant power there already. The issues around local democracy and the prioritisation given to an issue is and must be subject to democratic accountability. It is difficult; we have to get that balance right. But as there is an existing legal duty, there is enough power for local citizens to be able to push their locally elected representatives. Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling environmental decline and climate change, we do not think that this particular duty is needed.

Amendment 193 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to require strategic authorities to collect and publish annual poverty data for their authority. We recognise that the policies and interventions that strategic authorities deliver have an impact on reducing poverty and alleviating its impacts. As set out in the Government’s strategy, Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty, a broad and dedicated range of partners play a role in reducing poverty, and we will continue to do this work in partnership with local, regional, national, private and third sector partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his amendment. I was initially a little confused, having read the amendment and then listened to his speech, but after his final comment I understand that this is a probing amendment to get the Minister and the Government to be clear about how they see the structure of the Mayoral Council, the regional devolved Governments and, potentially, councils. It is about how to create some kind of structure or how it will be structured. In that sense, I am a lot clearer and happier.

I had more concerns about an English local government council, because that would be largely duplicating the role of the LGA. As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I would be deeply unhappy and my colleague the noble Baroness would also be deeply unhappy as a fellow ex-chair. We would both agree that enhancing the LGA would be a good idea, but I am not sure that we would want an English local government council. As a probing amendment, I understand the purpose of it. The noble Lord raises some valid points about what the role of the Mayoral Council is, how it will all fit in and where the pieces of the jigsaw are. That is a good question, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for Amendment 195, and hope that he will take my regards back to John Denham, for whom I have the greatest respect. I have often worked with John on English devolution, so I respect what he says.

This amendment seeks to create an obligation to establish a national body called the English local government council. Membership of the council would comprise a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority and the Mayor of London. Members of the council would also be required to pay a membership fee, placing a new financial burden on authorities. Functions of the council would include working with the Government to agree a framework for the further devolution of powers; to agree funding for local and strategic authorities; and to identify a representative to participate in the Council of the Nations and Regions.

I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I believe that proper representation of local government into central government is incredibly important. We have worked very hard on that as a Government since we came into power in July 2024. When local leaders work together with the Government, it benefits our whole country. That is why the English devolution White Paper sets out three forums for engagement: the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Mayoral Council and the Leaders Council. Across these councils, all levels of devolved government are represented, from First Ministers to mayors to the leaders of local authorities. These forums have all met a number of times—I have been to the Leaders Council three times, I think. I can assure noble Lords that funding and furthering devolution is rarely not on the agenda for discussion, but they also discuss thematic issues as well.

It is therefore not necessary for a new council to create a framework for further devolution. The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen devolution through the mayoral right to request process. While funding is discussed at all these councils, it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the finance settlement process, which carefully allocates needs-based funding across the country. The current council structures we have in place are working well, and the flexibility afforded to them as non-statutory bodies allows us to work with the sector to adapt the forums as the needs of local leaders change. The current structures place no new burdens on authorities, with no membership fees required, as this amendment would create. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am of course entirely willing to withdraw my amendment, but I wish to stress that this is a very important point. We are about to enter another difficult period in which we have no idea how this year’s elections will come out and which parties will be in control in different parts of the United Kingdom, and in which the relationship between the devolved authorities and what is intended to be the stronger combined authorities within England will come under some strain.

What happened between 2015 and 2024 is that these things did not work well and, in many cases, they ceased to meet. We do not want that to happen again. If this proposal for stronger mayoral authorities is to work, we need to make sure that it fits into the governance of the United Kingdom. If it is to work, the institutions, not just the Council of the Nations and Regions but also the Mayoral Council for England, need to have a good deal more power than the LGA has in standing up to central government—and, as in most other democracies, they need to have some sense of how one bargains over fiscal redistribution. One of the central aspects of the German federal system is the bargaining over how money is distributed between the centre and the richer and poorer regions. That is something that we need to do in England as well—it is done a certain amount between the devolved authorities and the United Kingdom. I speak as someone from northern England, and we are always deeply conscious of the fact that we do not manage to bargain with central government about that.

I would be very grateful if the Minister would have further conversations off the floor before Report, because otherwise we will want to push the issue that the Mayoral Council in some shape or other must be given statutory authority. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.