English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions B and C.

What a privilege it is at the end of this Session of Parliament to bring back the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place. This landmark devolution Bill will deliver the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster to England’s regions and communities for a century, sparking growth across our regions. New powers for communities will give local people the power and ability to protect their treasured local assets, such as pubs, provide a stronger voice for them in their place, and give increased powers to local leaders to deliver regional growth.

For each of the issues that are before us again this evening, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place. The amendments tabled today by the Government respond to the concerns that have been raised. I again thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on these amendments. That House has endorsed the Government’s proposals, and I urge noble Lords to do the same.

I begin with the amendment concerning the ministerial powers of direction in Schedule 1 to the Bill. I remind the House that ensuring that every part of England can benefit from devolution remains a key objective of this Government. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, the Government introduced new backstop powers for the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances to provide directly for devolution in an area where all other options have been exhausted and it has not been possible to agree a viable devolution proposal. Alongside these powers, we have sought to provide a simplified and streamlined route for creating new combined authorities, or combined county authorities, that will in turn become strategic authorities.

It remains the core objective of the Bill to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so devolution can be delivered more efficiently. For this reason, the Government cannot accept the amendments made previously by noble Lords to remove all Secretary of State-directed powers. However, we have heard the concerns from some noble Lords about the scope of the powers previously included in Schedule 1. To that end, and in the interests of not delaying progress of the Bill and of ensuring communities can benefit from the powers that I know all of us wish to see enacted at the earliest opportunity, the Government are content to remove all powers in Schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of a strategic authority, whether mayoral or non-mayoral, or to provide directly for a mayor of an existing non-mayoral authority.

In addition, I am happy to repeat the commitment given by my ministerial colleague in the other place that the Government will not seek to use remaining Secretary of State powers to direct the addition of a local government area to an existing strategic authority for a period of four years following Royal Assent. It will then remain subject to all the same safeguards that we have discussed at length, including application of the usual statutory tests and secondary legislation to effect the expansion that will be subject to the affirmative procedure, providing Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise any potential use of this power to expand an existing combined authority or combined county authority.

As I have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government’s policy and practice are clear. We are working with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support across their areas. That collaborative approach will always be our clear preference. The concessions that the Government have made in the other place put that commitment beyond doubt.

I turn now to brownfield land. The Government fully recognise the importance of prioritising brownfield land for development. As I have previously said, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. It is the right place to set clear expectations about where development should take place. Where concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of existing policy, it remains too early to assess the full impact of recent and proposed changes to national planning policy. The Government also consider the amendment proposed by this House to be unworkable. It would undermine effective plan-making and unduly constrain proper consideration of local circumstances. It would also create inconsistency between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and other strategic authorities and those prepared by other authorities.

However, in recognition of the strength of feeling expressed about inappropriately located development, and to further reinforce a “brownfield first” approach, the Government have tabled their own amendment. This would set a requirement in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to use existing regulation-making power to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has previously been developed. This will put consideration of brownfield land on the same legal footing as other highly important issues in the legislation, such as promoting sustainable development and the impact on health and health inequalities. It will ensure that the prioritisation of brownfield land is front and centre when strategic planning authorities are producing a spatial development strategy and considering how to meet the growth needs of their area. The drafting of our amendment is consistent with national policy, making it clear that prioritising development on brownfield land is an overall objective and desirable. Enshrining this requirement in legislation will elevate its importance and further solidify the Government’s commitment to a “brownfield first” approach.

I turn now to the issue of local authority governance. As your Lordships will know, the Bill sets a clear default position. Councils currently operating the committee system, and which are not otherwise protected, will be required to move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant Bill provisions coming into force. This remains the Government’s firm expectation. However, we have heard concerns from some noble Lords that requiring a council to move to the leader and cabinet model within a year could potentially create challenges for some councils—for example, where an authority has submitted a proposal during the transition period for a boundary change or merger in response to the Secretary of State’s new power to invite such proposals. The government amendment agreed earlier today in the other place responds to those concerns.

The amendment allows the Secretary of State to extend the one-year transition period for non-protected councils by a further year in certain circumstances. It provides flexibility where a council is already on a clear path to dissolution so that it is not required to undertake significant governance change that may have little practical benefit. This does not change the Government’s wider policy on local authority governance reform. Instead, it provides a proportionate and pragmatic safeguard in response to the points raised over the pace of change.

In conclusion, this is now the third round of parliamentary ping-pong. I hope noble Lords will consider that the Government have recognised their concerns—we have had very good and thoughtful debates on all the topics and many others that I have spoken about tonight—and are attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. I urge noble Lords to endorse the positions of the elected House and allow this Bill to be concluded as soon as possible.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I want to thank the Minister for introducing this third round of ping-pong and for her willingness to listen to alternative points of view and effect numerous changes to the Bill. The Government have demonstrated that willingness to compromise and alter. For me, this has been an example of the House of Lords doing a very good job that it is supposed to do, and that examination of the Bill has been a success.

As the Minister knows, I have said a lot during the stages of the Bill about the governance of local authorities; indeed, we have voted several times on those issues. I have come to accept that the time has come for the primacy of the House of Commons to be acknowledged. They are the elected Chamber; they have considered the issues we raised around governance, and they have concluded they want a single system based on a cabinet model. I remain convinced that local people should have a choice of governance models and that the 38 councils currently operating a committee system should be allowed to continue to do so for as long as they wish to do that. I also think that councils operating a cabinet model that wish in the future to change to a committee system should have the right to do so, led by local people.

As the Minister has heard several times, I have been critical of the Short Title of the Bill. It is called a devolution and community empowerment Bill; it is actually a Bill about decentralisation and does not do a great deal for community empowerment. But we have what we have, and we can build on it. I said at the very start of the passage of this Bill at Second Reading that I wanted it to succeed, and I really do. England is, with 56 million people, overcentralised. It is a process, not an event, when you devolve power to others. We all have to do that, and I think we can build on it. It requires all parties to work together to give a reality to the desire for greater devolution in England. As the Minister said a moment ago, this is about sparking growth, and a test for whether this devolution is a success is whether growth is sparked.

I hope the Minister will take seriously the commitment the Government have entered into for an annual review and update as to the success of the Bill. There was also a proposal in Committee or on Report for a five-year review in some detail, and I think the Government will have to do that as well. The jury is out on whether the Government are fulfilling the objectives they set for the Bill—within the Bill itself and in the White Paper on which it was built—and they will have to do a lot of work to make sure that they are.

I am aware there has been a long debate around brownfield and I am going to give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who will talk about that in greater detail since she led on that amendment. But I hear the reasons that the Minister has given. It is clear to me that there is a will to build on brownfield first. I think we all share the ambition to deliver housing targets and to deliver the development that the country needs. There is a protection in the amendment that the Government have brought in, and I am hopeful that the compromise that has occurred will be a productive one.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister for the way in which the Bill has been managed. It has, in my view, been a model. I have appreciated that personally and I know my group have. We are in the midst now of creating a list of all the changes that have been made to the Bill. It is substantial, and that is due to the way in which the Government have entered the debate that we have had about how to improve devolution and community empowerment in England. I thank the Minister very much for that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there have been four very powerful speeches on the agent of change principle. I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If she decides to test the opinion of the House, she will have the support of these Benches.

Not a lot has changed as a result of the votes that we made last week; there has been some amelioration, but our views have not changed on brownfield land priority or on strengthening parish governance. I welcome any improvement to those that the Government are able to come up with and have come up with, but I think we have some movement yet to achieve.

I say thank you to the Minister on the question of rural affairs being a competence. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and to her colleagues in the other place for agreeing to our amendment on rural areas to be added as a competence of the Bill, and I am sure that those who live, work and enjoy rural areas for their recreation will find that this amendment will make a difference to the way in which the Bill affects their service delivery and environment.

I place on record too our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her support and that of her team on this particular issue. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, from the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular has been a vociferous advocate for the consideration of rural areas over many years. I hope that he, like us, will feel a sense of achievement in at last getting rural affairs to be fully part of the Bill.

I have Motion C1, which relates to the governance structures of local authorities and in particular who decides what the governance structure should be. It is a disappointment to me that the House of Commons has not agreed with the amendment that I moved and which was agreed by your Lordships’ House last week. The central issue remains. The Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, so I ask the Government again: why cannot a community decide for themselves their own model of local governance for their local council?

The Minister in the other place said that the Government wanted to create

“strong local authorities that can deliver for their people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 265.]

It is the case that councils with committee systems do deliver for their people, and surely it is for local people to decide their governance structures. A committee system is more transparent and democratically accountable than a cabinet system, and it will involve more people—more elected councillors.

Since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the committee system has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together, because a committee structure engages all councillors with the decision-making processes of a local authority. The scrutiny system has not been that effective in local government because it tends to take place after a decision has been made. A committee will assess policy proposals before and as they are agreed.

In conclusion, this is a very simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it Ministers in Whitehall or local people? I submit that it is for local people to decide what they feel is best for their area. When we get to Motion C1, I will beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I agree with all the House’s alternative amendments, but I am going to speak just on Motion C1. I have spoken at every stage of the Bill on this issue.

Rather than repeat what I have said before, I will reflect on what the Minister said to us in putting the Government’s argument. She said that the Government retain a strong preference for the cabinet executive model and want a consistent model of governance all around the country. Well, I do not mind what the Government prefer. I do not mind what the Government’s view is. I just do not want the Government imposing that on communities up and down the land. Democracy, not dictatorship, is what this amendment is about. I urge everyone to back Motion C1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F and 155H.”

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I give my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing forward again her Motion A1 on the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences. I agree with every word she said, including about broadband and mobile reception in rural Norfolk, which I have to deal with on a regular basis. While we have been suspicious of the expanding role of commissioners, if this Government wish to push forward their reforms, it is only right that rural affairs be added to the list of competences.

I know the Minister has outlined that rural affairs are already within the scope of other areas of competences, but the same could be said about the addition of culture, for example. What is more, the Government tabled amendments on Report which allowed a commissioner’s work to relate to one or more aspects of areas of competence and allow work on cross-cutting issues.

I feel very strongly that a commissioner for rural affairs with a rural area as part of their responsibilities would allow that rural-proofing, not just of rural things but of all other services that the mayor is considering. As a result, my understanding now is that this would not mean that every mayor has to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs. That may not be suitable, as I have said, for each area. However, adding rural affairs to the list of competences would allow the work of commissioners to at least relate to rural affairs and enshrine them into law, rather than leaving them, as we have heard, to non-statutory guidance.

This brings me to the appointment of commissioners. I am very grateful for all the time that the Minister has given me and others and for her work and engagement on this and other issues. Amendment 4 sought to ensure a fair and transparent selection process for the appointment of the commissioners. I am very pleased with the draft statutory guidance, which fulfils most, if not all, of everything we asked for. I thank the Minister for early sight of that guidance and for assuring us that it has sufficient teeth so that mayors can be held to account. We will therefore not be pushing this amendment.

Turning to voting arrangements on the London Assembly, I am also grateful for the work that has gone into setting out the Bill’s exact position on this. It was very complicated, so it was useful to have that explanation of the voting arrangements for mayoral budgets, which usually require a two-thirds majority. But, as the Minister has continually said on the Bill, the Government want consistency. We are not all sure that we agree with that, but the Government have made it clear that they want consistency across the country—so why not in mayoral voting arrangements?

However, as we and the Minister have said, there are exceptions across the country. We have the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the North East Combined Authority and the London mayoral voting arrangements. Given that this extensive Bill seeks to simplify the system of local government as a whole, it is not clear why this has not been addressed. That is why we have tabled Amendment 87B, to ask the Secretary of State to review the London Assembly’s voting arrangements in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities across the country. I recommend that the Government do more work in this area to ensure that voting arrangements not only are consistent but allow sufficient democratic scrutiny of all mayoral budgets. I am therefore minded to test the opinion of the House.

Finally, I turn to our package of amendments to Schedule 1. On the Secretary of State’s powers to direct changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities, based on the principle that these changes should be based on local consent, I note that the Government have committed not to use these powers for two and four years respectively. Surely this concedes that their use is an unacceptable breach of local trust. We have made it very clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we do not agree with imposing any changes on local government, of any type, without the agreement of local councils and, particularly, of local communities. The use of these powers, whether by this Government or by a future Government, could do serious damage to the relationships between central government and combined authorities and, crucially, their constituency councils and their local communities. For these reasons, we remain concerned about the inclusion of these powers in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will see the risk that they pose, not just now but in the future, and will support Motion H1.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall add some comments on rural affairs, but first, I am grateful for the Government’s movement on the appointment processes for commissioners. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I had a lot to say about commissioners, their appointment, and their terms and conditions. My worry throughout was that we should never get to a position in which commissioners are appointed for reasons of political favour or similar. What we actually need are the best people for the job. Therefore, the guidance that has been issued is very helpful.

On rural affairs, there is a problem in the documentation that we now have. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was absolutely right to point out that the Commons reason for rejecting our amendment was:

“Because the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs”.


That is not the case; they do not. The noble Baroness mentioned one or two of those areas. I will explain why this is not sufficient.

It is very important that rural affairs are embedded in decision-making among all the competencies that an authority has, such as transport. I am sure that they will be by the commissioners, the mayor and those charged with making decisions. The problem is that there are things that are not within the competence framework. One example is the impact of energy costs on domestic users and small businesses in rural areas. It is not clear that this lies within any of the competences that the Government have come up with. There are issues around the cost of living, and travel costs for young people to education and training. Indeed, many young people undertake placements as part of their education, and these require substantial travel costs. Travel is more expensive in rural areas than in urban ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to the communications problem. There are communications problems for young people, and all residents of rural areas, that are not within the competence framework that the Government have come up with.

In general terms, the availability of public services would simply fall between two stools. The provision of NHS services would have a different focus if there were to be a rural affairs commissioner, and the same is true of leisure facilities. One can think of many areas of policy that are not within the areas of mayoral competence, so it would be very helpful if the Government would come back to this.

Having said that the Commons disagrees with the Lords amendment, the Under-Secretary of State said,

“I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 244.]

It would be really helpful if that became statutory, as opposed to non-statutory, guidance. I would like to know more about what is planned and the timescales for that, because it really matters.

There is a danger. Some of these issues are of lesser importance in wholly urban areas because there are no rural areas within them. Where you have a wholly rural area within a mayoral structure, due attention inevitably will be given by the mayor. But I see a problem coming where there is a very large urban area and a smaller rural area in terms of population. That rural area may feel it is losing out. Unless something like statutory guidance is given, I think we will find, in a year or two, that people feel short-changed in rural areas.

That takes me to a final suggestion to the Minister. There is to be an annual review. The Government should state clearly in the other place—if the House decides that this goes back to the other place, as I hope it will—that an annual review to assess what is really happening on the ground could be very helpful. I hope the Minister will take in good spirit the points made across the Chamber. There are issues here that need to be addressed. If the noble Baroness decides to press her amendment to a vote, I will certainly support her.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to speak to Conservative Motion C1. As I was in the Chamber when that was addressed, I was told I could speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I too support Motion G1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for meeting us this week and for meeting the Music Venue Trust yesterday.

The Minister in the other place told us that the agent of change principle is “already firmly embedded” in national planning policy since 2018, yet the Music Venue Trust intervened in 200 cases in 2024 alone, at a cost of up to £50,000 each, to save grass-roots music venues from closure. If that is what “firmly embedded” looks like, one shudders to think what neglect would produce.

The Minister’s answer is more guidance—updated, strengthened, consistent. But that is precisely what was promised when the principle entered the NPPF in 2018, and again in every consultation since. The guidance says the right thing—it always has. The problem is that guidance is only guidance. Developers know it. They test it, challenge it and too often circumvent it, because they do not have to comply. No amount of strengthened wording changes that; only statute changes that calculus.

The Minister speaks of flexibility for local decision-makers, but flexibility cuts both ways. It means inconsistency: one authority holds the line while another folds under developer pressure. It means venues exhausting their reserves on legal fees to enforce what policy already supposedly guarantees, and it means that venues without access to specialist support do not achieve a remarkable success rate. They simply close—quietly, invisibly and without appearing in any dataset as a planning casualty.

Even the Government’s own Back-Benchers in the other place were unconvinced. Lewis Atkinson, Member of Parliament for Sunderland Central, cited his constituency, where flats remain unbuilt precisely because developers lack the clarity that only statute can provide. The Minister offered him a meeting. One can only hope that the music venue at risk survives long enough to hold it.

Scotland did not offer meetings or updated guidance; Scotland legislated. Disputes there are vanishingly rare because the law is unambiguous and developers comply from the outset. There is no costly negotiation, no charitable fundraising to protect venues, and no protracted back and forth with planning authorities. The Government have had seven years to make guidance work; it has not worked. This amendment does not invent a new principle—the Government themselves have endorsed that principle repeatedly—it simply gives it the legal force it has always lacked so that decision-makers have a firm statutory footing, and developers cannot treat compliance as optional. I support Motion G1.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name has not been attached to either of these issues to date, but I give our support to both of them. They are both extremely important and I find myself convinced, having listened to the debate so far on both matters, that the case is sufficient for us to send both matters back to the other place. The issue is primarily about whether guidance is enough or whether one needs to place one’s intentions on a firm statutory footing. We need to put them on to a firm statutory footing—there is so much evidence that things are not working properly in either case and that the Government should think again. In either case, if there is a wish to test the opinion of the House, we would be supportive of it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the importance of prioritising brownfield land. The Government fully support the “brownfield first” approach, and we have set this clearly in national policy. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen this, including higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. However, to reinforce the importance of prioritising brownfield over greenfield land, the Government are willing to commit to prescribing in secondary legislation that, when preparing spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayoral and other strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. Our intention is for the regulations to come into force this year. I hope this will further demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to a “brownfield first” approach. I assure noble Lords that this issue is being taken seriously. and I hope they will not insist on this amendment.

The agent of change principle lends itself to a policy approach, and I am concerned that setting it out in legislation would not provide decision-makers with sufficient flexibility to weigh up different factors in the planning balance. National planning policy, as it stands, already carries considerable weight in the planning system; it is certainly not “light and fluffy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described it. The National Planning Policy Framework is a powerful, material consideration in planning decisions and must be taken into account in preparing the development plan. Our consultation on a revised framework, which closed on 10 March, proposes the most significant rewrite since its introduction over a decade ago, with clearer, more rules-based policies designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler plans.

Through this consultation, we propose strengthening the existing agent of change policy, setting out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and to engage early on with existing uses. The policy would be explicit that both current and permitted levels of operation of existing activities should be considered, which would include licences for music venues.

The Government have also considered introducing statutory national development management policies and have decided not to at this stage, given the impact that we expect the proposals in the consultation will have. We will keep this decision under review and return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcome of supporting more effective decisions. We are currently analysing all the feedback we have received and will publish our response in due course.

Furthermore, planning practice guidance is clear that a range of measures should be considered to mitigate impacts from existing uses. This includes using good design, incorporating noise barriers and optimising noise insulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions F and F1. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments in this group.

Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155 would remove from the Bill the provisions relating to local authority governance and executive arrangements. The Government cannot accept these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide the clearest accountability and lead to more effective decision-making in local government.

As I have said before, these provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance in England. Your Lordships will recall my previous reference on Report to my own experience as an LGA peer reviewer and the examples that I gave highlighting the difficulties with co-ordination, decision-making and clear lines of accountability that can arise in councils operating the committee system. The Government have listened carefully to concerns raised in both this House and the other House and have responded constructively.

I will comment on the CIPFA governance review. In 2025, CIPFA led a sector-wide governance review and issued a framework, Delivering Good Governance in Local Government, which emphasised the importance of clear executive leadership, defined responsibility for decision-making and the ability to maintain a single coherent strategic overview. The review highlights the risks that can arise where accountability is diffuse or decision-making is spread across multiple committees. Executive models of governance are better suited to meeting these principles than committee systems, where responsibility and oversight are more dispersed, and leadership, responsibility and accountability can be less clear.

On Report in the Commons, the Government brought forward their own amendments to ensure that councils that have more recently adopted the committee system, whether by council resolution or by local referendum, will be able to continue with those arrangements for the remainder of their moratorium period and, where agreed locally, beyond that point. We continue to believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance and respecting more recent local democratic mandates, while avoiding unnecessary disruption for councils that have only recently changed their arrangements. In addition, the Government have responded to concerns about changes to statutory notice requirements and their potential impact on local media by retaining the existing requirement for councils to publish notice of governance changes in at least one local newspaper.

Lastly, I emphasise that the leader and cabinet model is not a uniform structure. As the independent Centre for Governance and Scrutiny has highlighted, there are many variations in the way the leader and cabinet model can operate, allowing councils to adopt an approach to decision-making that best suits their needs within the overall model. The Government stand ready to support any council required to change its governance model to ensure that it is able to operate a version of the system best suited to its local needs. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to agree the Motion that this House do not insist on these amendments.

Amendments 37 and 91 would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. We have heard noble Lords’ valid arguments about the important role that town and parish councils can play in delivering local services and representing their communities, and we agree with those comments. We have therefore proposed an amendment in lieu that helps to clarify the role that we intend parish and town councils to have within neighbourhood governance arrangements. The amendment adds an explicit provision to the clause that allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures.

Our intention here, which we will also set out when we publish our neighbourhood governance framework later this year, is that neighbourhood governance structures should include representation from town and parish councils where they exist in an area. The amendment gets the balance right. Some local authorities have hundreds of town and parish councils, so mandating the inclusion of each individual parish within structures would be impractical and inappropriate. Instead, we should ensure that we set a clear expectation of representation that retains the appropriate flexibility for places to develop the mechanisms that will work best for their communities.

Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the creation of new town and parish councils. While it is right that decisions on the creation of new town and parish councils are and should remain local decisions taken by local authorities in consultation with communities through community governance reviews, we will commit to reviewing and updating the statutory guidance that supports this process. That has not been updated since 2010, so it is time for it to be refreshed with examples of good practice for establishing new town and parish councils.

Clause 60 aims to complement the work of town and parish councils where they exist and to ensure that all communities, whether or not they have a town and parish council, have effective ways to address local issues. We will be setting all this out in non-statutory guidance alongside the regulations. In addition, I can confirm that we will be publishing further principles of our neighbourhood governance framework later this year. It should be evident to your Lordships that we, too, value the role of town and parish councils, and see them as important contributors to effective neighbourhood governance.

In summary, there are three points here. First, our amendment in lieu allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures. It is right that they should be included. Secondly, we have committed to review and update the statutory guidance on community governance reviews to better reflect good practice around establishing new parish councils. Thirdly, we have committed to setting out our overall intentions for how neighbourhood governance arrangements should interact with existing groups and institutions in a framework to be published later this year, ahead of laying regulations.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge noble Lords not to insist on Lords Amendments 37 and 91, and to support the Government’s amendment in lieu. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

[Lord Shipley]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F to the words so restored to the Bill.”

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s statement a moment ago. We have debated this issue several times. I still believe that the case I have been making, with colleagues, remains the right one.

I was interested in the fact that the Minister cited in evidence a moment ago research done by CIPFA on a mayoral cabinet system, but of course what that research did not mention was that local people might have a view about it and wish to change the system. The problems have arisen in places where there has been a cabinet model that has worked badly, and where local people have wanted to change the model back to a committee system. That is the issue, and what is happening under this Bill is that they will no longer have the power to do so.

I read carefully what the Minister said in the other place when it debated our amendments on Tuesday. She said that the Bill

“sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 238.]

If that is what the Government believe, why does that not extend to the governance structure under which decisions are being made on communities’ behalf? They do, of course, pay the bills. I just find that the Government say one thing but are simply entering now the straitjacket of a single governance structure, giving no power to local people to affect change in their area where that does not work well.

I feel strongly that, even at this late stage of the Bill, we must safeguard local consent for local government changes. We need to promote parish governance for unparished areas and prevent the compulsory imposition of the executive model on all local councils. I have never understood why central government can claim that this Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, at the same time as forcing Clause 59 upon us, which does precisely the opposite of what the Government are seeking to do, and this very simple issue stays in place. There is still time for the Government to change their mind.

Throughout this Bill, my amendments have been to produce a more transparent system that the public can understand and thereby support. It would extend democratic engagement by all councillors across all parties and groupings and really help to improve the quality of decision-making at the point a decision is made. I have found this overcentralisation of power, which is the reality, very worrying in a Bill that masquerades as being about devolution in England and community empowerment, because in some respects, that is true, but in most respects, it is not. Therefore, I beg to move my Motion E1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am making the case that moving backwards and forwards between different models does not serve the public we serve.

Accountability can feel diffuse and unclear, with some councils judging the leader and cabinet model to be more transparent, agile and accountable. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge.

The Government are not seeking total uniformity of internal process but clarity and effectiveness at the point of accountability and delivery. Residents should be able to see who is responsible, and scrutiny should be able to operate against clearly identifiable decision-makers. That is where executive models, and in particular, the leader and cabinet model, add the most value.

Councils can and should adopt a version of the leader and cabinet model that best suits their individual needs. When we were in opposition, Hertfordshire County Council had a set of cabinet panels that were very good at both pre-scrutiny and post-scrutiny of decisions. Councils should learn lessons from operating a committee model and then move forward with arrangements that deliver against local priorities, while strengthening accountability, effectiveness and clarity. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Commons’ position and allow the Bill to proceed.

Clause 60 is about community empowerment, giving people a stronger voice in shaping local priorities, while allowing local authorities to build on what already works locally. Our amendment in lieu strikes that balance, recognising the valuable role of town and parish councils, where they exist, and setting out explicitly that regulations can provide for membership of neighbourhood governance structures to include representatives from town and parish councils. Our intention is that neighbourhood governance structures should include town and parish council representatives, where they exist.

Some places have hundreds of town and parish councils, ranging from very small hamlets to larger towns, so we want to retain the flexibility for local places to work out the right arrangements for parish council membership within governance structures.

We will set out expectations of town and parish involvement in neighbourhood governance arrangements in a framework on neighbourhood governance, to be published later this year, and in subsequent guidance, once regulations are laid.

I always find the noble Lord’s rhetoric entertaining, but rhetoric it is, I am afraid. We have committed to review and update the statutory guidance that underpins the community and governance review process, including adding good practice. That is the proportionate way forward for locally led neighbourhood governance. I therefore invite the House not to insist on its Lords Amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion E1. It has been a very helpful debate. Indeed, each time we have debated this issue it has been very helpful.

At the end of it, the issue is a simple one: are local people, who actually pay the bills, going to be trusted to make their own decisions about the governance structures that they want in their area? What the Government are doing in the Bill is saying that one model fits all. There has to be an alternative, and people have to be enabled to maintain the possibility of effecting change.

Examples can be quoted of some things having worked well, and others not so well. In the end, the government issue is: let the local people decide on the model they think is best for them in all the circumstances they know about in their area. For that reason, I beg to test the opinion of the House on Motion E1.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

5: Clause 110, page 113, line 29, leave out paragraph (z)

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, to be clear, Amendment 5 removes a reference to a clause and a schedule that were removed from the Bill on Report on Monday. It is a consequential amendment, which I beg to move formally.

Amendment 5 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I extend the thanks of these Benches to the Minister, all her staff and the Bill office. She was right to point to the amount of work that has gone into getting the Bill to Third Reading. I thank her for her engagement with the Bill; it is of major constitutional importance and therefore has to be as good as we can make it. I am personally grateful for all she did to improve the clauses on scrutiny and audit, which will make a big difference. I extend my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Bill team, where a number of people have done a lot of detailed work. I pay tribute to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office for his excellent support to the Bill team over many months.

I see the Bill as a work in progress. I think I said at the outset that it gave a sense of direction and that we want it to succeed. Everything we have said at each stage of its passage has been about trying to make it better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said, the Bill is entitled “devolution”, but actually it is about decentralisation and does not say very much at all about community empowerment. We are a glass-half-full group on these Benches, and we want the Government to succeed. You cannot manage 56 million people in England out of London. I see this as being part of a renewal of our democracy, and I wish the Government well.

I just hope when the amendments, which are not many in number, are considered in the other place that our proposed changes will be taken seriously. There is one about rural issues, which should become a strategic authority competence. As I recall, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, moved one on the appointment processes for commissioners. How they are appointed needs to be in the Bill, not in guidance. It is for local people, as we said on Monday, to decide governance structures that they think are best for them, rather than having a single model which is imposed out of Whitehall by the Government.

Crucially, to demonstrate that the Government are serious about devolution, there should be a duty to promote parish and neighbourhood governance. With the Bill, the Government are creating very large democratic units that are increasingly remote from people. All that we have said about neighbourhood, parish and town governance is trying to bring decision-making closer to people who, after all, are paying the bill for it.

With those comments, we shall see what the Commons does at ping-pong. These Benches are pretty firm on some of these issues, so I hope the Government will be flexible in their approach. With that, I thank the Minister for the leadership that she has shown, and her staff. We have something which is a major improvement on what we have had in recent years, and I wish the process well.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful for those contributions. They were in the same tone that we have had all through the Bill of constructive challenge where it is appropriate. I say to both opposition Benches that there are some further discussions to take place on the outstanding matters before we get through ping-pong and I hope those discussions will be conducted in the same spirit as we have dealt with the rest of the Bill.

I have been in local government for a very long time and there have been numerous attempts at reorganising and devolving over the years, but most of the power still sits here in this very small part of London when it should be out there with local people. I hope, as we go through the final processes of the Bill, that we will end up with a piece of legislation that does exactly what we all want it to do, which is to make sure that power, funding and decision-making are devolved out of Whitehall back to local areas where the people taking the decisions actually have skin in the game and are connected at that very local level to take the right decisions for the people who we all serve. That is what we all want to do, and I hope, as we progress through the final stages of the Bill, that we will get to a good place on that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The answer is not very much. I am getting to the nub of the point.

The Government have said one thing and done another. That is an important legal point, because in 2007 when they tried to use these same provisions that they now seek to rely on under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, Mr Justice Ouseley, in his judgment in January 2010, found that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had changed the decision-making approach in an unfair and unlawful manner. He said:

“the Secretary of State set out repeatedly the basis upon which he would refuse proposals, and without any warning adopted a wholly different approach, and reached decisions which, on the original approach, he would not have reached. … On the face of it, the decisions taken by the Secretary of State … made a mockery of the consultation process”.

This amendment would stop the jiggery-pokery and the changing and moving of the goalposts during the process that we have seen today. Furthermore, a previous part of that botched process in 2010 was quashed by Mr Justice Cranston, a former Labour MP, because the tabulation of costs and benefits alongside a full plain English explanation of what it would mean to the man on the street, which included a full statement of the total forecast cost to the council tax payer had not been done—and of course it has not been done. Our counties, subject to LGR in this round, are being pushed into a financial leap in the dark—brought to you by the same people who told the nation that business rates would not be put up for pubs.

I hope that my learned friends run the rule, following the 2010 judgments by Justice Ousley and Justice Cranston as a guide, but it is now clear that the Government never intended to follow the rules and have not even bothered to run the numbers anyway, resulting in a no man’s land of councils being too small to be big or too big to be small. We were promised better than this. I strongly support the amendments because we have seen gerrymandering in this process. That is not good enough, and these amendments would prevent it happening in future. I hope councils do not waste too much time on this until my learned friends have completed their deliberations, because they sorely need to.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be living through the reality that my noble friend Lord Fuller has just outlined: in Eastbourne, we will be completely unparished. The people have been consulted and, having listened to my noble friend beforehand, decided that they do not want an unlimited precept in a town of 150,000, thank you very much. The proposals for smaller parishes, based on wards which have been designed to be equal in population and nothing to do with the actual community boundaries, really do not work. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench in her amendment, and my noble friend Lord Fuller, but I would add that people must have a usable mechanism to decide what the boundaries of their parish should be. This must be a local conversation, and there must be options and support for that debate. It should not be something that is imposed.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pinnock for making most of the points that I would have liked to make myself, so, given the need to move on, I will try to be brief.

This Bill is about English devolution and, in practice, decentralisation from Whitehall to mayors. There is actually very little community empowerment as proposed, because powers are going to move upwards from Whitehall to mayors, and therefore mayors will simply get increasingly important. I have tried twice to convince the Government to devolve powers from mayors to local authorities with an annual review, and from local authorities to town and parish councils, which are closer to local people and, crucially, closer to local taxpayers—but so far, to no avail.

This is a fundamental group and my name appears on several of the amendments. There are huge dangers in the Government’s planned changes to local government, not least, as we have heard, that decision-making will get more remote from people as local authorities get larger. Town and parish councils have neighbourhood expertise and knowledge, and that must not be lost in the upwards drift of decision-making. Neighbourhood area committees should have mandatory representation from town and parish councils; they must not duplicate existing structures or behave as if town and parish councils do not exist.

The Bill as it stands appears to remove a right which is currently held by parishes under Section 293G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. I am advised that this is what is about to happen. This is a serious omission. Parish councils are responsible for neighbourhood development plans, which are part of the statutory planning framework, and to omit parishes is to disregard and marginalise neighbourhood development plans. I understand that Ministers have said that they do not wish to do that, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not the Government’s intention and tell us further what the Government might do about it. It will not be enough simply to consult parish councils; it should be for planning authorities, which are going to be highly centralised, to act fully on any matters of local knowledge and experience that parish councils highlight.

I am looking for the Minister’s assurance that the Government understand what they are doing in terms of the powers of town and parish councils. I think that they need empowerment. All the amendments in this group are justified, including a number in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, which I support. Governments must strengthen the role of town and parish councils, given the large councils that the Government seem intent on creating. There must be meaningful involvement with parish and town councils, and neighbourhood-level decision-making in planning needs to be protected. I hope that weight is going to be given by the Government in the Bill to the crucial role that town and parish councils can perform. If there are any amendments in this group on which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would be minded to test the opinion of the House, she would have our support.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

197: Leave out Clause 59
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and another in Lord Shipley’s name removes the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure in local government, instead allowing local authorities the choice of determining their own governance models.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I shall speak also to Amendment 212 in my name. I should say at the outset that, unless the Minister can give a very convincing response about the rights of a local authority and local people to adopt a committee system if they want to in their governance structure, I am minded to divide the House. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who spoke on the value of a committee system in Committee. It has proved very popular and successful in Sheffield, and in other places. Basically, my case is that it is for local people to decide the governance structure that they should have, as indeed they have done very successfully in Sheffield.

The Bill, as I keep repeating, is about devolution and community empowerment. So, I ask the Minister: why can a community and its local authority not decide for themselves their own model of local democracy? It is surely for the people who pay taxes to that authority to make a decision about the governance structure that runs their local area. That is a quite fundamental issue for me. It is not for central Governments to make those decisions; it is for local people.

I was very surprised when I first read—well, each time I read—the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill’s Explanatory Notes. In paragraph 98 on page 23, I found the argument very surprising. It is, in essence, a set of assertions by the Government that:

“The committee system is a less effective form of governance for local authorities, particularly the larger, unitary councils. It suffers from more opaque and potentially siloed decision making, a lack of clear leadership and accountability, with decisions taking longer to be arrived at”.


At previous stages of the Bill, I have asked the Minister for the evidence base on which that statement in paragraph 98 has been written. Where is the research that tells us that about a committee system, which is apparently very successful in a number of places—notably Sheffield, where the people decided to reintroduce a committee system? How does anyone know in London that a committee system is a less effective form of governance? Is it not for local people to make that decision? Anyway, might the Government consider that the quality of decision-making where the decision has been reached by a committee might be better than where it has been taken within the leader and cabinet model, when many fewer people are involved in it?

For those who may be less familiar with the number of committees I am talking about, I should say that these are committees on housing, the environment, social care, economic development, transport, and so on. It is about whether you have a number of people, cross-party, working on a specific area of governance, or whether you have individuals making decisions.

I think we get more considered decisions from a committee structure. The scrutiny system that underpins the leader and cabinet model comes after the event—it comments afterwards on whether something is successful—but a committee is assessing policy proposals before they have been agreed. Since the committee system was invented under the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, it has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together and engaging all elected councillors in the decision-making processes of their local authority.

If anyone has any doubt as to whether a committee system is a good thing, we just need to look at ourselves: we operate a committee system when a Bill goes through your Lordships’ House. Imagine what it would be like if there had not been a Committee for this or any other Bill. I submit that having a committee structure can lead to better decisions. I accept that it can be slower—sometimes, too many people may be felt to get involved in an issue—but I think democracy is enhanced when that happens. I also believe that the quality of decisions by a committee is generally better. At its heart, it is not for central government to control the decisions of local areas on the governance model that they prefer. We have to trust the people better than the Government seem to want to do. For that reason, I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support every word that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. This amendment is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. I point out the title of the Bill we are debating: the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. So many of its clauses actually remove responsibility from lower parts of our governing system. I really urge the Government to see clearly that this would be a sensible move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

212: Leave out Schedule 27
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in Lord Shipley’s name removes the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure in local government, instead allowing local authorities the choice of determining their own governance models.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, of course, I support all the points on elections made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, but they focus on council elections and LGR, ignoring the simple truth that local mayors, as in my Amendment 225, and police and crime commissioners, in my Amendment 224, are also part of that local government landscape. My amendments would bring the mayors and PCCs into scope of the wider changes that the Government have been dragged to Parliament to repent.

Democracy is important. We know that; we sit in the mother of Parliaments. The people of this nation go to the ballot box to select those who represent them, in pursuance of better lives and all those other things that the state should provide. That consent lasts until the next election, but I concede—this is where I depart from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, on his Amendment 219—that there may be some quite exceptional circumstances, perhaps because of war, where a delay, subject to parliamentary consent, of course, would be justified. In those circumstances, my amendment would ensure that the powers existed on the statute book for a two-step super-affirmative process, where permission must be sought and received from both Houses and then only an affirmative resolution would be laid before the House. In the circumstance of war, for example, there would be some much more important things to sort out than passing a Bill to cancel local government elections.

I do not go entirely against what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said, but, to echo the words of my noble friend Lady Scott from the Front Bench, I think it is unworkable. My amendments would remedy those matters but, in any event, my resolutions would be to cancel the elections no less than three months before the date of publication for that election, simply so that parties and individuals could have enough time to prepare the manifestos, select candidates, raise funds and address all those practical points. My amendments would ensure that preparation could take place effectively, allowing voters to mark their choice clearly on the ballot, with lots of notice—not just for the councils, but for the mayors and PCCs—without hog-tying Parliament to pass primary legislation when super-affirmative secondary legislation can achieve the same outcome more quickly, more cheaply and in the right way.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical and consequential in nature, relating to Parts 4, 5 and 6, and we do not intend to challenge them in any way.

I am pleased that I have this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as well, although he has not actually said that this is his valedictory speech. When I was a Minister on the other side of the House, both noble Lords were supportive at times but challenging at other times. We had quite a lot of fun doing Bills such as what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and I sincerely thank them both for the knowledge of the industry that they brought to the House. That has been excellent and has helped me a great deal to understand the industry much better. They are going to be really missed. I thank them very much for everything that they did to help me in government—and they have helped me a bit in opposition, as well.

The amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Fuller, raises important questions about the scope of provisions relating to upward-only rent reviews and their application, particularly to SMEs. All I can say at this time of night is that I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response on this one because there are questions to be answered.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 317 seeks to amend the Lieutenancies Act 1997 to ensure the continuation of Rutland as a ceremonial county with its own lord-lieutenant. I am grateful to the Minister for her email today relating to this matter, and for acknowledging

“the unique circumstances, given that Rutland’s ceremonial status derives from its reestablishment in 1997 as both a district and a county for its area”.

The local government reorganisation criteria automatically require Rutland to lose its county council status. That is perhaps not surprising, as it had at the last census a population of around 41,000. So yet again Rutland will disappear as a local government entity, and due to these unique circumstances the lord-lieutenancy will also disappear. The dissolution of Rutland County Council also ends the lord-lieutenancy of Rutland.

This is the second time in my lifetime that I have been involved in a campaign regarding Rutland’s status. Back in the 1990s it merely meant obtaining a Rutland passport. Yes, there was even talk of Rutland becoming like the Vatican, and Rutlanders delighted in sending photographs from far-flung places to the local newspaper showing off their Rutland passports—for example, outside the Sydney Opera House—as well, of course, as getting stamps from local shops, which was the real purpose.

I say this as it exhibits the level of local feeling that still exists. This led to the largest wet-signature petition in the 21st century, with 7,100 signatures presented to Mr Speaker in the other place by Alicia Kearns, the MP for Rutland and Stamford. I am grateful for the reassurance from the Minister that there are existing legislative powers, by which I believe she means Section 15 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which will be utilised to ensure the continuation of the ceremonial status. However, reading the powers of the Secretary of State under Sections 7 and 10, which would be used to issue a dissolution order for Rutland County Council under this Bill, can the Minister guarantee to the people of Rutland that there will be no gap between such a dissolution of Rutland as a local government entity and its recreation as a lord-lieutenancy under Section 15?

From my reading of this Bill and that statute, it is eminently possible that we will end up with two sets of statutory instruments: one dealing with dissolution orders and then a later one under Section 15 dealing with the incidental provisions such as recreating Rutland. There could then be a gap between these two sets where there will be no lord-lieutenant for Rutland. If there is such a gap and therefore for that time no lord-lieutenant because of Rutland’s unique circumstances, which the Government have admitted, who would perform the functions of the lord-lieutenant? What if in the gap there was a potential royal visit to Rutland or the gap covered a time where there was consultation for honours such as OBEs? What if the gap is when there might be recommendations for royal garden party tickets or the personal delivery function of 100th birthday cards from the King?

Surely it is much better for His Majesty’s Government to play it safe and accept this amendment, which guarantees that there would be no gap. The amendment merely adds Rutland to the list of lord-lieutenancies in the 1997 Act so that whatever happens to Rutland County Council would have no effect on the lord-lieutenancy because it would be secured by this amendment. The amendment is a simpler, cheaper, quicker solution.

Rutland’s motto means much in little. There is much concern for the county’s ceremonial status and, sadly, if there is a gap in the lord-lieutenancy, as I have outlined, rather than the guarantee in Amendment 317, I fear that many—possibly thousands—of Rutlanders, who, as I say, would go to the lengths of issuing passports, might take it upon themselves to write to the King to check that they are not missing out on those lord-lieutenancy functions. I hope that even at this late hour, and late in this Bill, His Majesty’s Government might bring at Third Reading an acceptance of this amendment and give the people of Rutland the guarantee of their lord-lieutenancy.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for pointing out the possibility of the gap. I have to confess that I had not fully understood that there was likely to be a gap between the two. I have been told that this matter would be satisfactorily resolved by the actions the Government were planning to take, so I hope very much that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest here.

Although this amendment relates to Rutland and its status as a ceremonial county—and there is a specific set of circumstances around Rutland—there may be other ceremonial issues in other places which require action to be taken to ensure there is continuity. Does the Minister agree that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that there should be no gap in status, has to be addressed at one and the same time?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the advantages of having volunteered to stay beyond the Whip issued to these Benches tonight—and it is 12.50 am—is that it gives me the opportunity briefly to comment on Amendment 318B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. There is great merit in the idea that post-legislative review should be conducted. It is a principle that applies not solely to the Bill under consideration tonight but more generally.

If I can draw this brief comparison—I have no intention of speaking for more than 60 seconds—we encourage the committees of this House to look at issues that they have previously dealt with, with a view to following up to see what has happened. I have been a member of a committee that looked at a particular issue that it had considered five years previously and, incidentally, came to the conclusion that things were no better.

In principle, the idea behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord has some merit. I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say in response but, having spent the entire day here until now in great part listening to the debates on this Bill, I am pleased to have the opportunity to invite my noble friend the Minister to say whether or not the Government accept the amendment, and I hope that the principles behind it will be taken very seriously.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important contribution, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for proposing it. I support it, but I think the Government will want to do things more quickly than five years. What is being proposed is a review of the impact of the whole Bill over a five-year period, which means you are, in effect, starting after three years to do the research work required. That work may or may not be done by the Government; it might actually be done by university research departments or somebody else. I believe there are a number of errors in the Bill that the Government may find do not work well when we get the Act. Therefore, the Government will need room to effect change more quickly than five years on a number of aspects of the Bill. With that comment, these Benches will support the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

85: Clause 16, page 21, line 5, after “United Kingdom” insert “or an elected member of a local authority”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the disqualification provisions in Clause 16 to elected members of a local authority.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I hope this group will be very brief, because I seek clarification from the Minister on a matter that has caused me some concern. Clause 16 of the Bill refers to

“Members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority”.

There is a whole variety of rules which, in my view, are right.

I want to address the issue of elected local councillors, who do not seem to be part of Clause 16. Clearly, a local authority councillor can stand for election as a mayor, but I would assume—and hope the Minister will confirm—that they must resign if they are elected a mayor. But if they are elected a mayor when they are not a councillor in the first place, can a mayor become a local councillor? In other words, in terms of Clause 16, the issues are understood and well defined for members of legislatures—but a local authority is not, it appears, a legislature. I just wonder whether a mayor can also be a councillor at the same time, either as a member of the combined authority or as a member of a local authority somewhere else. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an interesting point which deserves an answer. On this side of the House, our views were made very clear in Committee: we are on the side of democracy, we believe it is up to the electorate to decide who is best placed to represent them, and we should respect their views.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments relating to disqualification for being a mayor of a strategic authority. These amendments seek to prevent an individual from simultaneously being a councillor of a local authority and holding the office of the mayor of a combined county authority.

The noble Lord will know that existing law already prohibits council members of constituent councils in both combined authorities and combined county authorities from being elected or holding office as the mayor at the same time. This is provided for in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These amendments would have the effect of almost mirroring that prohibition, in relation to combined county authorities only, for councillors of any local authority.

However, the Government are planning to replace all two-tier council areas with unitary authorities and hence replace all combined county authorities with combined authorities before the next planned mayoral elections in two-tier areas. This means that the prohibition would very likely not be required. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his explanation: that as of today, existing legislation holds sway in this respect. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 85 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there are three very important amendments here, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

I have two caveats. The first is that it is quite difficult for central government to undertake some of the detailed analysis across the whole of England, with its population of 56 million, and to manage that effectively. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has raised a slightly different issue, which is about community empowerment. We talk a lot about English devolution, but community empowerment is a much more locally based, neighbourhood concept. The problem that communities will face is that they will have no money to do the work that they would like to do.

I am very supportive of anything that can be done to assess how community empowerment is working, but my second caveat is that overview and scrutiny committees are supposed to be doing this very job within their own areas. There are people who have the responsibility of scrutinising what is happening—having an overview of what is happening. It seems to me that we should go to those people first to assess the success of the Bill when it becomes an Act, rather than going straight to central government and expecting it to do it all.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the right reverend Prelate for their amendments.

As drafted, Amendment 87 would be much more burdensome for the Secretary of State and require yearly reporting via the annual report on English devolution, rather than every five years, as the noble Baroness intended. The annual report, introduced by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, is designed to update Parliament on the progress that government is making in implementing devolution across England, rather than monitoring progress on individual policy areas. This amendment does not align with the focus of the annual report, but I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already committed to assessing the impact of devolution on local economic growth and public service delivery.

On the mayoral strategic authorities receiving an integrated funding settlement, we already have an integrated settlement outcomes framework in place. This is published on GOV.UK. The framework outlines a number of outcome indicators and outputs which the mayoral strategic authority will be assessed against to determine whether it is delivering effectively for its residents. For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s outcomes framework includes several outcome indicators relating to economic growth and public service delivery. This includes the number of supported businesses that have increased productivity, and measuring the success of support for residents with long-term health conditions, getting them back into employment. As more mayoral strategic authorities receive an integrated funding settlement, more mayors will be subjected to the integrated settlement outcomes framework.

At the local authority level, the Government recently published the local outcomes framework, which enables outcomes-based performance measured against key national priorities delivered at the local level. The outcomes that are measured include: economic prosperity and regeneration, adult social care, and child poverty.

The outcomes and metrics for each local authority area will be published on GOV.UK through a new digital tool. This will improve transparency and enable the public, local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to have a shared view of progress for all areas in England. The performance against the outcomes and metrics for each local area will also allow local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to work together to identify what needs to be done at a local level by different partners to tackle local challenges.

The noble Baroness also seeks in her amendment to ensure value for money for residents. The introduction of local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities will allow local areas to hold their mayors to account, including by undertaking value-for-money assessments. Although I welcome the spirit of this amendment, it would place undue burden on the Secretary of State, and we cannot support it.

On Amendment 184, the quality of service delivery by strategic authorities, the efficiency with which they deliver their functions, and the value for money they provide are matters of importance to Members on all sides of the House. As new powers and functions are devolved through the Bill it will be essential that scrutiny and accountability keep pace, ensuring that all strategic authorities are well run and operate effectively.

I have already touched on the role of local scrutiny committees and the integrated settlement outcomes framework. In addition, strategic authorities are expected to adhere to the process and principles set out in the English devolution accountability framework. This includes the scrutiny protocol, which encourages the engagement of residents through mayors’ question times and other equivalent opportunities for the public and journalists to put questions directly to elected mayors.

As part of our commitment to effective governance, we are also undertaking annual conversations with strategic authorities. These are regular engagements with strategic authorities, intended to foster an understanding of strategic authorities’ roles and challenges, sharing learning from across the sector to drive positive outcomes for residents. Strategic authorities are also subject to the best value duty, including inspections and, if necessary, the appointment of commissioners.

Where parliamentarians may have concerns about the performance of strategic authorities, it is entirely appropriate that they raise them with the Government through the usual means. I trust that your Lordships will see how strategic authorities will be subject to both non-statutory and statutory mechanisms to drive performance, efficiency and value for money.

I thank the right reverend Prelate for Amendment 318A. My noble friend will be more than happy to meet him and his colleagues to discuss these issues further. Through the Bill we are building on the foundations of the Localism Act 2011 with a more effective community right to buy and a new duty on local authorities to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. We regularly engage with local government and the community sector to understand how existing powers are working on the ground. We know from this engagement that the current community right-to-bid provisions are not strong enough to enable communities to protect valued local assets for future use, which is why we are strengthening them with the introduction of community right to buy. This will help communities safeguard a range of assets that play a key role in community life, including green spaces such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments. We will explore the best way to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme going forward.

On the parts of the Localism Act which relate to community rights and local services, we think that effective neighbourhood governance is the right route to help to ensure that local decisions are made more effectively by people who understand local needs. A core goal of neighbourhood governance is smarter, more responsive decision-making that is closer to communities, giving communities a greater say in what matters to them.

Through regulations we will set out the criteria for the arrangements that must be in place. We will continue to engage with local government and the community sector to ensure that we understand the best way to do this and the effectiveness of current community empowerment frameworks such as the Localism Act. Although it is crucial to ensure that communities have access to pleasant and attractive environments that provide the spaces they need for recreation and growing food, there are other ways the Government are doing this, including through the planning system.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have consulted on a new planning policy framework designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler local plans. It proposes a number of changes to improve the approach to climate change and the delivery of green infrastructure, nature-based solutions and community facilities. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course. All these measures seek to ensure access to community spaces and the ability to shape local decisions. An annual report is not necessary or proportionate. As usual, the Government will continue to keep all policies under review. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to talk about the south-west, following the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and about how well the greater south-west grouping is working. To give noble Lords an example, they have come together and commissioned a successful system of getting wifi continuously on intercity trains. Some noble Lords may think that a complete waste of time, but when you have a five-hour journey, like I do, it is quite nice to have a bit of wifi. All the five counties, I think, have got together and done this. They are about to write to the Secretary of State for Transport to say, “We’ve proved that it works, even in tunnels and things like that. Will you give a small amount of funding to make it cover the whole of the network?” So co-operation works.

I have a question for my noble friend that relates to the relationship between Cornwall Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly. There is a certain occasional antipathy between the two. Size is one thing: one is very much bigger than the other. The smaller one, the Isles of Scilly, feels that it has been “done down” and that Cornwall has not given it the share of the money that it was due for the last co-operative project. Co-operation sounds very good and I fully support it, but what can be done when it goes wrong?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I see group 5 on social mobility as one of the most important that we have to consider on this second day on Report. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his commitment to increasing social mobility and his work to promote that and to promote pan-regional working. These are very important. The Government are determined to reduce youth unemployment and among the ways they will do that is the promotion of growth and devolving power to mayoral authorities. I think all these things can work.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in his contribution on the previous group, said that we need a duty on local service partners to co-operate, because we have to promote co-operation rather than competition. I think the same rule applies to Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on pan-regional working.

One of the history lessons of the regional development agencies, which were ended in 2012, was that they competed against each other far too much. One of my fears in this English devolution Bill is that what could well happen is that mayors will compete with each other for funding, rather than trying to work together to increase the outputs from the money that they have. I have found this a very useful discussion, because if we are to have partnerships at a pan-regional level—let us say the north of England or the Midlands—then to enable broader collaboration between strategic authorities would be very helpful, rather than having mayoral authorities within, say, the Midlands or the north of England competing with each other to earn the favours of the Treasury through their mayoral structure.

I have said previously that I think there has to be a system of assessment of the success of devolution to mayoral authorities. How do we know if they are working? We discussed that on a previous group, in one sense. I think that mayors should be targeted far more than we currently seem prepared to do. I think mayors should have a duty to reduce youth unemployment, unless they can demonstrate that central government has done something that prevents them from achieving that objective. I think that that would give a focus on the reason why mayors exist in a local area, which is to ensure that training gets better and that fewer young people, 16 to 24, are not in education, employment or training. Young people must be helped more and we have to invest more in their futures.

Finally, on Amendment 183, to which my name is attached, I think that consulting with the Social Mobility Commission on how we collect the data, and on how the evidence of social mobility outcomes is assessed, will matter. It is about achieving real outcomes, and those outcomes will depend on having the data to assess them. The Social Mobility Commission may have ways in which it can assist us. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said something that I thought was very important: the cost is tiny in terms of the potential gains that can be made. I think that is absolutely right, so I find the three amendments in this group, led by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to be particularly helpful and appropriate, and I hope the Government will agree when the Minister sums up.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I join my noble friend in congratulating the Government on this pavement parking issue.

I will speak in a bit more detail to Amendment 100 and focus on insurance, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has been speaking about. She was talking about things that she does not remember in the Highway Code. I suppose that I do not remember things in the Highway Code that were published 50 years ago, when I had a driving licence. The issue is: what are we trying to achieve? Surely the most important thing is safety on the roads. That safety covers not just fast cars, large trucks, fire engines and ambulances but ordinary people trying to get around, often on equipment which has wheels. Are we looking at a series of amendments in this group which say that anything with wheels is, by definition, bad? I hope that this is not the case, because wheels are an essential part of mobility.

Occasionally, the use of this equipment needs to be separated. We spend a lot of time talking about scooters, freight bikes and other related things in between, some of which need insurance and some of which probably do not. You could widen this to a situation where if you are a pedestrian in London and cause an accident which is demonstrated to be your fault, you get the blame. Should you therefore, as a pedestrian, have insurance? It is a very wide subject and I am not sure that it is covered in this amendment.

As it stands, I cannot see why we should have special regulations

“to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles from providing a pedal cycle or electrically assisted pedal cycle to a person who does not have insurance”.

Surely it is for the user to decide whether they should have insurance and what the insurance is for. The alternative is to lock it. I cannot support Amendment 100 and hope that my noble friend will agree.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name appears in two or three places in this grouping. I join the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in saying how important Amendment 245 and the consequential amendment are. I have campaigned for many years on pavement parking. I finally feel that action is being taken, so I thank the Government and congratulate them on the step that they have taken.

I began being concerned about some of the transport issues when I was advised that there was doubt about who, between a mayor and a local authority, would be responsible for traffic calming measures in residential areas. In some parts of the country, it was being alleged that mayors would control the decisions on where traffic calming would take place, rather than the local council. I had a concern about that, and I wanted it clarified.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

49: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Scrutiny of mayoral commissioners(1) The mayor of a combined county authority must establish, for each commissioner appointed by the mayor, a scrutiny committee composed of elected members of the constituent local authorities.(2) The purpose of each scrutiny committee is to review, assess and report on the exercise of the policy responsibilities of the commissioner to whom it relates.(3) Each scrutiny committee must have the following powers—(a) to require the mayor, the relevant commissioner, or any member of their staff to attend before the committee to give evidence;(b) to require the production of any documents relevant to the exercise of the commissioner’s functions;(c) to publish reports on the committee’s findings and recommendations.(4) The mayor and the relevant commissioner must have regard to any report or recommendation made by the corresponding scrutiny committee under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a mayor of a combined county authority to establish a scrutiny committee of elected members with powers of summons to examine and report on the mayor’s exercise of functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in this group I have Amendments 49, 95 and 96, and I have signed Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard.

In speaking to Amendment 49, I want to thank the Minister for having written to us last week—she proposed a whole raft of new amendments on the scrutiny functions. My amendment, which would require the mayor of a combined county authority to establish a scrutiny committee of elected members with powers of summons to examine and report on the mayor’s exercise of functions, is therefore rather out of date now, so I will not be pressing that.

However, I want to raise a broader question, because at times the rest of England seems to be following London, and at other times it is not. On this occasion—this relates to Amendment 95—in London, the mayor of London is required to hold a public meeting known as a People’s Question Time twice per financial year to answer questions from the public; that is in Section 48 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I would like that to be replicated across all mayors in England so that something similar happens. I think that mayors are going to need—and I hope that they will want—to be held accountable for policy decisions they make. But the Minister might look at that issue of a people’s question time. We shall not reach it tonight for voting purposes, so I can consider what to do as a consequence of the Minister’s reply.

I feel very strongly about Amendment 96. I was a member of a regional development agency a number of years ago, and the RDA was required to turn up to every local council in its area once a year to answer questions from elected members, so that seems an entirely appropriate thing to do. I am suggesting only that a combined authority mayor should

“appear annually before each constituent local authority to answer questions from elected councillors”,

which would strengthen

“democratic accountability within devolved areas”.

I find it difficult to know what would be wrong with that, so I hope very much that the Minister will indicate her approval.

I will not speak about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, as that would steal his thunder, but he has hit on a very important issue around local public accounts committees. I have similar concerns to those that I think he has, but I will leave it to him. I beg to move.

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on cue to my Amendment 182, declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association and thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for supporting my amendment.

I welcome the Government’s amendment to establish overview and scrutiny committees. Why then have I persisted in my amendment for what I have called local public accounts committees? It is because the overview and scrutiny committees will focus only on scrutinising strategic authorities. I believe that we need to extend the focus of scrutiny from a single institution—the strategic authority—to the wider scrutiny of the place. The crucial difference between my amendment and the Government’s proposal is that my scrutiny committee would have the power to report not just on strategic authorities but on how effectively all local public service partners were collaborating in a place for the benefit of the public and the wider community.

Why is this so important? I will not go through the points that I made at length in Committee, but over the last four decades our public services have become increasingly fragmented, with the establishment of a myriad of disconnected, sometimes single-purpose agencies whose objectives and targets have on occasions overlapped and even conflicted. As we all know, those agencies have worked too often in silos. As a result, the public have struggled to access or even make sense of the disjointed services that are on offer. Money has been wasted because the silos do not work together to deliver the best value for money. At worst, people, sometimes children, have died because data and intelligence were not shared quickly enough to protect them.

In many places public service partners have worked very hard to break down these silos, but that is not uniformly the case. The prevailing culture in our public services has too often been one of competition rather than collaboration. I am convinced that for that to change we need in every local area a body with the power to scrutinise and report on how all public sector partners co-operate or do not co-operate for the good of citizens. If instead we establish overview and scrutiny and scrutiny committees which address only the performance of a single institution, we will reinforce the silo-based mentality that we have created for another generation—all for the want of adding a simple power for the overview and scrutiny committees to report on how the wider system is working.

If we do give those committees that additional power, we will also demonstrate that in a devolved system, accountability does not always have to be to the centre. Accountability can be local, should be local and can be done more effectively if it is. Extended scrutiny committees and local Public Accounts Committees of this sort would be very visible. They could involve local business communities and the voluntary sector, perhaps with an independent chair. They would become a very visible local body.

I promoted this idea when I was chief executive of Gloucestershire County Council. Your Lordships must suspend your disbelief—that was in the 1980s. Therefore, I was delighted when the English devolution White Paper committed government to explore the local public accounts committee model. The problem is that this Bill and the Government’s amendment do not follow that through. However, my conversations with the Minister since Committee—which I am grateful that she was prepared to be involved in—suggest that she remains supportive of the concept but wants to see more policy development and more stakeholder consultation before progressing further. I understand that.

If the Minister can confirm this from the Dispatch Box tonight, that will take us quite a long way further forward and I will not press this to a vote. If, for example, we could set up a working party to produce a fully formed proposal for local public accounts committees, we would have taken a big, decisive step in changing the very culture of our local public services—from competition to collaboration.

--- Later in debate ---

Under the new system, local electors will be able to petition their committee to examine an issue of local concern. Where at least 0.1% of local electors sign a petition, the local scrutiny committee must decide whether to take the issue forward. This will not prevent mayoral strategic authorities creating other routes for local people to engage with their local scrutiny committee or prevent them establishing their own people’s question time. We will also update the scrutiny protocol to strengthen expectations for how mayoral strategic authorities should engage with the public in an open and transparent way in light of our reforms. With all this in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was happy to co-sign the government’s amendment, which adds “culture” to the Bill, for one very good reason: I have always thought of myself as a practical politician. I declare an interest that I chair Brighton & Hove’s Seafront Development Board. For our purposes, regenerating our seafront is all about culture, heritage and the arts; these things come together. My understanding of the definition of “culture” in the context of the Bill is that it brings all those things together. We should thank the Government for having come up with this simple, effective and modest amendment, for which many of us have campaigned for a very long time. I do not want to anger the Whip by talking for very long, but it is important that we acknowledge the big step forward that the Government have made.

In the context of my own county of Sussex, it was a delight that the House approved the statutory instrument earlier today. For our purposes, one of the fastest areas of growth, particularly in the south, will be arts, culture, heritage and hospitality—it is the fastest growth sector in the country. This is therefore a very fortuitous moment. With the creation of the combined mayoral authorities and the move towards unitaries, this is a major shot in the arm for local economies.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, now that we are starting Report, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, just said. To me, the word “culture” means a lot of things: tourism relates to culture; heritage is part of culture; leisure can be part of culture; and the creative industries are certainly part of culture.

I commend the Minister for the decision that the Government have made to extend that list of competences, which is absolutely right. But whatever we say—or whatever the Government say—I suspect that the strategic authorities and mayors will say, “Well, this all interlinks, so let’s join it all together”. That is the role of the strategic authorities. So I welcome all this because it is helpful. All the contributions we had—from the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—have given us a dimension of what we mean in this debate.

However, I briefly repeat a note of caution that I raised in Committee: we would not want local authorities to think that somehow all these matters are transferred to the mayoral level. Heritage and culture—all these things—are actually very much a function of existing local government. With those words, I commend the Government for their decision.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this opening group, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his amendment highlighting the importance of heritage. I also agree with my noble friend that the word “culture” can mean different things to different people, so could the Minister please explain to us whether this will be clarified in guidelines? It will be very important that it is clarified.

The debate today clearly identifies the importance attached by many noble Lords to areas such as tourism, culture and heritage. However, it has also brought into focus a more fundamental issue with the Bill as drafted. A central question remains: what, in practical terms, is actually being devolved here? What do these areas of competence mean in terms of real power, real responsibilities and real outcomes? The response to that uncertainty cannot simply be to continue adding to the list. If the framework is unclear, expanding it risks compounding the lack of clarity rather than resolving it. We risk creating a system that is broader on paper but no more certain in practice.

There is also a question of focus. Strategic authorities will need to prioritise and deliver effectively. Simply extending the list of competences, however well-intentioned, risks diluting that focus and creating expectations that may not be matched by the powers or resources available. That is not to diminish the importance of the sectors that we have just discussed; far from it. Tourism, culture—whatever that means—and heritage are clearly vital to many local economies and communities. But the issue before us is not whether these areas matter; it is whether this Bill provides a clear and coherent framework for devolution. At present, we believe that there is a risk that it does not. Before adding further competences, we should first be clear about the purpose and effect of those already in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point directly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have found this a very important discussion. I am in favour of all the amendments: they all seem to me to have merit. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who said that things are very different in rural England—for they are. He talked about empowering rural communities; that is absolutely right. I also found the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, very helpful indeed. It is very important, as in Amendment 326, to rural-proof what happens in public spending. The difficulty is that, when you rural-proof after the event by reporting on it, the damage may have been done. You need to make sure that, as decisions are being made, rural areas have been proofed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

6: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Devolution of powers within strategic authority areas(1) A strategic authority may devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds.(2) In carrying out any action under subsection (1), a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(3) Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(4) Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how the strategic authority and its member local authorities intend to carry out their duties under subsections (2) and (3) (a “Community Empowerment Plan”).(5) A Community Empowerment Plan must set out how the strategic authority and local authorities within its area will consult local communities on the exercise of those powers which are not devolved to lower-tier bodies.(6) A strategic authority must review a Community Empowerment Plan at least once during the period of four years beginning with the day on which the Plan is published. (7) In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or other body to which it has devolved powers.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the powers of a strategic authority in circumstances where the strategic authority considers there to have been a serious failure or breach of duty in relation to a power devolved to a more local level.(9) Regulations made under subsection (8) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a lower tier of local government.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for co-signing this amendment, which covers a fundamental issue. It would simply allow a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a lower tier of local government.

This Bill is called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Devolution should be at the heart of the Bill. What we actually have is decentralisation to mayors from Whitehall, but there is to be no decentralisation or devolution of power from mayors to lower levels. If this is a serious devolution Bill, it should devolve powers and responsibilities to the lowest level possible. It is very difficult to see where the community empowerment that the Government talk about actually is.

Some things in the Bill are relevant but, for the main, there is no money for councillors elected in existing local authorities to deliver the community empowerment that the Bill sets out. This is crucial, because we now face centralisation around the mayoral structure. The set of competences that we have been talking about will suck power out of existing local authorities, whereas I want to see people empowered in their neighbourhoods to take greater responsibility for what happens in those neighbourhoods. By that I mean that we need to enhance town and parish councillors, who are currently missing from the Bill.

So, this Bill is about decentralisation from Whitehall to mayors. I want it to go further and to be about devolving powers from mayors to local authorities and then from existing local authorities to lower levels: the town and the parish council structure. My amendment simply says this: I am trying to prevent upwards mission creep. I want a strategic authority to

“devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds”,

through an annual review system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are basically saying that, where we can do that, we will, but where there are not the structures of a local, parish or town council, we might not be able to do that. The best way forward is therefore to have a system that is flexible and works with and engages the local community.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for pointing out that issue. I am glad that she did. I thank the Minister for his reply, but I have concluded that the Government have no plan to empower local communities in the way that the Bill suggests: it talks about devolution and community empowerment, but I see little prospect of real community empowerment.

The Government need a plan to prevent the upward drift of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, talked about lots of parish and town council seats not being contested, but that is because they do not have decent enough powers to make it worthwhile for people to stand. People do not stand because they do not see what they would do. The Government have to be convinced that devolving power to communities can make for better governance in England. That is where I am. I am grateful for the Conservative Party supporting the spirit of the amendment, which I think means it will be abstaining on this—or perhaps voting against, but I think abstaining. I wish to test the opinion of the House because this issue is central to an English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, without it, will be neither of those things.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government genuinely support the agent of change principle—and they say they do—the logical step is to enshrine it in law. Amendment 246 would achieve precisely that. It introduces nothing new in principle; it simply ensures that what is already accepted policy is applied, reliably and consistently, in practice. I strongly support all four amendments and urge the Government to accept them. I should add that, having just heard the noble Lord, Lord Best, I also support Amendment 307 in his name, to appoint a chief planning officer, for the reasons argued earlier.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

introduced last year to improve their design and implementation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I can see that this is a very important group. We have moved on, and I am happy for us to have moved on. So, while in Committee I said that I wanted to see the abolition of the principle of unelected commissioners—it is the unelected bit that has really bothered me—they will not have powers to vote or make decisions. You can therefore make the case for the expertise that is required—certainly in some of the areas of competence that the Government are proposing. We can debate whether there should be five, seven, 10, or some other number, but I would devolve it and let people make their own decisions at a more local level.

I got concerned last week as I began thinking about the Government’s changes to overview and scrutiny. I welcome them very much: a lot of progress is being made. The question for me was: who appoints a commissioner, and to what test and what level? If a mayor can appoint a commissioner, what criteria are used for that appointment? I thought that the overview and scrutiny committee could be used, before somebody was appointed, to assess whether the person being appointed would be satisfactory in the role. I have come to the conclusion that Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is a better amendment.

We need an appointments process that is public: a fair and open selection process where the criteria and the process are publicly understood, as are levels of remuneration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, have said, this will be in order to ensure transparency and accountability. This really matters: the public will not have confidence in some of these appointments if they think that someone has been appointed without the right qualifications or experience to undertake the job. When you give power that is too great to an individual—a mayor—there is a danger that, in some places, at some times and on some occasions, that could happen, and we do not want it to. I want the Bill to succeed; we are in favour of driving the devolution agenda.

I am not planning to move Amendments 48, 66, 57 and 58 in this group, but I hope very much that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, decides to press Amendment 45, she will have our support.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, size really does matter. Big is not necessarily beautiful. I am a practitioner, as many know, looking up the telescope from place-making projects we are working on across the country, I declare my interest as such. I am a voice, I suppose, from the charitable and voluntary sector and the social enterprise sector. As I said, I am looking up the telescope into these impenetrable large structures, trying to deliver place-making projects on the ground.

My experience over many years and today confirms what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is saying: he is correct and we need to be very careful about these matters. My colleagues and I have been working with one county council leader on place-making projects for the past eight years within a large structure. He is an excellent, capable leader, but it was virtually impossible, even with his support, to get this beast to dance to an innovation tune on place-making in his county. It was like swimming through treacle, even though all the politics was in the right place to do it. I found that this structure was too large to have any sense of place or to have any relationships with people on the ground, where it really matters. If future place-making is about bringing people together, people and relationships are crucial.

In practice, this restructuring is already halting many place-making projects in challenging communities in the north of England, as staff look for new jobs. My colleagues and I see and experience it every day. The Government have a right to restructure, but they need to listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and those of us working on the ground: the practical details really matter.

The country is in danger of coming to a halt. We need to get interested in practice on the ground and what works in detail. At the moment, practitioners feel ignored. We want to help, but there needs to be a dialogue and real interest in what works on the ground in local communities.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, in particular my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who made a number of important points about all three of the suggestions before us. I thought the point from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was extremely well made: this is about place-making and what happens on the ground. A top-down approach is building the other way around.

I will be very brief. This is a devolution Bill, yet it prescribes what can happen on the ground. I have said that at least half a dozen times in Committee, but I will repeat it again because it deserves to be repeated. I want to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, some extra support, because there is an issue with size, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out.

I understand that we have an appropriate figure for the size of a unitary authority of some 500,000, but I counsel the Government against using population size as the basis for a calculation. I can remember, a few years ago, when the Minister was the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, having a conversation about the ideal size for Buckinghamshire and Bournemouth in Dorset. I remember being told that, in Buckinghamshire, the ideal size needed to be 350,000, but I was urging a figure of around 300,000. I am quite happy to be wrong about that but, if the Government are moving towards a figure of 500,000, they will have to justify it. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly made the point that you need to consider natural geography, the identity of the authorities and so on. He put it extremely well.

I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I am sure the noble Lord would not mind them adding to it and improving it with new things, but it should form the basis for a consideration of what the ideal unitary size is, which may of course be different in different places. It is for local people to say whether they prefer a model of 500,000, fewer than that or whatever; otherwise, this process will be too top-down.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief in closing, but very clear about the position of the Official Opposition on this group. After many hours of debate, one point should now be beyond doubt: devolution cannot be delivered by compulsion. If the Government persist in reserving sweeping powers to direct and impose local government reorganisation from the centre, the Bill will continue to fall very short of its stated purpose.

We have heard many views, mostly negative, from noble Lords today, but I have been there. In 2007, under a Labour Government, I took my then council to a unitary. I was not very popular, but it was our decision: we planned it and we asked for it. It has been a great success; it is more efficient and more local. I will talk more about that in future groups today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading but I want to speak to the proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to abolish Clause 59 and Schedule 27. I do this as someone who has lived in Sheffield and who still represents the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on the council. We were actually on different sides of the argument when that referendum was held in May 2021, when 90,000 people—65% of those who voted in Sheffield—voted to change from the strong leader model. The Liberal Democrats brought that in during the Blair years, because that is what we were told to do.

I find it ironic that we are discussing the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill but we are now dictating the governance arrangements that communities will have. I really do not see how you can stack that up. If communities want to move away from a governance arrangement, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, that can be a simple vote in council or it could be the route that the It’s Our City! community organisation took in Sheffield, which was to collect 25,000 signatures and trigger a referendum. I normally say to councillors that if communities are collecting 20,000-odd signatures, it is best to change your mind, otherwise you are going to get the vote that we had in Sheffield.

I urge the Minister to realise that if you can get the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and me on the same page, having for many years thrown rocks at each other in Sheffield, you seriously need to listen. Although you might favour the strong leader model, if you genuinely believe in community empowerment then let the people decide. If they ultimately want a leader-and-cabinet model, they will vote for it and support it through their local councils. Let us not have this top-down diktat. That is why, on these rare occasions, noble Lords can find me and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on the same page.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley for speaking. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular. I strongly support the stand part notices on Clause 59 and Schedule 27. The reason has been explained. This is a devolution Bill about community empowerment, but the Government are removing the right of local people to decide for themselves what system of governance they want.

We have this devolution Bill, but the Government decide the form of local governance and say that there will not be a committee system. Where are we now? We are in Parliament, operating as a Committee. I have spoken on this issue many times in recent years. The reason why I believe that we should encourage committee systems is that they decentralise power but, more importantly, they enable scrutiny to take place at the point of decision-making. All too often, scrutiny in local government takes place after the decision. We will debate this further on our eighth day in Committee but I think that this is a fundamental right. I just want to keep the right of a community to create the structure that it wants. That right lies in the Localism Act 2011.

I very much hope that we will come back to this issue on Report. However, there are rumours that we may not get a Report stage and may end up in wash-up prior to Prorogation, because there are not many weeks left. We have a further day in Committee on 5 March and we have to leave an interval to reach Report. Can the Minister tell us whether we are going to have a Report stage? Also, if we are going to have a Report stage, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will bring this back, because that would give us the power to say to the Government, “You have to think again on this issue. Do not tell local people in all local authorities what model they are required to adopt”.

In the Explanatory Notes, there are explanations for why the Government are undertaking this, but, frankly, they are spurious. They claim that there is evidence, but I do not know what the evidence is. In the end, why do we not just trust local people to make decisions? Otherwise, 56 million people in England will continue to be run out of London and Whitehall.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I did not want to come back, but I shall, to amplify my noble friend’s point—I think that I can call him my noble friend in this regard. The incorporation point is really important, because elsewhere in this Bill there are provisions for the community infrastructure levy to be passed down to neighbourhood areas. These bodies need to have a bank account and governance; they need to have representation and must have legitimacy. The Bill is silent on that and deficient in that regard. We must move forward, or we will just end up in a muddle.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, what a helpful discussion we have had about this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has rightly called this clause a muddle and said that we need to come back to it on Report with some flesh on it, because there is absolutely no detail here.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in relation to Sussex, there is no local structure for when it goes unitary. That strikes me as fundamental. Clause 60 says nothing about town and parish councils. We have had a whole set of amendments trying to address this problem, but it should have been addressed before we got to Committee. It must be addressed by the time we get to Report.

I think that we have understood now what the problem is. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said at the start, in introducing this group, that he had an unease about Clause 60, which he called a “most dubious clause”—how right and prescient he has turned out to be. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, complained that he had said a number of things on Monday about the muddle, gap or vacuum that there is. I raised this matter, and I am happy to agree that that is the case, but on day 1 in Committee, I talked about the importance of local authorities devolving power to town and parish councils—to lower tiers. At every level there should be a statutory requirement on all the bodies to devolve power to a lower level, wherever there was a case for so doing. The Government did not support that, but I remind them of that debate on and the amendment to Clause 1, as it would help to get them off the hook with this very poorly drafted Clause 60.

On a final point, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said, there is a confusion in terms in the Bill between local, neighbourhood and community—the three words I think he used—to which I add “area”, because we get that as well. The words start to become interchangeable because nobody is quite sure what they mean. They are not properly defined in the Bill. They ought to be, but the difficulty we have is that the Government do not quite know how to define them. The solution to the problem is to change Clause 60 to include, as part of the local government structure, town and parish councils, then to insist that areas of competence should be devolved to the lowest level possible for the management of that service.

I hope that the Minister is taking very seriously that we must have something much more substantial on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, London does have a parish. It was set up in 2014 after a local referendum, and it is Queen’s Park—just so your Lordships know. There is nothing at all to stop the greatest city becoming parished.

I agree with many noble Lords that Clause 60 is a muddle. While it places a duty on local authorities to make appropriate arrangements for effective governance, it does not say whether that effective governance should be elected or non-elected. It also says that the Secretary of State would have powers through regulations to define neighbourhood areas and to specify the parameters of what arrangements may be considered appropriate. I find that very odd. I do not know which Secretary of State would understand the neighbourhoods of my now county of Norfolk, let alone the whole of England. However, we welcome efforts to bring decision-making closer to the communities that it affects. From previously setting up unitaries, it has been very clear that it is important to set up some more local organisations, but we need much more clarity on what they should be.

Neighbourhood committees or area committees—whatever they are called—are not the same as elected town or parish councils. They are unelected and in the control of and usually paid for by the unitary authority. I have experienced these committees and they work very well. They are probably needed for a bigger unitary authority, but they are no substitute for elected councils, such as town and parish councils. In fact, one of the strengths of neighbourhood or area committees is the inclusion of those local town and parish councils, so that all issues will be discussed locally by everybody concerned. Town and parish councils, because they are elected, are required to look at local plans and neighbourhood plans, and even at the budgets of the councils, to give a local perspective on those big issues for the unitary authorities. In that spirit, I welcome the intention behind Amendment 205, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, which seeks to strengthen the role and authority of locally elected councils and affirms the principle that neighbourhood governance must be rooted in democratic legitimacy and local accountability.

Amendments 206, 207, 208, 209A and 210, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Lansley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are important because they quite rightly seek, in different but complementary ways, to enhance and secure the role of town and parish councils within this emerging framework of what the Government are calling neighbourhood governance. We all know, from long experience and evidence on the ground, that genuine community empowerment through elected town and parish councils is central to effective neighbourhood governance. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is absolutely right that town and parish councils are a way for the larger authorities to test what is going on right down on the ground.

Parish and town councils are often the most immediate and accessible tier of democratic representation. They are closest to the lived experience of local people, they understand local priorities and they are often best placed to translate national policy ambitions into practical, locally sensitive action. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will think that that is a good thing for them to do.

Building on that point, I would be grateful if the Minister would therefore clarify how the Government see the roles of parish and town councils evolving within the wider framework of neighbourhood governance in this Bill. It is interesting that the Minister’s responses so far have been far from encouraging to town and parish councils. Why not encourage new unitary authorities to look at setting up more town and parish councils in their areas? That could go into a change to Clause 60.

In particular, can the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that town and parish councils are meaningfully involved in the decision-making that affects their communities? That happens now, but will it continue to happen? Finally, can she confirm how the Government will ensure that any move towards greater neighbourhood governance will be underpinned by clear lines of democratic accountability, so that locally elected parish councils are empowered to deliver more as we, hopefully, get more of them and they are embedded?

Throughout our consideration of this Bill, we have spoken at length about the importance of parish councils in general terms. In the specific context of Clause 60, that importance becomes even more pronounced. If neighbourhood governance is to be effective, it cannot be imposed from above. It has to grow from what we have already in large parts of this country, which could be created elsewhere.

We are therefore clear in our commitment to continuing the central role of town and parish councils in providing effective neighbourhood governance. That brings continuity, it brings local trust and it brings democratic legitimacy. Town and parish councils provide an institutional memory and a community connection that, as we have heard from other noble Lords, transient structures simply cannot replicate without democracy.

In closing, while we must ensure that the framework set out in Clause 60 retains sufficient flexibility to reflect the diversity of local circumstances, that flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic clarity and local voice. The amendments in this group speak to that balance, we believe. They remind us that effective neighbourhood governance is about trust in local institutions, trust in elected representatives and trust in communities themselves; it does not come top-down from government.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

These are probing questions, but they go to the heart of the balance between flexibility, localism and parliamentary accountability. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I express my support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said. I suggest to the Minister that it might help, particularly as we approach the tabling of amendments on Report, if the Government were to produce a grid that shows what powers will reside where. There are mayoral powers, government powers, local authority powers and town and parish council powers, for all Whitehall departments. We could have a piece of paper that would tell us what the Government’s intention is for where they are headed. I assume that the Government have this already but, if they do not, I suggest that they consider creating one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am talking about the functions within the competence.

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The noble Lord did not mention the questions of where the taxes are raised and who is responsible. For those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the differences between decentralisation and devolution are tax and money. So long as the Treasury retains control of the spending, we will have only decentralisation. We will discuss some of the fiscal things in our next session, but, unless we address the question of fiscal devolution, we are not going anywhere much.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I totally share his view, and we will come on to that matter in the next group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for what he said, which was important. I am sure that the Minister, through this grid that the Government are now producing, might clarify what is happening in terms of delivery as opposed to simply the powers.

On a previous day in Committee, I spoke about there being powers, responsibilities and resources in devolution. They are not the same thing. So I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, that many more powers could well be devolved, alongside the responsibilities for delivering the powers, without the resources to do the job. The point was well made by the noble Lord; I thank him for that. A little more will be said on this in our debate on the next group.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, drew our attention to Greater Manchester and the improvements in the health system. Since the decision was made to devolve some responsibilities in health to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and its mayor, I have always regarded it as a pilot of what we should all be doing. It is now for the Government to double-check all of the figures produced on improvements in public health and to assess whether, having had devolution, the resources have been provided to match the responsibilities and powers devolved—and, at the same time, to assess whether the achievements and outcomes in Greater Manchester are better than what has been secured elsewhere where there is no devolution.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said something that was terribly important to me: the NHS cannot be run by a central command and control system. We learned that during the Covid epidemic, but it is more than that. You cannot run 56 million people in England out of Whitehall and Westminster. The noble Lord helped us a lot by saying that what is to be devolved is a national decision and how it is to be delivered is a local decision.

I therefore come back to the grid that the Government are producing. It should now have a “what?” and a “how?”. Some greater meaning to the word “devolution” can then be achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, in the end, without greater fiscal responsibilities and powers, you do not have devolution—you have decentralisation. I think I recall making that point at Second Reading and on the first day in Committee, because it is so very true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is a most interesting group of amendments, and there is deep food for thought in what should come back to the House when we get to Report.

I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I must say that I had not understood the figure of 50,000, but at the very end he clarified that that could be a matter of discussion. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has covered that issue as well. A difference between my party and that of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Gascoigne, is that they are both trying to give excess power to the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked at the very beginning of this group why we had not supported his previous amendment a few weeks ago on the power of the Secretary of State to make a decision on whether an authority was fit to undertake additional powers. Our concern was that these matters should not lie with the Secretary of State, who would have power to make these decisions without necessarily having the right degree of accountability for it. It is better to give the power to local electorates.

In the end, I am not sure that local communities need to be protected by the Secretary of State from the level of tax to be paid. I think that the local ballot box is the protection at that stage—so I hope that, when the noble Lord thinks about bringing this amendment back on Report, he bears in mind that the major power lies with the local electorate.

My noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lady Janke both raised issues around fiscal power and the understandability and accessibility of financial matters for local people. This is of fundamental importance; it is about devolution. We need to have a transparent negotiation of fiscal powers of government. I accept totally that this is a process—it does not happen overnight—but I hope that the Government’s consultation on powers over tourism tax will be positive. Local areas are going to have to be more responsible for the level and nature of the taxes that they raise to pay for local services. We look forward to an outcome of the negotiation.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised a very interesting question about the business rate supplement. I want to think further about that, because it is a very interesting suggestion. We have to have the detail right. One thing I have noticed about raising taxes locally is that, if people know what it is that the extra money that they are paying is going to be spent on, there is a direct relationship, which you tend to get with parish and town councils and with some kinds of business rate supplements. I think there is potential here for further thought.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that we will take this away and think further about the possibilities for driving ahead on a system of business rate supplements supported or underpinned by clear consultation with local areas and a clear attachment to a specific project. Then, the general public will be more amenable to what councils are trying to do and how the funding is going to be provided.

My name, alongside that of my noble friend Lady Janke is on Amendment 190. I hope that the Minister will be positive about thinking through bringing forward proposals for fiscal devolution because, for devolution to work, you have to give greater powers over fiscal policy to the constituent parts of England. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response to this group of amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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