English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsTuesday 24th March 2026
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 174-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 Mar 2026)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments raises important issues concerning accountability and transparency within our evolving system of devolved governance. Amendments 49, 95 and 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, engage with the central principle that, where power is exercised, it should be subject to effective and visible scrutiny. I am sure that all noble Lords agree with that principle. These amendments would ensure that it extends directly to elected mayors.
Amendment 49 proposes dedicated scrutiny committees with powers to summons and to report. This reflects a desire to ensure that mayoral commissioners are properly held to account. Amendments 95 and 96 similarly seek to strengthen direct lines of accountability, whether through public-facing forums such as the People’s Question Time in London, which we have heard about, or through structured engagement with elected members of constituent authorities. We recognise the intent behind these proposals, particularly the effort to align arrangements more closely with established practices, as we have heard about on the Mayor of London.
Government Amendments 67 and 68 introduce substantial new schedules at a very late stage in the Bill. They set out an extensive and detailed framework for overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined county authorities. While the aim to strengthen scrutiny is clearly welcome, the scale and complexity of these provisions inevitably raise a number of questions that merit careful consideration. It is regrettable that this has been tabled at such a late stage in the parliamentary process of the Bill’s passage.
The proposed role for independent or external experts on scrutiny committees is notable. It would be helpful to understand more clearly who these individuals might be, how they are to be appointed and how their independence will be defined and safeguarded. Questions also arise as to whether there is sufficient capacity and expertise available across the country to support this model in practice. I look to the Minister for a response on these matters.
Further, there are important practical considerations about how members of these committees are to be appointed, the role of elected councillors within them and the extent to which their proceedings and findings will be made publicly accessible. The mechanisms by which members of the public can raise issues and engage with the scrutiny process are also of clear importance. There is perhaps a broader question as to whether lessons might be drawn from existing models, including the arrangements that have been in place for some time in Greater London for the scrutiny of directly elected mayors.
Finally, Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raises the interesting proposal of local public accounts committees. We believe that the principles of strengthening financial oversight and cross-agency accountability are important, although the precise design and implications of such bodies, as we heard from the noble Lord, would clearly require careful thought and planning. Therefore, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on this proposition.
This group highlights the central importance of scrutiny within any system of devolved governance. I look forward to the Minister addressing how the Government intend to ensure that these new structures are both effective in practice and clearly understood by those they are intended to serve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on scrutiny and accountability. These have been recurring themes during debates on the Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Wallace, for their contributions to these discussions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Bassam, for their very constructive engagement and the insights they have shared with me on this issue. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the late introduction of these amendments, I felt that our discussions on scrutiny in Committee were too important for us not to respond as a Government.
In the English devolution White Paper, we committed to exploring a local public accounts committee model to provide a vehicle to scrutinise local public spending. This recognised that the powers afforded for local scrutiny were not commensurate to the increased scale of powers and responsibilities devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. Local scrutiny committees will replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities, providing an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight and a broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities, with greater teeth to hold mayors to account.
To answer the points about some of the detail raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as with the existing system, the chair of the committee must be from a different party from the mayor or be an independent person appointed through an open and fair competition. At least 60% of committee members must be councillors from constituent local authorities, rather than the current requirement that at least half of members must be local councillors. These committees must also reflect the political make-up of the area. They will be able to shape early decision-making and undertake value-for-money assessments across the full scope of a mayoral strategic authority’s work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was particularly interested in that ability to shape decision-making before things came before the boards for decision.
The committees will have the power to make recommendations on the quality of decisions and on the use of public funds. They will have the authority to challenge decisions taken by the mayor, commissioners and senior officials and to require attendance and information at evidence sessions. This will also extend to key stakeholders outside the mayoral strategic authority, who will be defined in regulations. Those who fail to comply without reasonable excuse will face a civil penalty, on which further details will be established in regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment to leave out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2A that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable more than one commissioner to operate in a particular area of competence (by leaving out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2A that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill).
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment to leave out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 5BA that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable more than one commissioner to operate in a particular area of competence (by leaving out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 5BA that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill).
“ScheduleMayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committeesPart 1New scrutiny regime for CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authoritiesIntroduction
1 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.The new scrutiny regime
2 After Schedule 1 insert—“Schedule 1AMayoral CCAs that are EMSAs: overview and scrutiny committees and audit committeeApplication of this Schedule
1 (1) This Schedule applies to a CCA if it is an established mayoral strategic authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following paragraphs of this Schedule— (a) “CCA” means a CCA that is an established mayoral strategic authority;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a CCA that is an established mayoral strategic authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of other CCAs, see Schedule 1.Functions of overview and scrutiny committee
2 (1) A CCA must arrange for the appointment by the CCA of one or more committees of the authority (referred to in this Schedule as overview and scrutiny committees).(2) The arrangements must ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to investigate matters of local interest;(b) to make reports or recommendations to the CCA or mayor on matters of local interest.(3) The arrangements must (in particular) ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to make reports or recommendations to the CCA with respect to the discharge of any functions that are the responsibility of the CCA;(b) to make reports or recommendations to the mayor with respect to the discharge of any general functions.(4) The arrangements must (in particular) ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the CCA;(b) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the mayor of any general functions;(c) to review—(i) the policy outcomes which were intended to result from action taken in connection with the discharge of any functions that are the responsibility of the CCA, and(ii) the effectiveness of that action in achieving those outcomes;(d) to review—(i) the policy outcomes which were intended to result from action taken in connection with the discharge by the mayor of any general functions, and(ii) the effectiveness of that action in achieving those outcomes;(5) The arrangements made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) must (in particular) ensure that—(a) where a decision or other action involves expenditure of the CCA, the review or scrutiny of it includes an assessment of value for money;(b) where the discharge of a function involves expenditure of the CCA—(i) any report includes a report on value for money;(ii) where appropriate, recommendations are made in relation to value for money.(6) When assessing value for money, an overview and scrutiny committee must have regard to any guidance issued by a public authority. (7) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under sub-paragraph (3)(a) or (3)(b) to make reports or recommendations with respect to the discharge of any functions includes power to make recommendations about the way that a function is, or is proposed to be, discharged.(8) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (4)(b) to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented includes—(a) power to direct that a decision is not to be implemented while it is under review or scrutiny by the overview and scrutiny committee, and(b) power—(i) to recommend that the decision be reconsidered, or(ii) to make recommendations about the way that the function is, or is proposed to be, discharged.(9) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of decisions made but not yet implemented and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers.(10) Before complying with sub-paragraph (9) an overview and scrutiny committee must obtain the consent of the CCA to the proposals and arrangements.(11) If—(a) an overview and scrutiny committee makes a recommendation to the CCA or mayor under sub-paragraph (7) or (8)(b), and(b) the CCA or mayor does not intend to give effect to the recommendation (at all or in part),the CCA or mayor must give the committee a written notice of that intention and of the reasons for not giving effect to the recommendation.(12) An overview and scrutiny committee may send a copy of any report or recommendations made by it to any public authority (including the Secretary of State or another Minister of the Crown, or any government department).(13) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA may not discharge any functions other than the functions conferred by or under this Schedule.(14) Any reference in this Schedule to the discharge of any functions includes a reference to the doing of anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of those functions.Overview and scrutiny committees: supplementary provision
3 (1) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may appoint one or more sub-committees, and(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by any such sub-committee.(2) A sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee may not discharge any functions other than those conferred on it under sub-paragraph (1)(b).(3) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA may not include a member of the CCA (including the mayor for the CCA’s area or deputy mayor).(4) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA is to be treated as a committee or sub-committee of a principal council for the purposes of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees).(5) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 apply to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA as they apply to a committee appointed under that section. (6) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may require a key person to attend before it to answer questions, and(b) may invite other persons to attend meetings of the committee.(7) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may require a key person to provide it with information or documents, and(b) may invite other persons to provide it with information or documents.(8) Regulations under paragraph 4(1) may make provision about—(a) information or documents whose provision may, or may not be, required under sub-paragraph (7)(a);(b) information or documents whose provision may, or may not be, invited under sub-paragraph (7)(b).(9) A requirement under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (7)(a) can only be imposed on a person by written notice given to the person; and the period between the notice being given and the date when the requirement must be complied with must be—(a) 10 working days, or(b) if that period of notice is unreasonably short, such longer period as is reasonable.(10) A person on whom a requirement is imposed under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (7)(a) is required to comply with the requirement.(11) If—(a) an overview and scrutiny committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required a person to attend a meeting of the committee,(b) the person does not attend the meeting in compliance with the requirement, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting,the committee must publish notice of the non-attendance in such manner as the committee thinks appropriate and a scrutiny officer of the committee (appointed in accordance with regulations made under 4(2)(d)) must give a copy of the notice to the person who did not attend.(12) For provision about the consequences of a failure to comply with a requirement imposed under sub-paragraph (6) or (7), see paragraphs 7 and 8.(13) A person is not obliged—(a) by sub-paragraph (6) to answer any question which the person would be entitled to refuse to answer in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or(b) by sub-paragraph (7) to provide any information which the person would be entitled to refuse to provide in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales.(14) In exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of its functions an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.(15) Guidance under sub-paragraph (14) may make different provision for different cases or for different descriptions of committee.(16) In sub-paragraphs (3) to (14) references to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA include references to any sub-committee of such a committee.Power to make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees
4 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees of a CCA. (2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) may in particular include provision—(a) about the membership of an overview and scrutiny committee and the voting rights of such members;(b) about the payment of allowances to the members of an overview and scrutiny committee;(c) about the person who is to be chair of an overview and scrutiny committee;(d) for the appointment of persons to act as scrutiny officers of an overview and scrutiny committee;(e) about how and by whom matters may be referred to an overview and scrutiny committee;(f) requiring persons (whether members of the CCA or other persons) to respond to reports or recommendations made by an overview and scrutiny committee;(g) about the publication of reports, recommendations or responses;(h) about information which must, or must not, be disclosed to an overview and scrutiny committee (whether by members of the CCA or by other persons);(i) as to the minimum or maximum period for which a direction under paragraph 2(8)(a) may have effect.(3) Provision of the following kinds must be made under sub-paragraph (1)—(a) provision about when and how an overview and scrutiny committee must involve independent experts in its activities;(b) provision about how an overview and scrutiny committee must take account of the work undertaken by the independent experts involved in its activities;(c) provision for the remuneration of independent experts.(4) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) so as to ensure that at least 60% of members of an overview and scrutiny committee are members of the CCA’s constituent councils.(5) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(b) so as to ensure that all the members of an overview and scrutiny committee are entitled to be paid allowances in respect of activities of the descriptions specified in regulations under this paragraph.(6) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(c) so as to ensure that the chair of an overview and scrutiny committee is—(a) an independent person (as defined by the regulations), or(b) an appropriate person who is a member of one of the CCA’s constituent councils.(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(b) “appropriate person” means a person who is not a member of a registered political party of which the mayor is a member.(8) In sub-paragraph (2)(d) the reference to a “scrutiny officer” of an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to a person appointed with the function of—(a) promoting the role of the committee, and(b) providing support and guidance—(i) to the committee and its members, and(ii) to members of the CCA (so far as relating to the functions of the committee).(9) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(d) so as to ensure that an overview and scrutiny committee has at least two scrutiny officers. (10) Provision under sub-paragraph (2)(g) may include provision for descriptions of confidential or exempt information to be excluded from the publication of reports, recommendations or responses.(11) In this paragraph “registered political party” means a party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.(12) In this paragraph references to an overview and scrutiny committee include references to any sub-committee of such a committee.Style by which committees to be known
5 (1) The overview and scrutiny committees are to have—(a) the style “local scrutiny committee”, or(b) any other style that is specified in regulations under paragraph 4(1).(2) The specified style may (in particular) be—(a) a variant of “local scrutiny committee”, or(b) “overview and scrutiny committee” or a variant of it.(3) The power under section 252(1) to make different provision for different purposes includes power to specify different styles under this paragraph in relation to overview and scrutiny committees of different descriptions of CCAs.Petitions
6 (1) A CCA must make arrangements (“petition arrangements”) in relation to its overview and scrutiny committee, or each such committee, under which—(a) a local elector is able to start a petition calling upon the committee to exercise its functions in relation to a matter of local interest that is specified in the petition, and(b) other local electors are able to indicate their support for the petition within a period specified in the petition arrangements.(2) Petition arrangements must secure that—(a) a local elector is able to start any petition by electronic means or non-electronic means, and(b) other local electors are able to indicate support for any petition by electronic means or non-electronic means.(3) An overview and scrutiny committee must reject a petition in any of the following cases—(a) the petition is explicitly seeking new or increased expenditure of the CCA;(b) the specified matter is not a matter of local interest;(c) the committee could not exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter without prejudicing civil proceedings or criminal proceedings which have been brought or which, in the view of the committee, are likely to be brought reasonably soon (whether in England and Wales or elsewhere);(d) the petition is offensive, abusive or vexatious.(4) In a case where the number of local electors who are petitioners is at least 0.1% of the total number of local electors, an overview and scrutiny committee must decide whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the matter of concern to which the petition relates.(5) In any other case, an overview and scrutiny committee may decide whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which the petition relates. (6) In deciding whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which a petition relates, an overview and scrutiny committee must (in particular) take into account the effective use of the committee’s time and resources.(7) Within the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which an overview and scrutiny committee makes a relevant decision about a petition, the committee must—(a) publish written notice of the following matters—(i) the relevant decision;(ii) the reasons for making the relevant decision;(iii) how the committee proposes to exercise its functions (in the case of a relevant decision to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which the petition relates); and(b) give written notice of those matters to the person who started the petition.(8) Regulations under paragraph 4(1) may make provision about petition arrangements and petitions, including—(a) provision about grounds on which an overview and scrutiny committee must or may make a relevant decision about a petition;(b) provision about matters which must or may be taken into account in making a relevant decision about a petition;(c) provision for an overview and scrutiny committee to be able to combine petitions relating to similar specified matters;(d) provision about verifying whether persons are local electors;(e) provision about whether the number of local electors who are petitioners is at least 0.1% of the total number of local electors;(9) In this paragraph—“local elector” , in relation to a petition, means a person who would be entitled to vote as an elector at an election for the return of a mayor for the area of the CCA concerned;“petitioner” means a local elector who has—(a) started a petition, or(b) indicated support for a petition,in accordance with the petition arrangements;“relevant decision about a petition” means—(a) a decision by an overview and scrutiny committee to reject a petition, or(b) a decision by an overview and scrutiny committee whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which a petition relates;“specified matter” means the matter that is specified in a petition in accordance with the petition arrangements.Financial penalties for failure to attend committee meetings, answer questions or provide information etc
7 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, give overview and scrutiny committees the power to impose a civil penalty on—(a) a person who fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting;(b) a person who fails to answer a question put at an overview and scrutiny committee meeting;(c) a person who fails to provide an overview and scrutiny committee with information or a document;(d) a person who misleads an overview and scrutiny committee. (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required the person to attend the meeting,(b) the person does not attend the meeting, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting.(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to answer a question put at an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required the person to attend the meeting,(b) the question is properly put to the person at the meeting,(c) the person does not answer the question, and(d) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not answering the question.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to provide an overview and scrutiny committee meeting with information or a document if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(7)(a), required the person to provide the information or document,(b) the person does not provide the information or document, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not providing the information or document.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person misleads an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(7)(a), required the person to provide information or a document, and(b) the person intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys the information or document.(6) Regulations under this paragraph—(a) must provide for the amount or maximum amount of a civil penalty — and such an amount or maximum must not exceed £5,000;(b) may provide for the power to impose a civil penalty to be exercisable only in relation to persons of a description specified in the regulations; and such a description of person may (in particular) consist of all or any of the following—(i) mayors for the areas of CCAs;(ii) deputy mayors appointed by such mayors;(iii) commissioners appointed by such mayors;(c) must make provision for appeals against the imposition of civil penalties (which may include provision enabling a civil penalty to be confirmed, withdrawn or varied in its amount on an appeal).(7) In order to take account of changes in the value of money, the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for the sum for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (6)(a).Termination of office for failure to attend committee meetings
8 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who holds one of the following offices in relation to a CCA (the “relevant CCA”)—(a) mayor for the area of the relevant CCA;(b) deputy mayor appointed by such a mayor;(c) commissioner appointed by such a mayor. (2) The person ceases to hold the office if—(a) the person fails to attend six overview and scrutiny committee meetings (the “six missed meetings”), and(b) there is the required link between the six missed meetings.(3) The person who holds the office fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee is a committee of the relevant CCA,(b) the meeting is a compulsory meeting for the person as holder of that office,(c) the person does not attend the meeting, and(d) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting.(4) There is the required link between the six missed meetings if—(a) the six missed meetings are consecutive overview and scrutiny committee meetings that are compulsory meetings for the person as holder of the office, or(b) the period between the first and last of those six missed meetings is 12 months or shorter.(5) In determining whether there is the required link by virtue of sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b)—(a) it does not matter if the six missed meetings are meetings of the same committee, or different committees, of the CCA;(b) it does not matter if there are any meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee that—(i) fall between the first and last of the six missed meetings, and(ii) are not compulsory meetings for the person as holder of the office.(6) If a person ceases to hold office by virtue of this section—(a) the CCA’s monitoring officer (within the meaning of section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) must—(i) publish notice that the person has ceased to hold office in such manner as the monitoring officer thinks appropriate, and(ii) give a copy of the notice to the person who has ceased to hold office;(b) the person ceases to hold office at the end of the day of the last of the six missed meetings.(7) If a notice given under paragraph 3(11) of a person’s non-attendance at a meeting of an overview and scrutiny committee relates to the last of the six missed meetings that result in the person’s loss of office by virtue of this paragraph, the notice must include a statement of that fact.(8) If a person ceases to hold an office by virtue of this section, that loss of office does not prevent that person from subsequently—(a) taking that office again, or(b) taking any other office referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(9) An overview and scrutiny committee meeting is a “compulsory meeting” for a person if the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required that person to attend the meeting.(10) This paragraph applies to a commissioner whether appointed—(a) under a worker’s contract,(b) under a contract other than a worker’s contract, or(c) otherwise than under a contract; and references to the office of commissioner (including holding office) are to be read accordingly in the case of a commissioner appointed under a contract.Audit committees
9 (1) A CCA must arrange for the appointment by the CCA of an audit committee.(2) The functions of the audit committee are to include—(a) reviewing and scrutinising the CCA’s financial affairs,(b) reviewing and assessing the CCA’s risk management, internal control and corporate governance arrangements,(c) reviewing and assessing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources have been used in discharging the CCA’s functions, and(d) making reports and recommendations to the CCA in relation to reviews conducted under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—(a) the membership of a CCA’s audit committee;(b) the appointment of the members;(c) the payment of allowances to members of the committee who are members of a constituent council.(4) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (3) so as to ensure that at least one member of an audit committee is an independent person (as defined by the regulations).Interpretation
10 In this Schedule—“commissioner” means a commissioner appointed under section 29A;“key person” , in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA, means—(a) the mayor for the area of the CCA;(b) the deputy mayor for that area;(c) a commissioner appointed by the mayor for that area;(d) the officers of the CCA;(e) a member of the CCA who has responsibilities in relation to a particular area of policy;(f) a person of any other description that is specified in regulations;“matter of local interest” , in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA, means a matter which both—(a) relates to the area of the CCA, and(b) relates—(i) to functions that are the responsibility of the CCA (whether exercisable by the CCA or the mayor), or(ii) otherwise to any aspect of any area of competence set out in section 2 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;but it does not include any matters which relate to the functions of police and crime commissioners;“value for money” means the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the expenditure of the CCA.”Part 2Amendments consequential on Part 1 of this ScheduleIntroduction
3 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Section 15: overview and scrutiny committees
4 (1) Section 15 is amended in accordance with this paragraph. (2) In subsection (1), after“CCAs”insert“that are not established mayoral strategic authorities”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Schedule 1A makes provision for CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities to have overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees.”(4) In subsection (2), for “that Schedule” substitute “those Schedules”.(5) After subsection (2) insert—“(3) In this section and Schedules 1 and 1A “established mayoral strategic authority” has the same meaning as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (see section 1(6)(b) of that Act).”Section 29: deputy mayors
5 In section 29(3)—(a) in paragraph (b), omit “or”;(b) in paragraph (c), at the end insert“, or(d) the person ceases to be deputy mayor by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A.”Schedule 1: overview and scrutiny committees
6 (1) Schedule 1 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, after “Authorities” insert “except EMSAs”.(3) Before paragraph 1 (and the italic heading preceding it) insert—“Application of this Schedule
A1 (1) This Schedule applies to a CCA if it is not an established mayoral strategic authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following provisions of this Schedule—(a) “CCA” means a CCA that is not an established mayoral strategic authority;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a CCA that is not an established mayoral strategic authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities, see Schedule 1A.”(4) After paragraph 3 insert—“Style by which committees to be known
3A (1) Regulations under paragraph 3(1) may (in particular) specify the style which the overview and scrutiny committees of CCAs are to have.(2) The specified style may (in particular) be a variant of “overview and scrutiny committee”.(3) The power under section 252(1) to make different provision for different purposes includes power to specify different styles under this paragraph in relation to different descriptions of CCAs.”Schedule 2: election of Mayors of CCAs etc
7 In Schedule 2, after paragraph 11 insert—“Failure to attend meetings of overview and scrutiny committee: loss of office
11A Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A makes provision for a person’s term of office as mayor to end because of repeated failure to attend meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee.” Schedule 2A: commissioners
8 In Schedule 2A (inserted by Schedule 3 to this Act), in paragraph 9—(a) in paragraph (d), omit “or”;(b) after paragraph (d) insert“, or(da) the person ceases to be a commissioner by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A, or”Part 3Extension of new scrutiny regime to all mayoral CCAsIntroduction
9 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Amendment of section 15
10 (1) Section 15 (as amended by paragraph 4 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for“CCAs that are not established mayoral strategic authorities”substitute“non-mayoral CCAs”.(3) In subsection (1A), for“CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities”substitute“mayoral CCAs”.(4) Omit subsection (3).Exclusion of all mayoral CCAs from scrutiny regime in Schedule 1 LURA 2023
11 (1) Schedule 1 (as amended by paragraph 6 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, for “Combined County Authorities except EMSAs” substitute “Non-mayoral Combined County Authorities”.(3) For paragraph A1 substitute—A1 “(1) This Schedule applies to a non-mayoral CCA.(2) Accordingly, in this Schedule “CCA” means only a non-mayoral CCA.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of mayoral CCAs, see Schedule 1A.”(4) In paragraph 1 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees)—(a) omit sub-paragraph (3);(b) in sub-paragraph (4), omit “and (3)(a)”.(5) In paragraph 2 (overview and scrutiny committees: supplementary provision)—(a) in sub-paragraph (3), omit “(including, in the case of a mayoral CCA, the mayor for the CCA's area or deputy mayor)”;(b) in sub-paragraph (6)(a), omit “(including, in the case of a mayoral CCA, the mayor for the CCA's area and deputy mayor)”.(6) In paragraph 3 (power to make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees), for sub-paragraph (5) substitute—“(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) “appropriate person” means a person who is not a member of the registered political party which has the most representatives among the members of the constituent councils (or, if there is no such party because two or more parties have the same number of representatives, is not a member of any of those parties).” Inclusion of all mayoral CCAs in the new scrutiny regime
12 (1) Schedule 1A (as inserted by paragraph 2 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, for “CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities” substitute “Mayoral CCAs”.(3) For paragraph A1 substitute—A1 “(1) This Schedule applies to a mayoral CCA.(2) Accordingly, in the following provisions of this Schedule—(a) “CCA” means a mayoral CCA;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a mayoral CCA.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of non-mayoral CCAs, see Schedule 1.””
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it seems to me that all the amendments in this group would amount to good practice; this is what should happen. I hope the Minister will confirm that the amendments are agreeable.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Amendments 69 to 74. While I recognise her commitment to accountability in local government, the Bill provides that combined and combined county authorities and independent remuneration panels must take account of any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for this clause.
That guidance will be issued in due course and will provide further details on the matters raised in these amendments. None the less, on the principles raised, I agree with the noble Baroness’s point about transparency. We will seek to be pragmatic, ensuring that we balance clear accountability and transparency against overburdening the authorities in their reporting arrangements. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 69.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have heard from the Minister that the functions may already exist to provide a degree of oversight. However, the question before us is not simply whether information is recorded; rather, it is whether that information is made very visible, accessible and consistently available to the public.
These amendments do not seek to impose unnecessary burdens. They set out a reasonable expectation that reporting should be regular, transparent and accessible; in short, that it should meet the standards that the public are entitled to expect. This is not about questioning the integrity of those involved. It is about ensuring that the systems within which they operate command public confidence, and that confidence rests on transparency.
I listened to the Minister. We will wait until the guidance comes out to ensure that it reflects what we think the public deserve. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about combined authorities, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “CCA” that appears here.
“Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees(1) Schedule (Mayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) changes the system of overview and scrutiny committees for mayoral CCAs. (2) Schedule (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees) changes the system of overview and scrutiny committees for mayoral combined authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would introduce the new Schedules about overview and scrutiny committees of mayoral CCAs and combined authorities (which would be inserted after Schedule 3 by other amendments in my name).
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on this matter, which I have raised on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House because I have never been clear about who will actually pick up an overspend when one exists. So this partly about the ability to repay debts incurred and partly about who is actually responsible. In other words, are council tax payers of the constituent authorities liable to help to repay debt?
My understanding is that the scrutiny function can now stop this happening in the first place. In other words, one of my concerns about the failure of the scrutiny system has been that it would not be certain that a scrutiny committee would prevent bad financial investment decisions. But what the Government have done by introducing further amendments makes it possible for the overview and scrutiny function to work effectively in that respect.
So I hope the Minister will clarify those matters. I am worried about who is liable for debt and about who is able to authorise substantial expenditure without certainty that a debt can be repaid. But, in the end, will the scrutiny function the Government have now introduced actually prevent the problems the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has identified?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for this amendment, requiring the Secretary of State to report on strategic authorities’ exercise of powers to borrow money. I recognise that this is a well-intentioned and well-reasoned amendment, but I do not believe the provision is necessary. Like the rest of local government, combined authorities and combined county authorities must operate within the prudential framework. This comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. The framework already provides robust oversight and accountability. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that pre-scrutiny of key decisions by local accounts committees will also help.
In addition, this amendment contradicts the Bill’s aim of furthering devolution and increasing financial autonomy for these authorities, because it would shift reporting requirements up to central government. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is burdensome and duplicative, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I just have a quick question before I make my closing speech. Local authorities are required to have a Section 151 officer. Will the strategic authority be required to have one?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not want to give a definitive answer to that from the Dispatch Box, but I think the answer is yes—it would certainly be in accordance with local government accounting procedures and practice for anybody involved in spending local government finance to have the professional assistance of a Section 151 officer. I will reply in further detail to the noble Lord.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response on this matter and her continued engagement since Committee. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his comments.
We will not push this further beyond reminding the House that this is an aspect of local government finance that deserves continued scrutiny and oversight to ensure that authorities can repay the debts incurred through their powers to borrow. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions on this first day on Report and thank the Minister for her responses. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsTuesday 24th March 2026
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 174-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 Mar 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly for such a positive response to the changes brought forward in this group. I hope we continue the evening as we have started; that would be wonderful. I thank noble Lords for their insightful and continued engagement on this Bill, both through Committee and since then, in the various meetings we have held.
In response to those debates, last week the Government tabled a package of amendments that address a number of the points raised during Committee. As I have said before, this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition for devolution. It will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Whitehall to mayors, local leaders and communities, and deliver on the Government’s commitment to fit, decent and legal local government. The amendments the Government have brought forward continue in that spirit, and I look forward to debating them with noble Lords throughout Report.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Freyberg, for their comments. Government Amendment 2 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within Clause 2. Culture—and its associated sectors, the arts, heritage and the creative industries—has been a topic of considerable debate during the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful to all those who have participated, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for their constructive engagement and valuable contributions.
This Government and I personally believe that culture in its many forms—visual arts, music, theatre, museums, libraries, combined arts, digital media, literature and heritage—enriches our quality of life, supports economic growth, and strengthens social cohesion and pride in place. As your Lordships will know, it has always been the Government’s position that mayors and strategic authorities can, and should, support cultural initiatives. By including culture as a distinct area of competence, the Government are codifying that role in legislation; this is a clear signal of this Government’s commitment to the cultural life of our nation.
“(h) culture.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add culture to the list of “areas of competence” in the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for their amendments, for the many discussions that we have had and for their engagement on rural issues in the Bill.
Before I comment on the individual amendments, let me say that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Commission for Rural Communities. This body, which had primary responsibility for rural-proofing, was formally abolished in 2013, a decision taken by the coalition Government in the bonfire of the quangos. I mention this just in case anyone was left with the impression that it was this Government that had abolished it.
On Amendment 5, I have noted previously that strategic authorities will operate across a wide range of geographies in England, encompassing both highly urbanised regions and more rural areas. The Bill is therefore intended to equip mayors and strategic authorities with the powers that they need to support communities across their entire areas. That is why the areas of competence are deliberately broad. This allows a wide range of activity to fall within scope. In this way, rural issues are already reflected in, for example,
“transport and local infrastructure; … housing and strategic planning”,
and
“the environment and climate change”.
Already we are seeing strategic authorities support rural communities. The East Midlands Combined County Authority has set out a programme of rural affairs and farming projects. These include examining the potential to promote microgeneration and energy independence for farmers and small businesses and committing to convene rural partners to discuss solutions for flood prevention.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his welcome for the Government’s recent move to recognise the very sharp increases to fuel costs faced by rural communities because of the current conflicts in the Middle East. I welcome that too.
I turn now to Amendments 52 and 61. The Government have introduced amendments to increase the number of commissioners a mayor may appoint. This will increase flexibility by allowing multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence and ensure commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area rather than the area as a whole. Doing so will enable mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs and allow them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for example, two commissioners operating within transport and local infrastructure, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel.
However, commissioners are intended to be an optional appointment for mayors, whereas the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would mandate the appointment of a rural commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose. There is already considerable scope for a mayor to appoint a commissioner and provide them with a bespoke brief and title—for example, to position them as an advocate on rural matters within the combined authority or the combined county authority area. The areas of competence are intended to capture broad thematic priorities affecting all communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban.
The challenges faced by rural communities are addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary place by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. In fact, to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, you could have had a party in the bus stops in my area until very recently when, thanks to some active campaigning, we did get evening buses, but only a couple of years ago there were no buses after 7 pm at all.
Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities. This includes housing, where local authorities in local plans and mayors in strategic plans must consider the needs of rural housing and it will be mayors who set the strategic priorities for their area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the powers of the mayor and the land use framework. Of course, mayors, like all other planning authorities, will have to take account of relevant documents including the land use framework, which sets out clearly the need for land for food production.
I turn to Amendment 310. Supporting rural communities is a priority for this Government. We want rural areas to feel the benefits of devolution just as strongly as our major towns and cities. The Bill already equips strategic authorities and mayors with powers that can be used to respond to rural priorities, including in areas such as transport, housing delivery, economic growth and skills. We can already see how mayors and strategic authorities are using these powers to deliver for rural residents. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, may not like strategic authorities very much, but York and North Yorkshire is trialling new affordable housing models for rural communities and the North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural task force to ensure rural and coastal communities have a clear voice in investment decisions.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 326. The Government should not assume they have a better understanding of rural needs and opportunities within strategic authority areas than those areas themselves. Strategic authorities working closely with their constituent councils and communities are best placed to assess local rural circumstances. This amendment would add bureaucracy without improving outcomes. Therefore, I respectfully invite the noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered comments and thank all those Peers who have taken part in this debate. Between us, we have managed to cover nearly every aspect of the disadvantage of living in rural communities.
I was very disappointed to be reminded about rural-proofing, because we were championing that years ago—and here we are today, trying to get it back again. It is so important that those who live in rural areas have tailored approaches to those areas, as has already been said. We need to think about agriculture, food production and housing. Housing is so important, along with jobs.
I hear the Minister’s reassurance that rural areas are covered in all the other competences. I have not been here for as long as some people, but I have been here nearly 13 years. I have heard that phrase so many times, but it never happens for rural areas. I feel that it is really important that rural affairs are given the weight they deserve by being in the Bill as a competence. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I will just say very briefly: what a load of hypocrisy from the other side of the House. I was a member of Cumbria County Council from 2013 onwards. In 2021, a Conservative Minister took a decision to ignore our wishes and create two unitary councils in Cumbria instead of what would have been the most sensible solution: a single unitary council. I hope that when my noble friend on the Front Bench responds, she will agree with me that the Government are not proposing what previous Conservative Ministers did.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who I have great respect for, that I see the Bill as a foundation on which further devolution can be built. If you mess around with it, you will prevent the whole thing going ahead.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for these amendments on the establishment of combined authorities.
The Government are very clear that devolution has the potential to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver meaningful change, led by local leaders who understand their communities best—I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle. This is why we want more places across England to access devolution, ensuring that no area is excluded from its benefits. As I have said previously, it is to support that objective that we are introducing these powers, alongside clear safeguards to ensure that they are exercised appropriately and only when justified.
Our clear preference, and established practice, is to work in partnership with local areas to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local leaders and stakeholders. I hope that this will be evident from the orders that we have laid for new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in recent weeks: in Hampshire and the Solent, Sussex and Brighton, Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington. The Government have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill that the powers are intended to operate as a last resort. These powers would be used only where no viable locally led proposal has emerged.
The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would also remove the provisions in the Bill that simplify and streamline consent, consultation and statutory test requirements for creating and changing the arrangements of combined authorities or combined county authorities. That cuts across one of our core objectives, which is to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so that devolution can be delivered more efficiently and be less onerous for local authorities. Removing these measures would entrench the existing complex processes and risk delaying areas accessing the practical benefits that strategic authorities are already delivering.
Consultation and consent will remain key features of that process, where proposals are developed by a local area. A new, consolidated statutory test will also apply to the establishment of any new authority. These ministerial powers are therefore a backstop mechanism in the Bill, allowing the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how best to access devolved powers. This will help ensure that all parts of England can benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind. As I have made clear in many discussions on this subject, we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas from accessing devolution or would risk creating devolution islands.
Finally, I point to the oral evidence given to the Public Bill Committee following the introduction of this Bill in the other place. When asked whether these powers were necessary, opposition witnesses were clear that such powers were indeed needed to advance the course of devolution in England. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, so that the way is clear for all residents to benefit from the funding powers and functions that are set out in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Can the Minister explain what a “devolution island” is?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to do that. Where local areas are putting together their proposals and a small area in between those areas is left out, it may be necessary to use the powers for that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support, and to the Minister for her reply.
I am afraid that I am not reassured by the Minister’s response. I return to the principle that underpins this group of amendments. Any reconfiguration of local governance must be rooted in the clear, explicit and democratically expressed consent of those authorities affected. Amendment 8 and the consequential amendments simply seek to protect safeguards, safeguarding the relationship and genuine partnership between local and central government.
The question is simple: should change to local government be based on consent or ordered by the Secretary of State? We stand firmly on the side of consent. For these reasons, I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments and would be grateful for the support of other noble Lords across the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical amendments. Amendments 75 and 106 correct references to combined county authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined authorities. Likewise, Amendments 25, 26, 27, 32 and 37 correct references to combined authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined county authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out this group of amendments. As has been outlined, they are technical in nature, correcting references between combined authorities and combined county authorities to ensure consistency across the Bill. We recognise the need for that consistency.
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Briefly, my Lords, this has been another important group of amendments. The response by the Minister will be important, because a lot of very good and important issues have been raised. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for remembering what I said in Committee. Like him, I have concluded that I was right on that occasion, but I will not repeat it now.
I want to say something about Amendment 307, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley, because I have signed it. This really matters: if you are devolving power over planning, including infrastructure planning, if you are serious about driving growth and want to improve local infrastructure, and if you want good-quality key decisions on land use, you need a very senior planning person named as a chief planning officer. This is not new. I have raised this matter on several Bills in recent years and still think it needs to be done, because it is about raising the status of the profession as a career option, but it is also about giving the general public the necessary respect for views expressed by a chief planning officer.
I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about my city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North East Combined Authority, and I agree entirely with what he said. He is absolutely right: it needs to be a statutory role. This is not a complex issue. The Government should just do it, and have the confidence to do it, because we want devolution to be a success—and to be a success, you have to have the right quality of decisions being made by the right level of senior officer, who recommends the right answers to politicians. With that, I hope very much that we shall hear from the Minister that the Government are minded to agree Amendment 307, at the very least.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for amendments relating to planning, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak first to Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125 and 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, moved or spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. While I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying and meeting growth opportunities, these amendments are not necessary. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy that they have published, and consider relevant, while preparing their spatial development strategies. This could include a local growth plan.
We set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should give
“spatial expression to strategic elements of Local Growth Plans”,
as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Further, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, local growth plans will be required to include a pipeline of investment opportunities to enable economic growth. We expect those pipelines to include investment opportunities linked to infrastructure or development. I hope the noble Lord contributed to the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework with the other points that he made.
I turn to Amendments 124, 127 and 186. As I have set out, the Government want arts and culture to thrive across the country. That is why we are introducing culture as a new area of competence for all strategic authorities. It is also why we have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector. Many are already supporting the cultural sector in their local growth plans, while some places are taking this further with dedicated culture strategies and industry partnerships. Local growth plans look across a wide range of needs and opportunities in their regions, including the cultural sector.
As I mentioned, our guidance on local growth plans asks mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set a pipeline of projects critical for unlocking growth. It must be up to local areas, working with relevant stakeholders, to determine which projects fit this requirement. That is why we have avoided being overly prescriptive about the content of local growth plans. The additional requirement proposed by these amendments would risk upsetting that approach, which is already under way in many places.
I turn to Amendment 120. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are firmly committed to taking a systematic approach to tackling drainage issues and to strengthening the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. However, these matters are more appropriately dealt with by local planning authorities, rather than strategic authorities. We are putting in place a robust framework to guide and support local planning authorities in this important work.
The National Planning Policy Framework already requires all developments that may have drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. However, we are proposing to go even further. The consultation on a new framework, which closed on 10 March, proposed that
“Sustainable Drainage Systems should be designed in accordance with the National Standards”
introduced last year to improve their design and implementation.
The consultation also included a proposed plan-making policy expecting early engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies to ensure that there is a clear understanding of drainage and wastewater capacity constraints and any additional infrastructure requirements, with particular regard to the impacts of planned growth and relevant infrastructure plans. We have recently laid regulations for the new plan-making system. These regulations prescribe water and sewerage companies under the new requirement to assist. They will be obliged to assist with plan-making where a plan-making authority reasonably requests it. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary, given the actions I have set out.
I turn to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I appreciate the strength of feeling which has brought this amendment before us again; it is an important issue. However, as I said in Committee, I do not believe it is something we can take forward in legislation without first having further engagement with local authorities and the sector to understand the full implications. New legislative requirements on local authorities in this area must have a clear purpose and add value. In particular, I am keen to monitor how our national scheme of delegation reforms from the Planning and Infrastructure Act works in practice and to get feedback from local planning authorities on the role of chief planners and the equivalent officers in this process.
As the noble Lord is aware, we consulted last year on reforms to planning committees, which will give chief planners a strong role in deciding which applications should go to planning committees. We hope to publish the statutory consultation on the draft regulations and guidance shortly. We welcome views about these important new arrangements, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the final regulations later this spring.
Turning to Amendment 246, I am sympathetic to the need to ensure that our drive for new homes does not come at the cost of existing business. However, I do not believe the statutory route is the most effective way forward. The issues the agent of change policy needs to address are inherently scheme-specific, requiring case-by-case assessments of potential impacts and mitigations as part of the overall planning balance, which lends itself to a policy approach. National planning policy already clearly enshrines the agent of change principle as a material consideration. The onus is squarely on applicants to provide suitable mitigation where existing development in the vicinity is likely to have significant adverse impacts.
Moreover, the new planning policy framework proposes to strengthen the agent of change principle. It sets out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and engage early with existing uses. Following analysis of the responses, we will publish the final version in the summer. Local planning authorities can require noise impact assessments when they consider that a proposed development is likely to be affected by existing noise sources. Guidance is clear that a range of mitigation measures should be considered, including good design to reduce the impact of noise from adjoining activities, incorporating noise barriers and optimising sound insulation.
Additionally, local authorities can already take the agent of change principle into account under the existing licensing regime. The legislation recognises that different areas face different challenges and licensing authorities may reflect the principle in their statements of licensing policy where they consider it helpful or necessary. We conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework, which sought views on whether it would be beneficial to strengthen the existing approach. A full analysis of responses to this proposal will be published in due course.
Finally, local authorities have a duty to take such steps as are reasonably practical to investigate a statutory nuisance complaint. They consider a number of relevant factors, including the noise level and frequency and the character of the local area. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of protecting cultural venues from the impacts of new housing nearby, I do not consider a statutory approach to be the right solution. Existing policy and legislation already give local authorities the tools to apply these principles in their decisions and we are taking further steps to strengthen implementation across the planning and licensing systems.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before we test the opinion of the House, when the time comes, could I just ask: if it is working well in Scotland, where there is a statutory basis, why are the Government so opposed to this? Does the Minister not realise that the guidance is simply not being adhered to, and practitioners are at their wits’ end on that basis?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to take back the points about Scotland, but we have conducted an extensive call for evidence on licensing, and we are carrying out an extensive review of the National Planning Policy Framework, so there has been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute their views on that. In both cases, we will be analysing the responses and publishing our responses on the NPPF in the summer and on the licensing framework in due course.
Turning to Amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I do not believe this amendment is justified or proportionate. We are concerned that adopting it now could have unintended consequences. The Government have recently consulted on reforms to the statutory consultee system and consultation feedback is now being reviewed. It is important that we allow this process to conclude before taking any decisions on consultation outcomes. Introducing fire and rescue services as statutory consultees in the planning process at this stage would therefore run ahead of the review’s conclusions and impose additional administrative responsibilities on these services.
Of course, I am aware—we have discussed it many times—that battery energy storage system developments are a particular area of interest. These installations are already governed by a robust regulatory framework overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which places clear responsibilities on designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. In addition, planning practice guidance encourages developers of larger battery energy storage system schemes to work proactively with fire and rescue services. This guidance also encourages local planning authorities to consult with these services for these types of larger schemes and to take account of guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council when determining the planning application.
Alongside this, the Government are actively exploring whether further measures are needed to enhance the regulatory oversight of environmental and safety risks linked to battery energy storage systems. Defra’s recent consultation on modernising environmental permitting included proposals to bring battery energy storage system sites within the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is now considering the feedback received and will publish its response in due course.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 308. The Government’s position remains unchanged. Given the significant changes to local plan-making that we have recently set out, now is not the time to introduce neighbourhood priorities statements. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on when neighbourhood priorities statements will be introduced, we will consider the progress on them once the local plan reforms have taken effect.
The second aspect of this amendment would substitute arrangements made under Clause 60 for neighbourhood fora as the bodies permitted to prepare neighbourhood priorities statements. This is not the purpose of Clause 60. While neighbourhood planning groups, including neighbourhood fora, may be involved in arrangements made under Clause 60, their functions are separate, and should remain so.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a CCA may appoint from 7 to 10.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by thanking noble Lords for their rigorous and detailed representations on the mayoral commissioners model that the Bill introduces. I think it is fair to say that there is a plurality of views on this important area, evidenced by the substance of the amendments tabled and the hours of considered debate in both Houses. The government amendments that I am introducing today follow considerable deliberation on those contributions. They focus on ensuring that we balance the operational flexibility of the commissioner model with appropriate accountability and scrutiny—issues that have been raised repeatedly in this House.
I will take these amendments in five groupings. First, government Amendments 42 and 46 increase the maximum number of commissioners the mayor may appoint from seven to 10. Secondly, government Amendments 50, 53, 55, 59, 62 and 64 allow multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence. Thirdly, government Amendments 51 and 60 ensure that commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area, rather than only the area as a whole. Fourthly, government Amendments 54 and 63 clarify that a commissioner must not carry out work in cases where a mayor ceases to hold office early, with the exception of winding down their office. Finally, government Amendments 56 and 65 clarify that an appointment can end in accordance with contract law if not otherwise provided for in the terms and conditions of their appointments.
These changes will increase the overall flexibility of the model, enabling mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs related to an area of competence, and allowing them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for instance, two commissioners operating within the transport and local infrastructure area of competence, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel. I emphasise that the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners recognises that we expect the devolution framework to grow over time, thereby providing a contingency as mayoral duties and powers expand. It does not mean mayors frivolously appointing people based on patronage. We know that mayors want high-calibre individuals whom they can trust to help them deliver for their regions. Therefore, to bring in people with a track record of success, these appointments should be on merit.
While combined authorities and combined county authorities will have the ability to remunerate commissioners, that does not give mayors carte blanche to pay them what they want. Commissioners may only be remunerated in line with the recommendations and maximum amount specified in a report from an independent remuneration panel.
To be clear, no additional funding is being provided for these appointments. We expect combined authorities and combined county authorities to make appointments prudently on the basis of where they determine that a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes. Part of that success relies on commissioners being accountable and their performance being open to scrutiny. That is why, alongside the mayor being able to terminate appointments, the overview and scrutiny committee may also recommend a termination. The decision on whether to accept that recommendation must then be put to a vote of the authority’s board.
Commissioners will also be subject to the strengthened accountability measures being introduced through local scrutiny committees. This includes removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties for failing to answer questions or provide information, or for misleading a local scrutiny committee. I beg to move government Amendment 42, and I commend government Amendments 46, 50, 51, 53 to 56, 59, 60 and 62 to 65. I reserve my right to speak later in response to other noble Lords’ amendments.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, this is going to be the shortest speech I have ever made in the Chamber, but it is really meant. I thank the Government and the Minister for the three amendments that I moved at an earlier stage, which are now tabled as government Amendments 42, 46, 51 and 62. These make three excellent changes that will very much assist the flexibility that will be enjoyed under the new devolution principles. Again, I thank the Minister very much for her and the department’s assistance with these three very good amendments—I think that is now probably the unanimous view—that will add to the Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I have expressed my strong reservations and serious concerns about the appointment of unelected commissioners on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill, and I again join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his criticism of Clause 9. Again, I ask the Minister: do we really want or need more unelected bureaucrats involved in running local authorities? To make matters worse, they now propose to increase the number of commissioners from seven to 10—why? What possible reason could the Government have for allowing mayors to appoint even more?
In Committee, we asked why senior councillors could not take on these roles, and we have not had a satisfactory answer. This is a perfect example of how, if you create a bureaucracy, it grows. We need to ensure that this does not happen, because it is all paid for by the taxpayer and we need to ensure value for money. That is why I, along with my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, tabled my Amendments 44 and 45.
Amendment 44 would reduce the number of commissioners who can be appointed from seven to five. Reducing the costs of local government to taxpayers should be a priority. Amendment 45 would require the appointment process for commissioners to be fair, open and transparent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support in this. It is important that these appointments of unelected officials are transparent. The Local Government Association has expressed concern about the role of commissioners and wants assurances that there will be robust scrutiny arrangements to hold them to account, given their potentially significant role and remit. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that accountability is maintained in the appointment of commissioners? I am doubtful that the Government will be able to satisfy me that the process will ensure value for money and democratic accountability, so, when Amendment 45 is called, I will seek to divide the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I said earlier, I recognise that this is an important issue, and we want to get it right, not least because we care about bettering those places and communities that are personal to all of us.
Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to reduce the number of commissioners a mayor can appoint to a maximum of five. I remind noble Lords that ensuring that mayors have the capacity and capability to undertake the new responsibilities we are devolving to them is essential to ensuring that devolution is a success. Commissioners are a key part of a mayor’s toolbox. Reducing the number of appointments to a maximum of five simply limits the flexibility and scope of the model. In particular, it would mean that a mayor would not have the option to appoint at least one person to operate in each of the eight areas of competence should they want to. We have had much discussion, both in the Chamber today and during Committee, with noble Lords wanting other areas of competence, including rural and cultural areas. We do not want to inadvertently force mayors to neglect particular areas of competence because they lack the support they need.
I must reiterate that these are optional appointments. We expect combined and combined county authorities to make their appointments prudently, based on where they determine a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes.
To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why council leaders cannot do this work, commissioners are expected to be politically restricted posts, which means that they should not be able to undertake certain activities that someone sitting as a council leader would do, such as canvassing on behalf of a political party. It would therefore not be appropriate for a council leader to be appointed as a commissioner. Council leaders acting as portfolio leads play an important but distinct role from commissioners, and we expect both to work together and will detail this in forthcoming guidance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a combined authority may appoint from 7 to 10.
Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
The most exciting ones always come at the end.
As many noble Lords will know, the Government are embarking on a much-needed funding reform for English councils to ensure that resources are aligned with need across the sector, with the first multi-year settlement in a decade delivering that reform. The business rates retention system is a major part of the overall local government finance system under which English councils retain a share of the business rates they collect, as well as a portion of any growth in that income. Resetting the system is a key element of the wider reforms, ensuring that funding is better aligned with need while preserving the incentive for authorities to continue to drive local growth.
In parallel with these reforms, the Government are also implementing substantial changes to business rates tax policy, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is also an essential task. As a result, the Government must make technical updates to the business rates retention system to ensure that, as far as is practicable, local government funding is not impacted by these changes, which are outside the control of local councils.
The instrument before the Committee today will update the business rates retention system to factor in local government finance reform and to accommodate changes to the tax. It amends two key sets of regulations on which the rates retention system is run. The levy and safety net regulations establish the safety net through which authorities are protected from large drops in business rates income; they fund that protection by applying a levy to business rates growth. The rates retention regulations set out the fundamentals of how the system operates, including how business rates income is calculated and shared between central government, billing authorities and major precepting authorities. The amendments are technical but clear in purpose; I will explain them now.
The safety net and levy determine the balance of risk and reward in the business rates retention system. To ensure that this balance is appropriate through the multi-year settlement, the Government announced changes at the settlement; this instrument puts them in place. First, the level of safety net protection is being increased to 100% of baseline funding level or need, provided through rates income for 2026-27. This is something that local government has welcomed and which noble Lords will, I am sure, agree is sensible. Secondly, the levy on business rates growth will now operate on a marginal basis, with different rates applying as growth increases up to a maximum of 45%. This balances the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections.
Moving on, in response to the reset and wider tax policy changes, we are making changes to ensure that grant compensation paid to councils in lieu of business rates is treated in the same way as the rates themselves, streamlining local government accounting.
Next, the instrument updates key formulae and figures that are used to run the rates retention system in order to reflect changes and updated values from the funding reforms delivered through this year’s settlement. This includes figures used to calculate different measures of local authority income for the year.
Finally, we are making a series of minor amendments that are aimed at reducing complexity across the system wherever possible, which noble Lords will, I am sure, value. These include disapplying provisions that are no longer required, future-proofing routine calculations and streamlining a number of small funding mechanisms.
These amending regulations make technical changes to the business rates retention system, putting into effect what is required due to funding reform and changes to business rates tax policy. If approved, they will ensure that councils receive the business rates income the system is designed to deliver. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council.
This is a very technical measure and a bit of a mixed bag. The reset of the business rates retention system is long overdue and welcome. For too long, the distribution of resources has been based on figures from when the system was introduced in 2013, so recalculating each authority’s assessed need and business rate tax base to redistribute funding on a needs basis is welcome. Given that aim, it is surprising that the Government have not produced an impact assessment. The Explanatory Memorandum says within it that most authorities will find that the system works for them, but some will not, so an impact assessment would be very welcome to understand the winners and losers, and to what extent they are winning or losing. Can the Minister provide some basic impact assessment, not for all authorities but for those that will benefit most and least so that we can see how this will work in practice?
The safety net established in this SI is to be supported because, while any fundamental changes in the business rates system take place, it will enable local authorities to have stability in their known income. That is positive, but as far as I could see it is not explained how authorities already in a pooled system will be impacted, such as those in West Yorkshire. All the data provided is based not on a pool of authorities but on individual ones, so it would be helpful to understand how that works. The proposal for Section 31 grants is welcome, because it will also help remove the impact of volatility in the system.
The downside is, I guess, the move away from the whole purpose of the business rates retention system, when introduced 10 or 12 years ago, as an incentive for growth. The introduction of marginal tax rates—which is what they are—on growth that exceeds the limits could be viewed as a tax on success. That is somewhat at odds with the Government’s fundamental position that growth is everything. It does not seem to apply in this case. How far do they think that these marginal tax rates of 30% and 45% will encourage or discourage investment and growth in particular areas?
This is a mixed bag. The reset is necessary for fairness and a safety net is good for stability, but having worked figures would have been really helpful so that we could understand the consequences.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all those comments. It is absolutely important to get the balance right between incentivising growth and ensuring that areas needing it benefit.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I took the decision to go into a pooling arrangement. I will cite my area as an example of the difficulty. These are figures from a few years back, because I am not involved with it now, clearly. Our collection of business rates was around £44 million, and we got about £2 million back. We need to make sure that we continue to incentivise the growth we want to see. I will cover in a bit more detail some of the points that noble Lords raised.
On the impact assessment that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, the changes made by the instrument will put in place reforms delivered via the local government finance settlement. More information on the impacts of the charges is included as part of that settlement. The instrument will put in place the technical figures and formulas relating to that. I add that because these are technical regulation amendments, policy officials in the department have undertaken extensive engagement to prepare for their implementation, including consultations and targeted technical engagement with sector representatives and specialists, to make sure the proposed amendments achieve the correct policy intent. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s points on impact assessment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his welcome for multi-year settlements. He and I both argued long and hard for that over the years, and I am very pleased that we have been able to deliver that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about local authorities being affected by the Government changing how they are compensated for business rates relief. Now that we are compensating for reliefs via Section 31 grants, based on data collected from the authorities themselves, they will receive pound-for-pound reimbursement. They will be compensated by the usual annual data collection process, based on their returns, and this mirrors the way compensation for reliefs via Section 31 grants currently operates. Previously, authorities were funded for most reliefs through a reduction to their tariff or an increase in their top-up. Given that these amounts remained fixed in real terms over time, they were expected to absorb some of the costs associated with certain reliefs. We think that this will actually be of benefit to local authorities.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised questions about the pooling method used. Transitional arrangements are in place to take local authorities, including those in pools, from current arrangements to their new arrangements, and this includes a measurement of the income they started from, including any income from pooling. Following consultation, we are making a change to better reflect income from business rates pooling, which is included in local authority transitional funding baselines.
The Government’s objective across this process has always been to make the best possible estimate of current local authority income. The revised method will still ensure that pooling gains are allocated across the locally pooled area. Within each pool, 50% of levy savings will be allocated between tariff authorities and 50% will be allocated between top-up authorities. The complexity and variety of pooling arrangements, which the Government are not directly involved in, mean that a central assumption is used to estimate pooling gains for this specific purpose. To help councils adjust for the change, the Government will provide a one-off adjustment support grant in 2026-27 to authorities that would otherwise see their core spending power reduce in 2026-27. The pooling assumptions for 2027-28 and 2028-29 will be subject to consultation at the next settlement. I have already started talking to local authorities about this.
I think all Peers who have spoken referred to the potential for growth disincentive. The business rates retention system was designed to be reset periodically to update the way it redistributes locally retained business rates between local authorities, which is a core aspect of the system. The reset will move business rates income, which is retained locally by local authorities, to where it is needed most, based on an updated assessment of need. Recalculating available business rates alongside a new assessment of funding need will ensure that business rates income is reallocated to meet changes in relative need, restoring the business rates retention system to its intended purpose of providing a responsive funding stream for local government while also rewarding authorities for business rates growth. Business rates growth can be realised. A proportionate levy will be applied to growth to ensure that income protections can be offered to local authorities. Of course, business rates growth generated within designated areas such as freeports, enterprise zones and investment zones will be exempt, in line with the current policy.
In setting levy rates, the Government are balancing the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections. This will always be a balance. I think all noble Lords agreed that the reset was necessary. The approach we are taking will better support growth across the sector, with a lower percentage levy charge for early business rates growth in comparison with the current scheme, and the highest margin at a lower rate than the current 50% levy that many authorities are currently subject to.
To conclude, the technical amendments made by this instrument are necessary to ensure that the business rates retention system operates as intended for the coming year. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting it.
Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid on 11 February 2026. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that has been issued for these regulations. It corrects the name of the appropriate administering authority for pension purposes from East Sussex to West Sussex. This change was requested by, and agreed with, the constituent councils. When referring to the Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority, I will use the term “strategic authority” hereafter unless there is a reason to be specific.
Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders being best placed to take the decisions that benefit local communities. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England. The English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of that White Paper is now being taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following an expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Sussex and Brighton. This statutory instrument will establish their strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best.
The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils in Sussex and Brighton on the instrument. The constituent councils are West Sussex County Council, East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.
The instrument will, if Parliament approves, be made under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which the instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028, and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 for a four-year term.
The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with the mayor also a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote, and the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting. Once the mayor takes office, that majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor when acting in place of the mayor.
The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent, the Sussex and Brighton strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are specifically reserved for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it confers, focused around local transport and economic development, are designed to support the work of the strategic authority before the Bill is in force and enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.
MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events and distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post. They were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and on 17 July confirmed to Parliament that the statutory tests to establish a strategic authority had been met.
Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding. This will include devolved funding for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.
To conclude, this instrument represents clear progress in our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England and will make this a reality in Sussex and Brighton. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, one in a series of statutory instruments creating county combined authorities that we have discussed over several months.
I start with what the Minister said about the purpose of this statutory instrument: that the Government wish to “widen and deepen devolution”. We Liberal Democrats support devolution and have long advocated for it. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted in its report on this SI that of the more than 6,000 responses received from the public,
“71% disagreed that it would support … local communities”.
The SLSC asked, given that local opposition—the overwhelming majority of those 6,000 responses not in favour—how the Government will ensure that the mayor has a “firm democratic mandate” and that local residents are able to “engage” with the system. That seems to be fundamental for any devolution proposal—that it takes people with them. Clearly, from the response to the consultation, that is not the case. I hope that the Minister has some responses to that committee’s report.
The Government have given a formal response to the committee’s report, which included a commitment to future strengthening of scrutiny. As the Minister will know, every time we discuss this, I criticise the scrutiny arrangements in mayoral authorities as being totally inadequate for the range and depth of functions that the mayor will have. One of the easy ways to improve scrutiny would be by ensuring that pre-decision scrutiny is the norm. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any hope that this will be the case.
I have a couple of other points to make. The financing of the mayoral model—if I have read it right—is to be from the constituent councils until the mayoral elections. If that is the case, can the Minister quantify the financial call on the constituent local councils until that time?
The main concern I have is that the Government are proceeding with mayoral devolution alongside very significant local government reorganisation. Two major reorganisations in local government are taking place in that area, which will inevitably cause increased expenditure in the first instance. Establishing the different and new authorities will inevitably be a call on the constituent authorities’ finances. It will not all be funded by grants—it never is—and that will inevitably mean a call on financing of basic public services. Does the Minister agree with that?
Finally, the Government and the previous Government are very keen on the mayoral model, but at no point have we had an assessment or a review of its achievements and its failures. Looking across the metro mayors that have been established, there have been some notable successes. The bus transport system in Greater Manchester has been a success, but there are other parts of the country—looking towards the north-east of the country—where it has not been such an overwhelming success and great question marks have been raised about the way that the mayor and the authority have fulfilled their statutory requirements. It is important that the Government do a review and an assessment of the various mayoral models that have been instituted across the country.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations. We on these Benches support the principle of devolution. As the Minister outlined, these regulations will establish a new combined county authority for Brighton, Hove, East Sussex and West Sussex under the framework set up in the previous Conservative Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. However, there are some issues that merit closer scrutiny.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has already raised the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s comment on the consultation underpinning these proposals, which revealed significant public concern, particularly around the implementation of a mayoral model. A clear majority of respondents did not believe that such a structure would reflect local identities or deliver meaningful benefits. That raises an important question about how devolution is being delivered. If it is to succeed, it must carry public confidence. Does the Minister agree?
Secondly—I would welcome further clarification from the Minister here—there are questions about timing, funding and democratic accountability. The Government have been clear that they intend to establish mayoral strategic authorities in devolution priority programme areas as quickly as possible. Indeed, we are told that the legislation for Sussex and Brighton is already being progressed and that institutions will be set up with the consent of constituent councils. However, as my noble friend Lord Porter pointed out, at the same time the Government have confirmed that the inaugural mayoral elections in these areas have been delayed until May 2028. That is much later than originally planned and is accompanied with a delay to the full powers, such as strategic planning, CPO and, importantly, full mayoral funding, which will be only 40% of that originally promised in the interim. Parties had already selected their candidates and were preparing for an election, so why is the mayoral election being delayed? Why can the full funding not be implemented now? It was on that basis that the councils involved embarked on the devolution programme, but the Government are not fulfilling their end of the programme.
The justification offered for this delay is that it allows time for local government reorganisation and the establishment of robust institutions. That is a weak excuse. Having experienced devolution first hand, I know that previous programmes have been delivered to a tighter, clearer timetable without the need for constant postponement of elections or, more recently, their reinstatement. It creates an unusual and uncomfortable position. We are being asked to approve the creation of a new strategic authority, the transfer of powers to it and the establishment of an institutional framework without a directly elected mayor in place for another two years. In effect, structures of devolution are being put in place while the democratic leadership is deferred until later. Can the Minister clarify the interim governance arrangements and, in particular, who is ultimately accountable to the public during this interim period for the exercise of these new powers? We appreciate that this instrument does not in itself determine the timing of elections, but it is inseparable from that broader context, and it is entirely reasonable for this Committee to probe how these arrangements will operate in practice.
To be clear, we are supportive of the creation of the Sussex and Brighton combined county authority in principle, but we are aware that devolution must be locally supported and democratically grounded from the outset. Also, the terms of the deal with the residents of Sussex should not be changed half way through the process. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on how accountability will be maintained in the period before May 2028 and whether any consideration has been given to shortening that timetable. I also commend my noble friend Lord Porter on his important question regarding pensions and look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and their broad support for the Sussex and Brighton authority, which I think is broadly welcomed in the local area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the 6,000 responses. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral combined authority over that proposed geography. Unsurprisingly, respondents provided a range of views, including evidence setting out the potential benefits, as well as some concerns. The Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State on the relevant statutory tests, as set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The Secretary of State’s decision was that those tests were met. It is not surprising that knowing how exactly this will work might have been a concern for some people, but I have looked at the evidence that came back and there was a pretty equal balance between the concerns and the things that people thought were a plus.
The noble Baroness mentioned scrutiny arrangements. I am not sure whether she was here the other day when we debated this on the English devolution Bill. The Government are bringing forward arrangements in that Bill to introduce local scrutiny committees with powers to scrutinise what the mayor is doing. Her noble friend Lord Shipley has raised this with me on a number of occasions, as he was concerned that those bodies should have powers to undertake pre-scrutiny. They will have those powers. This will be a powerful body to make sure that the mayor’s work gets scrutinised properly.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised LGR and asked why the mayoral arrangements are not being put in place until the foundation strategic authorities have been set up. The Government’s carefully considered decision is that we need resilient and sustainable authorities in place, and then the mayors will be elected. That is how we are taking that forward.
On the noble Baroness’s point about the review of mayoral arrangements, there are a huge number of advantages to them. Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive economic growth. They have standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems, directly exercise devolved powers and attract inward investment. They also have a platform for tackling the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach. Mayors are accountable directly to their citizens and have the profile to stand up for them on the national stage. They are able to both partner with and challenge central government where needed. That partnering on the national stage is critical. We now have the mayoral council to enable the regions represented by mayors to sit around the table and represent them to national government, which is really powerful. We are seeing that voice being amplified for local people in many areas that already have mayors, including Manchester, which the noble Baroness mentioned, London and the West Midlands, as well as other areas that are still developing but nevertheless are exercising their mayoral role powerfully.
The noble Baroness also asked whether councils and taxpayers will fund the CCA. The Government will support with the costs associated with the new authority through capacity funding, and the authority will also receive its investment fund as well as devolved funding for specific functions such as transport and adult skills. Beyond the support provided by the Government, the budgets of strategic authorities and how any costs are funded will be a local decision. The extent to which the constituent councils need to contribute at all to the running of the authority will therefore be decided locally.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for his comment about this being a price worth paying to get power out of Westminster. That has long been my view, and we have had many discussions about it over the years. First, on the pensions pot, we are still making decisions on how the LGR will be taken forward, but that has not yet been announced. The Government are considering those questions and will respond in due course, so the foundation strategic authorities will hold the ring on pension provision for now, until the mayors come into post.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked why we cannot have mayoral authorities now. I think I have explained that we want to make sure that these foundation strategic authorities are on a firm footing before we bring in the mayoral arrangement. He spoke about democratic arrangements. Once they come into post, the mayors will be directly elected across the whole area. Nevertheless, representatives on the foundation strategic authorities have their own democratic mandate, because they will be nominated from the councils concerned.
On the funding that the strategic authorities will receive, we will support with the costs associated with the new authorities. Sussex and Brighton have received £1.5 million this year in capacity funding to help towards establishment, and will receive a further £7.5 million over the next three years to help with core running costs. They will also receive the 30-year mayoral investment fund once the mayor is in post, as I have said. That will be £38 million a year, £1.14 billion over the 30 years. They will receive a portion of this in the two years prior to the mayor being elected to support the early delivery of growth priorities, and will also receive other devolved funding such as for transport and adult skills.
It is essential that the benefits of devolution are not delayed, and that is why, in the interim period between the establishment of the mayoral strategic authority and the inaugural mayoral elections, we will provide the authorities with a proportion of their investment funds, so that they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver some benefits ahead of the mayor taking office. The strategic authority will have a number of functions available in the interim period to enable and encourage investment in the area, subject to Royal Assent to the Bill. These include: the general power of competence, with the duty to develop a local growth plan and the power to borrow to an agreed cap; a health improvement and health inequalities duty; functions to acquire land, provide housing and build infrastructure, enabling it to make strategic interventions and support local growth ambitions; and responsibility for public transport and local transport planning, joining up the transport network across the region and helping people get to work, education and leisure activities.
In conclusion, this instrument delivers the commitment made with Sussex and Brighton to establish a combined county authority. I hope the Committee will welcome the regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
When we have requested a timetable for devolution elsewhere, the Minister has said that elections in May 2028 would be held not only in the six priority areas but in a number of other authorities, as part of this devolution. I am slightly confused as, if there is a need for the six priority areas to have this period of time, having already started the process towards May 2028, how will those that have not even started the process be able to do it by then? By inference, if the others can do it more quickly, why can these not do it more quickly, so that we could have those elections earlier? My noble friend Lord Porter suggested possibly May 2027.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The time periods are quite compressed, as the next tranche of 14 areas will be decided before the Summer Recess. The decision-making is quite close together and it is up to us to make sure that we get these SIs through, so that the foundation strategic authorities are in place before the mayoral elections all take place in 2028.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 to 23, Schedule 5, Clause 24, Schedule 6, Clause 25, Schedule 7, Clause 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 9, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 10, Clause 31, Schedule 11, Clause 32, Schedule 12, Clause 33, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 34, Schedule 15, Clause 35, Schedule 16, Clause 36, Schedule 17, Clause 37, Schedule 18, Clause 38, Schedule 19, Clause 39, Schedule 20, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 21, Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 22, Clause 47, Schedule 23, Clauses 48 to 50, Schedule 24, Clauses 51 and 52, Schedule 25, Clauses 53 to 57, Schedule 26, Clauses 58 and 59, Schedule 27, Clauses 60 and 61, Schedule 28, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 29, Clauses 64 to 73, Schedule 30, Clause 74, Schedule 31, Clause 75, Schedule 32, Clauses 76 to 84, Schedule 33, Clause 85, Schedule 34, Clauses 86 to 93, Title.
High Streets and Towns: Regeneration
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support councils to regenerate struggling high streets and towns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government recognise the very real pressures facing high streets and town centres, from long-term vacancy and rising costs to crime and changes in how people use town centres. That is why we are backing councils with long-term investment through the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme, and with new powers such as high street rental auctions to tackle vacancy and shape high street uses, strengthened community right to buy, and bringing forward a cross-government high street strategy later this year, backed by at least £150 million. Together, these measures give councils the funding, powers and flexibility that they need to drive regeneration locally and restore pride in place.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Pride in Place is a programme delivering to 300 communities over the next 10 years. In those next 10 years, what financial support will be available to those hundreds or maybe thousands of communities across this country that are not included in the scheme but whose high streets are also struggling, mainly due to the Government’s policies, taxes and national insurance increases?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think that might be more due to 14 years of letting high streets sink into decline. However, the places that are subject to Pride in Place funding will also be joined by the new cross-government high street strategy, which will look at all high streets. This will be backed by £150 million of targeted support, which will help to tackle some of the structural issues holding high streets back and the challenges facing retail, leisure and hospitality. We will align policy across government and strengthen our councils’ roles as leaders of place-based regeneration. We will develop that with councils, businesses and communities. We recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all for high streets, and this builds on our commitment to pride in place everywhere.
Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the executive chairman of Iceland Foods. Does the Minister accept that it is retail businesses which are the catalyst that make a high street thrive? Yet many fail to survive because of the outdated Victorian taxation system of business rates, which are simply too high. Although the recent reduction in the multiplier is welcome, the balance between bricks and mortar retailers and online giants remains badly out of kilter. Will the Minister do all that she can to speed up the rollout of a new, fairer system that we promised in our manifesto and consider including an online sales tax? I say that as one of the biggest online retailers in the UK.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was tempted to ask whether my noble friend wanted to answer the Question rather than me; I am sure he knows a great deal about high streets. I thank him for his support for the new business rates multipliers announced at the Budget. The new multipliers replace the temporary relief that has been winding down since the pandemic. Unlike RHL relief, the new rates are permanent, giving businesses certainty and stability. There will be no cap, meaning that all qualifying properties on high streets across England will benefit. The Government are introducing a higher rate on the most valuable properties, which he rightly pointed out should and will include large distribution warehouses, such as those used by online giants. The high-value multiplier is 33% more than the multiplier for small RHL properties. We are carefully considering representations to the call for evidence, which asks for much more detailed evidence on how the business rates system influences investment decisions. I hope that will result in some movement on business rates.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware—obviously, because it has been discussed already—that pubs are a vital part of the high street. Is she also aware that, since Labour came to power, on average one pub per day has closed? A total of 10,000 jobs have been lost in pubs and hospitality. This Government came in on an agenda for and a commitment to growth. What has gone wrong?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We do have an agenda for growth, but we are having to tidy up the mess that was left behind before we can achieve it. We are introducing the hospitality support fund, which has been more than doubled to £10 million over three years, helping over 1,000 pubs to diversify, boost productivity and support people into hospitality jobs. Those measures sit alongside business rates support and the wider planning and licensing reform that we have introduced.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, initiatives such as “health on the high street” in Doncaster, where the NHS uses buildings in the city centre to provide scans, blood tests and physiotherapy, are a very good way of drawing people into the city centre and regenerating the area. Will my noble friend the Minister talk with the NHS and other departments about how initiatives such as this can be spread to other areas and help with overall regeneration?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. One thing that happened as a result of Covid was seeing vaccination centres, for example, introduced into high streets. In my own regeneration scheme, part of the plan was to have a healthy hub in the middle of the town centre so that people could come and get their health treatment there. I absolutely understand the point that she is making. I talked about the high street strategy, which will be a cross-departmental strategy. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is determined to have neighbourhood health hubs and I am sure that our discussions will consider how we can incorporate those into high streets.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, will the Government look at implementing a commercial landlord levy, which would help small businesses by moving the cost from them on to commercial landlords? It would also have the benefit of ensuring that landlords have an incentive to fill vacant units.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are very keen to make sure that vacant units get filled. We have introduced lots of powers to enable councils to do that, but we also recognise upward rent pressures. Many landlords have upwards-only rent reviews now, so we are bringing in a step in the English devolution Bill to make sure that there are no more upwards-only rent review clauses by which rents can only stay the same or rise. We are legislating to ban those in order to help smaller retailers have more stability in their outgoings.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I hate to be a killjoy, but will the Minister accept that she has no hope of regenerating our high streets unless she works closely with the Minister from the Home Office to sort out the ever-increasing infection of streets full of county lines drugs and drug dealing? The shops that call themselves Turkish barbers, vape shops and everything else are cash only and have no interest in business rates. They are not paying business rates. They are destroying our high streets and our way of life. What is she doing to work with the Home Office to change this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not share the noble Baroness’s pessimism about high streets. It is perfectly possible to re-energise our high streets. We are already working with the Home Office, and one of the things we are doing is stopping the shoplifters’ charter, introduced by the last Government, of discounting or decriminalising thefts worth under £200. We are also providing over £7 million to support the police in tackling retail crime, including continued funding for a specialist policing team to tackle organised retail crime gangs and identify more offenders. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we will scrap that failure to prosecute shop thefts worth under £200. We are also introducing more training for the police to identify illegal trading and fraudulent shops, and supporting trading standards officers through more funding to local government.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, although the 10-year Pride in Place funding is a welcome step towards longer-term investment, and there are other funds available for town centre regeneration, some towns in Nottinghamshire, such as Mansfield and Newark, continue to face increasing vacancy rates, declining footfall and concerns about safety in the town centres. What assessment have the Government made of the role of churches and other community groups using vacant shops to set up services that create social capital locally? Will the Minister reassure the House that faith communities and charities are enabled to apply for the various funds?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. Meanwhile uses in our shops can often help regenerate whole areas, because they bring footfall into those areas. Junction 7 Creatives has been a very successful project in my town centre. We are taking steps to allow communities to take back control of some of those vacant shops and give them the power either to purchase valued local assets, such as shops, pubs and community centres, or to take them over as meanwhile uses.
Birmingham City Council and Unite: Refuse Workers’ Pay
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the deep frustration of residents with the ongoing waste dispute. The people of Birmingham must be at the heart of resolving this issue. While the Government are not a party in this dispute, the Secretary of State has met both parties and urged them to bring about a sustainable solution to end it. We continue to monitor the situation, alongside the associated impact on local communities.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
The Minister is well aware that, almost a year ago, an agreement was reached at ACAS between the chief executive of the council and Unite to end this dispute, only for it to be vetoed by the commissioners appointed by the last Government on about £1,200 a day. Does the Minister agree that this agreement must be honoured, or the commissioners replaced, to end this rat-infested, unnecessary dispute that has cost over £33 million to date and is badly damaging services that are so important to the people of Birmingham?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We all want to see the dispute brought to a resolution as quickly as possible. The government-appointed commissioners have been in place at the council since 2023 to oversee its improvement journey. That involves working with the council to make sure that its decisions align with its statutory duties. On the waste dispute, it is not true that the commissioners are blocking a viable deal. As noble Lords would expect, the commissioners are supporting Birmingham City Council to ensure that its approach is in line with its legal obligations, including the best value duty. They report regularly to the Secretary of State, but they are independent of government and Ministers do not dictate their decisions or approve their actions.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is it possible for us to agree that one of the reasons we are in this dispute is that refuse workers are so badly paid? I am a former refuse worker —I was a road sweeper for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—and I can honestly say that this is a disgrace. If we do not have the removal of rubbish, cities just fall apart.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point about the pay of public service workers, and it is very important that they are recognised for the real value they provide in our communities. But even before the strike, Birmingham’s waste service was failing residents. For example, in 2024-25 residents registered over 120,000 missed bin collections. The council now has to press ahead with the much-needed transformation to build a waste service that is fit for purpose and delivers for the people of Birmingham. That of course includes recognising the staff as they should be recognised.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Bearing in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on the position of the commissioners, do the Government have full confidence in the commissioners appointed to do that job?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The commissioners are reporting regularly to the Secretary of State. They are independent of government, but they are carrying out valuable work in Birmingham. In their most recent report, they highlighted that the council has made very positive progress in key areas, including in service delivery. They also noted that the waste dispute has diverted attention and that the council has significant work to do to meet the best value duty. The commissioners are providing good support to Birmingham City Council, and I am sure they will continue to do so.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, my concern is that for a whole year, the residents of Birmingham have had to endure worsening public health conditions. What additional public health powers are Ministers prepared to use if the situation deteriorates? How bad do things have to be before the Government intervene? A year is far too long.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Throughout the dispute, the Government’s priority has been the residents of Birmingham. During the worst disruption, in spring 2025, the Government provided intensive support to local partners to respond to the public health crisis that was arising then because of the all-out strike action. The result was to establish a regular contingency waste collection service, despite the industrial action. While the contingency service delivers basic services, there have been periods of missed collections. We continue to monitor the situation and the associated impact on local communities, but for the moment the contingency service is delivering a service to the people of Birmingham.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, last year Birmingham’s Conservative group published a clear plan to end the bin strikes, reinstate weekly collections and resolve the equal pay liabilities. Labour rejected that plan, claiming that negotiations were progressing well. Do the Government regret that decision, which could have stopped the strikes 12 months ago? Will the Government ensure that constructive opposition proposals that put residents first are properly considered?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Conservative Party in Birmingham should not wash its hands of some of the part it played in creating the crisis that Birmingham is facing overall. Birmingham’s recent history has seen one of the largest equal pay crises in modern times. Over the past 15 years, this has cost the council and the people of Birmingham a great deal of money. In October last year, the council signed the agreement with the unions to settle the historic equal pay claims that had amounted. This was a significant step forward to move past a dark moment in the city’s history and in resetting relationships with staff and their trade union representatives. Talks are ongoing to resolve this current issue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not quite understand what went wrong last May, because an agreement was reached and the news was that the commissioners had blocked that deal. Have the Government looked any further into this to be sure of exactly what happened, what went wrong and how it can be improved?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I have said, it is not correct to say that the commissioners blocked a viable deal. We want to urge both parties to get back around the negotiating table to find a sustainable solution to end the dispute in the interests of residents. Of course, it is very important that both the equal pay settlement that has been agreed in Birmingham and the best value duty are met in the course of those negotiations.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, is the truth not that these insanitary and insalubrious horrors being visited on our second city are the result of an act of grotesque judicial activism? Everyone understands what equal pay means: men and women should get the same for the same job. Here is a court saying that if one profession mainly has men, that allows it to intervene. That disregards what the law says in favour of what it thinks the law ought to say. How many other local authorities in this country face potential bankruptcy because of these perverse and expansionist rulings by politicised judges?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that this year, very recently, the council passed a balanced revenue budget without the need for exceptional financial support for the first time in recent years. This is possible because the Government delivered fairer funding, meaning that Birmingham will receive an increase in core spending power of 45% to help restore its services and the recovery of the local economy. That is very positive progress for delivering financial sustainability for the residents of Birmingham. I commend the hard work of the council leader, members and officers, and the commissioners, in getting to this point.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, would it not be a good idea for ACAS to get involved again to see whether progress can be made with this dispute? At the moment it does not seem to be going anywhere, and both the people of Birmingham and the workers are suffering.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We would certainly encourage all parties that can help with this dispute to get around the table and make sure that this is resolved. It is not in the interests of the people of Birmingham for this to carry on a day longer than it needs to.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, for two years the poor council tax payers of Birmingham have paid a 10% council tax rise and a 7.4% council tax rise but have not been able to get the basic service of having their bins emptied. What would the Minister say—other than that people need to get around the table—to those people in Birmingham to get the most basic of council services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a point that I want to expand on. It is very important for Birmingham and the people of the West Midlands that the economy can be driven forward so that we can develop the potential that we know Birmingham has. Having this dispute hanging over both the council and the people of Birmingham is not helping that to take place. That is why I say that the sooner we can get this dispute resolved, the sooner we can start building the economy, the potential and the future for Birmingham that we know are there and waiting to happen.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the Minister did not answer my noble friend’s question. How many other councils could be in this position on equal pay?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think it is fair to say that the situation on equal pay has now been resolved in most councils. In my own council, it took a very long time indeed to resolve because it had not been looked at for a number of years. It often results in large costs for the councils. I cannot say specifically how many councils have not resolved it yet. I think there are probably very few, but I am happy to look into that and come back to the noble Lord.
Social Cohesion Action Plan
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s action plan for social cohesion, and I pay tribute to the working group for all the work that has been put into this over the past few years.
I am proud that I grew up in a multicultural, multiracial society. I was born in this country, but my parents were not. When I started school at the age of five, I could not speak English, but I learned it very quickly, like most children do, so I am bilingual, like most children who come from backgrounds such as mine, and it is a good thing. Much has been said recently about how multiculturalism has failed. Maybe it is because I grew up in inner London, but I do not think it is a failure at all. I think it is a huge success and something that this country should be proud of. London is the most multicultural, multifaith city in the world, certainly the most successful and the most visited. I am not going to take criticism of that, because I have lived it, and I totally respect people from all faiths and backgrounds who I grew up alongside and went to school with.
I turn to some of the most contentious issues, as someone who grew up in a Muslim household as well. Home Office statistics show that Muslims have been the most targeted religious faith group in terms of numbers and overall share in nearly every single year since records began in 2017-18. Hate crimes against British Muslims now account for the highest share, at 45%, with a 19% rise in anti-Muslim offences and a sharp spike since August 2024 following the tragic Southport murders. During the riots that ensued in July and August 2024, hundreds of rioters attacked the Southport mosque within 24 hours, hurling bricks and bottles, smashing windows, and setting a police van on fire. More than 50 police officers were injured. Violence spread across nearly 30 towns and cities in England and Northern Ireland. Mosques were vandalised, Muslim-owned businesses attacked, and hotels housing asylum seekers set ablaze. The Southport attack had no connection to Islam or Muslims, but on social media word spread that it did.
Mosque attacks have soared and become more widespread. Between July and October 2025, the Government’s own appointed monitoring body, the British Muslim Trust, recorded 27 verified attacks targeting 25 mosques across the UK in a report titled A Summer of Division. Attacks included arson at the Peacehaven mosque in East Sussex, described by the Muslim Council of Britain as coming after
“a disturbing pattern of violence and intimidation”.
The BMT found that perpetrators were now acting
“with growing confidence and a visible sense of impunity”.
It takes me back to when I was young, when the BNP marched openly in the streets of London. But then we had legislation that changed all that. I find myself thinking that we are going back to those days of division and a lack of social cohesion, and that people now are being proudly racist and aggressive towards sections of community. I include antisemitism in this. I have Jewish cousins so I know what that can be like. I just feel we are going backwards instead of forwards. That is why I welcome this action plan wholeheartedly.
The BMT also found that perpetrators were directly linked to the surge of far-right campaigns, including Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally. In recent weeks, we have seen much disinformation disseminated by the media on various online platforms. Although it is clear that a working definition of anti-Muslim hostility is legally non-binding, exactly like the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism, in the past few weeks since the report was leaked and then published, we have seen outright misinformation spread widely and deliberately put out by these far-right groups, publications and broadcasters.
If we turn to the significant contribution made by Muslim communities in the NHS, for example, an estimated 46,200 British Muslim staff work in the NHS, including 15% of NHS doctors, which is quite remarkable when the Muslim population in the entire UK is only 6%. They are in the front line and face greater anti-Muslim intolerance and hatred. We have Muslim staff working here in Parliament who we rely on to look after us. They are also aware of growing anti-Muslim hate and language. It pains me to say this, but offensive comments have been repeated by a few individuals in your Lordships’ House over a number of years. Our staff deserve more respect. It is important for public bodies, councils, universities and employers to understand what anti-Muslim hatred looks like so that they can identify it, record it, and act on it—nothing more. There have been outlandish assertions from, among others, the vice-chair of Reform who stated as a fact that this will stop any debate about Islam. It will not, so debate away.
Many of us from a Muslim background strongly believe that the protection of British citizens from hatred and violence is not conditional on the approval of those who have made a habit of treating one community as uniquely suspect. Those who claim this is an Islamophobia law or a blasphemy law are deliberately spreading disinformation. There is no difference in substance from the antisemitism definition already in place. There is therefore no principled basis for opposing this one. Does the Minister agree that we need to repeat clearly and loudly that we are not legislating on belief or restricting criticism of ideas, we are protecting people? How will the Government ensure that these important guidelines will be disseminated to combat this disinformation? How will they ensure that British Muslim communities will be protected, just like all communities, especially the most vulnerable?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful comments from the noble Baronesses.
Last week, the Secretary of State responsible for housing, communities and local government announced this publication, Protecting What Matters, which sets out the first steps towards a more confident, cohesive and resilient United Kingdom, focusing on three key pillars.
First, we will build confident communities. Cohesion relies on confidence in the social contract, yet when people look out from their doorstep, too often they see a future that they did not ask for. Put simply, there is a direct link between the degradation of the public realm and the division that we see happening in our communities. The Pride in Place programme will commit more than £5 billion across almost 300 constituencies to be spent through neighbourhood boards. This alone is not enough: we must meet our responsibility to protect young people. That is why this section includes tougher regulation of home schooling.
Secondly, we will build cohesive communities through a social cohesion measurement framework. This means consistent clearer metrics to identify risks early and to act quickly. We will set clearer integration expectations, based on British values, for existing communities and new arrivals, focused on a shared language, participation and respect for British values. We will develop a cross-government integration strategy and conduct a review of English language provision to identify best practice. Strengthening cohesion also means managing the pace of change. We will deliver an immigration system that is fair and transparent, and works better for communities.
We will boldly confront hatred in all its forms, head on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, said, Muslim communities are facing growing hostility, discrimination and abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels, and they now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes. We have a duty to act. However, we cannot tackle something if we cannot describe what it is. That is why we have announced that we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This makes clear what is unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims. By describing these distinct forms of hostility, the definition will increase understanding across wider society; give victims confidence that what they face will be recognised and taken seriously; and help organisations to take action, as the noble Baroness said.
By setting clearer boundaries around what is and is not anti-Muslim hostility, the definition helps create space for more open and honest discussion of sensitive but wholly legitimate issues. Critically, the definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech. It is about the unacceptable behaviour towards people, not the protection of belief systems. It will not impede the raising of concerns in the public interest. I take this opportunity to thank Dominic Grieve KC and the members of the independent working group who have provided advice to Ministers on this. I thank two Members of our House who have done a lot of work on it, the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and my noble friend Lord Khan, who took on this work when he was in MHCLG. We will now work with various groups across society to consider how this definition can work most effectively in different sectors.
We remain absolutely committed to stamping out antisemitism. We have seen horrific antisemitic terrorist attacks both here in the UK and abroad in recent months. Since coming to power, this Government have taken decisive steps. We have invested record funding for security at synagogues and schools, and millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities. We have changed the law to address pernicious protests by places of worship. In this plan, we are going even further by tackling antisemitic extremism and addressing antisemitism in schools and colleges, the healthcare system and the workplace. Work is under way across government as we continue to root out antisemitic hatred from every part of British life.
Finally, our third pillar is building resilient communities. That means confronting extremism in all its forms. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, including by embedding the extremism definition, producing an annual state of extremism report with lists of the groups that meet the definition—to answer a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—and transforming our disruption capabilities. We will introduce a state threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations; strengthen the Charity Commission’s ability to tackle extremist abuse; expand the reach of the visa taskforce; and promote safe, respectful campuses and workplaces.
Our universities should be beacons of free speech, but in recent years that has been undermined, as we heard in the debate in your Lordships’ House earlier today. We are now introducing new measures to tackle the rise in extremism on our college and university campuses since the 7 October attacks. That means strengthening the monitoring of extremism on campuses, and providing oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and our ability to take robust enforcement action where needed. We will also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in workplaces and build on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act. By global standards, Britain is cohesive, and that underpins our economic strength, democratic resilience and national security.
I will try to pick up a couple of the questions from the noble Baronesses in the minute I have left. On the public interest test that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me about, it is probably better if I send a full reply in writing. Broadly speaking, the definition does not create a new test. “Public interest” should be understood in its ordinary and commonly used meaning in UK law and policy: matters that serve society’s wider interests. There is no single person or authority who decides that, and the application of the definition depends on the context. The definition provides a framework, and decisions will be made by the relevant body in that context using their existing judgment and powers.
I have picked up the questions on schools and universities. There will be a curriculum on civic education for all levels. That is really important.
On stakeholders, we consulted with a very long list of stakeholders during this work. I can provide a list, if Peers would like to see that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, for her comments. I am very proud of the multiculturalism in this country. I was at an iftar ceremony on Friday evening, and it was great to see members of the Jewish, Hindu and Christian communities, and others of no faith, there celebrating together. That is part of our culture. The Southport mosque incidents were absolutely terrible, but it was good to see the community come out and do the clean-up afterwards.
Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned attacks, both online and in person, on NHS staff. I commend my colleague Shabina Qayyum, the leader of Peterborough City Council. Since she became leader recently, she has suffered some of the most horrendous abuse. Shabina is not only leader of the council but an NHS doctor, and she gets abuse in both sides of her life. It is unacceptable and we have to do everything we can to stop it. I hope Members will support this action plan, and I commend it to the House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know the whole House would appreciate these rules being adhered to, in order to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions of the Minister.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say why, in the report, there is no mention of Sikhs or Buddhists, one mention of Christians and only two mentions of Hindus? We are incredibly worried that we constantly are being ignored, and yet we are also victims of hate crime—and often from other minority communities. It is about time that we started to address this. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, we need to talk about one Britain, where everybody is treated equally. I am really disappointed by the report that was issued by SOAS on the riots in Leicester; it is a very poor reflection of what actually happened.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that everyone deserves to feel safe in our country. We will work with and celebrate our faith and belief communities to improve understanding of different religions, support tolerance and build a more cohesive and resilient country.
We need to continue to support programmes such as Near Neighbours, which brings people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods to collaborate on community initiatives. We also want to grow Inter Faith Week. I have seen a lot of the very good work that is done in interfaith initiatives in my community. It builds an understanding and interaction between people of different faiths. We also need to promote the role of the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education by supporting improved analysis of its annual reports to understand the role that it can help to play in communities, leading to cohesion. We are taking action to deliver the £92 million places of worship renewal fund to champion freedom of religion or belief globally through sustained diplomatic engagement and multilateral partnerships.
I understand the point that the noble Baroness made. The reason for the definition in the report was to tackle the very large percentage of our Muslim community who are suffering from crimes at the moment. I will run a session next week on the whole report, and I hope that people come along to that. The whole programme is directed to making sure that we have more cohesive communities overall.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK. I was also a member of the working group on the definition. There was an orchestrated campaign to derail the work. Thankfully, it did not, and I thank the Government for adopting the definition.
Are the Government going to compile a list of all the misleading arguments that are being spread out there—the campaign is continuing—so that the public are aware of the counterarguments? The consequence of the misinformation—the disinformation, more accurately—is abuse of Muslim women. They are being targeted. We got a call today with a report of a Muslim woman on the Tube who was told to take off her headscarf. Why are the Government not addressing the safety of Muslim women? I would appreciate it if the Minister did not give the standard answers that I have received before from the Government—£40 million to mosques, millions to the British Muslim Trust and Pride in Place. What specific action is there for Muslim women? It almost feels as if the safety of Muslim women does not matter.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I start by reassuring the noble Baroness that the safety of Muslim women matters a great deal indeed. I could quote the figures of the sums. We are working with the British Muslim Trust to help tackle anti-Muslim hostility. We all have to concentrate on making sure that this actually happens in reality. Through our work across communities on cohesion, combined with the education programme—that will probably be slower—we need make sure that people understand different religions. I hope that will start to tackle the hostility. Having a definition in place is important in helping organisations right across the board—in the case of the Tube line, for example, it might be Transport for London—to understand what this means.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I spent 25 years of my life trying to build community cohesion in a north London borough. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, I realised how important that is. That period, which is a generation ago, felt difficult at the time, but it is actually much more difficult now because of the tide of misinformation, disinformation, and the deliberate attempts to breed extremism and create division. That is what this paper is all about and why it is so important.
I will ask two specific questions. There are references in this paper to doing more in schools about citizenship and critical thinking. It is crucial that we equip children and young people to challenge the misinformation and disinformation that they receive and to question its sources. I would like some more information as to what is being done about that. The second point is that there is a vague statement about using all the powers to deal with misinformation and disinformation online. I am sure that the Government will try to do that, but could they tell us what is being done to make sure that authoritative material is put out and clearly labelled so that people can have trust in the information they receive?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his many years of work to create cohesive communities. I will just briefly outline some of the measures that are in schools and universities. As he says, it is very important that we make sure that those who are trying to radicalise the minds of our children and young people face the education that stops that happening and that will encourage our young people to engage in the kind of critical thinking that makes them able to ask the questions themselves.
First, we are co-designing a cohesion charter with students to bring together a set of agreed principles that guide students’ conduct and engagement on issues that underpin or undermine campus cohesion.
Secondly, the Office for Students will further strengthen its monitoring of universities’ efforts to prevent individuals becoming involved in or supporting terrorism. Universities should be alert not only to violent extremism but non-violent extremism, including the certain divisive and intolerant narratives that can reasonably be linked to terrorism.
We want to strengthen the Department for Education’s oversight of compliance issues and take appropriate enforcement action. There will be enforcement powers for the Department for Education, and it is important that people have those powers.
We are working with the Office for Students to bring together clear and concise information on higher education complaints into a single online portal, so that staff and students have quick and easy access to organisations best placed to support them. We are also enhancing the higher education sector-wide capability to meet Prevent duty obligations, while, of course, upholding freedom of speech. It is very important that we do that as well. So, there are a number of steps in the action plan.
On my noble friend’s point about online platforms, we need to increase transparency about how those online platforms operate and comply with the Act. Platforms will be required to publish regular reports, summarised by Ofcom for public understanding, to give the public a clearer picture of platform compliance.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not think I know the height of the London Eye either—I will be straight up about that. I will look it up after this.
We recognise that a new approach to integration must consider the broader immigration system and what level of immigration is tenable in maintaining a cohesive society and meeting the needs of existing communities. Integration is of course a two-way process. Society must enable participation, while newcomers are expected to engage, learn English, respect our values and contribute.
I agree with the noble Lord, in that the test must have sensible questions. I do not have a date for when that will be reviewed, but I will find out for him after this evening.
As part of this publication, we will set clear expectations for integration, including English language proficiency and participation in work, and we will develop a cross-government integration strategy. Efforts will focus on removing barriers to participation, supporting underrepresented groups and fostering the shared sense of values across the UK that I know, right across the Chamber, we all want to see.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I take the Minister back to the question that she was asked by my noble friend Lady Scott in the context of the excellent report Time for Change by the Union of Jewish Students. This unfortunately makes it clear that antisemitism is being normalised across campuses. If university leaders fail to take action, how will they be held accountable? I have looked in the plan that has been published and there is nothing there about holding those university leaders accountable, so what specifically are the Government going to do to make sure that antisemitism is not normalised on our university campuses?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is clear that there are some shocking statistics in that report. We must focus on making sure that Jewish students, along with students of all faiths, feel safe in our universities. On the noble Lord’s specific question about sanctions for university leaders, I will have to come back to him. I do not have the information on that in front of me. With all the very concerted work that is set out in the programme in relation to campuses and universities, the Government have a clear intent to make sure that our students can feel safe and be safe on a university campus.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I exhort the Whip, since he started by asking people to be extremely brief in their questions, to give some practical effort to controlling the Chamber in that regard.
I welcome the Government’s overall strategy but want to ask specifically about anti-Muslim hostility. The paper accompanying the definition says that if you are unable to define an issue, you are far less able to tackle it. Can the Government define hostility and give examples of what behaviour would be covered by hostility? The other aspect of the paper, in Chapter 5, says that it will need to evolve over time. What tests will be used for the evolution over time, and what do the Government anticipate doing over time in terms of a public consultation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Baroness says, the reason for a definition is that if you cannot clearly define an issue, you cannot properly identify it, measure it or address it. This definition provides the clarity needed to respond consistently and effectively. It helps to distinguish between legitimate debate—which remains fully protected—and unacceptable hostility, prejudice and discrimination directed at individuals, enabling people to name and describe specific forms of hostility that Muslims experience, helping to build understanding in wider society and giving victims confidence that they will be taken seriously.
Government and organisations will then have a consistent framework for training, reporting, data collection and prevention work to improve how incidents are recognised and addressed. That is the longer-term process. This is protecting people, not beliefs, and helping to prevent harmful behaviour while safeguarding open discussion and criticism of ideas.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I strongly support this action plan. Like my noble friend Lord Harris, I say this in the context of having spent decades on the front line of where cohesion fails. Very few people in this House have had to pick up the bodies at the endpoint of failure, where cohesion has fractured and where enmity has played out on our streets. I have seen that in my career as a soldier and as a firefighter in the most terrible way.
I would like to see non-partisan politics in this space because, regardless of which Government have brought this plan forward, we should all support it. We should all support it with the way we use our language because not doing so—with an increasingly divided politics—ends in a most terrible way. How will we measure early the impact and effectiveness of this plan? If we do not, I am afraid that the first we will know of its ineffectiveness is when the most terrible things play out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend not just for his very important question but for all his work on this during his career. We are setting out a bold new approach here, not just tackling hate speech but countering extremism by adopting and implementing definitions of extremism. We will publish the annual state of extremism report. That is one way of making sure that we are keeping a focus on the issue. We are strengthening Charity Commission powers to tackle extremist abuse, including the power to shut down charities and suspend trustees—and there are the measures I have already mentioned on tackling extremism on university campuses and in health.
We will work to implement the definition to make sure it has real effect, making sure that public bodies do not confer legitimacy, funding or influence on extremist groups. We will work with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure robust use of existing legislation on that harmful extremist conduct. As my noble friend said, the consequences of not taking action here are critical and dangerous. We will make sure that all organisations, now that they have this definition, can take action and monitor what is happening.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. It is not particularly helpful to accuse those who have expressed concern that this definition will operate like a Muslim blasphemy law by the backdoor of spreading dangerous disinformation, not least because knowingly spreading dangerous disinformation is a criminal offence under Section 179 of the Online Safety Act. Suggesting that those who raise the alarm about the chilling effect of this definition on free speech should be prosecuted makes the point far more eloquently than we could.
I note that when the Communities Secretary unveiled the definition of anti-Muslim hatred in the other place, he said that he hoped it would be taken up by the police; the Minister just expressed the same view. Is it the Government’s intention that when someone is found to have said or done something that meets the definition of anti-Muslim hostility, it will be recorded by the police? Could it then be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record check if that person applies for a job as, say, a teacher at a school in a Muslim neighbourhood?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I set out very clearly that this is a non-statutory definition. It is there to assist organisations to understand what we mean by anti-Muslim hostility. I remind the noble Lord that there is no blasphemy law in this country and that this Government have no intention of introducing one.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the strategy places significant emphasis on engaging faith leaders as key arbiters of community cohesion. However, does the Minister agree that true social cohesion is built not on the mediation of religious blocs but on the primacy of civic values and a singular secular rule of law? When religious sensitivities collide with fundamental civic rights, such as LGBT equality, will the Government prioritise civic democratic values over the avoidance of religious offence?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The importance of this strategy is that it concentrates on all these angles, including creating confident communities and protecting that confidence. We have to create the conditions for cohesion. Our aim is to bring people together through community-led schooling, youth and sports infrastructure, trusted local venues and major cultural and sporting events with strong community legacies, focusing on restoring pride in place through long-term investment in left-behind areas, support for local media and high streets, improved digital connectivity, neighbourhood policing, tackling anti-social behaviour and reducing reoffending. All these things are positioned as essential to safety, pride and cohesion. I hope that this action plan will take us a long way towards doing that.
UK Domestic Visitor Levy
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the precise design and scope of the visitor levy power is still under development. Our consultation closed on 18 February and the Government will publish our official response in due course. Mayors will need to decide whether to implement a levy and, if so, consult on specific proposals. This will inform their decisions regarding whether and how a levy will be applied and how any revenue is invested. Evidence from international schemes suggests that modest rates have a minimal impact on visitor numbers. Improved destinations and visitor experiences may also offset price sensitivity over time.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, but the facts in this country are probably a little different from those she has given. According to the World Economic Forum’s travel and tourism development index, the United Kingdom currently ranks 113th for price competitiveness. A soon to be published Oxford Economics study suggests that, even under the most benign visitor levy scenario, which is a £2 per room per night charge, the effect in 2030 would be millions fewer nights in paid accommodation, nearly £0.5 billion less in total tourism spending and thousands of fewer jobs. Given those figures, why are the Government contemplating a holiday tax at all?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the Government want to see the tourism economy in Britain reach its full potential. The decision on whether to introduce a levy will be for mayors, and they will need to consult ahead of making those decisions. As a mayoral power, the ability to create a visitor levy will ensure that those with the best understanding of their region can tailor investment towards growing the local economy, whether that be in tourism or other areas, bearing in mind its needs, including those of the accommodation sector. This puts the power back in the hands of mayors to develop their own tourism economy in the way that they see fit, and it may lead to new visitor attractions and better quality of accommodation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, where there are no mayors, it will be up to local authorities whether to implement this levy? Will she undertake that, whether this levy is implemented locally or nationally, there is a consistent system of collection right across the country? Will she make sure that it is not as cluttered and badly designed as the Scottish system is now?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The power will be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities, because they cover the functional economic areas and mayors have strategic roles in driving growth. The power is principally linked to the growth remit that we have given our mayors and to the powers of mayors, and any revenue is expected to be invested in growth, an agenda for which mayors are responsible and accountable. They can use their mandate for change and take the difficult decisions necessary to drive it. That could include, for example, subject to consultation, giving a portion of revenue to local authorities to deliver the services that support growth, including in tourism and the visitor economy. It is important that mayors have those powers. It is for mayors to design the system that works for their local area.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this levy, which should be used to help support what visitors come to see—namely, arts and cultural attractions. Do the Government recognise that reintroducing tax-free shopping would significantly boost the number of visitors and hotel revenue, as well as being a boon to the economy more widely, including creating thousands of jobs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I always appreciate the noble Earl’s championing of culture and leisure, including the impact that that has on tourism, and I am grateful to him for the work that he does in that area. I am afraid the consideration that he asked about is very much the responsibility of His Majesty’s Treasury and not my department. However, we are proposing that revenues from the visitor levy will support local economic growth, including the visitor economy, and that can take the form of capital investment and the provision of growth-related services. Mayors can then take decisions informed by their consultation on how the revenue raise should be invested in their region.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the key achievements of the last Labour Government was free entry into museums, which had a huge effect on boosting tourism? Can she assure me that this Labour Government will continue to do all they can to boost tourism in that way and keep free entry to museums and other cultural visitor attractions in this country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that that was a great step forward. I should declare an interest, as I benefit from that free entry when I am on my granny duty in the recesses. She makes an important point about access to leisure and culture, which we should always aim to make as widely available as possible, because it opens the eyes of not just young people but all of us to the richness of our history and culture.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, with regard to the introduction of a levy, which I personally do not support, will the Minister look at the situation in relation to current tourists who are taken ill? Those who have emergencies are well looked after by the NHS, but, at least in my own research, half of our NHS hospitals are not charging tourists who are not in an emergency when they should be.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Merron, who is sitting next to me, will be happy to respond to that question. It is important that people who find themselves in a medical emergency get treated promptly and that that is dealt with as quickly as possible. It is reassuring for tourists who come to this country to know that they will receive support if they are taken ill while they are on holiday here. On the issue of charging, I will defer to my noble friend.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, there are some major tourist areas in England that are not part of a devolution deal and have no plans at present for a mayor. Why should they be disadvantaged in their areas and growth, based on not having a particular elected person in that area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have much sympathy with the noble Lord’s point. We have consulted on whether and how to extend the power to local leaders with similar geographic footprints and powers relating to transport skills and strategic planning, such as the leaders of the foundation strategic authorities. We will look at the responses to that and I will be able to inform the House in due course.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister clarify that the scheme that she is talking about would be applicable to England and not to Wales? That must be the case for two reasons: first, there is a facility in Wales for having these sorts of charges; and, secondly, elected mayors to take this forward do not exist.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that this system is for English mayors.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s priority today appears to be to reduce the cost of living. If that is the case, why do they feel that introducing new taxes to make holidays in the United Kingdom more expensive for British people is a good idea?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We would not have such a problem with the cost of living if the previous Government had not driven up cost of living pressures, as evidenced by the action we had to take in this Budget to take an average £150 off household energy bills from April and to freeze rail fares and prescription fees for a year. We understand that potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy. That is why local leaders will run a formal local consultation before making use of the new power.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Will the money raised from visitor levies stay with the local area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is a very simple answer to that question, and it is yes.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I ask a question by way of clarification. Will I have to pay this levy when I go up to watch my beloved Manchester United every week?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, may want to think about a team closer to home—there are some very good ones near to where he lives. However, football allegiance apart, it depends on the accommodation that people are staying in. This applies only to commercially let short-term accommodation—only that will be in scope of the visitor levy. This includes holiday lets, hotels and guest houses, subject to local decisions on the scheme. The noble Lord always has the option to support a team closer to home.
Anti-Muslim Hostility: Non-statutory Definition
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have adopted a definition of anti-Muslim hostility focused on protecting individuals. The definition provides a shared practical framework to help victims, communities and services respond to anti-Muslim hostility while improving understanding across wider society. It also explicitly safeguards free speech, making it clear that criticism, debate or even ridicule of religious ideas remain lawful. Keeping citizens safe is a fundamental duty of government. I would always hope that we did not need these definitions, but we know we do, and this definition is a crucial step in strengthening the protection for our citizens.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply, and I appreciate that the Government have made a real attempt to balance protecting Muslims on the one hand and safeguarding freedom of speech on the other. While I can see that the definition might be quite useful from a cultural point of view, it is very difficult to see how it is going to work in relation to the law. The Government’s statement specifically says:
“The definition does not change what is or is not a crime, nor does it equate anti-Muslim hostility with crime”.
My question is really this: in what way, if any, does this definition make a difference to the application of the law? After all, violence against Muslims is already a crime. By having this definition, what difference does it make?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble and right reverend Lord is quite correct to say that this definition does not change the law. However, it describes distinct forms of unacceptable hostility that many Muslims experience. We know the terrible things that happen, online and in person, to members of our Muslim community. This should increase understanding across wider society. It gives victims confidence that what they face will be recognised and taken seriously. By setting clearer boundaries around what is and, importantly, what is not anti-Muslim hostility, the definition helps create space for a much more open and honest discussion of sensitive—we know how sensitive these issues are—but wholly legitimate issues. The definition does not restrict criticism, debate or even ridiculing. It is about unacceptable behaviour towards people, not the protection of belief systems.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the working group on a very clear, common-sense definition. Does she agree that it is a very useful public educational tool, not least for signposting actual hard law, such as articles in the human rights convention on free expression and discrimination, and, as my noble friend said, for being clear that free speech, including critique of religion, is protected?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for making the point about thanking the working group. This has been a very sensitive and very detailed piece of work for it to do, and I am very grateful to the working group, my honourable friend the Minister for Faith in the other place and, of course, my noble friend Lord Khan, who started working on this and did a great deal of work on it previously.
My point, which my noble friend echoed, is that if we cannot clearly define an issue, we cannot properly identify, measure or address it. A definition provides the clarity needed to respond consistently and effectively. It helps distinguish between legitimate debate—which remains fully protected—and unacceptable hostility, prejudice and discrimination directed at individuals. Very importantly, there are elements of the definition that refer to legal procedures and other elements that are aimed more at society’s acceptance that we should not be hostile towards our communities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, to build on the Question from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, of course the Minister will be aware that the previous Government back in 2016—I know because I was instrumental in that—brought in the specific crime of anti-Muslim hatred, but the approach they took was one of inclusivity; that is, it was not just for one faith but for ensuring that all religious hate crime could be reported. Indeed, the statistics we have now reflect that. I respect very much Dominic Grieve, who I worked with very closely. How will this definition fit in specifically? The second element is on education and ensuring that hate crimes are reported and accurately recorded.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes, it is really important that we make sure that the reporting and recording are done. In terms of support for other faith groups, we will work with and celebrate our faith and belief communities to improve the understanding of different religions, to support tolerance and to build a more cohesive and resilient country. A very detailed action plan sits behind the whole of Protecting What Matters, which is where the definition is included. The education the noble Lord refers to is very clearly and consistently part of that action plan—we will have another opportunity to debate that on Monday when I will answer questions on the Statement on it. We continue to support programmes such as Near Neighbours which bring people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods to make sure that they are collaborating on community initiatives. The action plan supports all that work as well as providing this very clear definition of anti-Muslim hostility.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I welcome the action plan and pay tribute to all the work that has gone into arriving at it. In 2019, the then Conservative Communities Secretary, James Brokenshire, said:
“The government is wholeheartedly committed to ensuring that Muslims are not targeted for hatred, persecution or discrimination”.
The Government’s press release at the time said that they agreed that
“there needs to be a formal definition of Islamophobia to help strengthen our efforts against anti-Muslim hatred”.
In recognising, as the Minister has set out, that this definition is not about preventing free speech but about protecting individuals, can I ask her to articulate how this plan and this definition would operate on exactly the same principle as the widely adopted working definition of antisemitism, and that those who claim this is an Islamophobia law or a blasphemy law—which is widely being put out there now, very destructively—are simply spreading disinformation and sowing division? Hate speech is not free speech.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I want to be absolutely crystal-clear on the point about blasphemy. There are no blasphemy laws in England, and the Government have no plans to introduce any. The UK has a very proud tradition of religious tolerance within the law, and the Government are committed to building a strong and integrated society in which hatred and prejudice are not tolerated and where everyone is free to express their religious identity and live without fear of discrimination or harm. Muslims are currently subject to 45% of hate crime and we have seen horrific incidents aimed at our Jewish communities and, shockingly, a spike in antisemitism in our communities following those incidents. We need to support those communities, and the Government are absolutely committed to doing so.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, it has been a great honour in the last few weeks to have been the guest at several iftar meals with the Muslim community in Yorkshire, where I am based. I know the noble Baroness mentioned the debate on Monday, but knowing how real Muslim hate crime is and hearing stories from Muslim neighbours just in the last few days, it would be good to hear more about how this is going to be implemented, because this is a definition not to sit on a shelf but to be used to help us become a more tolerant society.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the most reverend Primate. I am going to the iftar in Stevenage tomorrow evening, and it has been great to see the cross-community participation in iftars around the country. The Government are taking a number of steps to support this definition, with funding that will help to tackle some of the anti-Muslim hostility that we have seen. For example, we have put additional funding for cohesion into the Pride in Place programme to enable us to tackle some of these issues. I will go into more detail on Monday.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the anti-Muslim hostility definition allows things to be said that are “in the public interest”. Can the Minister clarify who decides what the public interest is, and how?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The definition of anti-Muslim hostility is accompanied by a statement very clearly setting out what the definition does not do. It is not legally binding; it does not override or change the law; it does not affect sentencing or create new crimes, and it does not prevent raising concerns in the public interest. It is very important that people feel able to raise concerns where they feel that they are in the public interest. It is not about protecting religion from criticism but only about protecting people from targeted hostility. Where people want to raise criticisms of a religion, and if that is in the public interest, they are perfectly able to do so.