English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I now have to remember where I left off.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I think it was near the end.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I was making a point about public consultation. Since the land is held by a trust for public benefit and for the public good, it seems to me that some consideration should be given to giving the people who benefit from that trust—the community; I am sure it could be defined—some sort of veto over any change in the status of the land held in public trust. Obviously, it could not be just half a dozen folk thinking that it should not happen, but if there were a huge swell of public opinion in favour of keeping the land in a public trust, as was done many years before, maybe that ought to be an option for local people.

There are various places across different parts of the country where the council’s own land in public trust would be affected if this amendment were accepted by the Government. The ones I have been able to find—apart from Wimbledon, of course—include Winchester, Swansea, Finchley, Hornsey and many others. Once a statutory trust discharge order takes effect, the land would be freed from the trust “generally”. Its status would be altered for all time, regardless of who holds the title. We should not enable a statutory loophole in this amendment that would allow the procedural errors of the past to become the justification for stealing the green lungs of our communities in the future. As noble Lords might have realised, the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this amendment and stand on the side of communities that strive to protect the integrity of our public open spaces held in trust.

I finish with a common little rhyme that emerged from the 18th century when the enclosures were taking place at great pace—when common land was taken by landowners. It goes:

“The fault is great in man or woman,


Who steals a goose from off a common;

But who can plead that man’s excuse,

Who steals the common from the goose?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, there are a number of issues in this group on taxis and private hire, but I will explain my Amendments 235BA, 235CB and 235CC. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bradley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for adding their names to them.

Out-of-area working, also called cross-border hiring, allows drivers and vehicles licensed in one area to operate entirely in another. The scale of this is highly significant and is a major feature of the private hire sector nationally. It is estimated that more than 11% of all private hire vehicles nationally are licensed by just one licensing authority: the City of Wolverhampton Council. Let us put this into some context. Back in 2023, TfL was aware of at least 300 private hire vehicle drivers licensed by Wolverhampton but with a London residential address. Data from Greater Manchester shows that 49% of private hires operating in Greater Manchester are licensed by authorities outside of their current 10 local licensing authorities.

Why does this matter? It undermines the ability of local licensing authorities to regulate effectively and creates serious risks for public safety. Last year, the Casey audit into group-based child sexual exploitation exposed harrowing failures in protecting vulnerable children and identified that cross-border hiring was being exploited by individuals and groups sexually exploiting children. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that the Government should introduce more rigorous safety standards and put a stop to cross-border hiring. The recommendation was:

“The Department for Transport should take immediate action to put a stop to ‘out of area taxis’ and bring in more rigorous statutory standards for local authority licensing and regulation of taxi drivers”.


The Government accepted all the recommendations made in the report, in order, they said,

“to get justice for victims and survivors, and to get perpetrators behind bars”.

However, the Government have not yet set out when and how they will take action that fully closes the loophole that enables cross-border hiring. In December, they introduced amendments to this Bill that have focused only on national minimum standards. Although those national minimum standards may work to ensure a strong foundation and ensure that more consistent standards apply across different licensing authorities—I welcome this as one step in dealing with this complex issue—this alone does not go far enough. These standards will be subject to consultation, with no clear deadlines for implementation, and they do not close the existing loophole. They are only part of the solution to addressing the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey.

Additionally, the Government have not set out how national minimum standards will be enforced. Enforcement is already a challenge for many licensing authorities, and the ability of drivers effectively to licence shop means that authorities who rely on local licensing fees to fund their enforcement will continue to be undermined. I also understand that there is anecdotal evidence that existing enforcement mechanisms are not being used correctly by all licensing authorities, including in cases of driver behaviour representing public safety concerns.

In January, the Government launched a consultation into simplifying the taxi licensing system. However, this is about significantly reducing the number of taxi licensing areas, and it does not set out any actions to address the issue of out-of-area working, meaning that passenger safety will remain at risk. In London, Transport for London has long called for national enforcement powers, which would enable enforcement officers to uphold national standards regardless of where a driver or vehicle is licensed, supported by data-sharing provisions. In Greater Manchester, the mayor and leaders of all 10 local authorities have been advocating for an end to out-of-area licensing, most recently through their “Local. Licenced. Trusted” campaign which they launched last April. In addition, an independent review undertaken in Greater Manchester, with input from over 5,200 licensees, trade bodies and local authority officers, highlighted that legislating on out-of-area was necessary, even in a regional system with licensing powers at a city-region level.

If the Government are serious in their commitment to improve standards and safety for this industry, this Committee urgently needs assurances from the Government on how and when they will fully close the loophole of cross-border hiring and that they will continue to improve enforcement powers as part of their review of the industry. My Amendments 235CB and 235CC look to tackle the out-of-area licensing issue and have the support of Transport for London, Transport for Greater Manchester, other metro-mayor areas and the Local Government Association, which I have contact with. It said:

“The LGA supports this amendment as the most effective way, combined with minimum standards, to meet Baroness Casey’s objective”.


However, I have also tabled my Amendment 235BA, which would grant powers to all licensing authorities to take enforcement action on any private hire or taxi vehicle on their streets, wherever they are licensed. In my view, this could be the way forward that would plug the gap that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, flagged, but would also allow the Government time to review and research the other issues, such as cross-border hiring, standards and so on, so that, in tackling one issue, the legislation does not restrict access to taxi services in another area. I hope that the Minister will consider that carefully.

The accessibility issues that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and other noble Lords today are really important as we look at private hire and taxi services across the country. I thank the Ministers for meeting me and other noble Lords to discuss the complexity of issues in this area and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief for the reasons that we all know about—the number of votes that have taken place in the House this afternoon.

I offer my support to the movers of the amendments that have just been spoken to, first on accessibility. It is fairly close to my heart. Even with a high national profile, I have sometimes had real problems with accessible transport because of having a guide dog, and it is a nightmare for those who are wheelchair users. I hope that we can do something that is within the practicalities of protecting those who are prepared to have the vehicles and pay the extremely substantial investment that is needed to have accessible vehicles when Uber and other operators clearly do not.

I also give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. An issue has been rumbling along for years in relation to the licensing shopping scheme, where people have been able to license a taxi and then rove around the country, which certainly put people at risk. In my own region, that applied to Rotherham. Apart from Wolverhampton, my city of Sheffield seems to have an inordinate number of taxis licensed in Kirklees in West Yorkshire; we clearly need to do something about it. There would have to be flexibility.

In my Amendments 235CA and 235E, which I speak to this afternoon, I am trying to say that there should first be a recognition that devolution and local empowerment means that there should be continuing engagement of elected members. That is not easy in strategic authorities that are combined authorities, because although we can proclaim elected mayors, the engagement of those who know the localities within which those strategic authorities are placed is left out.

First, we need an accountable input and, secondly, we need national standards that apply right across England and deal, in part at least, with the correct assessment that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made of the difficulties and dangers. There should be some flexibility: if you are genuinely licensed in Wolverhampton but the license authority becomes the West Midlands Combined Authority, you need to also be able to use your licence in Telford in Shropshire. I know it quite well and I think that people in Shropshire county are quite bereft of taxi services as it is. There needs to be flexibility that allows the licensing authority to specify very clearly and then, as the noble Baroness rightly said, to actually have some enforcement powers.

But local authorities also tell me that we need transitional arrangements. We need to assess the costs and ensure that there is that genuine local input. There is a serious issue here. I know my noble friend very well and know he will be incredibly sympathetic to the points that have been made this afternoon and, overcoming internal bureaucracies within government, will seek to find a way forward on Report, should we reach it.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 235BA, 235CB and 235CC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name. I associate myself with all the amendments in this group. I must also apologise that this is my first intervention in this Bill. A mixture of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and my own children’s well-being, I am afraid, has precluded me from taking part so far. As this is my first time speaking on this Bill, I must declare, as ever, that I am a teacher in a state secondary school.

As we have heard, there is real concern from local licensing authorities that, nationally, cross-border hiring generates serious public safety issues while undermining local licensing regimes. The TaxiPoint website says:

“The Casey Report highlights what has been evident for more than a decade: in a small minority of cases, taxis have played a role in the exploitation of children. Vehicles have been used both to traffic victims and to introduce them to perpetrators. This was identified as early as the Rotherham inquiry in 2014, where Professor Jay found that taxi drivers were a ‘common thread’ in abuse cases. Subsequent reports from Oldham, Newcastle and Telford reinforced these concerns”.


The scale of the cross-border hiring problem has been magnified significantly in recent years through the advent of new technology, with many taxi and private hire customers now mainly being through app-based services. This also restricts the enforcement capabilities of local licensing authorities, as they have only limited powers to enforce against out-of-town vehicles. Cross-border hiring in the taxi and private hire industries has been commonplace for many years, which has resulted in localised issues, particularly in areas where there are a number of licensing authorities in close proximity. This is coupled with a significant and rapid growth in the number of private hire drivers and vehicles, and all these issues have exacerbated cross-border hiring concerns.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, talked about Wolverhampton Council, which has issued in excess of 40,000 private hire licences, far exceeding local operational demand. The proposals considered by the Law Commission review in 2012, in respect of addressing cross-border hiring, are now considered by TfL and other stakeholders to be out of date. Urgent legislative reform is required to address these issues. The Metropolitan Police Service has said that cross-border hiring is the single largest risk to policing nationally. Amendments 235CB and 235CC would go a long way to solving these issues, and Amendment 235BA would strengthen enforcement. They have been needed for far too long, and I urge the Government to accept them.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

Debate on whether Clause 59 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I am putting the proposition that Clause 59 and Schedule 27 should not stand part of the Bill. I was very grateful to my noble friend and her colleagues last September for the modest amendments they moved to what was then Clause 57 in the Commons —Amendments 152 and 153. They at least gave some credence to the Long Title of the Bill, which includes the words “community empowerment”. It is quite hard to believe those words when you are disempowering the people you are talking about.

I am absolutely certain that there will be excellent high-quality expertise in the department and people who know a great deal about local government, as well as my noble friend. However, when I went into the Cabinet in 1997, I found that that no one above grade 7 in the Department for Education and Employment had ever had anything to do with education. Not one single person had taught in a school, college or university, or had been an administrator of education. We had to do something rapidly about that. If you do not know how local government works, it is not surprising that you get technocratic tidiness. There is nothing worse than bureaucratic tidiness, where people are told what to do when you talk to them about empowerment. I feel that this is a philosophical issue.

I have always tried to be a communitarian. I often failed in education—we were in such a hurry to transform the life chances of children that we were very top-down. However, I have kept in touch with Robert Putnam at Harvard and I still believe that we should build our democratic structures from the bottom up. It is the only way in which we will counterweight globalisation—and, by the way, disillusionment and disgust with democracy. Once people feel that they have some small power, they start to learn how to use it—I realise that that is a dangerous thing.

This afternoon, I propose that enforcing a particular model of democratic process—of course it must be democratic, open and transparent, and have probity and fiduciary duties—is completely contrary to the intention of the Bill and, I would have thought, that of my noble friend. So, I am putting my neck on the block this afternoon just to say: please stop it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Clause 59 agreed.

Political Parties: Funding

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Blunkett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent political parties, and activities to promote political parties, from receiving funding from outside of the United Kingdom, and whether they plan to grant additional powers to the Electoral Commission in this regard.

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

My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to

“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties”.

Foreign money has no place in our elections and the rules already provide clear safeguards against foreign interference. We are considering changes which will help further protect our system from such risks and are engaging with the Electoral Commission as we do so. We welcome the views of and evidence from stakeholders. Details of our proposals will be brought forward in due course.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Answer from my noble friend but does she agree that true patriots and those who believe in the sovereignty of our democratic system in the UK will want to see off those—whether they are malign state actors or multibillionaires—who seek to interfere in our democracy? Is it not now that we must act to safeguard our future?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend and assure him that the Government take the threat posed by disinformation and foreign actors interfering in our democratic processes very seriously. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference. While it is clear that foreign donations to political parties are not permitted, the Government recognise the risk posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic processes. That is why we will take all necessary steps to ensure that effective controls are in place to safeguard our democracy. I assure noble Lords that we share the sense of urgency, and as soon as we have developed our proposals we will inform Parliament.

Housing: Permitted Development Rights

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that we focus on the facilities in local areas, but this is a commercial market and where shops are not able to achieve the market they need, permitted development regulations will occur. In reviewing the PDRs, that is one of the issues we need to focus on—whether any further protections are necessary, particularly for assets such as rural assets.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Referring back to the original Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, can my noble friend confirm that the code will include noise insulation as well as other measures that are crucial to good health, on the grounds that noise nuisance can be deeply detrimental to the well-being of individuals and lead to much anti-social behaviour?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are a wide range of issues that we need to think about in terms of permitted development, and noise nuisance is one of them. All new homes are required to meet current building regulations, including on fire safety, irrespective of the route to planning permission. However, some building regulations differ or do not apply where homes are delivered through material change of use rather than new build. That applies whether homes are delivered through permitted development or following an application for planning permission. All these issues—noise, fire safety and so on—need to be considered in the light of permitted development regulations.