English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 309 in this group seeks to impose a duty to co-operate on local public service partners. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for adding his name in support.

I will not repeat at length the arguments I rehearsed in Committee in support of the amendment, many of which are equally relevant to my Amendment 182, which we debated on Tuesday. Suffice it to say that the recent fragmentation of our public services has resulted in disjointed services that do not align with the perceived needs of ordinary citizens, in wasted resources and in a damaging culture of competition rather than collaboration between providers. Ordinary folk just want to see collaboration and partnership working to improve the quality of the services they receive.

Many attempts have been made to address this problem. Noble Lords will recall initiatives such as the joining up central government initiative—a work in progress—health and well-being boards, integrated care boards and the troubled families programme. In all honesty, none of these has resolved the problem. Perhaps only Total Place, in which I played a part, was enthusiastically embraced by all sectors.

The Bill takes a different approach and includes a provision for strategic authorities to convene meetings that partners will be required to attend, but I am really not convinced that the power to convene meetings will resolve the deep-seated problems that have beset multi-agency working.

To succeed, we need to be more radical. Rather than setting up yet more working groups, liaison committees and joint boards, we should attack the problem at its root and place on public sector agencies a duty to co-operate with the strategic authority, principal councils and each other when they are formulating policies and plans or delivering services. If such a duty were imposed, the responsibility for ensuring that it was met would rest with the agencies themselves, which is exactly where it should be.

There is nothing new in this proposal. After all, the public sector equality duty places a duty on public authorities to consider how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act. Under the Children Act 2004, a local authority must co-operate with relevant partners, bodies and individuals to improve the well-being of children in the local authority’s care. In doing so, it must consider the role of parents and others who play a part in caring for children.

So there is no reason why an overarching duty to collaborate should be difficult, and the advantages of it are immense—I think it would be a complete game-changer. For a start, it would send a very clear and necessary message that this Government expect to see collaboration between agencies, not competition. It would change the culture of our public sector entirely. It would show that the primary driver of public services must be to meet the needs of clients, citizens, customers or whatever you want to call them, not to serve for their own convenience or to enhance their own profile.

This amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, and I am given to understand that the Minister and the Secretary of State want to explore it further. I entirely understand that: there is probably more policy development to do, and there is a need to consult all the players in this sector. That is why I will not push this to a vote, although there is probably a majority in this House in support of the proposal. At the end of the day, this is a decision not for the providers themselves, some of which may find this inconvenient, but for the Government, to decide what kind of local public service they need. I think they need this duty.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this group of amendments on collaboration. I will not comment on the government amendments, other than to say that we consider them to be technical and will not stand in the way of the Government. I must declare my interest as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.

Amendment 181 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raises a number of serious points that the Government need to respond to. However, we have some concerns that a mayoral council risks duplication of work that is already happening in other forums, such as with the Local Government Association, and therefore risks increased bureaucracy.

On Amendment 309 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, we share his ambition for joined-up public services that co-operate effectively. That will be important to deliver the high-quality services we would all like to see locally. The Government need to consider how best this can be achieved. However, we have some concerns about how this amendment would work in practice as regards the legal duty to attend meetings and the interpretation of “reasonable”. We are therefore not convinced that the amendment as set out is the right way forward, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that the Government need to think about how this can be made to work in practice.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the debate on this group. I will start with Amendment 181. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the overcentralisation of decision-making in England, and that is part of the whole rationale for bringing the Bill forward. I must be clear that I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I know how much good work the mayoral council has done since this Government established it.

I will say just a little bit about the mayoral council: the existing mayoral council, and the Leaders Council of local authority leaders, are non-decision-making bodies so do not need to be in statute. The current format of the mayoral council and the Leaders Council has received very positive feedback on their collaborative nature from members of all political parties. The mayoral council has run a shadow right to request process, ahead of that process being made statutory through the Bill, without needing to be a statutory decision-making body. As a statutory process, the right to request provides certainty that engagement will take place.

The mayoral council and the Leaders Council are still relatively new forums, and they have already adapted to respond to feedback from members and the Government. As more devolution is delivered across the country and we get more mayors with more powers, their needs and best use may change. Retaining flexibility by not having forums set in statute will allow us to once again respond quickly to feedback to make sure these continue to be useful forums.

The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen that devolution through the mayoral right to request process, so it is not necessary for the mayoral council to create a framework for further devolution. Funding is discussed regularly at the mayoral council, but it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the local government finance settlement process, where allocations of needs-based funding are done fairly across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

121: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Brownfield land priority(1) A mayor, combined authority, or combined county authority may not designate greenfield land for development unless it is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land is available within the relevant area.(2) In determining suitability under subsection (1), regard must be had to—(a) the availability of land, and(b) the viability and environmental impact of development.”

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. There is near universal agreement that a “brownfield first” strategy is the right one. Not only does it save green fields but new developments benefit from existing infrastructure, homes are delivered where they are needed most, it supports regeneration and, finally, it is better for the environment. However, greenfield sites offer the potential to landowners and promoters of huge planning gain, from a few thousand pounds an acre as agricultural land to hundreds of thousands once planning permission is received—hence their willingness to push and challenge the system. Once planning permission is received, building on it is so much easier for developers. As a result, in effect we have a default “greenfield first” approach, losing precious green belt and productive farmland.

If the current crisis has taught us anything, it is that we cannot be dependent on imports; we need to grow our own. Yesterday’s announcement on local government reorganisation, with urban areas expanding into their rural hinterland, will only encourage building on green fields rather than focusing on the urban footprint. For years, Governments of all colours have tried to prioritise brownfield first, but guidance alone is simply not enough; we need something more forceful. We need it in legislation. If we make this a requirement of strategic plans, mayors and combined authorities will need to address the issues facing brownfield in their areas up front, to make it easier to speed up and deliver brownfield development. Without it, greenfield will continue to be the default, the environment will suffer, more money will need to be spent on infrastructure and we will continue to lose valuable agricultural land. We will also fail to deliver the homes we need where they are most needed, continuing the housing crisis, with young people unable to afford their own home and increased homelessness.

In Committee the Minister raised a concern that this would be used as an excuse to delay development of sites. In fact, the very opposite is the case: this is all about getting more sites and more homes faster and where they are needed most. When we are facing a housing crisis and we are failing to build, and that failure is biggest in urban areas such as London with the greatest need, it can only be right that we build more in urban areas through gentle densification and repurposing of redundant sites. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will say a few words in general support of the principle of this amendment. We supported it during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, so it would make sense to do so here.

It was good old John Prescott who first promoted “brownfield first” and, ever since then, councils have been encouraged to promote it, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just outlined. But brownfield alone cannot meet our housing needs, and that is the real issue I have with this. Brownfield development is more costly. Decontamination and development costs alone make it much more costly. There is a fear of lopsiding development, and I would be interested in further discussion—but clearly not here now—about how we square the very emotional debates we have had over the last day on Report with rural issues, the lack of housing in rural areas and how people need it, for all the reasons given. This amendment squarely says, “Leave the green areas alone”, so I have a little problem with it, although we on these Benches absolutely support the overriding principle.

Given the large area of combined authorities, there will clearly be a massive range of sites, covering all sorts of greenfield and brownfield sites, so I will leave the Minister with the thought that perhaps the Government need to give more incentives to develop brownfield first. There are lots of ideas that I am sure she is aware of that would encourage that more, but the key thing is that brownfield alone will not meet housing needs. Rural areas need more housing, but clearly we need strong protections for our green belt and our countryside.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 121 about brownfield land. I agree that we should always use brownfield land wherever possible. As succinctly articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, one reason for promoting the development of town centres and cities is that there is more brownfield land there. We are trying to promote that kind of development as part of the reorganisation process, but there will always be a need for some development in rural areas. We have a rural housing crisis that we must tackle, and there are other uses, such as data centres, for which it might also be appropriate.

Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will be required to prepare a spatial development strategy. These strategies will provide the framework for local plans and will identify broad locations for growth, key infrastructure requirements and housing targets for individual local authorities, but they will not allocate sites for development. In preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need for consistency with national policy.

The effective use or reuse of brownfield land is strongly encouraged in the current National Planning Policy Framework, which expects substantial weight to be given to the benefits of developing suitable brownfield land within existing settlements. The revised National Planning Policy Framework, mentioned earlier, goes further still. New proposed policies on development within and beyond settlement boundaries are designed to promote a more sustainable pattern of development by directing growth to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable urban land and taking a more selective approach to development outside of settlements.

Mayors will also have the ability to grant upfront planning permission for specified forms of development on identified sites through mayoral development orders. We want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible to allow mayors to use these powers across a range of uses and land types in line with their ambitions for growth. It is right that we continue to promote the effective use of previously developed land. However, we should be cautious about introducing overly rigid legal requirements that may not be appropriate in all circumstances and could risk constraining the growth that this country needs. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, it is for these reasons that I do not consider it to be necessary or proportionate. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments and the Minister for hers. Let us be clear: this is about doing what everyone has said that we need to do, which is developing on brownfield first. It is not about preventing development anywhere else. This is about creating more sites, it is about getting more building done, but it is also about regenerating cities and providing the homes that we need. I am afraid that I do not agree with the Minister. This is not about blocking; it is about enabling. I therefore wish to test the opinion of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)]

Amendments 135 and 138 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I will also speak to Amendment 173. I do not intend to provoke a debate and will withdraw my amendment at the end of this group.

I thank the Minister for her openness and the constructive conversations that we have had on the integration of fire and rescue services into combined authorities in response to questions raised with me by West Yorkshire Combined Authority. Earlier today I got off the phone with Mayor Brabin. It is great to be able to say that we are particularly grateful for the Minister’s commitment to bringing the relevant partners together to ensure that the final shape of these arrangements works for fire services, combined authorities and the communities that they serve. We are also very grateful for the broader ongoing commitment to strengthening the working relationship between government and our metro mayors, which will be critical to meeting the challenge of delivery. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments highlight a real tension in this Bill. While powers are being devolved to mayoral combined authorities and CCAs, there remain serious questions about accountability, scrutiny and operational independence for fire services. The financial provisions brought in through Schedule 23 are necessary to ensure that the mayoral fire and rescue authorities are subject to the appropriate reporting and responsibilities. Yet the practical questions remain: will these arrangements be sufficient to safeguard transparency and maintain public confidence, particularly in emergency planning and the management of major incidents? In short, this group of amendments highlights the wider concern that devolving powers to mayors risks concentrating authority without sufficient checks. We will listen carefully to the Minister, but I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously and ensure that robust scrutiny and accountability for fire and rescue functions is embedded in the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rees for Amendments 135, 138 and 174 and for being available to explain why he has brought this forward from other mayors. He has passed on their views for us.

I will speak first to Amendments 136 and 137 in my name. As I set out in Committee, these are essential amendments to Schedule 23. They would not create a new duty or expand powers, but they would ensure that existing provisions apply consistently when a mayoral combined authority is acting as a fire and rescue authority. Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities—I do hope we can call them the same thing at some point, because I am getting fed up with saying it twice every time—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Make an amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes—that would be my amendment.

Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime into line with the existing exemptions for other fire and rescue authority governance models, maintaining consistency and fairness across England.

Amendment 137 would confirm that, where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority assumes fire and rescue responsibilities, it is treated in the same manner as established fire and rescue authorities. This amendment would extend the application of Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to mayoral fire and rescue authorities relating to companies in which local authorities hold interests. It would similarly bring them within Section 155 of that Act for the purposes of emergency financial support.

Furthermore, Amendment 137 would clarify the process for handling Section 114 reports for mayoral fire and rescue authorities and the corresponding duties under Section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. When a chief finance officer issues such a report, it must be provided to the relevant scrutiny committee. The authority’s response must then be sent to the chief finance officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised concerns about accountability in relation to fire and rescue authority functions, and I trust that her concerns have now been addressed by the introduction of local scrutiny committees.

Turning now to Amendments 135, 138 and 174, I stress that Clause 47 is a key provision, ensuring that fire and rescue services in a mayoral combined authority area are subject to clear and direct accountability through elected mayors. These amendments would cut across that approach by creating a separate legal entity for chief fire officers. Doing so risks blurring the lines of accountability and making it less clear who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of fire and rescue services. The amendments could also introduce unnecessary complexity into fire governance arrangements and move away from the integrated model of local leadership that the Bill is designed to support. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment. I do, however, recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and the interest in exploring alternative governance models. We will continue to consider this very carefully and work with partners across the sector to explore the model in due course.

With these reassurances, I hope my noble friend Lord Rees feels able to withdraw his amendments. I commend the minor and technical amendments in my name to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, our Amendments 140 and 148 seek to remove the London licensing provisions in the Bill. Talking to a number of London boroughs, I found that many of them were quite unaware of this proposed change, seeing it, in effect, as a power grab by the Mayor of London, potentially causing real issues locally in boroughs, where licensing can be a very sensitive issue.

Licensing decisions should be taken locally, with local context and knowledge. For example, in Kingston, I understand that for any licensed premises, their security staff are required to work closely with the police, street pastors, the VAWG team and VAWG charities. This is not just during operational hours but after closure and at local events. This is a detailed local arrangement that works for this borough. Having the Mayor of London call in a licence application and change conditions or impose longer hours on a community would simply not be right and would go against the spirit of this legislation, which is supposedly about devolving down local powers. Those are our concerns. Are the Government really confident that a future mayor, perhaps of a different political persuasion and approach, would not be far more interventionist, blocking the very growth opportunities it is claimed that these new powers are seeking to free up?

The Minister has talked just now about the important role of local licensing authorities. Licensing works best when it is grounded in detailed local knowledge, through local councillors and local communities working together. These proposed call-in or direction powers for the Mayor of London risk overriding this expertise, increasing tension and introducing uncertainty in the system for boroughs, businesses and residents. A key concern I have picked up is how potential conflicts between local priorities, which are reflected in a council’s licensing policy, and pan-London priorities, potentially driven by the mayor’s decisions, will be resolved. There is a genuine fear that this could lead to an additional burden on boroughs, including increased casework, appeals, additional workloads for borough staff and, no doubt, additional costs to the boroughs.

We talked earlier about this being strategic. What does that mean? Take sectoral activity zones, such as Wembley or Twickenham stadia, which sit in the middle of highly residential areas. Those boroughs work really closely with communities. They know what hours and noise levels are acceptable. I am concerned that centralising this in some way could cause a huge risk. We urge the Minister to think again on giving these additional powers to the Mayor of London at this time.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, these provisions introduce a substantial change to the licensing framework for London by creating a role for the Greater London Authority and, ultimately, the Mayor of London in applications deemed to be of strategic importance. This raises important questions about the balance between strategic oversight and the principle of local decision-making.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has already mentioned, licensing has traditionally been a core function of borough councils, rooted in local knowledge and expertise, and accountable to their local communities. The introduction of a mayoral call-in power therefore represents a major shift, which could result in significant duplication, added bureaucracy and the loss of local voice and expertise.

This raises questions of clarity and process, particularly around the definition of strategic importance, and I am grateful that the Minister said that that will be defined. I would appreciate clarity on the time scale. What assurance will the Minister give that strategic importance will mean what the man on the street would determine to be genuinely of strategic importance, and hence would be for a very limited number of situations?

The Minister also commented that the mayor will not be able to reject applications that have already been accepted. However, as I understand the provisions, the mayor would be able to impose a whole series of conditions on an application that had been given approval at the local level, which, in effect, could make that licence inoperable in any event. Could we have some assurance as to what additional conditions could be imposed, and that these would be fair and reasonable and would not be, in effect, an alternate route to a rejection for something that the local borough had already approved? I look forward to the Minister’s response.