English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

104A: Schedule 5, page 138, line 33, after “vehicle” insert “, including those used for delivery services”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for not being at Second Reading, but I care deeply about these issues. Amendments 104A and 105A seek to ensure that, when we talk about micromobility vehicles in this Bill, we do not inadvertently exclude those used for delivery services. These services are now a major and growing part of daily life, whether that is food delivered by bicycle, parcels carried by e-bikes or goods transported by small vans. These services are economically and socially important, but they also have a very real impact on our streets and pavements, which is already being felt.

For example, food delivery has nearly doubled since 2019—as have parcel deliveries by vans, albeit over a longer period—yet local authorities currently lack clear powers to manage how those services operate in public space, particularly where micromobility vehicles are concerned. The Government’s guidance on this Bill recognises that the regulatory framework may need to expand in future, for example to include e-scooters or pavement delivery devices if they begin to block pavements or disrupt shared space, but that future is already here. Local authorities and communities are experiencing these pressures today.

In Committee in the Commons, it was directly raised whether what are now Clause 23 and Schedule 5 could be broadened to cover delivery vehicles. The Minister acknowledged that similar vehicles are already causing problems on our streets and said that the issue would be taken away and considered. I would be grateful to hear the outcome of those considerations today. If we miss this opportunity now, it could be many years before Parliament returns to this topic. We need only look at pedicabs to see how long such delays can last. Transport for London first sought powers in 2005; even now, those powers are not fully in force.

With these amendments, any use of these powers would still require secondary legislation and, crucially, be entirely optional for local authorities. The intention is to ensure that councils can take action where problems arise. That flexibility matters. In city centres, licensing could be used to address issues such as illegal e-bikes, pavement obstruction, unsafe riding and polluting vans, which are now the largest source of air pollution in central London. In rural or sensitive areas, a different approach might be taken, such as permit systems to encourage consolidation of deliveries or to manage speeds on narrow rural lanes. There are also important issues around safety and workers’ rights. Research from University College London found that freelance delivery workers are three times more likely to feel pressured to take safety risks or dangerous risks compared with employed drivers. Giving local authorities the tools to shape how delivery services operate could help to address these concerns.

Ultimately, these amendments are about empowering local decision-making. They would ensure that delivery services using micromobility vehicles are not accidentally carved out of a framework that is designed precisely to manage competing demands on shared space. I hope that the Minister will accept them or, at the very least, give a clear assurance that delivery services will be brought within scope at the earliest possible opportunity. Without that, we risk leaving our local authorities powerless in the face of challenges that they are already struggling to manage. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 108 and 109 would place stronger requirements on traffic authorities with regards to parking and docking, and Amendment 113 would expand the duty to co-operate to Great British Railways and other relevant bodies. I am grateful to the charity CoMoUK for its advice in this area.

This Bill is a welcome opportunity to start the long-overdue management and regulation of micromobility schemes and to reduce any negative impacts. Any noble Lord who has sat through many of the Committee days of the current police Bill will have heard arguments made and concerns expressed about bikes and scooters cluttering our pavements and about the lack of regulation—that is seen in the number of amendments today. This Bill is an opportunity to deal with these issues.

Amendments 108 and 109 would require traffic authorities to provide parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the right level. The proposed legal duty for highways authorities to merely “co-operate” with strategic authorities is weak. There is a risk that authorities will fail to provide sufficient parking spaces for micromobility vehicles. I understand that there are existing cases of the relevant authorities refusing to provide any bike-share parking space at all. This will limit the potential of micromobility to serve the public and will risk micromobility vehicles becoming a public inconvenience through inappropriate parking, as we currently see across our cities.

In addition to the duty to co-operate, it is important that traffic authorities have a duty to provide parking at sufficient densities, with density standards defined by the licensing regulations and guidance that this Bill outlines. Guidance should emphasise that, where possible, parking should be on the carriageway—perhaps replacing a private car parking space—strengthening the role of micromobility in the shift away from private car ownership and supporting the Government’s goals around active travel, clean air and climate.

I will expand on this a little more. It is important that the Bill gets parking right as, on the one hand, the planning of parking locations has a huge impact on how convenient shared micromobility is to use and therefore how much the public can benefit from it. On the other hand, as we hear regularly, poorly planned parking can be the source of so many problems, such as obstructing pavements, that this Bill aims to resolve.

As the Bill is currently written, the authority that gives out licences is not the authority responsible for parking, which creates that risk of mismatch between the number of bikes licensed and the quantity of parking available. These amendments aim to ensure that traffic authorities work in a co-ordinated way with licensing authorities to provide that appropriate level of parking. Density and quality standards outlined in guidance would support those traffic authorities to understand what is needed. If we do not tackle this tension, we will continue the chaos that we see on our pavements and streets, which benefits no one.

Amendment 113 would require Great British Railways, National Highways and other public bodies to co-operate with the licensing authority on micromobility vehicles and the connectivity with other modes of transport. The creation of Great British Railways in particular is a huge opportunity to integrate between rail and other forms of transport. Parking at stations for shared micromobility would make connections easier for passengers. Research that CoMoUK carried out showed that 21% of active bike-share users combine their most common bike-share trips with a train ride.

Similarly, having shared micromobility parking near bus stations improves the potential for interchange, while parking at or near NHS sites—hospitals and the like—and schools can improve access for those travelling for health, education or employment in a public service. Co-operation between bodies is essential to fully realise these benefits and to enable more people to choose active travel modes for more journeys.

An amendment tabled to one of my amendments suggests removing the word “sufficient”. This would leave a gap in the legislation that would allow an authority to say, “Well, we’ve provided one parking space, and that is enough for the micromobility in our borough or area”. So “sufficient” is a crucial word that would allow a proper assessment of need and demand and allow proper provision. I hope that the Minister has been looking into this and I look forward to his response with interest, particularly as these are such delicate issues on our highways.

--- Later in debate ---

With these reassurances, and with what I said earlier on the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I think there were some pilots of privately owned e-scooters. Have the results of those come through? Have they been published?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

To answer the noble Baroness’s question, the original pilot e-scooter experiments were started in the days of the previous Government and there were no results. This Government have extended both the number and the length of the pilots, so there will be some results in due course that relate to current circumstances rather than the circumstances of several years ago.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his answers to my concern about micromobility delivery vehicles. I think I heard the conditional in his words about them, so “could” rather than “would”. I will read Hansard very carefully and then come back to him, perhaps in a Corridor somewhere or on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 104A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have said.

I am slightly confused by a comparison between what the Department for Transport said in a press release on 8 January and what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, which is that powers will be available when legislative time allows. He rightly pointed out that we do not know when that will happen. However, the press release on 8 January said:

“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.


That implies to me that it can do what is proposed by setting out guidance and that we can be under way by 2026. However, the briefing we have all had from the trust implies that the Government will resist this amendment because they want to narrow the scope and there will be a place for it at a subsequent date. Exactly what is happening this year? If it is not all going to happen this year, what will happen this year? The press release certainly implies something:

“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.


I am sure the Minister will be able to shed some light on this issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

That is really interesting, is it not? I am sure the Minister will tell us exactly what all that means.

I am one of those people who challenge people who park on the pavement. Just recently, I saw a huge van parked all the way across a pavement. I went up to challenge the driver and found that it was an ambulance, so I did back off because I thought somebody needed some help. I totally agree that pavement parking means that the kerbside degenerates; it gets broken, which means yet another hazard for all of us, not just for people who are not particularly mobile, at night and so on.

I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but he should not be parking on the pavement. I do not care that the road is too small. He should park in a legal place and walk the rest of the way. It would be really good for his heart. The thing about pavement parking is that, if your car is too wide to park on the road, your car is too wide. Get a smaller car—do not take up space that pedestrians need. I see no rationale or excuse for that. It is just plain rude, and I loathe it.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 238, as she cannot be here today. Local authorities currently have civil enforcement powers which enable council officers to enforce parking contraventions on the highway, such as parking on a bend, across a driveway or too close to a junction. They have the power to impose penalty charge notices. This Bill will enable these powers to be taken by a mayor, which in my noble friend’s opinion will result in a less accountable system as mayoral authorities are likely to have populations of around 1 million.

This amendment seeks to achieve a retention of civil enforcement powers by local authorities and, more importantly, contains a provision to extend the powers to other highway infringements such as speeding on local roads—those which are not A or B roads. I understand that in the past my noble friend looked to table a Motion in the ballot to enable local authorities to enforce speeding problems on residential roads, which had huge support from the Local Government Association, London Councils and many boroughs. That is why she tabled this amendment, so I hope the Minister can respond to that point.

We have had a really interesting discussion about Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made a really good point, to which I hope the Minister can respond. It is an anomaly. Outside London, while it is an offence to drive on the pavement, it is not a specific offence to park on a pavement in most instances. This amendment tries to resolve this.

We have had briefings, as the Committee has heard, from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, and I have had a briefing from Guide Dogs about this issue. According to Guide Dogs, four in five blind or partially sighted people have said that pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week and over 95% have been forced to walk in the road because of pavement parking, so, as we have heard, this is a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, refers to the fact that five years ago the Department for Transport conducted a consultation, and we had the results in on 8 January. I believe this is the legislative opportunity for the Government—that is, if they need one, and if they do not, I hope the Minister can clarify that—and it clearly has cross-party support. It is important that we look to resolve this anomaly as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I hope to be brief. I have two main topics to discuss here. No explanation has been given for including Clause 27, which has the effect of transferring to the Mayor of London powers, which currently rest with the Secretary of State, to give consent for the disposal of land owned by Transport for London.

I start by saying that I do not have a principled objection to giving more powers to Transport for London. In fact, when I think back to the pedicabs Bill, I was the one arguing against the Government’s initial proposal that the pedicab licensing regulations would have had to be approved by the Secretary of State in each case. That argument was eventually heard, so the Secretary of State has no say over the licensing of pedicabs in London; it rests entirely with Transport for London, which is the right place for it to rest. I only wish it would get on and do something about it, but that is another question.

I am not opposed in principle to transferring powers over Transport for London to the Mayor of London from the Secretary of State, but I am concerned about doing so in this case, because the land that belongs to Transport for London is very often necessary for operational purposes, although that is not always immediately apparent to the casual passer-by. The casual passer-by—that might include the mayor, who passes by occasionally—would see that land and perhaps see an opportunity for housing on it. If the mayor is responsible both for decisions relating to housing, as he is, and for decisions relating to the disposal of land by transport for London, he can be placed in a position that not only creates an inherent conflict but can create difficulties for Transport for London over time.

There is a further matter: sometimes the land owned by Transport for London is also accessible by Network Rail, and of course vice versa. We know that Transport for London runs services on a considerable amount of Network Rail assets, so the transfer of land that might be of value for operational purposes to another purpose—let us say housing, although it might be something different—could have an impact that is greater than simply one on Transport for London. It might be something to which Network Rail, for example, or Great British Railways in the future, had an objection—yet the Secretary of State, who would be the normal means through which they would articulate their objection, would not be empowered to take any steps. They would be left as simply one of a number of petitioners at the door of the Mayor of London, asking him to take their interests into account. So I am very cautious about this clause and I wonder whether it has been properly thought through. I do not understand the rationale for it, except in the general sense of, “We’ve got to devolve things, so here’s something we can devolve”. I am not sure this is something that should in fact be devolved.

My Amendment 119, and Amendment 118, which is consequential to it, would replace the duty on councils to implement local transport plans with a duty to have regard to them. This is inevitably a fine balance. I think we have all understood it and seen it in other contexts. But there is a real difference, in practice and in law, between being under a duty to implement and being under a duty to have regard. Being under a duty to implement is a very narrow, rigid requirement that will leave very little discretion for local transport authorities to take account of local circumstances. Again, I come back to what the Minister said a little while ago about local authorities being the people who know their area best. I think there is an argument at least—and this is a probing amendment—for exploring why the Government are not content with an arrangement whereby local transport authorities have a duty to have regard to the local transport plans rather than actually to implement them.

Finally, my Amendment 121 in this group relates to Schedule 10 and seeks to remove paragraph 14. As I understand paragraph 14, it effectively transfers responsibility for concessionary travel schemes from district and county councils to combined authorities, or combined county authorities once those bodies are established. There is an emotional bond in many cases between what I am going to call the bus pass and the local authority, which is of great significance both to local people and to the local authority. In fact, when I look at my own Freedom Pass, I see it says that it is funded by London Councils and HM Government. It used to say—not in my time but in years gone past—that it was funded by my local authority, which was named on the Freedom Pass.

That local link is tremendously important. It is one of the most important and valued services that local authorities supply to their residents. To remove the responsibility to the county authority and with it, no doubt, removing the name of the local authority from the pass, cutting that link, is very dangerous. It leaves in the air the question of who is paying for the Freedom Pass or bus pass that people have. Who is paying for it under these new arrangements? The reason why the local authority is entitled to have its name on it is because it is making a large financial contribution, sometimes the whole contribution. In London, the entire contribution comes from London local authorities. That is why they can have their name on it and is the basis of the bond that exists, but who is to carry that burden in the future? Who will be paying for it? Will that bond continue to be connected with the funder? These are important questions to explore. I would very much like to hear what the Minister has to say about them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I will come to Amendment 120F in a moment.

These four amendments look at how this Bill divides responsibility between strategic authorities and local highway authorities and the risk that that division creates if it is not handled carefully. As the Bill is drafted, strategic authorities are responsible for drawing up policy through local transport plans while responsibility for implementing most road-related measures remains with local highway authorities. On the surface, that might sound tidy; in practice, it risks creating confusion and delay. This concern is informed by last week’s judgment by the Court of Appeal, the first time that a court has examined equivalent provisions in Section 151 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which governs the duty of London boroughs to implement the mayor’s transport strategy.

The distinction between policies and proposals is important here. Local transport plans, such as climate plans, contain both. A policy might be to prioritise buses or to reduce speed limits in villages. A proposal is what turns that policy into reality: five miles of bus lane delivered each year or 20 miles an hour limits introduced in five villages annually. I would make it 10 miles an hour through villages, but I understand that people have to get to places.

Under this Bill, local authorities are required to implement policies but only to have regard to proposals. We have also seen amendments that would weaken this even further, reducing the duty to have regard only to policies, not even proposals. That stands in sharp contrast to the position in London where boroughs are under a clear obligation to deliver the proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. Yet outside London, constituent authorities will have a vote on approving local transport plans, something that London boroughs do not have. Surely, if authorities help to shape and approve the plan, it makes sense that they should also be held to deliver what it contains. If proposals can simply be noted and then ignored, we risk gridlock, not only on our streets but in how decisions get made. Strategic plans will promise change while delivery stalls on the ground.

The pace of delivery now really matters. On climate alone, the Climate Change Committee has recommended a 7% modal shift by 2035 that requires major sustained investment in buses and active travel across most, if not all, local authorities. Electric vehicle sales are off target. Other sectors are falling behind. Transport remains the largest emitting sector. It will need to do more, not less. Reducing motor traffic is also essential for public health to cut pollution, much of which now comes from brake and tyre wear. We need to improve road safety and enable walking and cycling. There is also a strong economic case. All major parties now support denser towns and cities rather than continued building on greenfield land. That will not work without significant modal shift. Without it, congestion will worsen and quality of life will decline. These amendments would ensure coherence between strategy and delivery, reduce the risk of stalemate and give local transport plans the force needed to turn ambition into action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Schedule 9 of the Bill amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Its effect is to require mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities to prepare, publish and maintain a designation of a key route network within their area. I am not raising profound objections in principle to this, but I have some detailed questions.

Amendment 105 relates to the first paragraph of the schedule. Why must there be at least one road designated, even if nobody wants it? That appears to be the effect of 1(2)(1A)(c) of Schedule 9, Part 1, which states that

“if there is no highway or proposed highway in the CCA’s area that is designated as a key route network road, the mayor must prepare a proposed designation in relation to at least one highway or proposed highway”.

I hope that the Minister can explain why that should be, as it is not at all apparent.

Amendments 115A and 115B work together, seeking to define more closely what the key route network should consist of. At present, the term lacks a firm statutory definition. I assume that, when we discuss a key route network outside Greater London, the Minister has in mind, to some extent, the Transport for London road network in Greater London. That in itself was effectively taken over wholesale from the red route network that was established in the 1990s before the creation of the Greater London Authority and TfL. There has been amazingly little adjustment to that network since it was established. It has been the same roads, more or less, ever since.

There is no limit in this Bill on what roads could be designated. When the red routes were established in London, it was clearly the Government’s intention and practice that they should be the main roads. In this case, the key route network could be any road that the mayor and combined authority choose to designate—even side streets. These amendments, Amendments 115A and 115B, are probing because they are limiting the network to classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic. That seems to be sensible.

There is a related and minor issue, a subset of that. The Transport for London road network carries round the corner into side streets to an extent. That is what it was allowed to do when the red routes were established. It was possible to negotiate with the traffic director for London whether they should take the full amount of their entitlement in those side roads—I think it is 30 metres—or not.

These are important matters of local interest, because you might find that side streets with local parking and other local amenities that residents were used to become the equivalent of red routes, and you have very little say about it as a local authority. That is not good enough. We need this clarified in advance. There two levels of that: why not limit it to the main roads, and what are the Government going to do about the side road issue if they have that in mind, going round the corner?

Amendment 117 is intended entirely to be helpful to the Government. It seems that there is a clash here with the Road Traffic Reduction Act, in which principal local authorities are required to provide the information and do the forecasting and monitoring that the new combined authorities will do in respect of the key route network. The principal authorities are required to do it for roads in their area and, unless they are relieved of that obligation, they will do it for the key route networks as well. So, there will be two levels of authority carrying out the same monitoring, forecasting and reporting functions. That cannot be entirely what the Government intend, but, if it is, it is as well that we should know about it. I beg to move my amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will speak to Amendments 116 and 117A to 117G in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Amendment 116 probes the Government’s intentions around these powers, particularly in relation to key route networks and traffic regulation orders. As drafted, the Bill would allow mayors to be given a power to direct the exercise of certain road-related powers, including in relation to roads that are not part of the key route network and that therefore remain under the control of local or constituent authorities. The Secretary of State would then be able to issue guidance about how those powers are to be exercised. That raises some obvious questions. In what circumstances do the Government envisage these direction powers being used? What safeguards will exist to prevent them cutting across local decisions that have been made for reasons of safety, public health or community well-being?

Traffic regulation orders are often the mechanism by which councils introduce bus lanes, safer speed limits, low-traffic neighbourhoods or restrictions to protect residents. They are subject to consultation, legal tests and democratic accountability. There is understandable concern that new strategic powers could be used deliberately or inadvertently to undermine these local decisions. This amendment is about clarity and reassurance. Will the Minister confirm that the traffic management 2004 guidance will be revised to include guidance on key route networks? Will the Minister also ensure that such guidance prevents misuse by mayors, such as using KRN powers to undo traffic regulation orders made by local councils?

Amendments 117A to 117G seek to move the duty to report on traffic levels from the local and constituent authority level to the strategic level, on the basis that the latter has the greater responsibility and power to reduce traffic. As the Bill is currently drafted, the traffic reporting duty is tied to the use of key route network roads. This amendment would remove that limitation, so that the duty applies to all local roads within the area of the local transport authority. In doing so, it aligns the reporting duty with the full scope of the local transport plan.

The underlying issue here is one of responsibility. These amendments reflect the simple reality that strategic authorities, not individual constituent authorities, hold the main levers for reducing traffic across an area. Strategic authorities set and monitor the local transport plan. They determine the overall policy for all modes of travel. Through spatial development strategies, they decide where major development goes—decisions that fundamentally shape whether traffic is generated or avoided in the first place. They also promote and deliver the big-ticket transport schemes—trams, busways and other major public transport investments—and, increasingly, they will hold powers over enforcement and demand-management measures such as congestion charging. These are the tools that shift traffic levels at scale.

By contrast, local authorities have far fewer powers. Even where they do have powers, such as in implementing bus lanes or safer speed limits, those decisions are meant to flow from the strategic authority’s policies as set out in the local transport plan. Given that reality, it makes little sense to place on constituent authorities a fragmented traffic reporting duty that is limited to certain categories of road while the strategic authority is responsible for the policies and decisions that affect traffic across the whole network.

Of course, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. The proposed split would create a perverse incentive for constituent authorities to resist roads being designated as part of the key route network. Why agree to that designation if it means that a strategic authority acquires a traffic reduction duty for those roads but not for others? The danger is that this could lead to traffic being pushed off major routes and on to less suitable residential streets, which is exactly the opposite of what most communities want.

I am concerned that there is a coherent approach. Surely that means placing the responsibility for traffic reporting at the strategic authority level, covering all local roads in line with the scope of the local transport plan.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: Amendments 115A and 115B. However, I also subscribe to the principle of Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which was just discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do so because it is very important indeed that highways, or proposed highways, that constitute key route networks are both genuinely strategic and accepted as such by local councils and local authorities. As it stands, the Bill is unclear on where the powers around and responsibility for traffic management—and, indeed, for the allocation of resources—lie. It is important to clarify these matters in the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister two questions as clearly as I can. First, who will decide on the traffic calming measures proposed for residential roads? Will it be the local authority, the mayor or, in practice, a commissioner making recommendations to the mayor? Secondly, who will hold the budget for such measures? Will the money for the whole area of a strategic authority be transferred from Whitehall to the mayor, or will local authorities have their own budgets for such traffic management schemes? The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said a moment ago that it is important to clarify these matters in advance. I agree with him: it is absolutely essential that these matters are clarified in advance because mayors must not undermine the powers of local authorities.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

192: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010;(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008. (2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 193 and 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

On potholes, in the past four days, I have been campaigning in Barnet, in Gorton and Denton—we are doing pretty well there—in Cardiff and in Cambridgeshire. Potholes came up quite a lot, which is interesting. They are dangerous and should be fixed but, at the same time, we often have potholes because of excess rainfall and a rise in water levels; of course, this is a result of climate change.

That segues neatly into Amendment 192, which would put a duty on strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to contribute to the delivery of existing climate nature and clean air targets when exercising their functions. Air pollution, contaminated land, water pollution and climate-related risks do not fall evenly across society. They disproportionately affect those with the least power to avoid them—the poorest in our society. Strategic authorities making decisions on transport, housing, planning and economic development, therefore, have a direct influence on public health outcomes, whether or not that is explicitly acknowledged.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that decisions taken under the Bill are aligned with obligations that Parliament has already set in law. Climate targets, environmental targets and air quality limits are legal commitments. Strategic authorities will play a central role in determining whether those commitments are met. There is also a wider reason why this is important. Exposure to environmental harm is one of the most significant determinants of health and health inequality. The conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green space they can access and the pollution they are exposed to—shape health outcomes over a lifetime, yet environmental factors are often treated as secondary rather than being at the forefront.

The evidence here is overwhelming. The Chief Medical Officer’s annual report in 2022 highlighted the clear link between poor air quality and health inequalities, showing higher risks of hospital admission and mortality among those living in more deprived areas and, obviously, a reduction in the quality of life. Organisations such as Asthma + Lung UK have shown that people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are far more likely to die prematurely than those in wealthier areas.

This amendment would bring clarity. It would require authorities to contribute to meeting carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act, environmental targets under the Environment Act, legally binding air quality limits and the national programme for climate adaptation. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would ensure that decisions incompatible with those duties could not be taken. That would provide legal certainty and embed prevention at the point decisions are made.

There is also a strong moral dimension. Recent legislative efforts such as Ella’s law and the work towards Zane’s law have helped shift how we understand environmental harm—not as an unfortunate by-product of development but as a threat to life, dignity and equality. Those cases remind us that environmental pollution can and does kill and that public bodies have a responsibility to act before harm occurs, not after. Many local authorities recognise this and are trying to align their policies accordingly. This amendment would support them by ensuring consistency across England, particularly as new devolved structures are created with significant powers.

If devolution is to succeed, it must strengthen our ability to meet national climate, nature and clean air commitments. I hope the Minister will engage constructively with the intent of the amendment and will be able to explain how the Government intend to ensure that strategic authorities actively contribute to the delivery of these vital environmental and public health concerns.

The purpose of Amendment 193 is to ensure that, in exercising their new powers, strategic authorities have a clear and transparent understanding of poverty within their areas. If these bodies are to promote economic development and growth, they must also be equipped to understand how that growth is experienced and who is being left behind. At present, the Bill places significant responsibilities on strategic authorities without requiring them to measure one of the most fundamental issues affecting their communities. Without published data on poverty it becomes difficult to assess whether policies are effective or whether they are unintentionally deepening existing inequalities.

The amendment would require strategic authorities to collect and publish annual data on poverty, broken down by factors such as age, gender, housing status, education and ethnicity. Poverty is not experienced evenly, and aggregate figures can obscure patterns of disadvantage that require targeted responses. This approach aligns closely with the intent of the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010, which requires public authorities to consider how their decisions affect inequalities of outcome resulting from socioeconomic disadvantage. That duty has yet to be commenced in England, but many public bodies are already preparing for it. This amendment would help to ensure that new strategic authorities are established with those principles embedded from the outset.

There is a strong case for this sort of systematic approach. Rising child poverty, increased reliance on food banks and the clear links between deprivation and poor health outcomes all point to the need for better data and stronger accountability. Publishing this information annually would allow progress to be tracked over time and enable communities and elected representatives to hold authorities to account.

The amendment would not impose targets or dictate policy choices; it would establish a baseline of information and transparency, while leaving strategic authorities with full discretion over how they respond. Many local authorities already collect similar data. This would simply ensure consistency and visibility across England. As new devolved structures are created, this Bill has an opportunity to set expectations of what good strategic leadership looks like; ensuring that poverty is measured, understood and addressed should be central to that. I hope that the Minister will engage with the purpose of the amendment and will be able to say how the Government intend to ensure that strategic authorities are prepared to tackle poverty and inequality from day one.

--- Later in debate ---

For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I am sorry that I did not mention Amendment 241B but, yes, I would support it if my amendment were not accepted.

On the duty to think about climate change and so on, the Minister asked what extra the duty would add to current systems. However, there will of course be councils that will not want to do it, as somebody else said—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Willis—so putting a duty on them is absolutely crucial for taking forward this whole agenda.

I did not really hear a good answer about collecting data on poverty. Surely, that would be fundamental to any Labour Government—that they should know exactly how large the problem is. We get all sorts of data, reports and figures, but on a local level this would be a fantastic resource to direct, support and help.

On community wealth, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said that there were other systems. The point about this proposal is that it is tested and it works. I live in a local village where we do not have this—but we have a chalk figure on a hill overlooking the village that is so astonishing that we get hordes of tourists, which keeps open three pubs in a village of 800 people, and a shop that opens every day of the year apart from Christmas Day. All those people coming in can keep the local economy booming for local people. I go to all three pubs, obviously.

On the issue of air pollution, it is an interesting topic. London’s air pollution is not very bad anymore; it is one of the cleanest cities, if not the cleanest, in Britain. The reason for that is down to two very bold moves. First, Ken Livingstone introduced the congestion charge, and at the point when it was introduced he said that only two groups supported it—big business and the Greens. Big business understood about keeping things moving in a small area. The City of London made big steps, before even the Mayor of London did, to clean up its air quality. Again, it understood that you had to keep business moving and keep people moving.

Both the Mayor of London and the City of London also understood that air quality impacted very deeply on the people living here. It is obvious, when you look at the statistics in London, that people who live near the M25 live in poorer properties with less access to green space and suffer much worse from air pollution than people living in the inner city. Of course, children who grow up there are damaged for life: their lungs are stunted and they have problems all through their lives, putting pressure on the NHS. These things are all related. It is important not to see those things in isolation; we should see them as a flow that helps life generally.

I am going to withdraw the amendment, although I think it is great. I am sure that something like these amendments will be back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 192 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

Removing this clause would prevent the government from forcibly rearranging local government.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose Clause 57 and Schedule 26 and express my deep concern about the way in which the Government are pushing through local government reorganisation under the banner of devolution. Local government reorganisation is not new. It can and does happen but, where it does, it should happen by consent. Councils already have routes to propose mergers and restructuring where they believe it is right for their area.

What is different here is the scale and direction of travel. This feels rushed, top-down and imposed. It runs directly counter to the notion of devolution and the stated purpose of this Bill. I do not accept that the creation of new strategic authorities requires, as some kind of quid pro quo, the rapid abolition or forced merger of existing authorities. One size does not fit all. I have some experience of unitary authorities and recognise that they can work well, but that does not justify imposing them everywhere regardless of local circumstances, identity or consent.

Crucially, there is no strong evidence to support the argument that these changes will save money or improve service delivery. Larger councils are not automatically cheaper or more efficient to run. At a time when local government is already under extreme financial pressure, it is extraordinary that Ministers are pursuing structural upheaval rather than addressing the underlying problem of chronic underfunding. Local authorities are still grappling with the consequences of austerity. Councils across the country face serious and growing funding gaps and services are already stretched to breaking point. Before imposing disruptive reorganisations, the Government should fix that.

There are also serious risks to community identity and representation. Evidence from councillors on the ground suggests that these proposals could result in arbitrarily drawn, very large authorities with little sense of place or shared identity. Many towns with long histories and strong civic cultures—places that people care deeply about—are at risk of being effectively wiped off the local government map. It is important because democracy is about not just administrative efficiency but connection, accountability and trust. There is clear evidence that size matters for democratic engagement. Increasing population size and geographic scale risks reducing electoral turnout and lowering participation in local decision-making. We already have far too few elected representatives compared with many comparable countries. These proposals will significantly reduce the number of councillors overall, further thinning out representation at precisely the moment when communities are facing increasing pressures and greater complexity.

I am particularly concerned about the impact on casework and local advice. Councillors play a vital role as accessible, familiar faces in their communities, helping people navigate failing systems, resolve problems and get support in times of crisis. Many already work far beyond what their allowances reflect, often with limited support. When I was a councillor in Southwark, I could not do any gardening in my front garden because people would come up to me and tell me about their awful problems with black mould—clearly more important than my daffodils—so going into my garden was sometimes a challenge.

Schedule 26 risks abolishing whole tiers of representation almost overnight. That will inevitably lead to spikes in casework and confusion about where people turn for help. Local advice centres are already under immense strain, having lost staff and volunteers, while demand continues to rise. I see no evidence that the Government have seriously considered how this reorganisation will affect advice provision or where that additional pressure will land.

I do not agree that having services under one roof will make things simpler for residents. It might sound true in principle, but transitions of this scale are not frictionless. Removing thousands of local representatives at once is a disruption, and disruption without consent carries real democratic costs. Schedule 26 concentrates power in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing directions to be issued, boundaries to be changed and authorities to be abolished with little or no local say. For all these reasons, I believe that Clause 57 and Schedule 26 represent a huge step in the wrong direction.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 196EC to Schedule 26 fairly sets out some of my concerns, which, having listened to the noble Baroness, I am sure are shared by others in the Room. I tabled it in part to probe how Ministers will determine the new pattern of unitary councils. I appreciate that, by and large, they will be shaped by the submissions being made by current local authorities to the department, but my concern is that there is little thought or discussion about the size, shape or culture of the new councils.

The Government’s White Paper, published in December 2024, was clear that unitary councils should have

“a population of 500,000 or more”.

It argued that this would be

“the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks”.

The White Paper also said that

“reorganisation should not delay devolution and plans for both should be complementary”.

The Government have sensibly delayed the election of a number of the combined mayoral authorities and slowed the process down. Until the last general election, the pace of devolution was rather more measured, which was wise. Understandably, the new Government want to get a move on with their major reforms. At the same time, we will be asking the combined mayoral authorities and the new unitary councils to deliver much of the Government’s growth agenda and their political priorities in education, housing, childcare, nursery provision and so on. Quite right, too: they are the vehicles for a lot of those things, in particular transport. But the idea that these new and very powerful institutions will be capable of delivering new policies and plans while simultaneously creating themselves is something of a stretch. When Brighton and Hove City Council was set up back in 1997, we wisely gave ourselves two and a half years of preparation, including one year as a shadow authority. None of these structures will have that luxury.

It is well known that I favour unitary councils and have long argued for them, but they have to be well grounded to work and, to be well grounded, they have to be based on recognisable boundaries that have a clear relationship with local geography and a sense of community. My authority, Brighton and Hove, is constrained by the downs and, for that matter, it makes sense. It is a place, and place-making, as the Government say clearly in the White Paper, is of great importance not just to government but, more importantly, to communities. Make the unitaries too big and start tying urban and rural districts together and you lose that. You also lose the sense of community identity.

In the past, when unitary authorities were established, many place names were lost. I go back to 1974: who knew that Sefton was Southport and Bootle, or that Kirklees subsumed places such as Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley? Kirklees is the name of a hall on an estate, some of which is, I think, in the neighbouring borough of Calderdale. My point here is that place-making and community building, which are surely part of the stuff of local government, rely on the ability to be readily identified so that people can understand who is responsible for what and in whose name. Abolishing a lot of the place names, as the last local government review did in 1974, risks depriving people of that ready point of identity, which would be unfortunate and wrong.

Currently, looking at the size of authorities, we have few that fit the 500,000-plus margin—just nine: Birmingham, Cornwall, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, County Durham, Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire. It is an open question as to whether their size makes them more efficient; it is possible that it makes them more remote. The more remote they are, the more citizens feel left behind and left out, and less engaged and able to influence local decision-making.

For that reason, my amendment seeks to ensure that, in making a direction on the future pattern of local councils in a given area, the Secretary of State must have regard to local geography, because of its influence on travel and community relations; the sense of identity that the new authorities will take on in terms of places and communities; and whether it is wise simply to glue together urban and rural areas for administrative convenience. Additionally, the environmental and financial sustainability of a council area, and its proposed size, have to be considered.

The White Paper seemed to assume the bigger the better and that savings would flow. I am less convinced. If I look back to the unitarisation of Berkshire in 1998, for example, when the council was broken up into six unitaries, all then had to find directors of social services, education, environment and highways. A similar impact will be felt with the unitarisation that takes place under combined mayoral authorities.

I suspect most councils have stripped out excessive costs over the past 15 years and most will have come from back-office mergers. There may be savings in the administration of council tax as larger council tax areas come into view, but the integration of many district council systems into new unitary council tax collections will certainly come at a cost.

To conclude, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Can she confirm that a fixed size for unitaries—the 500,000 figure—has been dropped? Do the Government have a number in mind? Will the Secretary of State be mindful of ensuring that mergers respect the need to have identifiable boundaries that respect urban and rural differences and the historical bases of councils, to enable place-making and help with community resilience? Can we be assured that resources will be in place to ensure a seamless transition from the current pattern of districts into larger unitaries?

What steps will the Government take to guarantee a level of democracy that makes councils accessible to local electors and residents? The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made the point that councillors already work hard. The White Paper confirmed that the number of councillors would reduce—that is pretty obvious, really—but can we be assured that councillors will be sufficient in number, and well enough resourced and supported, to represent the inevitably larger communities that they will be part of?

I do not oppose unitaries; in fact, I am rather keen on them. I do not oppose devolution, but it has to be done at a pace, and in a style and manner, that works for local communities to ensure that democracy, demography and community identity are preserved, because place-making should be at the heart of the changes. We all need to be assured that that will be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“the interests of effective and convenient local government”.

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

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

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

Clause 57 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe that if you have a referendum, or, for that matter, a decision of the council that it wants to run the system in a particular way, why not? Nobody in Rotherham, Barnsley or Derbyshire gives a fig how Sheffield’s decision-making process works so long as it works—nobody—so, even with the modest amendments that have now been made, why impose a system when you simply do not have to? It is meddling, muddled and not democratic. I am desperate to save my Government from going down the wrong road. If we believe in devolution and community empowerment, we should ensure that we can practise it, which means setting aside Clause 59 and Schedule 27.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in opposing Clause 59. As an opponent of centralised control of all sorts, I feel that, if we are talking about democracy, it really ought to mean what it says. Centralised control of any sort is, for me, not democracy.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I think the Minister might wish to refer to that, if necessary. My understanding is that, just because an authority is unitary, it does not mean it stops being a county or a district. You could have single foundation counties and districts, in theory.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am not going to mention parishes; it is too controversial. In my village, the parish council is incredibly important. It sets up a litter pick, once a month, which I do every month and it is wonderful. I love walking out in front of cars in the village that are going too fast and just stopping them with my little stick. There is not much rubbish left anymore.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, used a very good word for what this side of the Room is experiencing: unease. Sometimes it goes a little bit beyond that, as well.

This amendment seeks to strengthen Clause 60 by setting clear minimum standards for meaningful community participation in neighbourhood governance. The Bill repeatedly speaks in the language of devolution, empowerment and bringing decision-making closer to communities but, to do that, you must make sure that people are genuinely involved in shaping decisions, rather than just being consulted once it has all been fixed.

As the Bill stands, it requires only that “appropriate arrangements” are made for local engagement. That phrase is far too vague, and that vagueness risks exactly the sort of weak or inconsistent participation that has undermined public trust for years. Without minimum standards, engagement can easily become technically compliant but practically meaningless. Meaningful participation requires more than consultation; it requires deliberation, and spaces where people can learn, discuss, challenge and contribute to shaping outcomes. That is why the amendment refers to

“deliberative processes such as citizens’ panels, assemblies, or community conversations”.

In my village, we have community conversations on the street, on a regular basis—and very healthy it is too.

These approaches are well established, increasingly used by councils and effective at engaging people who would not normally take part in formal consultations. The amendment also rightly emphasises inclusion; there is a danger that engagement exercises are dominated by those with the time, confidence and resources to respond. Communities are affected most by decisions, and those who are already underrepresented in policy-making are precisely the voices that are hardest to hear and most important to include. That probably counts double for inner-city parishes or areas.

Transparency is equally important. People need to be able to see how their input has influenced decisions. When communities are asked for their views but see no visible impact, trust is eroded. We need to report on how engagement has shaped plans and outcomes.

The amendment also recognises that meaningful participation needs support. The Minister has said that there is a lot of money going into local councils. I very much hope that it is enough to do exactly this sort of participation and engagement, because asking councils to deliver deeper participation without providing the means to do so risks setting them up to fail.

I do not think that existing powers and future regulations will be sufficient. Although flexibility matters, flexibility without standards leads to inequality. Minimum standards prove a floor, not a ceiling. They ensure that all communities can expect a basic level of involvement. There are excellent examples of councils doing this well; the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that such good practice becomes the norm, not the exception.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 209A in this group is in my name. I express my regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, for which I apologise. This is my first intervention on this Bill. I have interests to declare: I am a former president, and now a vice-president, of the National Association of Local Councils, and I am a current joint president of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils. I am very grateful to NALC for its help in drafting Amendment 209A.

I stepped straight into the controversial sector that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested she would keep well clear of. I have very much in mind the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Shipley, in our debates on the earlier groups in connection with Clause 59 and Schedule 27. I also relate 100% to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in his introduction to this group, as well as those from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I support the other amendments in this group, which are on the same theme as mine.

I wish to comment on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the extent of parishing. I cannot give him an answer, but if I tell him that East Sussex and West Sussex are almost completely parished but Surrey is at a much lower percentage then that will indicate to him that it can be a bit of a patchwork. Up and down the country, there are reckoned to be about 10,000 parish and town councils, so there are a lot of them around; there are also a lot of elected members. Noble Lords have raised other things about parishes, but I will pass on them.

I share a concern with noble Lords. If we have a combined county authority for a population of 500,000, say, and the borough and district structure then disappears because of that, where the relevant area or part of it is unparished—this is often in urban areas, though it is not always—what represents the community? As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that bit is uniquely well placed to deal with those local issues that have the most immediate impact on the electorate. It is usually—almost always—a community of geographical interest, as well as other types of interest.

My amendment seeks clarification of the Government’s intentions here; as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, they look a bit opaque and need clarification. In particular, my amendment tries to make sure that any arrangements that are put in place pursuant to the Bill, once it is enacted, do not impinge on the existing parish structures or impede their formation.

I will expand further by asking what the Government envisage the specification template or other structural characteristics might be to respond best to the needs of community. Here I am not stressing size. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to the council in Northampton. We always used to say that the biggest town council in the country was Weston-super-Mare, but I may be a bit out of date. It was considerably larger than some of the other principal authorities; they come in all shapes and sizes.

The point here is to ask: will community representation be some form of hand-me-down process through the principal authority, and will it be dependent on that authority for its finance, appointment of members, functions and so on? Will it just leave it to some ad hoc or perhaps business-related organisation to fill the void? Or will it have legal status, defined structure and powers, direct democratic accountability, financial accountability and autonomy through a precept, and the opportunity to move to a general power of competence, with rules of conduct, procedure, an accountable officer and so on? If that is what the template looks like, it looks very much like a parish council in structure. Let us not get too hung up about what the precise name should be, because what I am concerned about is the form. The democratic and financial accountability and its governance are what matter here, rather than size or other factors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendments 211 and 212 in this group, which are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

On the return to this vexed question of election postponements and cancellations, as we have covered that several times already on various previous occasions—I am sure we will again in future—I will take a slightly different tack this time and focus partly on the future. I also hope, perhaps overoptimistically, that the Minister feels that these amendments are actually helpful.

Thinking about the future first, there are very clear, sad and worrying lessons from countries all around the world about how quickly democracies can become fragmented and undermined. The responsible reaction we all should have to that is to be determined to embed democratic norms as deeply and firmly as we can. That does not guarantee their future protection but it will certainly make life more likely to be successful, whether for our future selves or our successors, if we have to defend democracy. I hope we all agree on the clear principle of embedding the idea that democracy should not just be an easy thing to postpone or cancel.

However, at the moment, unfortunately, it is just a little bit too easy for elections to be postponed or cancelled. The two amendments in my name set out a very clear route, as indeed do other amendments in this group, by which we could more firmly protect our democracy against future strains.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, rightly pointed out, there are several different approaches that one could potentially take to this. I certainly acknowledge the merit of the approach taken in some of the other amendments regarding both ensuring that the 2007 and 2011 Acts referred to in them are properly catered for and, indeed, the interesting idea of the one-year limit that is present in one of those amendments.

My concern, though, with those alternative approaches —I will certainly listen carefully and with interest to noble Lords who contribute to the rest of this debate—is that those alternative approaches rest, in the end, on the willingness of Parliament to vote down secondary legislation. In the end, that is the prime safeguard in them. It is obviously a matter for another day or occasion to debate the merits of the deeply held, principled position that I know many in both the Labour and Conservative groups here take—I do not share it but I appreciate it—that the main opposition party in the House of Lords should not vote for a fatal amendment to a statutory instrument.

The problem is, whatever one thinks are the rights or wrongs of that principle, that that essentially means that any safeguard that is based on the idea that the Government have to put a statutory instrument or secondary legislation in some form to Parliament is of very little use. In the end, when push comes to shove, whatever the principal opposition party is in the Lords, it will say, “As a matter of principle, we aren’t going to vote it down”. It is a safeguard that, when needed, will not keep us very safe.

I said that I was going to be optimistic and try to persuade the Minister that these amendments are a helpful measure. I say that because I am absolutely sure that, in good faith, the Government never set out to say that some councillors who are elected for a four-year term of office should stay in office—as it will turn out under their plans—for seven years. I am sure that was not the original intention, but it is unfortunately the position that we have stumbled into through a sequence of events. That is a very significant and, outside of wartime, unprecedented extension to the term of office of councillors. We have ended up in this unprecedented and frankly unsatisfactory position because some of those councillors who have had their four-year term extended to seven years are in power, running councils, and they are being given three extra years in power without the public getting a say on that.

As I said, I appreciate that that is the result of a sequence of circumstances, and in that sense it seems that the Government have stumbled into a series of events. Whether through the mechanisms set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, or through mine, the advantage of making it a little harder for the Government to cancel elections in the future is that it would protect Governments from stumbling into a similar sequence of events again. So I hope we will hear some movement from the Minister in due course on this issue.

But of course, like any good Liberal Democrat, I cannot resist the opportunity to talk a little about the merits of different voting systems, so I will refer briefly to Amendment 213, although the ticking clock protects noble Lords from a William Gladstone-type speech about the relative merits of different voting systems, tempting though that may be. Although it is obviously no surprise, I am sure, for the Minister to hear me say that I certainly prefer the supplementary vote to first past the post, it is a real shame that the Government do not intend at the moment to go a step further and introduce the alternative vote. The big weakness of the supplementary vote is that you have to correctly second-guess the two parties that will be in the final round so that you can cast your second preference vote in a way that will be counted.

I will briefly make reference to the research by the Make Votes Matter coalition that was carried out a couple of years ago and which encompassed 217 different elections conducted by the supplementary vote in the UK. It found that only 46% of the second preferences that people expressed actually ended up being counted in the final run-off round. Over half of all second preferences correctly filled in on the ballot paper none the less got discarded because they were for candidates who did not make it into the second round. That is quite a flaw in the supplementary vote. It is a system essentially designed for a world in which it is pretty clear who the two main parties, or the two main candidates, in an election will be. However good or bad it may be, we are certainly not in a situation where that is the norm in our politics any more, so I very much hope the Minister will consider the merits of the alternative vote.

On Amendment 214, I simply observe that, in Scotland, the single transferable vote is used for council elections and is pretty popular with not only many members of the Labour Party but indeed many members of the Conservative Party there. If it works well in Scotland, as it does, perhaps we should be able to have it in England as well.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will not talk about different voting systems; I cannot think of anything more boring—I am so sorry. Actually, lots of things are more boring. I could not agree less with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the value of first past the post. It is a thoroughly discredited system and its time is over. What we see again and again is that we have a completely unrepresentative Government, as we do at the moment: they have a huge majority on a small proportion of the vote, and the Conservatives should be thinking more about how they can get back into power—obviously, I do not particularly want that.

Under first past the post, councillors elected often bear little resemblance to how people actually vote. Large numbers of residents can turn out, cast their ballots in good faith and still see their views go completely unrepresented. That leaves too many people feeling that local government is something done to them rather them with them, and proportional representation offers a way out of that. My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle’s Amendment 215, and Amendment 214 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would allow a shift towards a voting system that would reflect the diversity of political opinion in our communities and reward candidates who can build broad support, rather than those who simply scrape through on a minority of the vote. It would open the door to councils that would look more like the places they serve, politically and socially, and that really matters, especially at a time when councils are becoming larger, more remote and more powerful.

As the noble Lord said earlier, in Scotland local government elections have used the single transferable vote for nearly two decades. In Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, STV is well understood and widely trusted. In Wales, councils are now able to choose it for themselves. Of course, we have proportional representation in London for the London Assembly.

I have been elected under PR and under first past the post. Quite honestly, it did not feel very different, but a completely different view could be spoken and presented much more forcefully when we had more people elected under proportional representation. Voters in those countries manage perfectly well with a system that allows them to rank candidates in order of preference. The result is representation built on consent and co-operation rather than tribalism. This will be much more important as we move towards much larger councils and combined authorities. If power is to be devolved upwards, representation must be strengthened downwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are definitely finishing at that time. If we can get through this big group, we will, I hope, be able to do the eighth group, but we must finish at 9.15 pm.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Sorry; would it not make more sense—

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, what an exciting group this is. I support Amendments 223A, 224A, 226 and 228, which address a significant and surprising gap in the way that community assets are defined in law. I very much hope we can correct this before the next stage. Before I begin properly, I thank Tom Chance, chief executive of the National Community Land Trust Network, who supports this aim and has helped with this work.

At present, the legal definition of “assets of community value” recognises social interests. The Bill adds economic interests, but still leaves out environmental interests entirely. Why has that been left out? I would like to hear an answer to that question, because it is absolutely incomprehensible. Across England, communities are coming together to take ownership of land and buildings not just to save a pub or run a shop but to protect and improve green space, reduce pollution, grow food locally and make neighbourhoods healthier. Planning law, national policy and development frameworks all work on a simple, widely accepted principle that social, economic and environmental goals belong together, yet assets of community value remain stuck with a narrower definition that no longer reflects that reality.

The Government’s response so far has been to say that environmental benefits will be dealt with through statutory guidance, but guidance is not the same as law. When communities are trying to raise finance, persuade landowners or make a credible case to a local authority, being able to point to a clear statutory definition can really matter. Plus, leaving environmental interests outside the legal framework will weaken communities’ hands at precisely the moment we should be strengthening them. We know this from practice.

In Scotland, communities have successfully used a sustainable development approach to acquire land and assets by demonstrating combined social, economic and environmental benefits. A recent example is the Poets’ Neuk project in St Andrews, where the environmental case was integral to the community’s success. Without it, the project would have been far harder to justify. It is also important to be clear about what these amendments are not doing. They will not create a new or separate category of assets. They recognise that environmental outcomes are already part of what communities are trying to achieve when they take ownership, whether that is retrofitting a community centre, restoring a neglected green space or supporting community food growing in both urban and rural areas.

I should also say a word about Amendment 225, which comes from a similar place and reflects a shared concern about how environmental value is treated in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, presented it clearly. I am concerned that there are some practical reasons why it would not quite achieve what many communities are looking for. As it stands, it would make a change in only one part of the legislation, which would leave the overall definition of assets of community value uneven and potentially confusing in practice. I very much hope that we can work together to perhaps agree a way forward that will satisfy us both. We need councils to exercise judgment, rather than apply a blanket rule that removes local discretion and narrows opportunities.

That is why these amendments take a different route. They would, however, bring environmental interests properly into legal definition, align assets of community value with established development principles, and reflect how communities work in practice, pursuing social, economic and environmental goals together. If this Bill is truly about devolution and community power, it should trust communities with that integrated approach. These amendments would help ensure the law supports rather than constrains the positive role that communities want to play. I urge the Government to support them.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 239. I support all the amendments that have just been talked about—it is vital that communities can buy land. However, I am, in a way, offering up a “get out of jail free” card to the Government with this amendment.

This time last week, we were standing here asking about allotments. I understand the Government’s and local authorities’ problems with allotments, in that once they are designated then they cannot be undone. I see that that can be problematic. In fact, in London, the only allotments that have been ripped up so far were for the Olympic park, so I know that they have a great status. However, if you go for growing spaces and meanwhile leases, all we are asking for in this amendment is that local authorities are able and willing to publish a list of the spaces available.

That is what we did when we ran the Capital Growth project in London. We achieved 200 acres of this city which are now growing vegetables, inspiring communities and holding people together. One of the many things that happened in the duration of the project was that it was used as a research base by City University to look at good routes to get the long-term unemployed back into work. It was found that community gardening hit the nail on the head in many different ways: it taught patience, because you cannot just put a seed in the ground and expect a result tomorrow; it taught how to have respect for other people; and it taught how to work in a group and in a community. Extraordinary results were found. We were praised by the police, local doctors and local communities. We set targets of 60 spaces per borough—and we made it.

It was very simple. A meanwhile lease, designed with the help of the London water board, meant that, after five years, the local authority could claim the space back if a builder wanted to put up a house. In fact, this rarely happened. What happened was that strange little corners and odd little spots, as has been seen with the Incredible Edible campaign all over Britain, suddenly became something important and respected, that put colour, life, community and cohesion back on to the world’s streets—basically, for no money, on behalf of the Government. It takes just a small effort, with an enormous return.

I have put this amendment forward so many times. It is about time for it, given the strength of all the other amendments and the strength of feeing we have heard from so many people from all around the House so many times. Why not? What has the Minister got against this?