English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

77: Clause 11, page 14, line 33, leave out subsection (1)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove amendments to the precept arrangements set out in section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook regarding the changes proposed in this Bill to the mayoral precept arrangements. As we raised in Committee, it is important to ensure value for money and that a mayoral precept is used not to compensate for cuts in government funding but to support delivery for an area. Additional responsibilities should not be placed on local authorities without adequate funding.

On Amendment 77, as was said in Committee, these precept arrangements were only recently and carefully set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 as a result of many long hours of debate in this House. The Minister has explained that these changes will allow mayors to precept for all an authority’s functions. However, stability is important to long-term confidence in local government finance, so we oppose revisiting this framework before the recent changes have had a chance to bed in.

Amendment 78 seeks to bring the precept arrangements in line with the amounts permitted for county councils and unitary authorities. While we accept that a mayoral authority is different from other authorities, this in itself does not justify an exemption from well-understood precept arrangements. In Committee, the Minister said the limit would make the value of a precept insignificant. Does that mean that the Government envisage yet more tax increases?

This brings me to Amendment 79, requiring mayors to explain to the public their reasons for any increases to the precept. This would apply whenever the mayor of a strategic authority sets a precept higher than the one set for the previous financial year. When people are asked to pay more, they deserve to know why, particularly given the current cost of living. To ensure full transparency and that this information is accessible, our amendment requires that a statement be published on the authority’s website, detailing the amount of the increase and explaining the purposes for which the additional revenue is to be used. This cannot be done in hindsight. The statement must be published before or at the same time as the precept is set. Again, engagement with the local community should not be treated as an afterthought. Unless we hear convincing arguments against this amendment, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 79.

There is a broader concern that this Bill would enable, intentionally or not, excessive tax increases on local people at a time when they can least afford them. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for the amendments on precepts. The precept reforms which Amendment 77 seeks to prevent will enable mayors to levy a precept across the full range of an authority’s functions, giving them greater freedom in how they resource and deliver their priorities. I remind noble Lords that mayors have had the statutory ability to issue a precept since 2017, when it was introduced by the then Government. Importantly, it remains entirely for each mayor to decide whether to make use of it.

Under the current framework, any precept that is raised can be spent only on designated mayoral functions, rather than on the full suite of an authority’s responsibilities. This restriction is both arbitrary and unhelpful in practice. It could, for instance, allow investment in transport but not in skills related initiatives. Our intention is to equip mayors with the means to address barriers to growth and improve outcomes for their communities. To do this effectively, they must be able to allocate resources across all functions of the authority, not just a narrow subset.

Amendment 78 would automatically apply council tax referendum principles to strategic authorities. This would unnecessarily restrict mayors’ ability to determine how best to deliver for their residents and local economies. The Secretary of State already has the power to set referendum principles for strategic authorities, if needed. In practice, mayoral precepts are relatively small. If their increases were capped in the same way as council tax, the sums involved would be minimal in most areas, limiting their usefulness for supporting local priorities.

The Government have been clear that any rises in the mayoral precept should remain fair and proportionate. However, imposing the same limits as on councils would reduce local flexibility. This approach cuts across the spirit of the Bill and of devolution more broadly. Our aim is to empower mayors to invest in their communities, strengthen public services and support economic growth. The Government already consult annually on the local government finance settlement, which is the proper mechanism for considering these issues for authorities and taxpayers.

Turning to Amendment 79, as I have noted, the ability to issue a mayoral precept has existed in law since 2017, when it was introduced by the then Government. Whether to introduce a precept is a local decision and would need to be approved through the budget voting process within each combined authority or combined county authority. This includes setting out the precept amount and what it is intended to fund.

It is also worth pointing to the council tax billing requirements. Under the Council Tax (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations 2011, the information supplied with bills must include details of each local authority’s gross expenditure and its council tax requirement. It must also include an explanation of the reasons for the difference between the amounts. Where a mayoral combined or combined county authority issues a precept, it is covered by these provisions. This ensures residents can see both the amount of the mayoral precept and what it is funding. This information is also published on websites and if the taxpayer requires it, they can have it in a hard copy. As such, the system already builds in a statutory requirement for transparency and justification.

For the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the amendments in this group, and I ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. However, we believe that there needs to be greater transparency in the approach to local taxation, to encourage not just accountability for financial decisions but also public trust. Therefore, if the Government do not wish to press ahead with their changes to their precept arrangements, I will focus on Amendment 79. This amendment is not asking for much. It reflects the simple expectation that any increases to taxation by the mayor are explained transparently and are accessible to the members of the public they serve. This requirement will support, not obstruct, good decision-making and management of local government finance. Therefore, on this amendment I will test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 77.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

79: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to publish statement on increase of mayoral precept(1) Where the mayor of a strategic authority sets a precept which is higher than the precept set for the previous financial year, the mayor must publish a statement explaining the reasons for the increase.(2) A statement under subsection (1) must—(a) be published on the authority’s website,(b) set out the amount of the increase, and(c) explain the purposes for which the additional revenue is to be used.(3) The statement must be published before, or at the same time as, the precept is set.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires mayors to explain to the public their reasons for any increases to the precept.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

80: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the exercise of powers to borrow(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic authorities.(2) This report must include an assessment of the ability of specific authorities to meet the debts incurred.(3) Copies of that report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic authorities and their ability to repay the debts incurred.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic authorities and their ability to repay the debts incurred. I thank the Minister for her correspondence on powers to borrow after this was debated in Committee. As the previous group focused on precepts, we felt it worth discussing powers to borrow in isolation.

In Committee, we asked one key question: who, in effect, is the guarantor in the event that an authority cannot pay back its borrowing? I appreciate the Minister’s clarification that constituent councils will not be held liable for debts incurred by the authority. However, this is an important area that requires thorough oversight, which is why we tabled Amendment 80 to require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by the strategic authorities and their ability to repay debts incurred. Surely one of the aims of the Government’s plans is to put local government on a stable and sustainable financial footing.

To be clear, we do not object to the ability of authorities to borrow money, but we do think that the Secretary of State and, crucially, Parliament should be aware of the facts. This report would be published, copies would be placed before both Houses of Parliament annually, and it would include an assessment of the ability of specific authorities to meet the debts incurred. This would give Parliament oversight of how much debt has been incurred by specific authorities across the country, as well as their ability to repay that debt. The information could then inform future debates and decision-making about the health of local government finances, and it would no doubt be of use to Secretaries of State themselves. I hope the Government will give this amendment their consideration.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 80 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, democracy starts with local engagement. As the saying goes, all politics is local, and people start by worrying about their own local community.

We talk about pride of place in government policy, but place is not usually the whole of Yorkshire, for example, or even the whole of North Yorkshire; place is your local community. What this Bill assumes is that a local area in governance terms is roughly half a million people, and a combined strategic authority should perhaps be somewhere between 1.5 million and 4 million people. There are nearly 50 independent states, members of the United Nations, with populations smaller than half a million. There are two European states, Malta and Iceland, with populations below that, and Luxembourg is not that much larger. When we get to the equivalent of combined authorities, we are talking about Denmark, Estonia and Latvia: states that seem not only quite capable but have extensive local government structures underneath them—and they work.

I looked with interest at the closing ceremony of the winter Olympics the other week, at which the mayors of the various localities and the local region were all present. They have several layers of local government, which is the norm across the rest of Europe, and what this legislation is intended to reduce as far as possible. Local politics is essential to maintaining popular engagement with democracy, party politics and public life. People care about bins, allotments, public toilets, playgrounds: things that, ideally, are not left with strategic authorities and mayors, who would be roughly equivalent to the President of Finland—to whom I was listening the other day—in terms of the number of people they are responsible for. Let us be realistic about that and recognise that, unless we have active town and community councils at a lower level, with elected representatives who know those who voted for them and who are known by those who voted for them, we will lose an essential part of a liberal democracy to which my party—and, I hope, everyone else here—is committed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I too declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing back this amendment. In Committee, we discussed how much of this Bill, despite its title, centralises rather than devolves. This amendment would enable a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a more local level. As other noble Lords have pointed out, strategic authorities cover large geographical areas, whereas parish and town councils have long been promoted in this House as vehicles for genuine localism and community empowerment. It is why, elsewhere in the Bill, we have our own amendments to support the role of town and parish councils.

We support devolution. However, this amendment is not simply an amendment to devolve community empowerment. That is the first subsection in the amendment. There are further eight subsections, and we have some reservations on the details and complexities in these additional subsections. Delegating competencies or functions must be accompanied by clear assessments of capacity, resource and capability. It must avoid additional bureaucracy, and duties imposed must be practical in their implementation. That said, I thank the noble Lord for his efforts and for the spirit of this amendment, which we agree with. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to how powers can be genuinely devolved to local levels to support town and parish councils, and how local authorities can be enabled to exercise them effectively.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for Amendment 6 on further devolution of powers. As your Lordships will know, one of the core aims of the Bill is to create a standardised devolution framework, with a consistent and coherent set of functions held by strategic authorities and their mayors. This amendment would risk undermining that objective. It would lead to functions being devolved in some places and not in others, making it harder for local residents to know who is in charge and what they are accountable for.

The noble Lord and others argued in previous debates that power should be devolved to the authorities best able to carry out that work. The Government agreed with that principle and are therefore conferring powers and functions through the Bill that are best exercised by strategic authorities operating across wider geographies: for example, strategic transport and spatial planning matters. I understand that part of the noble Lord’s rationale for tabling this amendment is a concern that there will be a transfer of powers away from lower-tier authorities to higher ones. It is not the intention of the Bill to strip powers from communities and councils and give them instead to strategic authorities. Indeed, the Bill provides new powers for communities, such as the new community right to buy.

There was a lot of talk about parish and town councils and I think everybody in this Room appreciates the work that local parish and town councils do, but this amendment would essentially force a new level of bureaucracy on local authorities. In Derbyshire, for example, there are 204 parish and town councils and a further 199 in Nottinghamshire. That would mean that the East Midlands combined county authority and its mayor would be engaging with over 400 councils. Were such an approach taken, it would place a considerable cost of consultation on an authority, as well as potentially crowding out time for other core strategic responsibilities. I think we need a plan that fits the bill for each of the local authorities concerned, not one kind of framework that apparently suits everyone.

We need to take into consideration that there are 10,000 parish councils in England, with more than 100,000 local councillors. The sector varies hugely in size, from city or town councils to hamlet-sized parish meetings, which I know a lot about from when I represented Sedgefield. According to analysis from the National Association of Local Councils and the Democracy Club, in the 2025 parish council elections 21% of seats were left vacant. Where we can engage with parish councils, we should do so. If we cannot, because of competence issues or a lack of councillors, we should look at other ways of doing it. That is exactly what this Bill will do. The new neighbourhood governance duty will bring decision-making closer to residents and aims to ensure that people across the country, no matter where they are based, have the opportunity to influence the decisions that mean most to them in their local areas.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

7: Leave out Clause 4
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out Clause 4 on the basis that the establishment of (and changes to) combined authorities and CCA should be based on local consent.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group, on the establishment of combined authorities and combined county authorities, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook.

Our concern is about the extensive powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. As drafted, Schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State to create or make certain changes to the governance, boundaries or composition of authorities, without necessarily obtaining the explicit consent of the councils involved. This is entirely contrary to the principle of community empowerment. It is a top-down reorganisation directed by the centre. We firmly believe that changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities must be based on local consent. Reflecting that principle, Amendments 7 and 38 would entirely remove Clause 4 and Schedule 1 respectively.

Other amendments in this group, Amendments 9 to 24, 28, 29 and 35, are consequential to Amendment 8, but they all rest on the same fundamental principle: that changes should be made with the consent of the local authorities involved, not imposed from above by the Secretary of State. Are not local empowerment and consent the very essence of devolution?

The Bill allows the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the relevant authorities have consented “in principle” —but that is not enough. How can local democracy be meaningful if changes can be imposed without explicit consent? Should locally elected councillors merely rubber-stamp decisions made in Whitehall? I would be grateful if the Minister could give an example of a situation in which authorities have not consented explicitly, but the Secretary of State could argue that they have consented “in principle” to justify top-down changes?

These amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they go to the heart of the balance of power between local government and central government. Obtaining the consent of the relevant authorities is not an inconvenient administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Changes to local government should reflect the wishes of those they are intended to serve. If anything, the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill raises questions about the Government’s true intentions. Is the Bill truly about empowering local communities, tailored to their geographic, historic and cultural identities? Alternatively, will it force locally elected representatives to conform to managerial directives from the centre? Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments address the specific drafting of Schedule 1, and I am minded to test the opinion of the House on them.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am not at all sure that the Government understand that decentralisation and devolution are fundamentally different things. What we have here is a Bill for continued central control of the governance of England, subject to allowing mayors rather more powers. I therefore strongly support these amendments from these Benches, while saying that the practice of the last Conservative Government was rather different from the principles we have heard enunciated today.

I recall vividly that all but one of the councils in the great county of Yorkshire asked, when negotiating with the Government for restructure, for a whole of Yorkshire authority with other authorities underneath it, and it was made clear that it would be conditional on acceptance of a four-mayor structure for Yorkshire. If we were to get the money that the Government were offering, we would have to accept what the Government insisted on having. That is a good example of Conservative decentralisation, and now we have Labour decentralisation.

I am my party’s Cabinet Office spokesman; I am concerned with constitutional issues. In the majority of democratic states, the structure of local and regional, as well as national, government is a constitutional issue. In England, it is dealt with as a matter of convenience. Successive Governments talk a certain amount about how to get civil servants out of London, but the extent to which what local government does is controlled and funded in detail by Whitehall departments means that of course the majority of civil servants have to stay in London because that is where the power is and the decisions are taken.

This is a very flawed Bill. We are doing our best to limit its many problems. This amendment will perhaps limit the damage a little and allow local and regional areas to have some continuing say in how the governance of England should be maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

9: Schedule 1, page 91, line 33, leave out paragraph (b)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

16: Schedule 1, page 100, line 13, leave out paragraph 20
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the proposal for the creation or expansion of a combined authority where the Secretary of State directs the inclusion of existing areas, rather than the communities it is intended to serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I commend these amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

28: Schedule 1, page 108, line 34, leave out paragraph 38
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

41: Schedule 2, page 118, line 20, at end insert—
“2A In section 12D of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (contents of spatial development strategy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A spatial development strategy must identify the policies which are of strategic importance in order to meet the local growth priorities identified in the relevant local growth plan for that strategic area.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment links the local growth plan to the preparation of the spatial development strategy.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the many and varied amendments in this group. For Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125, 126 and 308 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, we owe especial thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his efforts since Committee stage.

I begin with Amendment 41, which links the local growth plan to an authority’s preparation of its spatial development strategy. This would require spatial development strategies to identify policies of strategic importance to the priorities set out in the local growth plan. It is common sense that these should not be developed in isolation from each other, and we see no reason why their link should not be set out in statute.

Amendments 122, 123 and 125 would require mayoral combined authorities to identify the infrastructure projects to be included in a spatial development strategy and local growth plans in order to support growth, especially in relation to employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities. With the increased pressure on authorities to meet housing targets, it is more important than ever that these plans and strategies should be consistently co-ordinated. The Minister agreed with this in Committee and hinted that the revised NPPF may address this. Can the Minister confirm this and set out more details? Why should these amendments not form part of the Bill before us now?

Amendment 308 would simply require that neighbourhood priority statements be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, while updating them to match the provisions of this Bill. For those unaware, I point out that neighbourhood priority statements summarise what are considered to be the principal needs and prevailing views of the neighbourhood community in respect of local matters. This amendment would allow for both town and parish councils to make those statements—and include single foundation strategic authorities as well as development corporations with planning powers—to the relevant authorities. That sounds like community empowerment to me.

In Committee, the Minister stated that now was not the right time to commence neighbourhood priority statements due to the changes in the plan-making system, but if not now, when? Indeed, is there no better time than amid the restructuring of local government for town and parish councils to make clear the needs of their communities?

In the interests of time, I will comment on only two of the other amendments. Amendment 307 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner. In Committee, we on these Benches said that the proposal had merit; our position has not changed.

We also support the agent of change principle outlined in Amendment 246 to ensure the integration of new developments with existing businesses and facilities. Centuries-old church bells should not be silenced by a new neighbouring housing estate.

These are all important issues; I look forward to hearing a detailed response from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to a number of amendments I have in this group. I will limit myself to those in my name and in the names of others who have been kind enough to support them.

The Minister will be quite familiar with Amendment 120 at this stage. I read very carefully her comments in reply in Committee; I have to say that I still take issue with what she said. I would just ask her to think again, and to bear in mind that the department is responsible for preventing flooding and for dealing with situations where, for example, surface water flooding combines with sewage in combined sewers and can cause a public health issue by coming into people’s homes, forcing them to be evacuated.

The Minister will be aware that Defra is extremely keen to implement the provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that there should be mandatory sustainable drainage in all major developments. I would ask her to think again. This is the one disagreement; I know that the Minister referred in Committee to the NPPF, but I believe it would be better to have this mandated to make sure that major developments have provision—there could be sustainable drains, ponds or culverts—to take the excess water to prevent these sewage spills which cause such grave issues when they happen, including mental health and public health issues.

The second part of the amendment deals with situations where there is no capacity to connect to major developments. The Minister may be aware that the Independent Water Commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe said that water companies should have the opportunity to say that they cannot connect and that there is no way for wastewater—that is, the sewage—to leave a major development. In light of the fact that the Government are going to bring forward major water legislation following on from the Cunliffe report, I hope that the Minister will look kindly at Amendment 120.

I turn to Amendments 124 and 127 and take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for co-signing them. They might appear to be of minor significance, but they are extremely important to enabling planning. The Local Government Association asked in its briefing that the Minister support these amendments. With culture having been given as a competence to mayors acting in their strategic role, it is extremely important that local growth plans should include provision about cultural venues. These two amendments together would seek to ensure that, so they follow on from the earlier amendment, now in the Government’s name, to add culture as a competence. I will not press the two amendments to a vote, but I hope that this is something that the Minister will acknowledge.

Amendment 246, I think, enjoys cross-party support. Let me take the opportunity once again to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as well as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for lending their much-valued support, especially given the experience and expertise each of them have in this field.

We have had numerous attempts as a Parliament to introduce the agent of change principle. I was fortunate enough to serve on and to chair the ad hoc committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Great concern is caused among the cultural community where existing successful and well-established businesses face a development—normally a block of flats or something—built right next to them at a later date. Of course, the residents of the new block will then ask that changes be made, normally at the expense of the existing business, to make sure that the two can live together.

Adopting the agent of change principle into a statutory framework would ensure that in every planning application involving music venues, they would have, if you like, a higher right than newer developments in every community. This matter goes to the heart of the Government’s growth agenda, so the Minister must see that there is a great merit in this principle.

We are asking that we should have the same situation as exists in Scotland, where the agent of change principle is enshrined in statute. This would significantly shorten the planning process and empower local authorities—this is the devolution and community empowerment Bill, so I believe it is where such a principle should be placed —to have something specific and enforceable to go back to developers with when their plans did not consider existing music or other live entertainment venues.

We believe that the agent of change principle remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK. It is not perhaps the strongest protection of the businesses, but I think it is something that they could live with. In her response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that

“we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 621.]

In my view, we have had so many consultations and very powerful evidence was given to the committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Looking to the growth agenda, I remind the Minister that 35% of grass-roots venues have closed in the last 20 years; they are coming under increasing threat. I will listen very carefully to what she says in summing up, in particular on Amendment 246, and will reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to the definition of “relevant local planning authority”. To be clear, adding further types of authority to this definition does not affect who should take into account a neighbourhood priorities statement. This is because the definition applies only for the purposes of the duty to publish neighbourhood priorities statements. For this purpose, we believe that the existing definition is adequate and captures authorities from which the public are already seeking information on neighbourhood planning. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and valuable debate where noble Lords have sought to improve the system. I thank noble Lords who have made contributions to the debate and am grateful for the apparent support from across the House for many of these amendments.

However, while I thank the Minister for her comments, I am somewhat disappointed that she was unable to make any commitments on the co-ordination between spatial strategies and local growth plans, and on neighbourhood priorities statements—all of which would be very valuable. Similarly, it is disappointing that there were limited commitments on sustainable drainage, fire and rescue consultees, agent of change, cultural infrastructure, and the potential benefits of appointing statutory planners. Noble Lords made a compelling case for many of these. Indeed, this House has shown its expertise and unique value to the legislative process. These are practical proposals, and I hope that the Government will give them serious consideration. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 41 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Renters’ Rights Act: Definition of Court Readiness

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Jamieson]

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

and that he was working

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations. We on these Benches support the principle of devolution. As the Minister outlined, these regulations will establish a new combined county authority for Brighton, Hove, East Sussex and West Sussex under the framework set up in the previous Conservative Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. However, there are some issues that merit closer scrutiny.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has already raised the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s comment on the consultation underpinning these proposals, which revealed significant public concern, particularly around the implementation of a mayoral model. A clear majority of respondents did not believe that such a structure would reflect local identities or deliver meaningful benefits. That raises an important question about how devolution is being delivered. If it is to succeed, it must carry public confidence. Does the Minister agree?

Secondly—I would welcome further clarification from the Minister here—there are questions about timing, funding and democratic accountability. The Government have been clear that they intend to establish mayoral strategic authorities in devolution priority programme areas as quickly as possible. Indeed, we are told that the legislation for Sussex and Brighton is already being progressed and that institutions will be set up with the consent of constituent councils. However, as my noble friend Lord Porter pointed out, at the same time the Government have confirmed that the inaugural mayoral elections in these areas have been delayed until May 2028. That is much later than originally planned and is accompanied with a delay to the full powers, such as strategic planning, CPO and, importantly, full mayoral funding, which will be only 40% of that originally promised in the interim. Parties had already selected their candidates and were preparing for an election, so why is the mayoral election being delayed? Why can the full funding not be implemented now? It was on that basis that the councils involved embarked on the devolution programme, but the Government are not fulfilling their end of the programme.

The justification offered for this delay is that it allows time for local government reorganisation and the establishment of robust institutions. That is a weak excuse. Having experienced devolution first hand, I know that previous programmes have been delivered to a tighter, clearer timetable without the need for constant postponement of elections or, more recently, their reinstatement. It creates an unusual and uncomfortable position. We are being asked to approve the creation of a new strategic authority, the transfer of powers to it and the establishment of an institutional framework without a directly elected mayor in place for another two years. In effect, structures of devolution are being put in place while the democratic leadership is deferred until later. Can the Minister clarify the interim governance arrangements and, in particular, who is ultimately accountable to the public during this interim period for the exercise of these new powers? We appreciate that this instrument does not in itself determine the timing of elections, but it is inseparable from that broader context, and it is entirely reasonable for this Committee to probe how these arrangements will operate in practice.

To be clear, we are supportive of the creation of the Sussex and Brighton combined county authority in principle, but we are aware that devolution must be locally supported and democratically grounded from the outset. Also, the terms of the deal with the residents of Sussex should not be changed half way through the process. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on how accountability will be maintained in the period before May 2028 and whether any consideration has been given to shortening that timetable. I also commend my noble friend Lord Porter on his important question regarding pensions and look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and their broad support for the Sussex and Brighton authority, which I think is broadly welcomed in the local area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the 6,000 responses. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral combined authority over that proposed geography. Unsurprisingly, respondents provided a range of views, including evidence setting out the potential benefits, as well as some concerns. The Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State on the relevant statutory tests, as set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The Secretary of State’s decision was that those tests were met. It is not surprising that knowing how exactly this will work might have been a concern for some people, but I have looked at the evidence that came back and there was a pretty equal balance between the concerns and the things that people thought were a plus.

The noble Baroness mentioned scrutiny arrangements. I am not sure whether she was here the other day when we debated this on the English devolution Bill. The Government are bringing forward arrangements in that Bill to introduce local scrutiny committees with powers to scrutinise what the mayor is doing. Her noble friend Lord Shipley has raised this with me on a number of occasions, as he was concerned that those bodies should have powers to undertake pre-scrutiny. They will have those powers. This will be a powerful body to make sure that the mayor’s work gets scrutinised properly.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised LGR and asked why the mayoral arrangements are not being put in place until the foundation strategic authorities have been set up. The Government’s carefully considered decision is that we need resilient and sustainable authorities in place, and then the mayors will be elected. That is how we are taking that forward.

On the noble Baroness’s point about the review of mayoral arrangements, there are a huge number of advantages to them. Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive economic growth. They have standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems, directly exercise devolved powers and attract inward investment. They also have a platform for tackling the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach. Mayors are accountable directly to their citizens and have the profile to stand up for them on the national stage. They are able to both partner with and challenge central government where needed. That partnering on the national stage is critical. We now have the mayoral council to enable the regions represented by mayors to sit around the table and represent them to national government, which is really powerful. We are seeing that voice being amplified for local people in many areas that already have mayors, including Manchester, which the noble Baroness mentioned, London and the West Midlands, as well as other areas that are still developing but nevertheless are exercising their mayoral role powerfully.

The noble Baroness also asked whether councils and taxpayers will fund the CCA. The Government will support with the costs associated with the new authority through capacity funding, and the authority will also receive its investment fund as well as devolved funding for specific functions such as transport and adult skills. Beyond the support provided by the Government, the budgets of strategic authorities and how any costs are funded will be a local decision. The extent to which the constituent councils need to contribute at all to the running of the authority will therefore be decided locally.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for his comment about this being a price worth paying to get power out of Westminster. That has long been my view, and we have had many discussions about it over the years. First, on the pensions pot, we are still making decisions on how the LGR will be taken forward, but that has not yet been announced. The Government are considering those questions and will respond in due course, so the foundation strategic authorities will hold the ring on pension provision for now, until the mayors come into post.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked why we cannot have mayoral authorities now. I think I have explained that we want to make sure that these foundation strategic authorities are on a firm footing before we bring in the mayoral arrangement. He spoke about democratic arrangements. Once they come into post, the mayors will be directly elected across the whole area. Nevertheless, representatives on the foundation strategic authorities have their own democratic mandate, because they will be nominated from the councils concerned.

On the funding that the strategic authorities will receive, we will support with the costs associated with the new authorities. Sussex and Brighton have received £1.5 million this year in capacity funding to help towards establishment, and will receive a further £7.5 million over the next three years to help with core running costs. They will also receive the 30-year mayoral investment fund once the mayor is in post, as I have said. That will be £38 million a year, £1.14 billion over the 30 years. They will receive a portion of this in the two years prior to the mayor being elected to support the early delivery of growth priorities, and will also receive other devolved funding such as for transport and adult skills.

It is essential that the benefits of devolution are not delayed, and that is why, in the interim period between the establishment of the mayoral strategic authority and the inaugural mayoral elections, we will provide the authorities with a proportion of their investment funds, so that they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver some benefits ahead of the mayor taking office. The strategic authority will have a number of functions available in the interim period to enable and encourage investment in the area, subject to Royal Assent to the Bill. These include: the general power of competence, with the duty to develop a local growth plan and the power to borrow to an agreed cap; a health improvement and health inequalities duty; functions to acquire land, provide housing and build infrastructure, enabling it to make strategic interventions and support local growth ambitions; and responsibility for public transport and local transport planning, joining up the transport network across the region and helping people get to work, education and leisure activities.

In conclusion, this instrument delivers the commitment made with Sussex and Brighton to establish a combined county authority. I hope the Committee will welcome the regulations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

When we have requested a timetable for devolution elsewhere, the Minister has said that elections in May 2028 would be held not only in the six priority areas but in a number of other authorities, as part of this devolution. I am slightly confused as, if there is a need for the six priority areas to have this period of time, having already started the process towards May 2028, how will those that have not even started the process be able to do it by then? By inference, if the others can do it more quickly, why can these not do it more quickly, so that we could have those elections earlier? My noble friend Lord Porter suggested possibly May 2027.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The time periods are quite compressed, as the next tranche of 14 areas will be decided before the Summer Recess. The decision-making is quite close together and it is up to us to make sure that we get these SIs through, so that the foundation strategic authorities are in place before the mayoral elections all take place in 2028.

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

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I was mid-flow. I was making the case that, in the early days of business rates retention and pooling, there was an exceptionally compelling case to co-operate. Even if we gave away a little of our own growth as a local authority—I was the leader—the pot was large enough that we did not lose out. However, ever since, the incentive to grow through business rates retention and, in particular, pooling has become weaker and less compelling. It has been harder to demonstrate the benefits of growth to a sceptical population.

The trouble is that, through this instrument, it is not just that the train tracks have narrowed and the bid offer spread has become more constrained; a series of disincentives have made it significantly less attractive. I understand why there has to be a reset, but the cliff edge of the reset means that those councils that have worked hard to do the right thing are seeing that growth be snatched away. That is a pretty powerful disincentive to do the right thing.

Increasing redistribution means that, however well you do above the baseline, more and more gets taken away. That is a further disincentive. Now, there is an additional factor that weighs against the co-operation that makes everybody better off: the tweaks. It is more than a tweak, in fact; it is a tilting of the playing field against those who are growing hard and in favour of the indices of multiple deprivation.

I do not deny that some areas are poorer than others but, when you take into account each of these detractors from the incentive to grow, you find out that there are rewards for sitting back and not pushing the envelope. Those councils that can just sit back and wait for the others to do well are the undeserved beneficiaries. This is not to say that there should not be any redistribution—I am not making that case at all—but through this instrument and, in fairness, others over the past three or four years, we are getting to a situation where, if nobody is really incentivised to do the right thing, why should anybody do the right thing? Why should any council leader go out on a limb, as I did, to sell the benefits of growth and explain to residents and businesses, “If you come with me on this one, you’ll pay less council tax, the economy will be stronger, there’ll be more jobs”, and so on?

There is no taste in nothing. Diluting the incentives to do the right thing even more, as this instrument does, means that we will all end up in a rather tasteless situation that achieves neither what the Government crave nor what this nation deserves.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, first, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I agree with the two previous speakers that it is positive that there is a three-year settlement.

This instrument forms part of a wider set of reforms to the business rates retention system ahead of the 2026 reset. It makes a number of technical changes to how the system operates in practice, particularly in relation to the levy on growth, the safety net and the treatment of compensation for reliefs and multiplier changes. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Fuller have said, these regulations will have an impact on growth and incentives.

We recognise the Government’s stated intentions both to realign local government funding with need and to ensure that the system continues to function smoothly as wider reforms are introduced, but those objectives cannot come at the expense of undermining incentives for local economic growth and for high-performing councils. It is the Government’s stated intention to promote growth; I query how this instrument fits with that intention.

These regulations replace the existing levy cap with a system of marginal rates on growth. In many cases, the effect will be that local authorities retain less of the proceeds of the very development they are being asked to support. That raises a fundamental question: if councils see a diminishing or even negative financial return from growth, why would they take on the costs and complexities that often come with approving new development? As my noble friend Lord Fuller said, new development is not free; you may need to invest in infrastructure or provide incentives for someone to come to your area. There are also social costs in the wider sense, such as busier roads, the loss of green fields, busier doctors, a lack of GP surgeries and so on. What is the incentive for local councils and councillors to promote growth if there is no financial recompense that they can use to invest in their communities?

Local authorities are not passive actors in this system. They make those difficult decisions concerning planning, infrastructure and local services. If the link between growth and local benefit is weakened, the Government risk tilting the system away from enterprise and towards dependency on redistribution. I ask the Minister directly: what assessment has been made of the impact of these changes on councils’ willingness to bring forward new development? Can the Minister set out more clearly which types of authorities stand to lose out under these changes? What assessment has been made of the impact on local financial planning and rates collection as a result? This largely mirrors what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised around the idea of an impact assessment.

Birmingham City Council and Unite: Refuse Workers’ Pay

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Throughout the dispute, the Government’s priority has been the residents of Birmingham. During the worst disruption, in spring 2025, the Government provided intensive support to local partners to respond to the public health crisis that was arising then because of the all-out strike action. The result was to establish a regular contingency waste collection service, despite the industrial action. While the contingency service delivers basic services, there have been periods of missed collections. We continue to monitor the situation and the associated impact on local communities, but for the moment the contingency service is delivering a service to the people of Birmingham.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, last year Birmingham’s Conservative group published a clear plan to end the bin strikes, reinstate weekly collections and resolve the equal pay liabilities. Labour rejected that plan, claiming that negotiations were progressing well. Do the Government regret that decision, which could have stopped the strikes 12 months ago? Will the Government ensure that constructive opposition proposals that put residents first are properly considered?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Conservative Party in Birmingham should not wash its hands of some of the part it played in creating the crisis that Birmingham is facing overall. Birmingham’s recent history has seen one of the largest equal pay crises in modern times. Over the past 15 years, this has cost the council and the people of Birmingham a great deal of money. In October last year, the council signed the agreement with the unions to settle the historic equal pay claims that had amounted. This was a significant step forward to move past a dark moment in the city’s history and in resetting relationships with staff and their trade union representatives. Talks are ongoing to resolve this current issue.

Stamp Duty: Periodic Tenancies

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We had much discussion about this during the passage of the Act, and we are working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to implement the reforms. Work is progressing well to ensure that the courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the additional workload that the reforms may generate. Work is also progressing on the new digital end-to-end service for resolving all possession claims in the county courts in England and Wales. Ultimately, the Act should reduce demand on the county courts, because possession claims will be able to be brought only where there is a valid reason for the landlord to do so.

The noble Baroness is quite right about local authorities. We are helping councils to build their enforcement capacity and get ready for implementation. We have provided new burdens funding, and we have funded the Operation Jigsaw network of local councils to deliver bespoke training on the Act.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, many noble Lords across the House raised concerns about its impact on the private rental market—with landlords leaving the market, seeking to raise rents and using Section 21 before the implementation of the Act, which does little to stop rogue landlords. Does the Minister consider the reports of Labour donor Asif Aziz’s company Criterion Capital issuing large numbers of Section 21 eviction notices, if true, a rational response to the Act or the action of a rogue landlord?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, the basis of the Renters’ Rights Act was made under the previous Government. We wanted to make sure that we tackle the issues in the housing market and have done so with a very effective piece of legislation. On mass evictions, the latest Ministry of Justice landlord possession action statistics published in February showed a 17% reduction in county court Section 21 landlord-accelerated possession claims in quarter 4 compared with the same quarter in 2024. We have given a strong message that responsible landlords have nothing to fear from the reforms; they will have access to a wide range of possession grounds where they are needed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the difficulty the public have with the word “consultation” is that they often dismiss it as being a mere sop by those who want to change the order of things, whatever that might be. Consultation is frequently used; it is a basic part of the planning process. Often, members of the public make representations based on planning law, the NPPF and local plans, but nevertheless the developers overcome those objections. It is the same with changes to the structure of local authorities. Consultation has become, “You can have your say, but in the end you’re going to be overruled”.

With something as serious as this, where land has been donated for public use for many years and held in trust—a word we need to reflect on—for public use, it should not be easy to remove that public trust, in effect removing the public from the trust. In my view, using a device called consultation is totally inadequate in those circumstances. There ought to be a different way of determining whether land should be taken out of that protection.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is an issue that we remember well from debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now an Act. I am pleased that the Government and my noble friend Lord Banner have been able to work together on this and have, I believe, come to an agreed position. I am also grateful that my noble friend has been able to lend his significant expertise to the drafting of Amendment 222C to help find a solution. However, as we are only in Committee, we will need a little more time to go through it thoroughly before we consider giving it our support.

In the meantime, can the Minister please update us on the wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected, which she committed to during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? Has this review been conducted? If so, what was the outcome and has it been published? If not, when will it be conducted?

We are also aware of the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the Day case. That needs looking at in detail. Will the Government look into the case of Wimbledon specifically, given the enormous importance of Wimbledon to our national sporting life and the contentious issues at stake? Would a targeted inquiry into that case be appropriate? I would be grateful if the Minister could give her view on these points.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everybody for their patience while we have had to adjourn the Committee several times for voting. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his Amendment 222C and for his engagement on this matter. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank the noble Lord for his very careful consideration and constructive efforts to address the issue at hand. We need a mechanism to close this lacuna in the law, while ensuring balanced decisions can be made in the public interest. In my view, Amendment 222C does just that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, set out, and as we discussed during debates on what is now the Planning and Infrastructure Act, there is currently no way of releasing such statutory trust if the statutory advertisement procedure is not followed. This means that the land is bound by the trust in perpetuity, which can risk holding up important developments that may be in the public interest—for example, the building of important new amenities and facilities for the local community. The amendment would provide a practical solution to this issue, while still ensuring that balanced decisions are made in the public interest. The noble Lord helpfully set out the safeguards enshrined in the qualifying conditions, which the Secretary of State will have to consider to make a discharge order.

The issues around community rights are, of course, very important. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised this but the amendment would embed a robust public interest test and significant transparency safeguards. Before any statutory trust discharge order can be made, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all six of those qualifying conditions are met, including full compliance with the new publicity requirements and a broad public interest test. I remind the Committee that the conditions are: nature conservation, landscape conservation, public rights of access, features of historic interest or archaeological remains, development proposals, and economic, environmental or social benefits, which the order would facilitate, if made. This is a transparent, evidence-based process and it would ensure that trusts can be discharged only where it is demonstrably in the public interest to do so.

The purpose of Amendment 222C is to provide clarity for those who are already impacted by this lacuna in the law. It does not address past failures to follow the advertising procedure. However, it places additional requirements on local authorities to co-operate with the Secretary of State to identify if this procedure has not been followed. Most importantly, the application process and advertising procedure in the amendment would maintain the core elements of the Local Government Act 1972 by ensuring that communities have opportunities to make representations, should they object to the release of the statutory trust held for public recreation.

The proposed amendment also provides that a statutory trust may be released only where this is in the public interest, which the advertised provision in the Local Government Act does not specify. I feel that, to some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has misunderstood the narrow focus and purpose of this amendment, and the rigorous guardrails that have been placed around it. We need a method of resolving an issue. This amendment effectively allows that public consultation to be responded to in a Secretary of State process where it has been omitted originally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, I apologise for being a Johnny-come-lately, having left my noble friends to do all the heavy lifting on this Bill. I have come to raise only one issue: the concern that many of us have about the prevalence of gambling premises on our high streets.

In raising that issue, I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and the chair of Action on Gambling. Many noble Lords will be aware of the serious concerns about the large number of gambling premises, particularly betting shops and adult gaming centres, on many of our high streets. Only a few weeks ago a Minister wrote in a Written Answer:

“Some high streets have become increasingly dominated by certain types of premises—including gambling establishments—which don’t always meet the needs of their communities. According to the Gambling Commission, the number of adult gaming centres (AGCs) rose by 7% between 2022 and 2024, with additional data showing that AGCs are most concentrated in areas of higher deprivation”.


That last point was confirmed by the NHS’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which confirmed that the most deprived local authorities have three times more gambling premises per head of population than the least deprived local authorities. Research shows not only very clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and all the problems that brings to the individuals, their families and their communities.

As a result, communities across the country have been demanding that local councils take action to stop the proliferation. But, as has been seen in many council areas—Peterborough, Brent and numerous others—they have come up against a stumbling block: Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005. This is the so-called aim to permit section, under which the default position that councils have to take is that they must permit the use of premises for gambling unless there are specific reasons not to do so. Councils that have tried to stop new gambling venues have often had lawyers from the very powerful and wealthy gambling companies to contend with and have always ended up losing.

No wonder Brent Council, which has been leading a group of councils to try to bring about change to get more power, has come up with a little card pointing out that it is easier to block a fast food joint opening next door to a school than it is to stop a high street casino next door to a homeless shelter. Quite simply, planning and licensing authorities need additional powers to regulate the circumstances in which they authorise or reject premises being used for gambling.

On numerous occasions the Government have said that they wanted to do exactly this. The Pride in Place strategy, published on 25 September 2025, said:

“We … want to empower local authorities to curate healthy, vibrant public spaces that reflect the needs of their communities”.


It reaffirmed the Government’s commitment

“to strengthen councils’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets”.

That is a clear commitment and has been repeated by the Prime Minister and other Ministers time after time. Sadly, the answer has been not to rule out the aim to permit but to come up with another solution. This alternative way forward was based on the solution to a problem that used to exist when there was a growth in the number of premises selling alcohol, and it is the basis for my amendment today.

That solution enabled local authorities to review and consult on the number and impact of the existing relevant premises, including pubs, in a particular area. Are there too many? Are there enough, or could we have some more? That was called a cumulative impact assessment. If that CIA concluded that there were already enough pubs in an area and that an extra one would harm the well-being of the community, it could be used to reject a licence for an additional one.

That idea of a cumulative impact assessment being used for gambling premises was picked up by the Conservative Government when they were in power. Their White Paper on gambling said categorically:

“We will align the regimes for alcohol and gambling licensing by introducing cumulative impact assessments”,


for gambling licences,

“when Parliamentary time allows”.

The new Government have come to the same conclusion. The Prime Minister announced that it is the Government’s intention to introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows, and Ministers have used it time after time in answers to Written Questions.

During the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I argued that it provided the necessary parliamentary time, so I introduced an amendment that would have provided CIAs for gambling licences. The Government accepted that it was a great idea and they really wanted to do it, but told me that that was not the right Bill to do it in. I was confused at the time as to why that was but nevertheless accepted it. I am very much hoping that we have another Bill which is the right Bill in which to do it. My Amendment 235F would therefore bring forward, as I have done previously, the giving of the power to local councils to use cumulative impact assessments to address, where it is appropriate, concerns about additional gambling premises coming to a particular area.

I hope the Minister will agree at least in principle to the amendment. If she is in any way unhappy with any of the details, I hope she will agree to work with me and other interested parties so we can resolve them and bring back an amendment that is acceptable to all parties at a later stage in the Bill, therefore giving councils the additional powers they need to curb the proliferation of gambling venues with all the problems they can create on our high streets.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment. Having listened to his arguments, I believe he is right that local authorities should not only have the ability to but should take into account cumulative impact before deciding on planning applications for gambling premises.

This would not be an outright ban on premises being used for gambling, nor would it encourage local authorities to come to a particular conclusion or other. Rather, this would allow councillors to make a reference to cumulative impact assessments and adopt an evidenced-based approach on planning matters. Local authorities should be empowered to respond and make planning decisions according to their communities’ needs, and they are best placed to interpret the evidence and act proportionately. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his amendment, for all the work he continues to do on tackling gambling harms—it is much appreciated—and for raising this very important topic. I assure him the Government are committed to introducing cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing. Once introduced, these will help local authorities take evidence-based decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. They will also create a presumption against new gambling premises licences being granted in specific areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, this is not about banning gambling premises; it is about assessing the harms and being able to deal with those.

Anyone who has been a councillor will know the issue, how this works and how it can cause detriment to high streets, so I absolutely support the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. As drafted, it would introduce cumulative impact assessments to guide planning decisions. However, the cumulative impact assessments will be most effective for local authorities when specifically applied to the licensing process and licensing applications, rather than simultaneously applying to planning and licensing. This would match the approach already taken by licensing authorities when using cumulative impact assessments in relation to the licensing of alcohol premises, which the noble Lord mentioned. The planning and licensing regimes are separate legal frameworks. This amendment risks creating inconsistencies between a local authority’s planning process and licensing process.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would require the planning authority to consider a cumulative impact assessment published by the licensing authority during the planning process. By granting this power to the planning authority, the amendment risks conflating the licensing and planning regimes. The noble Lord is quite correct to say that licensing is in the scope of the Bill. However, this amendment would not allow local authorities to use cumulative impact assessments in the most suitable and effective way and risks creating conflict between the planning and licensing regimes. That is our concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the valuable contributions of noble Lords in this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing this amendment forward. As has been highlighted, local area energy plans could be helpful in addressing how local energy infrastructure can cope with the pressure of increased housing and commercial targets from central government in the context of a changing energy environment in their local areas.

Paragraph (d) would also require that the Secretary of State’s report includes,

“proposals for funding, technical support, training, and capacity building initiatives”

to ensure that local authorities are capable and well-equipped to introduce local area energy plans. In addition, the amendment insists on clear evaluation, criteria and success metrics for any pilots carried out.

I commend the noble Lord on his amendment, which rightly recognises that authorities must have the means to ensure that the local energy infrastructure can meet the needs of economic and housing growth and provide resilient energy. However, I would hesitate before introducing a statutory requirement for local area energy plans. If we are serious about community empowerment and trusting local representatives to determine what is right for the areas, it should be up to individual local authorities to set targets for which local area energy plans might be needed. There is also the question of the resources and powers that would be given to local authorities, without which plans would be undeliverable.

Finally, and crucially, energy systems are part of a broader national energy system, where all parts must work together in an integrated manner. This cannot be looked at in isolation, although those plans will obviously be a hugely helpful contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for Amendment 241 and for meeting me to discuss his proposals. The Government continue to work in partnership with local government, recognising the important role that local authorities play in reaching net zero and achieving our clean power 2030 mission.

We recognise that in support of local and national net-zero targets some local authorities have developed local area energy plans and have found them very helpful. We also welcome the work that many local authorities have already undertaken to incorporate planning for future energy needs into work such as the development of local growth plans and their contribution to the development of regional energy strategic plans.

Perhaps there has been a slight misrepresentation of the fact that there is no co-ordination to this. It is being co-ordinated. In fact, NESO published the transitional regional energy strategic plan on 30 January 2026. These plan for energy needs over the next few years at a regional level but include a lot of energy-related data at a lower super output area—that is, neighbourhood level. This will influence business planning for distribution network operators across the country. NESO recently consulted on the methodology for enduring regional energy strategic plans, which will be developed in partnership with local communities and implemented by the end of 2028.

However, the amendment, as drafted, risks duplicating or constraining current activity in this area. For example, the recently published transitional regional energy strategic plans contain a wealth of data on energy at local authority level and neighbourhood level as well as an assessment of regional energy infrastructure need consistently across all regions.

The local net-zero hubs have also worked with Energy Systems Catapult on Ready for RESP to support local and regional stakeholders to help deliver energy system planning aligned with investment plans and planning needs. This work included updating which places have already developed local area energy plans. Local net-zero hubs’ most recent report, published on 5 February, sets out some of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to local decarbonisation plans. I welcome that as a very helpful approach to take. In parallel, the Government are aware of work undertaken by the Local Government Association to consider options for a statutory duty that we plan to discuss at a future, ministerially chaired, local net-zero delivery group.

We are sympathetic to the points raised in this debate and in previous debates on energy planning by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We are yet to be convinced that a national statutory requirement to produce local area energy plans would support local authorities rather than reducing their flexibility to produce plans that meet their needs. We continue to discuss with the Local Government Association and others the benefits of statutory duties on net zero, and we will continue current research in this area. I hope that, with these reasons and explanations, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

By opposing this clause and Schedule 34, Baroness Scott of Bybrook seeks to remove the ban on upward only rent reviews.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the stand-part notices and the amendment in the group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Our intention is to oppose Clause 85 and Schedule 34, which seek to abolish long-standing, upward-only commercial rent reviews, standing part of the Bill, while Amendment 254 proposes a review of the market impacts of rent review provisions. I speak with a deep concern for the stability, liquidity and long-term health of the commercial property market and for the businesses, pensions, investors and communities who depend on it.

Clause 85 and Schedule 34 would enact an outright ban on upward-only rent reviews in new and renewed commercial leases. This represents one of the most interventionist market reforms in modern commercial leasing, yet it arrives without the benefit of any industry consultation. The British Property Federation has been clear that it does not support the Government’s blanket ban and expresses its concern about the absence of proper consultation. Why are the Government not listening?

The existing evidence is clear. Upward-only rent reviews have long underpinned confidence in UK commercial property as an investment asset. These proposed changes have caused widespread concern in the sector. We have heard that upward-only rent reviews provide vital income certainty and support property valuations by ensuring that rental income cannot decline mid-lease—an important factor for institutional investors and particularly lenders assessing long-term risk. Lawrence Stephens, one of the main real estate lawyers, notes that outlawing upward-only rent reviews will undermine the perceived security of rental income and place developers at a disadvantage when seeking finance—a consequence that risks delaying regeneration projects and suppressing new commercial investment. There is a significant concern that the Government’s proposed changes will have a widespread impact on market stability and investment confidence, affecting everything from property values to regeneration projects. Can the Minister please tell us whether the Government have taken this analysis into account and how they plan to mitigate it?

The likely effects of these measures on business tenancies that the Government claim to support cannot be ignored. Landlords will inevitably respond to this change by front-loading rents and shortening lease terms to protect themselves against the prospect of downward-only risk exposure. This would most significantly impact the very businesses that the Bill says it aims to help, especially those that require stability over the long term.

My opposition to Clause 85 and Schedule 34 standing part of the Bill reflects several key concerns: reduced investment in liquidity, threatening regional development; shorter lease durations with fewer stable long-term tenancies; higher initial rents, counteracting the Government’s aim of supporting the high street; increased financing costs, making commercial development harder to deliver; and a slowing down of regeneration projects across the country, especially in areas dependent on external investment, thereby hampering growth, which the Government say is their number one priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for Amendment 234. I will start with the stand part notices for Clause 85 and Schedule 34.

Upwards-only rent reviews have been a long-standing issue for businesses throughout England and Wales. The British Independent Retailers Association and UKHospitality gave evidence in the other place about just how damaging the practice is and why they have campaigned for decades for the Government to take action. The practice of upward-only rent reviews has an invidious effect on the efficiency and accessibility of the commercial property market—not to mention the impact on our high streets and town centres that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined. It is designed to ensure that landlords and investors are insured against market conditions, but there is a cost to this, which falls chiefly on the business tenants left paying excessive rents when they are already stretched to breaking point, unable to invest or improve their productivity, or, in times of hardship, to keep the lights on or pay their staff wages.

Ultimately, these clauses make running a business less viable, damaging the competitiveness of the economy. Alongside reform of business rates, banning these clauses will help make commercial rents fairer and more efficient, help businesses invest and give them greater resilience to economic conditions. In recognition that these clauses can provide some security to investors, we have committed to consult on how caps and collars could be used. I reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to work carefully and closely with the property industry and others to implement this policy, help manage risk and maintain confidence in the market, without relying on one-sided mechanisms such as upwards-only rent review clauses.

I turn to Amendment 254. I understand the desire to consider the impacts of legislation once it has passed. However, 12 months is too limited a period to see the ban fully implemented and the market adjusted. The Bill’s impact assessment also finds that the ban is likely to have a net positive impact on the UK economy because it will make the commercial property market more efficient, reducing rents for tenants who can instead invest in their businesses and help keep consumer prices low. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. There may be a slight misunderstanding here. Our key point is that this is a very significant change to the commercial property market, and it has not been done with the industry. The Minister said that she would “work carefully and closely” to implement it. It would have been better to have worked closely and carefully with the industry in developing it. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Our issue is with a blanket ban rather than looking at how we can come up with a potential system that works better for all parties. I am glad that she is more supportive of our amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am dreadfully sorry; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Can we have that officially minuted? I share those concerns. The key point is that we need something that works.

I wish to point out that upward-only rent reviews are nowhere near the biggest problem facing businesses up and down the high street. They are contending with devastating increases in business rates and are facing increased regulation, increases in national insurance charges and the effects of changes to the minimum wage. Although we would all like a higher minimum wage, it must be affordable.

The Government’s solution—tearing out a long-established market measure without proper consideration, without careful engagement with the sector and without understanding the consequences for investment and lending to commercial markets—is a high-risk strategy. The question today is not whether commercial tenants deserve fair terms—they do—but whether the proposal before us is the right one. There are too many uncertainties and risks that have been left unaddressed.

We will seek to revisit this issue on Report. I hope that, by then, the Government will have reflected on the concerns raised today and will come forward with proposals grounded not in assertion but in evidence, balance and economic reality. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my clause stand part notice.

Clause 85 agreed.

Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

As noble Lords can see, there are lots of questions here. I appreciate that there will not be any answers but, for me, bigger does not equal better—there is no evidence for that. I emphasise the value of enabling the link between the elected and the electors to remain a vibrant part of our democracy. Every other part of western Europe has a better ratio of electors to elected than this country does. The United States, despite everything that goes on there, has a much better ratio at various levels. In my view, this is an error on its own. Given that, and given the difficulties that this will create, I hope the Minister will be able to respond to some of my questions, in particular by telling us the debt levels of the councils that are being absorbed into both unitaries.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument. I wish to make noble Lords aware of my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. I do not think it is an interest, but I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.

There are a number of concerns here, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, some of which overlap with those that have been aired. First, as has just been said, the Government’s consultation demonstrated that there was a clear preference among residents—albeit a fairly small number of them: 5,000 out of 1.2 million—for a three-unitary model, not the two-authority model imposed by this order. However, on 28 October 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be a two-unitary structure. The Minister argued that two authorities will be cheaper and deliver greater efficiencies, but, if efficiency alone were the overriding criterion, would that not point logically towards a single unitary? Where local preference and ministerial preference diverge so clearly, this Committee is entitled to ask why local voices were overridden and what weight was truly given to the consultation process.

Secondly, on finance, Surrey’s councils face acute financial pressures, not least because of the high debt levels at Woking Borough Council of around £2 billion and more than £1 billion at Spelthorne. Although the Minister mentioned the £500 million of support for Woking, there has been no central debt write-off. The financial risks of reorganisation, including the risk that projected savings fail to materialise, will ultimately fall on local taxpayers. The Minister said that this would be under review, but can she provide more certainty for local residents than a tenuous statement that this will be looked at in the future?

I would like to raise the issue of SEND deficits, which are around £350 million for Surrey. The recent announcement was that SEND deficits will be covered up to 90%, yet in the negotiations as part of this reorganisation a figure of £100 million has been mentioned. Clearly, that is different. Can the Minister clarify whether there will genuinely be 90% funding for SEND deficits, or whether this is also a tenuous statement?

The Government have announced £63 million nationally to support local government reorganisation. While any support is very welcome, that figure has to be shared across all areas undertaking structural change. Can the Minister confirm how much Surrey will receive, when those funds will be released and whether the Government accept that the real implementation costs, which locally have been estimated to be substantially higher, will exceed this funding envelope, particularly given the delays and changes in direction of the process?

Thirdly, on devolution, residents were led to believe that the structural change would be accompanied by meaningful devolution and a mayoral model. The Government have referred to a foundation strategic authority for Surrey, but assurances about its powers, funding and timing remain ambiguous. What is the Government’s firm commitment to establishing that body, when will it be created, what additional funding will accompany it and when will that funding be received? Structural upheaval without genuine devolution would be a poor bargain for the residents of Surrey. Reorganisation on this scale must command confidence. It must be locally supported, financially credible and embedded with a clear devolution settlement. At present, serious questions remain on all three counts.

We seek clarity about transitional governance. Commissioners were appointed to oversee financial sustainability and governance improvements at Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils. We are now beyond the indicated review period for these appointments. Have they been extended and, if so, until when? Will they continue into the shadow authority period following the upcoming May elections? Where will they be placed in the subsequent authorities? The Committee deserves clarity about who will hold responsibility and accountability during the transition.

More broadly, I reflect on the process. In Surrey, the pathway to reorganisation has been clear for more than a year, with the timetable for elections to the new unitaries and implementation on 1 April 2027 set out. Why has the same clarity not applied to the mayoral timetable? Why have the Government not adhered to a clear and published schedule for the establishment of a mayor of Surrey?

This raises a wider question. Other devolution deals and local government reorganisations have appeared to be far less orderly, with altered timetables and delayed and then not delayed elections but without the equivalent certainty about the final structure. Those of us who have been through previous rounds of local government reorganisation know that while elections were sometimes postponed for a year, that was done on the basis of clarity about the end state. Why could the Government not achieve the same coherence elsewhere?

Finally, I return to the question that the Minister studiously avoided answering in the Chamber last week. While the Government initially decided to postpone the council elections scheduled for May 2026, relying on statutory powers and legal advice, that decision was subsequently reversed on 16 February 2026, following further legal advice. I am not seeking disclosure of that advice; I simply ask what changed. What change of circumstances or what change of information provided meant that the legal advice changed? Legal advice is revised when there is a change of circumstance or in the information provided, so what changed? The Committee is entitled to understand the reasoning behind such significant changes in democratic decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their considered contributions today. I recognise that they have a great deal of experience in this area, so they were very thoughtful contributions indeed. I will try to pick up all the points that have been made. If I miss any, I am sure noble Lords will let me know, but I will try to pick them up from Hansard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked more broadly about the benefits of reorganisation and pointed to the savings that might accrue. Although financial savings are important, this restructuring is also about delivering the kinds of profiles for councils that are able to drive forward the growth and improvement in public services that we all want to see, and having a system that is not as confusing for residents as the two-tier system has been in the past. In their proposal, Surrey County Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council estimated ongoing net annual benefits after five years of up to £46 million, with a midpoint of around £23 million and total implementation costs of £85 million. So there are financial savings to accrue from this, after the initial cost of doing the reorganisation.

We hope that there will be savings, but it is important that we focus on sustainability. With the way it was going, we were not looking at a sustainable future for local government. We have partly addressed that through the fair funding formula—I will talk more about that in a moment—and in this reorganisation and devolution process. Reorganisation creates the conditions for stronger local democracy, fewer politicians, and a clear picture with no conflicting mandates and agendas.

I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the local voice, and I will come on to the wards and things in a moment, but clear local leadership allows councils to take the decisions needed to drive growth, deliver better public services and allow communities to be represented, while clear accountability makes sure that communities can properly hold leaders to account. Strong leadership and clear accountability are harder to achieve, where, for the same place, there are two council leaders, each with a legitimate democratic mandate and sometimes having different and conflicting agendas. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is important. Making sure we have preventive, holistic services, which are far more effective in picking up problems early, instead of them being split between two local authorities, is important.

Residents can access the services that they need with one council in charge. To give noble Lords an example, in 2018, Leicestershire County Council reported that more than 140,000 people called the wrong local council when they were trying to get help. I understand that it is not always the same as that everywhere, but it is an important principle to keep to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. I have a question for clarity, as it potentially impacts some of the comments that she might make subsequently. If I heard her correctly, this whole reorganisation is being driven by the need to have sustainable councils to cover the debts of Woking and Spelthorne—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

No, I did not say that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

That is fine—that is why I am seeking clarification. If we put that to one side, the Minister’s implication was that the Government might not have gone with this structure. I want to be clear that the residents of the other nine borough councils are not being impacted or hamstrung by the need to address the issues with the other two. That would be a very unfortunate scenario. I am just asking for clarity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Lord asked that question. I apologise— I hope that I did not mislead in what I said. The criteria that we set out for this process are very clear. We looked at the criteria right across the board, and they are there to make sure that this new structure is less confusing for people, that all the services are in one council and that the structure can drive the economic growth needed and provide high-quality public services. However, as we look at those important wider criteria, it is very important that we take account of the unique circumstances of Surrey—you cannot ignore them. It is in that sense that we took the decision to have two councils.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the size of these new councils. East Surrey will have a population of 556,000, and West Surrey 672,000. Councils of this size are not without precedent. Many of the councils formed in the past 20 years had populations of more than 500,000 when they were established, including North Yorkshire, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Cornwall. However, it is very important that I stress the point that 500,000 is a guideline. I do not think any inference should be drawn across the wider programme of local government reorganisation from these decisions taken for Surrey. Each application will be considered on its own merits. We have said all the way through this that 500,000 is a guideline, not a template. I hope that is helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the number of councillors and wards. For east Surrey there will be 72 councillors, which is two per ward on 36 strategic council divisions, and for west Surrey it will be 90 councillors, which is two per ward on 45 divisions. I hope that is helpful in terms of the straightforward sizes.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord asked me some questions around local elections going ahead outside Surrey, and I understand why he keeps pressing me on the point about the changes to the legal advice. The legal advice did change and that advice is privileged; I cannot give him the detail of what has changed in the advice, because that would mean that it is not privileged anymore. I am sorry not to be able to do that but, as he will be aware, following legal advice, the Government withdrew their original decision to postpone 30 local elections in May, and an order revoking the local authorities SI has now been laid in Parliament, as of 17 February. All local elections will now go ahead in May 2026.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

If the Minister has almost finished, I shall just intervene on a couple of points for clarity. On the unsupported debt that we have talked about, the Minister talked about a 7.5% increase in core funding over three years. I assume that that is based on 5% increases in council tax over three years. Residents of Surrey will see council tax rising twice as fast as core funding and, if inflation stays at its current level, see core funding in real terms being less than inflation. I would call that a cut rather than an increase in funding.

I appreciate the Minister’s comments on SEND funding. In the discussions that are going on as part of the reorganisation, the offer was substantially less than 90%. I think that Surrey would be delighted if the Minister could confirm that it would be 90% of the figure. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer that here and now.

On the point of legal advice, you go and seek legal advice a second time when something has changed, when you have received new information or circumstances have changed. I am not looking for the legal advice itself; I am asking what prompted going to get legal advice a second time. What was the change in circumstance or information that prompted the need to get legal advice a second time? Good legal advice should not change if circumstances and information are the same. I would appreciate some clarity on that but, again, I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer that here and now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will take the last point first. My understanding is that the usual practice is for legal advice to be reviewed over the course of a legal case going on. That is standard practice and is what happened in this case. I cannot add anything further to that at the moment, but I shall take the noble Lord’s comments back and, if we have anything further to say on it, I shall write to him.

On core funding, I simply add that this was the best settlement that local government has had for a long time. The council tax capping to which the noble Lord referred is something that his own Government introduced and kept in place. We have not changed that, so local authorities will be able to continue with the 5% increase. The funding settlement is far more generous than many that I had when I was the local government leader trying to do battle with a system that was gradually reducing my funding every single year. Many councils have had an increase this year and many have had a substantial increase this year. When I look online at the budget speeches of colleagues around the country—which I do, because I am a bit of a sad geek in that respect—it is absolutely amazing to see councils talking about what they are able to do now because of the increases in funding that they have received. I am very proud of that, and I am certainly not going to apologise for it.

This Government’s ambition is to end the two-tier system and establish single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: for stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower communities. This order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey to help to ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. We will continue to work with the leaders in Surrey to develop their proposal for a foundation authority but, for now, I hope that the Committee will welcome this order.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I apologise: I should have asked this earlier. It is just a point of clarity; I am not making a political barb here. We asked about the role of the commissioners. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us an answer now, but it would be very helpful, certainly for the people in Surrey and the councils involved, if we could have clarity on the role of the commissioners, when they will be extended and how their roles will fit into the shadow authorities. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but that would be helpful to have.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, I thought I had covered that when I spoke about the detail of the support being provided to Woking. The commissioners are still working there, and we will continue to work with Woking and the other authorities involved in west Surrey, as is necessary.