Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I want to remind the House of a contribution I made during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I listened with interest to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, but with a large degree of scepticism, because I personally experienced exactly the issue that is being complained about, at the hands of the Conservative Government. I was re-elected in 1981 to the Greater London Council, with my term due to end in 1985, and the Conservative Government—the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, is the guilty party here—extended my term of office to 1986. So, it is quite clear that there is no point of principle here. I am glad that it has ended up the way it has, but to try to make out that one party does it and the other does not is totally wrong.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

Briefly, I make a plea to the Minister that she takes personal oversight of all those councils where the delays may have an impact on staff’s ability to step up and do the right things for the election. Clearly, they will all bust themselves to try to make sure everything is perfect, but it will be worth the Government making sure that they take a closer interest in all of those councils and finding down the back of the magic sofa in Marsham Street some of that spare change that they have that they can bring out occasionally if it is necessary. I do not think the teams running the elections will be waving a shroud, but if they genuinely need extra resource to be able to pay extra money to recruit people that they need at short notice, or shorter notice, the Government should be prepared to provide it. Like my colleagues on the Front Bench, I have some regrets about this, but not for the same reasons that they do.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, may I pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made just now on precedent? I do not think I have heard reference to precedent elsewhere, but there is no question but that there have been occasions when elections have been delayed. However, what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was referring to here was the most amazing set of circumstances, whereby one week we were asked to consider an order for delays in elections on 30 local authorities, and those delays were at a point only weeks before one was heading towards notices for the election, nomination day and the like. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated, two weeks later, because of an apparent legal reconsideration of circumstances, the policy was completely reversed. As far as I am aware, there is no such precedent and, tragically, we have yet to receive an apology from the Government for the confusion—and that is all it is. It is total confusion, within a period of a few weeks going from one unclear policy to another, with the net result of substantial cost.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, identified, democracy is a frail flower, and playing around with it in the way that the Government have in the last few weeks is unacceptable. It is unacceptable not just to the public at large; we have to bear in mind the burden faced by the returning officers and their staff in the local authorities. They do a truly fantastic job in difficult circumstances. It is regularly the case that, where there are not elections in one local authority, it loans its staff to a neighbouring authority which has elections. It is not easy to find polling clerks, and what is happening is that one local authority provides the facilities for another. Here we have a position whereby people who might have been loaned to another authority are suddenly called back. There are all the other associated difficulties with calling an election, cancelling an election and then restarting an election. I will not go into them in detail, but I think most of the people in this House are only too well aware of the problems that are thrown up in the face of the EROs throughout the country by the policies that have been followed over the last few weeks.

I would have hoped that, at some stage, the Government could have apologised to the local councils, and particularly to the EROs and their staff, for the problems that they have caused, but, unfortunately, they have failed to do so. However, it is appropriate that one should identify that democracy and the way it operates need to operate on a degree of certainty, which in the last few weeks or months we have not had from this Government.

Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, one in a series of statutory instruments creating county combined authorities that we have discussed over several months.

I start with what the Minister said about the purpose of this statutory instrument: that the Government wish to “widen and deepen devolution”. We Liberal Democrats support devolution and have long advocated for it. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted in its report on this SI that of the more than 6,000 responses received from the public,

“71% disagreed that it would support … local communities”.

The SLSC asked, given that local opposition—the overwhelming majority of those 6,000 responses not in favour—how the Government will ensure that the mayor has a “firm democratic mandate” and that local residents are able to “engage” with the system. That seems to be fundamental for any devolution proposal—that it takes people with them. Clearly, from the response to the consultation, that is not the case. I hope that the Minister has some responses to that committee’s report.

The Government have given a formal response to the committee’s report, which included a commitment to future strengthening of scrutiny. As the Minister will know, every time we discuss this, I criticise the scrutiny arrangements in mayoral authorities as being totally inadequate for the range and depth of functions that the mayor will have. One of the easy ways to improve scrutiny would be by ensuring that pre-decision scrutiny is the norm. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any hope that this will be the case.

I have a couple of other points to make. The financing of the mayoral model—if I have read it right—is to be from the constituent councils until the mayoral elections. If that is the case, can the Minister quantify the financial call on the constituent local councils until that time?

The main concern I have is that the Government are proceeding with mayoral devolution alongside very significant local government reorganisation. Two major reorganisations in local government are taking place in that area, which will inevitably cause increased expenditure in the first instance. Establishing the different and new authorities will inevitably be a call on the constituent authorities’ finances. It will not all be funded by grants—it never is—and that will inevitably mean a call on financing of basic public services. Does the Minister agree with that?

Finally, the Government and the previous Government are very keen on the mayoral model, but at no point have we had an assessment or a review of its achievements and its failures. Looking across the metro mayors that have been established, there have been some notable successes. The bus transport system in Greater Manchester has been a success, but there are other parts of the country—looking towards the north-east of the country—where it has not been such an overwhelming success and great question marks have been raised about the way that the mayor and the authority have fulfilled their statutory requirements. It is important that the Government do a review and an assessment of the various mayoral models that have been instituted across the country.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

I commend the Government on getting on with doing something on this agenda. I am a massive fan of mayoral authorities. If that is the price to pay to take power away from Whitehall and Westminster, it is a price worth paying. It could have been a bit cheaper, but nothing is cheap when you get it off the Government if the Treasury is involved with it.

I will ask a couple of questions. It will not start until 2028. That is unfortunate because 2027 is closer, so it would have been better if the department got its act together quicker, got the necessary work done and concentrated on those areas where it was doable. Sussex and Brighton are in a DPP area and are expecting an announcement on Wednesday this week about which of the six are likely to go ahead. There is money being laid now that it might be that five or fewer get announced. Do we know whether this is one area that will be announced? If it is going to be announced, do we know whether the constituent members are going to go from three to five? Does that mean that the council holding the ring on the pension pot will still be in existence after that process? If the constituent council is broken into more than one piece, where will the pension pot then sit?

Local Government Reorganisation

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group either, but my noble friend Lord Lansley raised some points. I need to declare a set of interests. I am a non-executive director of Norse Group, the part-owner of Porter and Verrells, a non-executive director of Elixr Earth and strategic adviser to Prodo. There is also Efficio and Peopletoo; I think that is it. They are all companies that will, if this legislation goes really well, probably find a way of doing something better. If this legislation goes badly, they will all probably suffer for it. So, one way or another, they will all be tied into this.

I had not realised, because I do not read the Bills like my noble friend Lord Lansley does, that the Government have not left a place in which they could add further powers to mayoral combined authorities as we prove the concept. At the moment, we know that the concept is different in different places. The team in Manchester is steaming away doing loads of brilliant stuff. Most of the other places are sitting further behind. We already have a landscape with different powers. If the Government do not find a way of putting that in after they reject my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, will they consider putting something like a power of general confidence in there for strategic authorities so that they can actually start doing things that are necessary for the areas that they look after, which will be different in different places?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I would like briefly to contribute in the hope that I can be helpful to the Minister at this point. There is a list of areas of competence in Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, told us that this was a probing amendment. By implication, I think that that means some thought can now go into the list of areas of competence.

I just want to add one new thing. I was a board member of a regional development agency, One North East, for a number of years. There is a difference between the list of areas of competence that we had and this list. Let me explain. We had a rural role and a role in culture and sport, particularly capital investment. We had a clear role in tourism and in energy. We had no role in public safety, health, well-being and public service reforms, or community engagement and empowerment, and we did not directly address issues of poverty, although we did indirectly by the nature of what the RDA was trying to do. I wonder if the Minister might take on board all that has been said and look at those areas of competence. I hope that they are not seen to be a final list. In my view, they are not a final list but a very good basis for discussion. I hope that the Government will be willing to do that before Report.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I am slightly reluctant to follow such a position on the basis that I believe that the Government—if they stick to what they say in the Title of the Bill—are doing the right thing. Unfortunately, like some episodes of “Yes Minister”, this could be a case of “Get the hard bit out of the way” in the Title before you get to the detail.

Most noble Lords have expressed great joy in having the Minister lead this Bill because of her belief in the subject matter, but I hope she is truly in that space. Most Members of this House know that if you were to cut me right through the middle, I would have “localist” written through my core, which is why I stand awkwardly in your Lordships’ House to speak: it is not my natural space. However, I will put my signature to any amendment that anybody tables to make this Bill better. I obviously do not have the brains big enough to actually write any of the amendments that will be necessary to make it work, but I am quite prepared—now that I have mastered my new signature—to put my name to them and support them.

While I am standing, I also draw Members’ attention to the excellent briefing notes from the County Councils Network, which has got a position, and the District Councils’ Network, which has also got a position. Strangely enough, while they agree on some things, they do not agree on the detail nor the positions they agree on. They do agree, however, on constituent members having better scrutiny powers, but they are just not sure on who the constituent members should be. They both take on the hard challenge of accepting that they will disappear in the new world, but they are not agreed on what should replace them.

When we were first introduced to this Bill, we were told that London was going to be in scope, and that the number of councillors on councils would be fair across the whole country. Given that the last council the present Secretary of State ran was a 300,000 unitary, it would be interesting to know his position compared to the previous Secretaries of State on the numbers we should be aiming for. I am not advocating for one number over another, you understand, as the smallest council I have an interest in is 30,000-odd and the largest was a million, so I am quite comfortable someone will come up with the right number anywhere in between.

I have one technical question for the Minister. Where there is a proposition to take some power—not much—from central government and give it to a mayor, does that mean that central government will lose that power? I am thinking particularly about the ability to call in a planning decision from a council. If the mayor can call that decision in, does that denude the Secretary of State of also having that power? If that is the case, is there anywhere we can find it? If it is not the case, is there anywhere we can amend the Bill to make sure that it is the case? That is what devolution should really be about: it should be stripping powers out of Westminster and Whitehall and putting them into the local communities where we all live.

We know that, over about the last 14 years, Whitehall was grown by about a million employees and the town hall was shrunk by about a million employees. So, even in the devolution plan my noble friend Lord Gove saw through—which was the Osborne plan originally—the state centrally has managed to grow and not shrink. If devolution is going to be anything, it should be about a smaller centre and a bigger local. That is what I think most Members of this House would like to see.

NHS Industrial Action

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My noble friend puts his finger right on it. The facts speak for themselves, and I make no apology for repeating that resident doctors have had the highest pay award of the entire public sector this year: an average of 28.9% compared with three years ago. That is an enormous commitment. It is a recognition of the work they have done and of the fact that their situation had slipped behind. We call upon them now to get round the table and work it out, recognising that there is not more pay on the table at the moment but that there are other ways we can work together to improve their conditions and to make sure that we can all start delivering at full strength.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, in response to the previous question from the Benches opposite, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Watts, to a programme on Radio 4 this morning, which made it clear that, since 2015, junior doctors have had sufficient pay rises compared with other parts of the public sector—whether or not that is fair is another matter. Can the Minister tell the House how much the Government have saved on pension contributions that we will not be making to pensions forgone by the strike, as well as on employers’ contributions in relation to holiday pay? If she does not have those figures to hand, I would be grateful if she could write to me and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord has pre-empted my answer: I am very happy to write to him to give him the details he requested.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

What is the net impact on speed, given the Government’s manifesto commitment to cut red tape? I have a real concern that the need for speed and streamlining will be outgunned by other objectives, including amendments favoured by Members of this House. Growth, and all that it enables a Government to do, will be the loser.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, mainly to declare my registered interests before we get to the meat of Committee. I am a director and beneficial owner of Porter and Verrells, which builds one-off bespoke homes, among other functions. I am a non-executive director of Elixr.Earth, which builds through digital twinning and finance, place-shaping at scale. I am also a non-executive director of Rentplus Homes and a strategic adviser to Inspired Solutions, both of which deliver affordable housing without any recourse to public funds.

My noble friend Lord Fuller would not forgive me if I did not mention that all the worthy things that have been discussed are not functions of the Bill. They are consequential on the Bill being pushed through. The function of the Bill is to regulate between private property ownership and perceived public good or public harm.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be in Committee. I agree with the impact of these clauses in consideration of future judicial decisions. It matters because there has been a trend in aspects of case law that then make other aspects of complying with the law rather complicated, leading to some of the adjustments that the Government are seeking to secure. When we talk about judicial review and what the Government are intending, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled some rather drastic amendments. I am not surprised. Mr Robbie Owen gave evidence in the other House that my noble friend Lord Banner’s review did not go far enough. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe hit the nail on the head. What is going to change?

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is right. At the moment nothing in the Bill ties everything together to make sure that we get more homes built and improve the natural environment. We have to make sure that happens.

In her closing speech at Second Reading, the Minister said that councils have a lot of powers. I would be interested to understand what amendments may come in at this stage to achieve the objectives that the Government say the Bill is trying to achieve. Why are we not seeing certain powers being granted to the Government to speed up housing—not just planning permission but completion? The Town and Country Planning Act allows councils to issue completion notices. As the Whip in the Commons on the Infrastructure Act 2015, I had to deal with four Ministers, so good luck to the Whips here on the Front Bench in co-ordinating all that. The Government took powers there for when councils were being slow. It was not necessarily call-in, but if they were not keeping to timetables, the decisions could be made by Ministers. I do not think that happened very often under the previous Conservative Administration, but here we seem to be going with a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Why are Ministers not using the powers they already have to achieve what they want this to do and instead putting this legislation in place? That is why I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It gives us an opportunity to ask, “What is this Bill going to do? Will it achieve the aims of what is there?”

I make a plea through the Minister for Bill managers to update the parliamentary website with all the different things that they said that they would write on. The Minister in the other place promised on 29 April to write about one of the clauses that we are debating today, but Parliament is still waiting. To my knowledge, no letter has been issued. It is certainly not on the Bill website, and it certainly has not been deposited in the House. That is a further plea about process.

Local Government: Electoral Quotas

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have met a huge number of local government representatives and MPs in the last couple of months. They are all determined to ensure that this process goes through smoothly without impacting on “business as usual” for local government. They are all very committed to doing that and have been very positive in their response to it. They see the benefits of the new arrangements in making local government more efficient and effective for the people whom they serve—which is what everyone in local government is looking for.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I bring the House’s attention to my interests in the register: primarily, that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Before I ask my question—I am probably not supposed to say this—the response that my noble friend on the ministerial side gave to my noble friend on the opposition side seems to be at odds with the answer that my noble friend on the government side gave me few weeks ago when we discussed small unitaries, because the White Paper does refer to them. It appeared that London and other small unitaries, which is most of the councils in the country, were in scope for this conversation, but it now appears that they are out of scope. I am quite happy for her to write to me to clear that up.

One thing that restricts the ability to make new councils that look sensible is the rule that says we cannot break through existing district boundaries to create a new council—that seems at odds with creating sensible boundaries—as does not being able to have two police and crime commissioners. Can my noble friend the Minister on the other side—because she is—please give me an answer as to whether those two things will be in scope?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the noble Lord’s first question, we have a priority programme and have already set out who is in scope for that, and we have a local government reorganisation going on. Any other considerations will come later in the programme.

It is possible to consider boundary changes as part of this process; we are discussing that with the local authorities. They will come forward on 21 March to set out their proposals. If they involve boundary changes, we will engage the Local Government Boundary Commission to take care of those.

English Devolution

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his support for the overall programme. London already has a devolution arrangement, but I am assured by colleagues that we will look at the GLA and how it works. I am sure that we will take account of his comments about the City of London in that programme.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

I bring Members’ attention to my registered interests, and I thank the Minister for the briefing yesterday. Can she confirm, now that we are in a public session, that the intention for 500,000 as a guide size for reorganisation is not a hard and fast rule but that some bids with a population under 500,000 will be allowed? Can she confirm that authorities already in the unitary system with populations of less than 500,000—all the councils in this country, bar 11, will be in scope—are also in scope for the reorganisation conversation? This is not an attack just on the Conservative-majority controlled two-tier areas; this is for the whole of the local government sector to be a representative size of approximately 500,000. That means that most of the boroughs of London are in scope and not excluded. Finally, I have a word of advice. If the Government are going to try to stick to a 500,000 unit, I tell them to forget about the number and the size of the council when they go to Rutland, because the Government have previously had some very bad experience of trying to remove Rutland.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his advice on Rutland. I am happy to confirm that. On the 500,000 number, it is very strange: ever since July, people have been saying repeatedly that we need a guideline number, but when we give a guideline number, they say, “No, not that number. That is not the right number”. I hope that was not how the Conservatives did the accounting, because that would be a problem.

The 500,000 figure is intended as a guideline; it is what works best for local areas. I imagine that some sort of de minimis size will be incorporated in the Minister’s thinking as we go through this programme. We feel that 500,000 is around the right size to get the effectiveness and efficiency of delivery and the scale of managing the strategic requirements in a local area; that is why we have said 500,000. We are looking for councils to come forward with their own proposals about how this works for their local areas. On the other question, this is intended to cover all areas of England, so they are all welcome to come forward with proposals—including Rutland.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Lord Porter of Spalding Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for the important work he has done on this. I hope the Government have demonstrated in these early days, by bringing forward a new Employment Rights Bill, that not just what people are paid but the way they are treated at work are of primary importance to us. I apologise if I said the national minimum wage; I should have said the national living wage. In local government, we have always welcomed it, and we celebrate the work our workforce does; they do an amazing job in difficult circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned Covid. I want to reflect on that period and how comforting it was to residents across the country to see local government teams still going out and doing their job in spite of the very difficult circumstances they were in. They should be properly paid for what they do and have proper working conditions. I welcome the findings of the Living Wage Commission.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

I draw the attention of the House to my interest, as set out in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I have nothing but sympathy for the Minister. She is having to do a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances, and to put a shine on something that we know is not worthy of being shined at the moment. I wish her good luck in her attempt to resolve the local government funding settlement battles she will face over the next couple of years. The same Treasury people who made the decisions last year will almost certainly be making the decisions next year, so the reality is that she will not have a bigger cake to cut. If she is going to choose to divide that cake slightly differently, she will have to make sure that she at least says sorry to the people who are going to lose.

It is quite obvious that stopping the rural services delivery grant in this settlement is £110 million of essential money for a lot of councils. On the back of it, people will almost certainly be getting “at risk” notices in the new year, until the Government come up with some sort of compensation for taking that money away, if nothing else. When you go to the new homes bonus the year after next, a lot of people will be put at risk because many small, underpaid councils rely on that payment to pay staff wages.