English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Spatial development strategies are a really big opportunity and much to be welcomed. We have long needed a spatial view at that sort of level, so we have to get this right because there is a lot that they can deliver.

However, to be frank, if spatial development strategies do not play a key role in delivering things such as the Environmental Improvement Plan statutory targets, I am not entirely sure how government will get those statutory targets delivered, because the land is fundamental to delivering those targets. The question really is: if there is not some strong guidance that the spatial development strategies must play a role in delivering the Environmental Improvement Plan statutory targets, how will government ensure that these targets are met? Is it envisaged that there will be guidance rather than something in the Bill?

We should not underestimate the importance of the environment for growth. I remember years ago, when some of the big drug companies were thinking about where they were going to put production facilities, they came to the conclusion that England’s green and pleasant land was a pretty good place to come. Not only was there a reasonably stable economy in those days, but there were also excellent places for the people they would have to attract—potentially from other countries but also from other parts of the UK—to come and work for them. They were also potentially attractive places for those businesses to come and pursue sustainability and growth as part of their global strategies. Therefore, a pleasant, productive environment not only provides security against climate shocks, flooding, heat and all those things if done on a big enough scale; it is also an attractive place for businesses to come because they can get good staff who want to come and live in pleasant places. That is a crucial element that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out.

I have stood up and talked about the land use framework many times; I do go on about its importance. For me, it has two major importances. First, it brings a degree of rationality to considerations and discussions about competing land uses, which is absolutely what regional—spatial—development strategies ought to be doing as well, so they are very complementary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, pointed out, the land use framework is also a means of reducing conflict.

We all too often see development being delayed because there is local or county-level antipathy by the public to what is being proposed. A land use framework approach is a way of getting that dialogue going across multiple land uses—including land for climate, biodiversity and other environmental management, and land for development—that can introduce a note of calmness, conciliation, balance and rationality to the debate. The land use framework is important and the big problem right now of course is its timing. We have been a very long time waiting for it. My understanding, and the Minister can perhaps confirm this, is that it is in a good enough shape for write-round, but we hear that it may well be delayed.

The reality is that we are up against a hard deadline. The hard deadline for me—and this is a purely personal view, not the view of my party, I am sure—is that we are going to have a rough time in the elections in May and there could well be all sorts of reshuffles emanating from that. The last thing that any of us wants is for a brand-new set of Ministers to be appointed as a result of a reshuffle, or even a few Ministers to be appointed as a result of a reshuffle, who quite rightly, in the case of something as important as the land use framework, will want to delay and have a look at it themselves to make sure that they understand it and that they are behind it. That could cause even more delay, so if we do not get it agreed and published by late April, we could be stuffed—I think that is the technical term. Perhaps we could persuade the Minister to tell us what it would take to get this announced by April.

There is one further requirement that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, does not cover, which is the whole issue of local nature recovery strategies. Those noble Lords who have played a role in local nature recovery strategy development and approval will realise just how much sweat and blood has been magnificently used at a county level to produce these agreed strategies. They are very much another brick in the wall of the rational approach to land use. There has been a huge amount of engagement of local authorities, communities and NGOs at the county level to get these strategies going. They are incredibly valuable, because they have been a meeting ground for all these competing land use bodies. One has to ask: what is the point of a local nature recovery strategy if it does not play a role and does not figure in the spatial development strategy? Can the Minister assure us that local nature recovery strategies will be material in local development strategies? If so, why not put it the Bill? Depending on her answer, I may have to egg on the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to add that into consideration on Report.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments, but can I probe the Minister, for when she responds, about what happens in London? In London, all 33 boroughs—or 32 plus the City, if you want to be pedantic—would all have their own local plans, and out of those local plans would come all our different plans. Then, of course, you have the London Plan, which potentially trumps—I am going to take on board some of the language just used, but I think “trumps” probably is the best phrase to use—what is done locally. Not only can it contradict what is done locally, which has quite often cost an awful lot of money, time, sweat, tears and everything else, but in addition to that it creates uncertainty. When the Minister responds, perhaps she could think about the London scenario, please.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to this group of London-related amendments, I should declare my former roles as a London borough leader, a member of the London Assembly and a founding chair of what is now London Councils—indeed, I am one of its current co-presidents.

Before I speak to the six amendments in my name in this group—together, they seek to address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance arrangements—I want to say a brief word about the other amendments in the group, drawing on my previous experience. In particular, I wish to comment on the interesting remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who seems affronted at the idea that the Mayor of London and the whole GLA network are somehow trying to accrue on to themselves—or the Government are trying to give them—more and more powers. I respectfully remind your Lordships’ Committee that London is the engine of the UK economy, that without London the UK’s economy would founder, and that it is therefore very important that London retains its status as one of the few great world cities. For that purpose, having strong and effective mayoral and governance arrangements in the capital city is crucial.

I was involved in the discussions with the then Government around the creation of a mayor and assembly for London, and then in the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill when it was in your Lordships’ House. The London devolution settlement was carefully devised by Nick Raynsford, the then Minister for London, and was the first of its type. That settlement has remained largely unchanged for over a quarter of a century.

I have some sympathy, therefore, with Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which suggests that there should be a review of that settlement. However, I have reservations about her amendment, as I do not see why it should be a requirement of legislation. My noble friend the Minister could simply announce today that it is going to happen. Given that extensive consultations and discussions would be needed as part of a review, a year is too short a timescale. In doing such a review, one should look at the role and number of London boroughs. Does having 32 of them, plus the corporation, really make sense more than 60 years on from their creation?

I have some sympathy with Amendments 70 and 71, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. As a member of the first London Assembly, I always felt that the role of AMs was not sufficiently defined or purposeful enough. Strengthening and widening the scrutiny role of the assembly makes a lot of sense, as does changing the two-thirds requirement for amending the mayor’s budget—a threshold that has never been passed, although I gather that the London Assembly is considering the mayor’s budget today, so perhaps something surprising will happen. However, changing that requirement might oblige the mayor to work more closely with AMs—something that has not always been evident over the first three mayoralties. Such a power might be usefully extended to assembly consideration of mayoral strategies. Such a change would, however, alter the balance of the existing governance model in London. Rather than being done in a piecemeal fashion, it should be considered as part of the putative review suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.

I turn now to Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96, 182 and 183 in my name. They seek to address an anomaly—an omission in the original Greater London Authority Act. My understanding is that they have the support of all three parties on London councils, as well as that of the mayor’s office. At their heart, these amendments are about addressing a simple but persistent problem: that the collective body of London’s boroughs is not recognised in statute and is unable, as things stand, to receive government funding directly.

London boroughs work together extensively. Through London Councils, they co-ordinate delivery, share expertise and engage with government on issues ranging from transport and housing to retrofitting and the charging of electric vehicles. In many of these areas, boroughs are the primary delivery agency of policies that sit squarely within the devolution agenda. Despite this, London Councils lacks a clear statutory footing. As a result, it cannot receive Section 31 grants directly from national government. Instead, funding must be routed through a nominated lead authority and then passed on—an arrangement that is administratively cumbersome, slower than it needs to be, and inefficient for both local and national government.

These amendments would provide a straightforward solution. They seek to establish a statutory joint committee, made up of London’s borough leaders and the City of London, enabling London Councils to receive and distribute funding directly and ensuring that London boroughs are properly consulted where legislation envisages consultation with local government bodies. Crucially, these changes would allow resources to flow more efficiently to the boroughs that are responsible for delivery, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and making better use of the collective capacity that already exists within the London system. They would strengthen the clarity of consultation arrangements, ensuring that London borough voices are heard in a coherent and structured way.

I should be clear that these proposals are entirely complementary to the role of the Greater London Authority. They would not impinge on or duplicate the powers or strategic status of the mayor, the GLA or the London Assembly. Rather, they would strengthen the overall London governance system by clarifying the collective role of the boroughs within it. That is why I am pleased that the GLA is supportive of London Councils becoming a statutory joint committee, recognising that this change would improve co-ordination, efficiency and the effective delivery of devolved priorities across London.

In short, these amendments are firmly aligned with the Bill’s broader aims of empowering local government and improving the effectiveness of devolution. They would correct an anomaly that has been recognised for some time and replace it with a solution that is sensible, efficient and long overdue.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I know that it was suggested that the Bill would not include London, but I wonder whether this is an opportunity to consider the future governance of London, as well as a chance to put right historic legislative changes. That is what my Amendment 75 is about.

I remind noble Lords that I am still a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was leader until 5 November—no Guy Fawkes jokes, please—and was the longest serving leader in London when I stood down. Previously, I was an executive member and the Conservative lead for London Councils for many years. I am now a vice-president, as is the noble Lord, Lord Harris.

London was the first mayoral arrangement. It is more than 25 years old now, so is it time for a review? It is interesting that no other mayoral arrangement since then has involved a governance structure similar to that of the Greater London Authority. Nobody seems to be suggesting that the London model should be replicated. Therefore, could London governance be more effective and efficient for the benefit of London taxpayers? It is not lost on me that the proposed mayoral precept that is apparently being discussed today will exceed £500 per council tax payer this year. It seems sensible to consider whether that is value for money.

The structure we currently have is quite costly. While some call for greater powers for the GLA, it often frustrates progress. Due to the two-thirds voting rule around the budget, which is referenced in Amendment 71, it is unlikely that the GLA will ever be able to override the mayor’s budget proposals. If you watch some of the question time sessions, it is pretty clear that the mayor does not consider that he is being held to account by the assembly. Some of those frustrations can be seen in Amendments 70 and 71, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Moylan.

The current structure does not encourage the mayor to work with the boroughs. Elsewhere, the relationship between the mayor and borough leaders has been more productive in achieving better outcomes. As a borough leader, especially in outer London, I often thought that the mayor would be more effective if there was a grown-up conversation about what matters to London. London is a very diverse city and not all 33 boroughs are the same, although unfortunately some do not recognise that. The involvement of the borough leaders would allow them to bring to the table their invaluable knowledge of their borough. We should be learning from other mayoral structures. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has suggested the importance of London, and I would not disagree with that, but there is no reason why London should not be efficient and effective.

We know that London leaders recognise that the world does not end at their borough boundaries. There have been many examples over the years when leaders have made pragmatic decisions that are beneficial to London, following debate. Those of us in outer London also have relationships with the councils outside London, especially those on our borders. Amendment 72, from the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, seeks to establish a London local authorities joint committee. I would suggest that this would just bring about another layer of governance which will no doubt have cost implications and which seems shortsighted when we can learn from other governance structures since the inception of the London model. Surely we do not want to impose more costs on council tax payers. If learning suggests that a revised structure would be less costly in addition to more effective, the taxpayers and councils could benefit. Would not we all like to see vital money being spent on services rather than on structures?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley]

76: Clause 16, page 20, line 7, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Gascoigne to Clause 16, allows for whatever period that there could be the overlap of both the Mayor and MP retaining both offices.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who unfortunately cannot be in his place today. Amendments 76, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 89 were tabled by my noble friend to highlight what he regarded, when he first saw the Bill, as an egregious error; namely, the Government’s original proposal to ban Members of Parliament from serving as mayors. More than that, he felt that it seemed to undermine the very essence of the Bill.

The Government’s own impact assessment stresses the importance of mayors and how well recognised they are—in some cases, more so than MPs. It states that

“people think more power should come down from national government”.

It therefore seems remiss to want to prevent at least some of our mayors—not all—sitting in Parliament. We have, after all, recent examples of where this has worked and there has been a successful transition—the best, I am sure we all agree, being Boris Johnson, and perhaps Sadiq Khan less so. They are two individuals who have combined the roles, even if only briefly.

To be clear, these amendments are not about personalities and it is not about the individual. But, for ease of reference, let us call this the Burnham amendment. We all know that the Mayor of Greater Manchester wants to return to Parliament—some, including the deputy leader of the Labour Party and former Deputy PM, are even encouraging him. Yet after the last few days of melodrama in the Labour Party, he was blocked, allegedly by allies of the Prime Minister. It makes us wonder whether this provision was originally designed so that the Prime Minister could stop him—or “burn him” off. Despite this, it is assumed that the electorate are being taken for granted, because it is assumed that he would have won, should he have stood. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now tabled their own amendment allowing a brief period of overlap between being a mayor and an MP. Despite that, we will have to wait a little longer for the return of the “King of the North”.

Turning to the Bill, we would have preferred that the period not be so tight or so rigidly defined. We are not sure that it should create such stark delineations between local and national politics. Devolution should mean bringing local voices to the fore, not erecting new barriers between the two similar worlds. Some may argue that the roles are incompatible, but that is a political judgment and one that should be made by the electorate. If a candidate seeks to serve as mayor while sitting as an MP, they do so in full view of their constituents. If the public believe the roles cannot be combined, they will say so at the ballot box. That is how democracy works. Let the people decide. When so much power still resides in Whitehall, there is arguably no better place for a mayor to be than in Parliament, making their case, arguing for money and banging the drum for investment in their area.

These amendments seek to provide flexibility and freedom, and to widen participation in our democratic institutions—something that we hope all sides of the Committee can support. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out why the Government initially opposed any overlap at all in the original drafting, as well as what has changed since the Bill was introduced. Perhaps she might also explain the logic behind the specific eight-day period that is now being proposed. For now, we are pleased that the Government have moved away from their earlier position and accepted the argument that a period of overlap should be permitted. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will reflect on that question and come back to the noble Lord.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting the high street economy, a key part of which is the hospitality sector and the night-time economy. Amendments introduced on Report in the other place established a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. This included a duty on the mayor to publish and set out his licensing priorities in a new London-wide statement of licensing policies.

There was also an amendment that served as a placeholder for a new call-in power, which provided the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to confer on the Mayor of London the function of determining relevant licence applications in certain circumstances. Government Amendments 174 to 181 replace this placeholder and provide more detail around the types of circumstances in which the mayor may call in or determine relevant licence applications.

The amendments also add the Greater London Authority as a responsible authority in certain circumstances under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003. They place a requirement on the GLA to notify interested parties, including the applicant and the relevant licensing authority, of applications that the GLA considers to meet the definition of potential strategic importance to Greater London. This will be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. If a London licensing authority decides not to grant an application of potential strategic importance as applied for, including, for example, by rejecting the application or applying additional conditions to it, the mayor is required to decide whether or not to call in the decision.

If a decision is called in, the mayor must issue a direction to the relevant licensing authority, having given regard to his licensing policy and the importance of promoting the licensing objectives. New rights of appeal in relation to directions issued by the mayor will also be introduced to help ensure the call-in power is used judiciously. The new call-in power will initially be given effect in London to help unleash the full potential of our capital’s world-renowned cultural venues but could be deployed in mayoralties across the country in the future to help prevent decisions from being blocked by unnecessary red tape or short-term thinking.

Separately, at a national level, the Government launched a joint government and industry licensing taskforce last year and are considering more than 2,000 responses to a call for evidence that sought the public’s views on its proposals. We expect to consider those views before making any future reforms to the national licensing regime, including on aspects such as pavement licensing. For the avoidance of doubt, the amendments being discussed today concern the licensing regime in Greater London, not national licensing reforms. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I have a real concern about this group of amendments, which appears to look to tinker around the edges to bring the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority into line with other strategic authorities. We already established in an earlier session that governance in London was the first established; it has never been repeated and, indeed, this Bill does not seek to repeat it either. Surely the sensible route is the one that we suggested in Amendment 75: to have a full review, consider the future governance of London and deal with issues such as this at that time.

I do not want to revisit the earlier argument, but I remind noble Lords that in London there is not the same relationship between the mayor and the boroughs as is suggested there might be in the new governance relationships, or indeed that exists elsewhere. In practice, that means that the mayor might not appreciate local circumstances—as I have said before, not all of London is the same. The mayor might not appreciate the local policing capacity, or lack of it, and the implications of that on licensing decisions. He might not understand the local economy and what licensing could mean for that. He might not appreciate the impact of the local demographics when decisions are being made to overturn local licensing decisions.

What is more, as we have heard before, the current scrutiny of the mayor is not considered to be effective. Devolution should mean respect for decision-making at its lowest common denominator—in this case, the borough level. If a more strategic decision is needed for a wider area, the decision should include the local decision-making processes or partners. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider the proposals put forward previously for a thorough review, at which time the implications of these amendments could be considered.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I heard what the Minister said in her introduction to this group of amendments about it following a proposed change to the Bill in the Commons. Like the previous speaker, I understand the need, in a global city such as London, to reverse—for justifiable reasons—the direction of devolution and enable a power grab from the local boroughs in some circumstances. However, the circumstances are not defined, apart from saying that they have to be of “strategic importance” across Greater London. Yet the definition of “strategic importance” is left to regulations.

It is not at all clear how the mayor will make such decisions when they have been defined as being of strategic importance. Will they be based on the licensing priorities, which is a requirement for local borough licensing committees? How will local concerns be heard and considered? This appears to be a profound and unnecessary centralisation of power that threatens to strip local democratically elected committees of their voice in matters that affect their communities’ daily lives.

Under this proposal, which is set out in Amendment 179A—it contains a proposed new section headed “Licence applications of potential strategic importance”—local London licensing authorities, such as borough councils, would legally be required to notify the GLA of applications for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment or late-night refreshment. A further proposal grants the Mayor of London the power, in effect, to veto or override the decisions of these local authorities. So if a borough council decides to grant or reject a licence, that decision is suspended and has no effect until the mayor decides whether to intervene. This is allegedly the devolution Bill, but I am yet to be convinced that it has any relationship to devolution; this is the imposition of top-down command structure over local democracy.

The additional problem is that, if there is a veto and it is called in by the mayor, how quickly will the mayor decide? What is the democratic way in which that will be decided? Is it just the mayor in his or her office making a decision, or will it go to a scrutiny committee for discussion first? Will there be an open and transparent hearing where the local borough council—or several local borough councils, if it is something that affects several of them—can come and explain its decision? Will the mayor have to explain why it has been called in? A lot here is unsatisfactory, to say the least. I ask myself: who is best placed to make a judgment about licence applications, which can have significant effects on people’s daily lives? Is it those who live there and their elected representatives, or is it the mayor of 7 million or 8 million people who says, “Actually, I know best. This is important for business, so hard luck if it affects your daily life”? That is the risk in this.

In the end, this group of amendments is unsatisfactory until we know the definition of “strategic importance” and the methods that will be used for decision-making. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will think again and reconsider. I understand why, if it is a significant application that will affect large parts of London, you would want a mayoral authority to take that decision. But I would want to know how that is defined and how that decision will be taken in a public setting, with the ability for people to have their voices heard and an appeal process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on these amendments. I will be very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss the proposals further and in more detail. I will give a little more information now and, I hope, answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked.

On why we feel that the new call-in power is needed, there is evidence of unmet potential for London’s night-time economy. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they had ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wanting to stay out later—I never do but, obviously, there are people who do. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022-25. London also has a lower premises licence approval rate than the rest of England and Wales. Of course, the reasons for that are multifaceted but, through the establishment of a new mayoral call-in power, intended to be used only in specific circumstances, as a measure of last resort, we would hope to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to premises licensing that unleashes the full potential of London’s cultural hospitality and night-time economy sectors. I know we have talked many times in your Lordships’ House about the restaurant and pubs business, and so on. We particularly want to encourage that sector in London—and everywhere else, but it is important to do that for the capital’s tourism and other trades.

In answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government support the principle of localism in licensing decisions, but we are committed to putting the right powers at the right levels to drive economic growth that we want to see. Local licensing authorities are often, or in fact nearly always, best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge and in consultation with other responsible authorities, including the police and enforcement authorities. But where the licensing system affects sectors with a strategic economic role—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, mentioned that aspect—it is important that city-wide considerations can be taken into account. The new strategic licensing role of the Mayor of London would enable this and provide an opportunity to adopt a similar approach to those that have worked effectively in New York, Amsterdam and Sydney.

To pick up on some specific points about how this is going to work—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked a couple of questions about this—the mayor will draw his strategic licensing policy by consultation on it before it is published. The mayor will be required to consult each London licensing authority, which will be able to make representations about its local circumstances. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds of what that

“potential strategic importance to Greater London”

actually means in regulations. That will provide further detail on the types of licence applications that will potentially fall within the scope of the mayor’s call-in power.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why this issue has not come forward before, that is a fair point. Further time is required to develop the new mayoral call-in process, including how it would interact with existing licensing legislation. In thinking about bringing this forward, the Government have considered that sometimes the best way in which to deliver devolution across the country is to test out new powers or approaches in one or two places first. As a globally renowned centre for culture and nightlife, London represents an ideal location to test new strategic licensing powers and duties. Nevertheless, it is very much our intention to ensure that it will be possible to roll these out to other mayors across the country, subject to the provision of appropriate evidence via provisions in the Bill. Piloting things is a very good way in which to see how effective they are, and whether they get the balance right between the local decision-making to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred and what we might think of as a strategic call-in power—so it is very important to do that.

I thank my noble friend Lady Dacres for her comments about licensing. She and I had an informal meeting with some London leaders on Saturday. They were not all London leaders, so I will not use that as evidence because that would not be fair, but, broadly, their view was similar to that of my noble friend Lady Dacres: although you would not want this to be used all the time, it is an important power to have in a key city such as London. However, a call for evidence is out and is currently being reviewed.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

Were all those whom the Minister consulted inner London authorities, or did they include outer London boroughs as well? My frustration is with the fact that everyone assumes that London is all the same, yet Westminster is certainly not like Bexley; and Lewisham, where the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, comes from, is not like Bexley. Bexley has a night-time economy, yet the Mayor of London is considering closing our police front counter but will not close Lewisham’s because it is that much closer. The police in Bexley are closing down and not working past 10 pm, yet obviously the nightclubs are open till 2 am. Those sorts of things have to be considered for the benefit of all local people, but the mayor will not be aware of them. I apologise, but I felt I needed to say that.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

Just to correct some of what the noble Baroness alluded to, I see Lewisham as a mix of inner and outer London because we have the south circular and diverse aspects to our borough. She mentioned the police station. All our police station fronts, bar one, have been closed. Lewisham has the largest police station in London—in fact, in Europe—and I am sure that is the sole reason why it has not been closed. It includes horses, as well as other back-office support for the police. I wanted to correct that for the record, because the noble Baroness made it seem as though we are open because of our distance from central London, and that is not the case.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 216D seeks to deal with a consequence of the correct and necessary but sad development that councillors and those standing for council seats and in other elections are allowed to hide where they live. It has become necessary. I am sad about it, but it has meant that in these elections it is extraordinarily difficult for an elector to contact people who are standing for election. There is no way of getting messages to them if they are not part of a mainstream party. Even where they are from a mainstream party, you send the message in and it sticks with that party’s central office and does not get out to the candidate because the candidate is allowed to have only the authorised views of the party. I would like to restore that connection between voters and candidates by making sure that there is a way in which voters can contact candidates and hopefully receive replies from them.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 216D tabled my noble friend Lord Lucas about candidates’ addresses. Over my 28 years as a councillor, I have been proud to have my address on the ballot paper, not least because for the majority of that time I either lived in my own ward or it was at the end of my road. People could know that I have not got daffodils—I certainly have not got green fingers—but people had no problem in speaking to me or knocking on my door.

I always thought it was a good thing to have your address published, but over that period of 28 years, technology, the internet and keyboard warriors have changed my view. Like many others, I have had death threats. To a certain extent, you take that on the chin and you say that it is part of the job. The absolute worst situation I got in was when one of these idiots decided to say they were going to firebomb my home. I have three little girls living next door to me. The hardest thing I ever had to do was speak to their parents and say not that I felt threatened but “watch out”. Three little lives were potentially at risk because of one of these idiot keyboard warriors.

Frankly, that is why people are considering whether they want to stand for election, and I believe that is one of the reasons why people do not want their address on the ballot paper. That means you move to the situation about how people can contact you. We know that the electoral returning officer has to have an address to show that there is a proper qualification. You also have to have an agent who has an address, so is there an opportunity for that address to be used by the returning officer to take away the need for a person’s personal address to be given at any time in future? There are some parties that do not believe in imprints, but most of us do. There are addresses there, so there is an opportunity for contact, but I support the amendment.