English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the recipient of a small local government pension. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, which I welcome in so far as it sets us off on what will be a long road towards true devolution in England.

The aim of the Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall, which I strongly welcome. No Government can run England, with its population of 56 million, out of London, yet that is what Westminster and Whitehall try to do. The devolved nations get their block grant, and Ministers in Whitehall manage—indeed, micromanage—England.

However, despite its title, the Bill is not about devolution but decentralisation. Even then, the Bill creates a centralised structure through mayors, who, in practice, will be managed by Whitehall, and in particular by the Treasury, because mayors will be forced to compete against each other for resources. There is also a huge centralising power in mayors having the right to hire commissioners, as opposed to elected councillors, to drive policy and delivery. The terms of these appointments will need challenge in Committee.

Having said that, I want to work with the grain of the Bill, because it represents a start on which we can build. I see it as a staging post to direct elections to combined authorities in the course of time. Time will be needed anyway to build capacity at combined authority level to take on all the extra powers and responsibilities proposed.

I am content with the need for there to be a strategic planning tier, and I welcome local growth plans, but can the Minister confirm that all Whitehall departments are signed up to the Bill? Paragraph 15 of the Explanatory Notes confirms a long list of changes that will be delivered by the Bill, but these can be delivered only if all parts of Whitehall are committed to delivery of the Government’s ambition. Are they?

Will the Bill fix the foundations of local government, as Ministers suggest? I fear that it will not, for the reason that resources to do so are insufficient. We are told that mayors will be able to raise revenue, which is welcome, but in Committee we will need to explore what this really means. Fiscal policy is sadly lacking in the Bill; it is not just about the community infrastructure levy.

In terms of local growth, I hope that in Committee we can examine community banking. I want to see simplification of the regulatory requirements involved in establishing new banks to respond to local communities’ needs for access to banking in the face of branch closures. Such banks could be supported by local authorities in their duty to promote growth. There are many useful examples of success in this field in Germany and the USA that we can draw on.

I am pleased by the proposal to end the first past the post election system for mayors, but why stop there? Do we not need proportional representation across all local government in England to have effective governance?

I welcome the end to upwards-only rent review clauses for commercial leases to help regenerate our high streets, although I accept that we may need to review the detail of that carefully in Committee. I like the principle of micromobility schemes; I like the new health duty to be imposed on all strategic authorities; and I am strongly in favour of proposals for Local Government Pension Scheme funds to help drive growth.

I compliment the Minister and the Government on their proposals on local audit, which are hugely important. They matter because we cannot devolve power successfully if there is no audit system examining proposals and spending commitments alongside decision-making.

I have two negatives. First, I do not understand why culture, creativity and heritage are missing from the Bill. Secondly, it is wrong to enforce an end to the local government committee system. The Government claim:

“The committee system is a less effective form of governance for local authorities”.


I invite the Minister to publish the evidence for that assertion, because I have never seen any.

Finally, can the Minister say more about effective neighbourhood governance structures? It is easy to say but, as previous speakers have said, I fear that this ambition cannot be delivered given the current state of local authority budgets. Does the Minister really think it can?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, before I start, I wish a belated happy birthday for yesterday to the Minister. I hear it was a big one, and I hope she enjoyed it. Secondly, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils.

I am pleased to open the debate today on the first amendment on the first day in Committee on a set of important principles that should guide the remainder of our debate on the Bill. I must also say, with respect, that the Title of the Bill still promises rather more than its text delivers. It speaks of devolution and community empowerment, yet too often it reads as central direction dressed up as local choice. We can and we should do better than that.

Amendment 1 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson goes back to first principles: the purpose of this Act. It asks the Government to be clear in the Bill that we will champion consent over compulsion, secure sustainable council finances without unfunded mandates, protect social care with stronger local accountability, support local growth through devolved powers, and enable flexible, locally driven housebuilding and planning. These are not abstract aspirations. They are the everyday tests by which our residents judge whether devolution is real and beneficial to their lives.

Proper devolution is built, not imposed. It is negotiated, not mandated. It respects identity, geography and local choice. That has been a consistent theme in the debate on this Bill: concern that the centre would gain broad powers to redraw local structures, create strategic authorities, consolidate councils and impose mayors without clear and explicit local consent. That is not empowerment; it is compulsion. At Second Reading, many noble Lords raised precisely this point, and we did so again when the Government proposed to commit this Bill, a constitutional Bill, to Grand Committee without the agreement of the usual channels. Process matters because it reveals intent.

Our amendment therefore states plainly that the Bill’s first purpose should be to strengthen community empowerment by championing consent over compulsion. Noble Lords might think that that should be a given in a Bill called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but the detail of the Bill does not follow. It risks a power grab, enabling Ministers to force reorganisations and mayoralties on areas that have previously said no and even to postpone local elections to fit a central timetable. That is not how you build trust.

Local government cannot be rebuilt on financial quicksand. We all know how many councils have come to the brink. We have heard repeated warnings about local government reorganisations that promise continual savings but deliver costly transitions and do not make any of those savings into the future, and about new duties placed on councils, such as social care or regulation, but without the resources to meet them.

The second purpose listed in the amendment calls for a simple commitment: no unfunded mandates. If the Government wish to assign functions downwards, they should assign the means to discharge them as well; otherwise, we will set up local leaders to fail and then blame them for that failure. That is not partnership; it is abdication. Commons colleagues pressed this exact point at Second Reading and on Report: stop hoarding power in Whitehall while offloading pressures on to town halls. Put the principle of fiscal sustainability into law and plan reforms accordingly. If we do not do so, we risk even more tax rises through the back door.

Nowhere is the risk of failed devolution clearer than in adult and children’s social care. Every noble Lord who has served in local government, of whom there are many, understands the arithmetic, the demography, the demand and the duty. This does not change where local government is organised or reorganised. If we devolve responsibility with capacity, we will simply move waiting lists from one council to another and call it reform.

The amendment’s third principle seeks to

“protect vital social care services and enhance local accountability”

for outcomes, with transparent reporting to the people who depend on them. Reorganisation cannot become a distraction from stabilising the front line. We need to understand how this is going to work. Social care is perhaps the biggest responsibility of local government, yet the Bill does not even mention those words.

Growth is not ordained by Ministers; it is enabled by place and by leaders who know their patch and who can unlock a stalled site or knit together skills, transport and planning to make things happen. The Government’s own narrative for the Bill claims that it is the biggest transfer of power from Whitehall in a generation. If that is truly the case, the test is simple: will local leaders get the levers they need, or are we just creating authorities that must still ask for permission for every pilot, every power and every penny? Our amendment’s fourth principle states a purpose to

“support local growth through devolved powers and locally led decision-making”.

Finally, on housing, communities will support more houses when homes make sense: the right homes, in the right place, with the right infrastructure. That is achieved through locally driven planning that takes communities with it—not rigid national targets that ignore character, capacity or constraint. The Government speak about flexibility, but our amendment would require it. It would clarify that the Act’s intent is to

“enable flexible and locally driven housebuilding and planning to meet community needs”.

This is perfectly compatible with ambition, but it rejects the idea that Whitehall always knows best.

This purpose clause would not blow the Bill off course but set its course. It states exactly what Ministers say they want to achieve: empowerment, sustainability, accountability, growth and locally led planning. If the Government mean what they say about handing power back to local people, they should welcome having this in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare at the outset that I have been a vice-president of the Local Government Association for a number of years. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said many things with which I agree. We are in a position where we are seeing the cumulative impact of many years of underfunding—serious underfunding of both local government and problems such as adult social care, to which the noble Baroness referred—for which a proper policy has never ever been devised.

I want to be clear that we are in favour of strategic authorities that can drive growth. I am, however, bothered about the potential for upwards mission creep, on which the electorate have no direct say other than via the election of a mayor every few years. So I see this Bill not as a destination but as a staging post towards something that genuinely devolves power.

I went first to the overview of the Bill, given that this amendment seeks to define the Bill’s purpose. In the Explanatory Notes, the Government have indeed done that. I shall read it out, if I may. It is very short:

“The purpose of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall, by giving local leaders the tools to deliver growth, fixing the foundations of local government, and empowering communities”.


There is great potential in the Bill for delivering growth. However, I do not think that it fixes the foundations of local government or that it empowers communities. As we go through the Committee stage, I hope that this will become clearer.

In Amendment 1, the purpose of the Bill has been redefined by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. It has some things in it and other things are not in it. I hope that the Minister will try to explain in greater detail how the Bill does deliver devolution. There are two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I should tell the Committee that I am standing here because my noble friend is not able to do so. We hope that she will, in the next two or three weeks, be walking much better than she has been able to and will return to your Lordships’ House. I send our very best wishes to her and I hope on behalf of the whole Committee, as I am sure that that is shared by everybody.

In Amendment 95, my noble friend has explained what she thinks the Secretary of State’s statutory duty should be in terms of strategic authorities. Amendment 95 is very important, because it specifies that the role of local government is to be

“the primary democratic institution responsible for the leadership, coordination and long-term stewardship of local areas”.

We have to be clear, and I hope that the Minister will confirm, that that is what the Government think. Secondly, it says:

“Arrangements for strategic authorities must be framed so as to enable constituent local authorities to … pursue a long-term vision for the … development of their areas”.


We need to be clear that they

“exercise convening and coordinating functions in relation to public, private, voluntary and community sector bodies”

and that it is their job to

“integrate the provision of local services with wider economic, social and environmental outcomes”.

The conclusion in proposed new subsection (3) is that, in discharging this duty,

“the Secretary of State must not treat local authorities solely as administrative or delivery bodies for national policy”.

This is a fundamental problem. It is not clear to me from reading and rereading the Bill that that is actually the situation, so I look to the Minister to say that the Government indeed agree with that. We should bear in mind that it was the 2007 Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, under a Labour Government, that clarified that the role of local government was to provide

“democratic, place-based leadership and long-term stewardship of local areas, rather than acting solely as a delivery arm of central government”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group either, but my noble friend Lord Lansley raised some points. I need to declare a set of interests. I am a non-executive director of Norse Group, the part-owner of Porter and Verrells, a non-executive director of Elixr Earth and strategic adviser to Prodo. There is also Efficio and Peopletoo; I think that is it. They are all companies that will, if this legislation goes really well, probably find a way of doing something better. If this legislation goes badly, they will all probably suffer for it. So, one way or another, they will all be tied into this.

I had not realised, because I do not read the Bills like my noble friend Lord Lansley does, that the Government have not left a place in which they could add further powers to mayoral combined authorities as we prove the concept. At the moment, we know that the concept is different in different places. The team in Manchester is steaming away doing loads of brilliant stuff. Most of the other places are sitting further behind. We already have a landscape with different powers. If the Government do not find a way of putting that in after they reject my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, will they consider putting something like a power of general confidence in there for strategic authorities so that they can actually start doing things that are necessary for the areas that they look after, which will be different in different places?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I would like briefly to contribute in the hope that I can be helpful to the Minister at this point. There is a list of areas of competence in Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, told us that this was a probing amendment. By implication, I think that that means some thought can now go into the list of areas of competence.

I just want to add one new thing. I was a board member of a regional development agency, One North East, for a number of years. There is a difference between the list of areas of competence that we had and this list. Let me explain. We had a rural role and a role in culture and sport, particularly capital investment. We had a clear role in tourism and in energy. We had no role in public safety, health, well-being and public service reforms, or community engagement and empowerment, and we did not directly address issues of poverty, although we did indirectly by the nature of what the RDA was trying to do. I wonder if the Minister might take on board all that has been said and look at those areas of competence. I hope that they are not seen to be a final list. In my view, they are not a final list but a very good basis for discussion. I hope that the Government will be willing to do that before Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on the areas of competence and for what has been a useful and helpful discussion on the subject. Many of the amendments in the group seek to probe the list of mayoral competences and I understand why noble Lords would want to do that, but I want to be clear that the areas of competence are deliberately broad to enable a wide range of activities to fall within the scope of strategic authorities. They are intended as a framework that mayors can adapt as their local areas determine where they should place the emphasis.

Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to create a distinct area of competence of “community engagement and empowerment”. It is important that all tiers of local government work to deliver for their communities, as we all know. Strategic authorities, like any other tier of government, will be empowered to engage with those who live and work in their areas. Those already in place do so effectively.

Indeed, many existing combined and combined county authorities already use their powers to engage with their communities to ensure that their work meets local needs. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority has an established region-wide engagement platform, known as Your Voice, to strengthen dialogue with local communities. Through this initiative, alongside wider public engagement activity, the authority is gathering views to inform decisions on how its devolved funding is allocated.

The York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority has invested £1.9 million to support community building projects across the region. Funding has been given to buildings which play an important role for communities, such as the village halls in—I always hesitate to use the Yorkshire pronunciations, so forgive me if I get this wrong —Great Ouseburn and Kettlewell.

The areas of competence have been framed to enable a wide range of activity to fall within scope, including community engagement and empowerment. In this sense, it will be embedded within and throughout all the existing areas of competence. These competences are deliberately flexible. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about any power in the Bill, but we intend for it to be a framework; I will reflect on that point and come back to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, made a point about action and impact, as opposed to the broader framework. I refer him to the Pride in Place funding that does exactly as he was describing; it is £20 million of funding for each of 250 neighbourhoods. This is a long-term project, over 10 years, to make sure that each place is able to shape the things that are important to it. I refer the noble Lord to that important project, which shows how we are working with communities—not to them—to move forward the kinds of projects that he was talking about.

Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to create distinct areas of competence for

“reducing poverty and socio-economic inequality”,

and food security. She will not be surprised to hear that I share her objective of addressing poverty, socioeconomic inequality and food insecurity. The Government remain firmly committed to tackling these issues by addressing all the factors that underpin these challenges that we see in communities.

The areas of competence already enable strategic authorities to tackle poverty and socioeconomic inequality in a cross-cutting manner, via skills and employment support, economic development, investing in transport, tackling health inequalities and in many other ways. The same is true for food security. In Greater Manchester, the combined authority is taking concerted action to tackle food inequality and poverty through initiatives such as No Child Should Go Hungry, which has provided thousands of emergency food cards to residents. At a strategic level, mayors will take account of all the needs of their areas, and locally relevant information, such as the land use framework that colleagues in Defra are producing.

Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to add energy to the existing transport and local infrastructure area of competence. The noble Lord and I have spoken about this Government’s energy plans and I have written to him today. With his permission, in a moment, I will quote briefly from that letter because I think it would be helpful for noble Lords to have a bit more detail. On the role that we intend strategic authorities to play in this space, while I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s amendment, I do not believe at this stage it is necessary. As noble Lords will know, the themes of the areas of competence are, as I have said, deliberately broad in scope and include thematic policy areas such as local infrastructure and environment and climate change. Energy cuts across all these, as well as other areas of competence. Importantly, strategic authorities can, and will be able to, address their local communities’ energy needs through the areas of competence. Indeed, many are already doing so.

On future strategies, the Government are undertaking a number of pieces of work reviewing the benefits of local energy planning for meeting national goals, several of which will lay out our approach for local renewable energy. The forthcoming local power plan will be owned jointly by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. That will outline our shared vision for the local and community energy sector. We are continuing to develop the local power plan with Great British Energy and updates will be provided soon. Similarly, the warm homes plan will cover housing retrofit and heat network zoning and will be published shortly. There will be more details in that plan on heat network zoning. The secondary legislation, rather than this Bill, will provide the necessary framework to empower local authorities to act as heat network zone co-ordinators under the Energy Act 2023. That is just a bit more information on those areas. For example, the Liverpool City Region is working to establish Mersey Tidal Power, with the aim of delivering Europe’s largest tidal power project by 2030, capable of powering up to 1 million homes. In the west of England, the combined authority has implemented its local energy scheme, which is funding community-led renewable projects.

Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, seeks to add tourism to the existing economic development and regeneration areas of competence. The Bill already makes provision for strategic authorities to support the tourism industry. Clause 41 extends local powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors. Combined authorities and combined county authorities can use these powers to promote tourism and host events attracting visitors to boost local businesses such as hotels and shops. Many existing combined authorities and county authorities are already making use of these powers. For instance, the West Midlands Combined Authority is investing £120 million into an economy, trade and tourism programme, supporting over 250 businesses and 10 major sporting and cultural events. This example demonstrates that prescribing an extensive list of industries and sectors within the area of competence is not required. The areas of competence will empower mayors and strategic authorities to determine their own priorities in the application of their powers, and many are already doing so to address local issues such as tourism.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove transport and local infra- structure from the areas of competence for strategic authorities. I note from the noble Baroness’s explanatory statement that her intention in tabling this amendment is to probe how the power to borrow will work for mayoral strategic authorities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was probing this during his speech. All existing mayoral strategic authorities already have the power to borrow for all their functions, including transport. Clause 12 will confer the power to all future mayoral strategic authorities. Strategic authorities have full discretion over the exercise of borrowing powers and allocation of resources, subject to obtaining the requisite support from their constituent members via the budget voting process.

Like the rest of local government, strategic authorities must also operate within the prudential framework— I think all noble Lords here would expect that. This framework comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. It provides robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. In practice, this amendment would remove transport and local infrastructure from the areas of competence for strategic authorities. That is clearly contrary to the aims of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I have found that some of my views have changed slightly as I have listened to noble Lords. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, seeks to add rural affairs to the list of competences. Given the distinct challenges faced by rural communities, from connectivity to service provision and economic resilience, it is reasonable to ask whether the Bill adequately reflects the needs of communities.

While I was listening to the noble Baroness, I realised that I have concerns that in areas with large urban areas as well as rural areas, those urban areas could take out capacity and investment from the rural areas. When I go back into my history in local government, I remember the regional development agencies that did exactly that. I do not think that Wiltshire got a penny from the regional development agency; all of it went to Bristol and Bath. The Government should look at that to ensure that it does not happen now.

Amendments 52, 56 and 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, relate to the appointment of a commissioner for rural affairs. I thank her for her extensive knowledge of this issue. She is right that rural affairs need to be at the forefront of policy-making, especially in authorities that may be predominantly rural but could be a mixture. However, I harbour some reservations about requiring mayors to appoint commissioners with competence for rural affairs. I believe that rural affairs should be a priority for the mayors themselves—the unitary authorities that make up the commission will, I assume, be both rural and urban—rather than delegating this responsibility to one commissioner.

We should remember that competences are not the same as powers or capabilities. Moreover, allowing mayors to make these appointments may result in the appointment of yes-men for the mayors, rather than individuals who could provide independent, robust scrutiny on behalf of rural communities. While I fully appreciate the intent behind these amendments, I am yet to be convinced that mayoral appointments of rural affairs commissioners will be the right mechanism to ensure that rural voices are heard.

Amendment 128 is also from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon; I thank her for her continued commitment to rural issues. As I have said, it should be a fundamental priority for any authority covering rural areas to consider their particular needs, especially at a time when these communities are being required to absorb substantial housing targets and sprawling solar farms. They deserve a meaningful say if this Bill is really about community empowerment. As I have said, I have a real problem with the mixture of urban and rural, and the issue of the rural voice coming through.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raises the vital question of public and active transport provision in rural areas. Many of us who have been rural leaders over many years have struggled not just with providing that but with its cost and with making it the right type of transport for a particular area. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the need for infrastructure that is tailored to rural lifestyles and connectivity.

Since I am talking about connectivity, I will turn to another form: technology. When I go back to Norfolk, I can never get anything on my machine or any other machine. There is no IT and no phone connection whatever. Many of our rural areas are like that. There is a two-tier system in this country for technology, but that cannot go on.

Finally, Amendment 260, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, underscores that the impact of the Bill on rural areas has not yet been fully thought-through. That is the big issue for me. It is entirely reasonable to expect the Government to be transparent about the costs and benefits for rural communities. They have to go back to the drawing board to look at how we can ensure that our rural communities have equal access to the capacity, capabilities and finances that the mayoral authorities will have and that the new unitary councils will be able to use.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Bill can recognise and enshrine the needs of rural communities, which we have heard this evening. At the moment, rural communities are feeling a bit let down by the Government, and this is an absolutely key opportunity to change that.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. What she said was very important: the Government have to go back to the drawing board on the issue of rural areas. I can imagine an argument that says that it is implicit in all the areas of competence that all those people will take responsibility for rural areas. However, it is my view that that will not be sufficient. In an earlier group, I discussed how the regional development agencies had a role in rural development. It is very important that the Government go back in order to get this right.

I agree with the noble Baroness when she said that it may not be a commissioner who would do this. In my view, doing that requires the knowledge of a council leader from a rural council, because the relevant immediate knowledge is needed. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to ask whether the Government would go back to the drawing board. I hope that, by Report, the list of areas of competence for strategic authorities is revised, so that rural areas are seen to be protected and developed by the structure. Otherwise, there will be public opposition to the strategic authority, for the reasons that the noble Baroness identified in relation to Wiltshire. I have heard that in most RDAs the money goes to the urban areas. That happens—it has often been the case—because the immediate growth can be delivered in an area of high population, whereas the long-term growth in a rural area can be delivered by financial support at a lower pace.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for signing my amendment. When I spoke earlier this afternoon, I said that there was a need to ensure that we do not encourage upwards mission creep in this Bill. This amendment seeks to provide statutory help to prevent that happening and to deliver greater empowerment for local communities.

I accept at the outset that there is an inherent tension in devolution policy between scale and geography. Strategic authorities will be large and will have to cover large areas, yet community empowerment will be on a much smaller scale. I submit that the Government’s commitment to empowering local communities will need some statutory backing, so I propose that we embed the principle of subsidiarity in the Bill. I propose that we embed a legal duty of subsidiarity across the whole of devolved English local government, including town and parish councils.

Further, I suggest that we need to legislate to give local and combined authorities the legal powers that they need to devolve their own responsibilities further. They would also need a statutory duty to collaborate on and publish community empowerment plans setting out how they plan to fulfil their duty; local communities and local councils should have the right to challenge both the content and implementation of these plans.

My amendment says:

“A strategic authority may devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds”.


This may sound quite revolutionary to some but, actually, it is at the heart of devolving power and this Bill is about devolution.

Secondly, the amendment says that the strategic authority must act in a way to enable such devolution to take place. Each local authority in a strategic authority area would, in turn, have to

“consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and … where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution”.

I then propose:

“Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how the strategic authority and its member local authorities intend to carry out their duties under”


the community empowerment plan. I also propose that that plan

“must set out how the strategic authority and local authorities … will consult … on the exercise of those powers which are not devolved to lower-tier bodies”.

Further, my amendment states:

“A strategic authority must review a Community Empowerment Plan at least once during the period of four years beginning with the day on which the Plan is published… In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or other body to which it has devolved powers”.


Then there is the issue of what the regulations should contain to ensure that this measure works well, but I hope the Minister understands that there is a major issue of principle here in terms of devolution. If this Bill is truly about devolution, as the Minister told us earlier today it was, in what way are we going to make sure that strategic authorities do not suck powers upwards but, rather, pass down powers to local authorities, which will, in turn, devolve powers to town and parish councils?

I hope the Minister will be open to thinking about how this must be done. There are so many statements in the Bill and Explanatory Notes about the importance of community empowerment, yet I do not see the means of that actually being delivered in the Bill, hence my proposal on how this might be done. It also requires that the Government just have to make sure that it happens. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have set out clearly in the Bill—with the competences, for example—where we see strategic responsibilities lying and where local council leaders will be responsible for the services they deliver. As we go through the local government reorganisation process, we will have unitary authorities across the country delivering those services. What we do not want to do is muddy the waters by saying that there will be some areas that have different strategic powers from others. That is why we have set out the competences in the Bill.

It is not about what you deliver at local level because the strategic competences allow that to be flexible across different geographies and demographics. It is about ensuring that the strategic level is delivered by the combined authority and local services are delivered by the local authority. I do not think it would be helpful to muddy those waters by having the picture be different across the country.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister asked whether I was satisfied by her responses; I am actually more worried now than when I started. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just said.

I will give an example of where the Government are heading for great difficulty. Let us take the area of competence for transport and local infrastructure. “Local” is not defined—I think my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will come back on the issue of definition at a later stage. I understand that strategic transport and major capital infrastructure, such as on a new railway line, is a strategic matter for a strategic authority, but I hope that transport and local infrastructure does not mean that every traffic-calming scheme in every residential road of a local authority has to be signed off by the mayor. I am keen for the Minister to be clear about what these terms mean because the Bill is not clear.

I jokingly referred to the powers I am proposing being revolutionary. They are very different, but they are an attempt to get everyone to understand that if you have a devolution Bill and think it is about devolution, it has to be devolution from the strategic authority where the mayor and the authority think their powers could go to local government. That debate has to be had. It is not, as the Minister said, about ending up with a patchwork of powers. Of course there will be differences in local areas. That is a positive, not a negative thing. Let us not call it a “patchwork” because that means that Whitehall and Ministers want to run 56 million people in England. In the end, having a standard system that everybody must fit into will not work. It will be a cause of great difficulty.

I am encouraged by some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said—that there are correct things in it, there are principles and it is well intended. The test of successful devolution is a willingness to devolve power from yourself rather than demanding it to yourself. The test is for the strategic authority to say, “We think the powers we have in this area could well be carried out by a local authority, so let’s talk about it”, and say to the local authority, “You in turn must decide whether you need to undertake these powers directly or can devolve them to others, including town and parish councils”. I do not believe that the Government will ever succeed with community empowerment plans unless they empower communities. This Bill is not doing that.

Paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill says:

“The Bill will introduce a requirement on all local authorities in England to establish effective neighbourhood governance, to move decision making closer to residents, empowering ward councillors to address the issues most important to their communities at a local level”.


What it does not say is that that would not include the planning process or a whole set of services that local people might want to have some say in. The Government cannot make statements like that without then delivering the means to increase community empowerment. I will not give up on my Amendment 13. True devolutionists must follow their desire to give power to others to use in a country of 56 million people. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 21 and 24. My noble friends on the Front Bench have pretty much all the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is a pity that she cannot be here, but I join in sending her our very best wishes and look forward to her return to the Committee.

Amendments 21 and 24 are in the same area of where proposals can be brought forward for the establishment of new combined authorities. Before I go on, I could have tabled—I neglected to table—two further amendments about county combined authorities in exactly the same terms as Amendments 21 and 24, which relate to combined authorities. Therefore, perhaps the arguments I am making on combined authorities can be taken as read-across.

The purpose of my Amendments 21 and 24 is to challenge the process by which the Secretary of State would make a decision on a proposal for a combined authority or a combined county authority that is brought forward by the constituent councils in an area. As things stand under the existing legislation, which was set up in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but, for the purposes of combined authorities, is in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009—LuRA 2023 has the same for combined county authorities—the way it works is that those proposals come forward for an area and are subjected to tests.

I am interested, in terms of how the tests are currently applied, in whether they are likely to improve

“the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people of the area”.

Additionally, I suggest that the proposal should be required to include the purposes that are intended to be achieved by the establishment of this combined authority or combined county authority. The Secretary of State would have to look at and assess—these are the tests—whether those improvements in economic, social and environmental well-being as well as the purposes included in the proposal are likely to be met.

To me, these are two elements of the test of whether a proposal coming forward from an area should be accepted. The first is an objective test: will it improve the well-being in the area in various ways? The second is more subjective but none the less purposive: the people in this area and the constituent councils have said why they want to have this authority, so the Secretary of State should look at those purposes and say whether they are likely to be met. In this Bill, the question put to a relevant proposal—what purposes are you trying to achieve?—is simply swept away. There is no requirement for such a proposal to have those purposes any more.

Amendment 21 would remove the requirement to have purposes so that they cannot form part of a subsequent test. The test that is to be applied would no longer be the test of economic, social or environmental well-being, which is an objective test related to the benefit to the people living in that area, and would be replaced by a statutory test: is it appropriate to make the order in relation to the area, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence? In those words, “convenient” leaps out in particular. It makes one think that what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was just saying about the desirability of having conformity is what is actually driving these decisions now, rather than, “What is going to happen to benefit the people who live in this area?”, which should be the objective test.

That question did not escape the notice of the Lords Constitution Committee. In its 16th report, published on 13 January, it stated:

“We draw this provision to the attention of the House. It should satisfy itself that it is content to grant the Secretary of State this power within Schedule 1 to subject the new arrangements for a combined authority to such a broad and potentially subjective test”.


Of course, in the text at which the committee looked, what the committee means by “broad and potentially subjective” is, by implication, a bureaucratic test—“Is it convenient for us to have a combined authority?”—whereas what we have at the moment, which is what the committee is referring to, is, in essence, a test of the benefit. It is intended to be able to be determined more objectively, and it is certainly more relevant to the people who live in an area whether a combined authority is or is not in their interests.

When we go on with this Bill, I hope that the Government will in each of these respects think whether the statutory test should have perhaps both the bureaucratic element of whether it is convenient and the objective element of whether it can demonstrate that it will bring benefit to the people who live in this area.

My noble friends have two amendments in this group, Amendments 22 and 36, the purpose of which, as far as I can see, is to remove the power for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of combined authorities and county combined authorities. It seems to me that although the Minister said this is an exceptional power, there is a risk that once this power is available—again, because it will be convenient to do so—we will be instructed to have combined authorities according to the Secretary of State’s proposals rather than the ones brought forward from within the area itself.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy with the amendments spoken to so far, so I will not repeat what has been said. Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock relates to whether the Secretary of State determines local boundaries and whether decisions on local authority boundaries within a combined authority area are a matter for central or local government. In the spirit of this Bill, which is about devolution, I can see no reason why central government has to be involved. It ought to be a matter for local councils to decide on. Perhaps the Minister might explain why my noble friend Lady Pinnock has got this wrong; it seems to me that she has got this right.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There were a lot of amendments in this group, but we whipped through it very quickly, so I thank noble Lords. The amendments in the group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek collectively to remove the Secretary of State’s new powers to direct the creation or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor. The Government have been clear that devolution can deliver growth, unlock investment and deliver the change the public want to see, led by local leaders who know their areas best. That is why we want to see more parts of England benefit from devolution.

As I have said, I have been involved in local government for a very long time. We have tinkered around with this issue for a very long time indeed, and it is time we provided some certainty and stability. Our engagement to date with councils across England has demonstrated the appetite for devolution within local government. I have spoken to many of them and visited many areas that do not currently have those devolution arrangements.

Devolution, of course, should be locally led wherever possible, and the Government remain committed to working in partnership with local government to deliver that vision. At the same time, we have been clear that we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas accessing devolution—that would be very difficult for those areas—or risk creating devolution islands. The backstop mechanism in the Bill will allow the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how to access devolved powers. That will ensure that all of England can benefit from devolution and nowhere is left behind.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and speak to these amendments to Clause 6. The clause relates to decision-making in combined county authorities and combined authorities and its purpose is to provide for a default structure of voting in both kinds of strategic authorities. In particular, that default structure would provide that in mayoral authorities the majority in favour of a decision must include the mayor, thus in effect giving the mayor a veto over decisions, since the majority excluding the mayor would not be decisive.

Before I turn to my amendments, and apropos of the question of whether the clause stands part, I will ask a question. I refer noble Lords and the Minister to Section 13(2)(a) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. The section enables regulations to be made about members, and Section 13(2)(a) states that those regulations can include provision about

“cases in which a decision of a CCA requires a majority, or a particular kind of majority, of the votes of members of a particular kind”.

It seems to me that that paragraph of the levelling-up Act enables exactly what the Minister is setting out to do by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation. Could she tell us why primary legislation is required to achieve this purpose? That might inform our deliberations on the stand part debate.

Amendments 42 and 44 are in my name. I do not share my noble friend’s desire, set out in her Amendments 41 and 43, to take out the mayoral veto from the clause. I have been a resident in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority for however many years. When we had a mayor, the mayor found it very difficult to secure, for example, a non-statutory spatial strategy, not least because the mayor was often frustrated in getting a policy through due to the votes of one of the strategic authority’s constituent councils. In my view, if you elect a mayor and you want a mayor to exercise leadership in a strategic authority, it does not follow that the mayor will necessarily be able to get everything that the mayor wants, and the mayor will have to secure a majority to do so. It is very difficult for the mayor to carry on and provide that leadership if there is a majority that can carry proposals against his or her own policy.

This therefore forces the mayor to act in a certain way. I have seen that in Cambridgeshire, where the current mayor, Paul Bristow, is doing a very good job; he will be known to some of my noble friends. Partly because of this legislation, he is securing a majority in the combined authority, not least because there is an expectation that the strategic authority, when it gets these powers, will be able to make progress with the majority that includes him, and so he will not be able to be blocked by one constituent council.

I turn my focus to my Amendments 42 and 44. The former relates to combined county authorities. In this Committee, I am afraid that we are getting used to the fact that we have to do everything twice, because we have to legislate both for combined county authorities and for combined authorities; it will get a lot simpler when we have just one kind of strategic authority and when legislation for all strategic authorities is pretty much the same. Nevertheless, combined county authorities are governed by Section 10 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which enables the Secretary of State to set out their constitutional arrangements. Section 10(2)(b) includes

“the voting powers of members of the CCA (including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.

That is the existing legislation: it provides for different weights to be allocated to different members. The current situation is that the constitution of a combined county authority is not a “one member, one vote” arrangement—it can vary.

Clause 6 will insert new Section 13A into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It says that

“each voting member has one vote”.

So, what I am really asking by way of these two amendments—in this instance, for combined county authorities—is: does the primary legislation we are discussing now override, in effect, the existing potential for regulations to determine a different weight for different members for different decisions; or, because of this primary legislation, does it have to be “one member, one vote”?

There is a problem there. That problem was illustrated to me when we had a meeting just a few weeks back—my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook will recall it—about Suffolk. It was about unitaries, as it happened, but it also encompassed a discussion about the prospective Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority, which is in the devolution priority programme. The leader of Suffolk County Council was asked, “Suffolk is a single unitary and Norfolk is three, maybe even four, unitaries. What happens if they come together into one strategic authority?”

The problem is easily illustrated: one constituent council and one vote equals perhaps three votes for Norfolk and one vote for Suffolk. The leader of Suffolk County Council said, “That’s not a problem because we’ll weight the votes”. This is exactly what one would do using existing legislation, but I am worried that the structure of the Bill’s drafting will take that discretion away. That is the purpose of my Amendment 42.

My Amendment 44 relates to combined authorities, not combined county authorities, but it runs to the exact same issue. Of course, combined authorities are governed not by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, Section 104 of which provides that the constitutional arrangements for combined authorities may, by order, be made according to the provisions of the Local Transport Act 2008. Section 84 of that latter Act relates to constitutional arrangements; subsection (2)(b) refers to

“the voting powers of members of the ITA”—

the integrated transport authority—

“(including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.

The Committee will recognise those exact same words, so we are dealing with exactly the same issue: is it different weights for different members, or is it to be overridden by “one member, one vote”?

I want, as the outcome of this debate, for us to be sure that this legislation continues to permit a constitution for a strategic authority that both allocates different weights to different members and enables voting power to reflect the wide range of circumstances of constituent councils and other voting members of strategic authorities.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief because it would be better if the Minister responded to the important points that have been made.

I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but I want to say two things that will, I think, help in this situation. First, we must get clarity about which powers are only for the mayor and which are to be shared with the combined authority; it is important that that be made clear. Secondly, on voting in the combined authority, there is at times a requirement for a two-thirds majority and, at other times, a requirement for a simple majority. We need to be absolutely clear why those differences apply.

With that, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 46, particularly the reference to the land use framework. The point about the land use framework is that it is not a dictatorial thing; it is not saying, “Thou must do this or that” or “Thou must grow that”, or whatever it might be. It is definitely a framework, but on the other hand there is no point in having a framework unless it is part of the thinking from the top to the bottom of government—central government to regional government to local authority and everything in between.

I should also say that a land use framework is not necessarily a fixed event. It is not going to be cast in stone for ever and it should be open to review from time to time. I would have thought that three years would be the right sort of time. However, it needs to change according to events, including world events. Do we need more homegrown food production as a result of current world politics? Does the latest research tell us that our biodiversity is still receding, running away from us? Does the international situation indicate that we need more homegrown green power or more homegrown timber? That is important. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I have just come from a meeting where it was indicated that the Government’s long-term housebuilding programme could very much depend on our ability to produce the relevant timber products needed. What would be the point of a land use framework if regional and local government just continue to do their own thing regardless? Therefore, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is crucial to the efficient management of that very scarce UK commodity—namely, our land.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that it would be unhelpful if regional and local government continued doing their own thing. I think that this is an important debate and I look forward to the Minister’s reply, but the Government might look at the powers that existed with regional development agencies until 2012, in terms of spatial development strategies and the land use framework, when a lot was done. They might revisit that to make sure that everyone going off to do their own thing—the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—is avoided.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his amendments. I think that there has been consensus among noble Lords contributing on this group that this is something that should be explored and looked at further. Amendment 45 rightly links local growth plans to spatial development strategies, ensuring that they are not formed in isolation and do not contradict each other. When a local growth plan is drafted, it should take account of the implications for spatial development. We welcome this amendment and support a more integrated and coherent approach.

However, we also believe that these plans must be informed by neighbourhood plans as well as neighbourhood priority statements, which have yet to be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies take into account national environmental improvement plans and the land use framework. This will help local government at least to have regard to the national Government’s environmental targets and to be aware of the environmental solutions proposed. As for the land use framework, we are still waiting for it to be published. Can the Minister confirm the timeline? As others have asked, will it be imminent?

Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 address the need for spatial development strategies to be aligned with infrastructure projects to identify any that are needed for growth. Again, these should be important considerations to ensure that new developments are supported with the necessary infrastructure rather than treating the two in isolation. As we said in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill debates, the consequences for development of the failure to deliver infrastructure should also be clear.

We agree with the principle behind all these amendments. It is important that combined authorities’ and councils’ various strategies are joined up, co-ordinated and coherent to ensure not only good governance and efficiency across local government but, more importantly, high-quality development. I thank my noble friend for his efforts and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, during this period of major reforms, mayors need the flexibility and trust given to them from the Government to put the right arrangements in place for their own region. If direction of travel is towards mergers to fewer forces, the Government should surely be willing to give mayors flexibility and to appoint a single deputy mayor for more than one of their current police force areas.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting set of amendments so far, but what strikes me about them is that they all seem to run counter to the principle of election—be that either direct or indirect election—and we need to be very careful about that.

I have given notice to oppose that Clause 9 stands part of the Bill for two reasons. First, elections are important for public posts that require the expenditure of large sums of public money. I believe that most of those positions should be elected. Secondly, there is a huge absence of detail in the proposal within new paragraph 9 in Schedule 3 for the appointment and scrutiny of commissioners.

The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 74 states that commissioners will be,

“independent appointees, made by and accountable to the mayor”.

I have difficulty understanding quite how they will be independent if they are made by and accountable to the mayor and function, as the Explanatory Notes explain in the same paragraph, as “extensions of the mayor”. Can the Minister say in what way they are independent and why “independent” does not appear in this paragraph? The Explanatory Notes then state:

“Commissioners would not replace elected members”—


and there has already been a debate about that as part of this group, but they then say that areas—whatever an area is defined as—will,

“have the freedom to use a combination of commissioners and elected members to lead on different areas depending on what works best for them”.

Will the Minister say who makes the decision about whether elected members have the capacity to lead an area of competence, whether that decision made by the mayor alone and will the appointment of commissioners be public appointments, subject to the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the posts will be advertised and subject to equal opportunities legislation. Will there be an agreed job description and a person specification? Will there be competitive interviews or is it all a matter, in practice, for mayoral patronage? Will councillors of constituent councils be able to scrutinise the full-time commissioners—for they are full-time appointments—that the mayor may decide to appoint?

Schedule 3 states that:

“The mayor must determine the terms and conditions of a person’s appointment as a commissioner”.


Can the Minister tell us what scrutiny is planned about what those terms and conditions actually are?

We should just note that the appointment of a commissioner will end when the mayor’s term of office comes to an end. That means that a mayor who decides to resign will cause all the commissioners they have appointed to lose their jobs, which are, as it says in the Explanatory Notes, full-time jobs. It seems that the clear implication of the wording of the Bill is that if a mayor was to quit the post, all those appointed by the mayor would have to leave. I seek the Minister’s clarification of that point, for that is my reading of Clause 9 and Schedule 3.

I have noted that commissioners cannot approve local growth plans, local transport plans or spatial development strategy, but they are writing them, planning them and will be advising the mayor on them. I understand the formality of a decision to approve a plan, but what the plan is and how it has got there will clearly be heavily dependent upon the commissioner.

I understand that:

“The mayor must obtain the consent of the CCA to any arrangement for a commissioner to exercise a function”,


but does that extend to the appointments process itself? I wonder why there is no discussion by the Government of using the professional expertise of local government officers. So, not only are the Government dispensing with the ballot box in terms of any form of direct election to strategic authorities, but they are simply leaving an election of a mayor, following which we simply have a world of appointments. I am very concerned about what that means. I ask myself, “Whatever happened to the primacy of the ballot box?” because commissioners will not be elected, so voters will have no say in their appointment because the electorate will elect a only mayor and will have no role after that. Indeed, unlike with a Member of Parliament, the electorate will have no power of recall of a mayor.

We then have Amendment 196A in this group on special advisers. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about them, but I have not understood the difference between a full-time commissioner and a special adviser. The noble Lord talked about a special adviser having professional expertise. I understand that professional advice is needed—of course it is—but I have not understood what is wrong with professional local government officers, with their expertise in the areas that might, at the moment, be proposed for a commissioner.

There are a lot of very important questions for the Minister to answer. The level of expenditure has been mentioned twice so far this afternoon, and the consequent level of the precept, which might then be high. We must be really careful about this and not duplicate. I remember, because I was around when metropolitan counties were abolished and we moved to joint boards, that the expertise in each of the areas of concern we have proposed was held by an individual local authority that had a lot of officers dealing with that specific policy area on behalf of everybody else. The joint boards had councillors; I was privileged to serve as a councillor on a number of those joint boards at different times.

I just do not think that the Government have gone far enough in examining how to deliver some of their proposals on, say, local transport, which used to function in Tyne and Wear with a joint board. What exactly is the problem with that? As I said last week, I fear that we have upwards mission drift in this Bill, taking powers away from established local government. I believe that to be true, but I also think that we are in danger of reinventing processes that have previously worked pretty well. I do not think that Clause 9 and Schedule 3 can stand here without us challenging what the Government intend to do because there is already a demand in this group for us to have yet more commissioners.

I am, by the way, in favour of culture’s status being raised—it is absolutely correct to do that—but I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that every area of concern should have a commissioner. Indeed, that is not the Minister’s proposal. The Government are not proposing that that should happen because there will be a mixture of commissioners, with the elected leaders of the councils of the combined authority and the strategic authority.

I shall stop there, but I hope that the Minister can allay some of my concerns around the failure of the Bill to have anything worth reading in it and with nearly everything that is going to happen next coming in the form of guidance. As I said last week, I would be happier if I knew a little more about what the Government are thinking in terms of guidance.

With that, I shall respond at some point when we come to the right moment, but I very much hope that the Minister will take on board some of my comments.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I agree very much with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just said. I have been unhappy with much of Clause 9 since I first read it, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friends have to say about it, because they have also added their names to the intention from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to oppose the Question that the clause stands part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

For the overview and scrutiny committee, I believe it is a simple majority vote, but I will clarify that in writing for the noble Lord.

We expect that commissioners will have detailed knowledge and expertise in their assigned area of competence and will be appointed on this basis. Constituent members will not necessarily be experienced in their portfolio subject area. There are also circumstances where it would not be appropriate for a portfolio lead to represent both the borough and the region; there may be perceived conflicts of interest. As I said earlier, the local authority leaders who sit on the combined authority will also be running their councils on a day-to-day basis.

Commissioners will be able to represent the mayor’s authority and policy positions in a given area, including by speaking to the media. They could help make day-to-day decisions that are delegated by a mayor and provide strategic insight and advice for their area of expertise. We also expect commissioners to play a leading role in stakeholder engagement and partnership working, across geographies and organisations, as appropriate. This would include working closely with local councillors, business leaders and public sector institutions, using their advocacy and influence to deliver the mayor’s agenda.

I hope that that has helped clarify some of the points raised by noble Lords and that, with the assurances I have given, they will not press their amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

If there are any matters raised by me or other noble Lords that the Minister did not cover, could she send a letter to cover them? I do not think I heard confirmation about the Nolan principles, for example. If there is anything else, I hope that officials might draft something for her to send.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I did confirm that the commissioners will be subject to the Nolan principles. I will go back over Hansard—I always do after these debates—and if I have missed anything, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 53 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. This amendment is about how you scrutinise mayoral commissioners. I noted what the Minister said in responding to the previous group about the mayor or combined authority members being responsible for scrutinising commissioners, yet that removes any responsibility on the constituent authorities to undertake scrutiny. It is doubly important that elected members of the constituent local authorities have some powers in scrutinising the work of a commissioner. They will need powers to do that—to require the mayor and relevant commissioner or indeed any member of their staff to attend and give evidence—so it can be a requirement to attend rather than a request to attend, and there should be an ability to require the production of any documents relevant to the exercise of a commissioner’s function.

There should then be a right to publish reports on the committee’s findings and recommendations, with an absolute power to do so; it would not be for the combined authority or the mayor to say that this matter cannot be published. It is really a fundamental matter about who is in a position to scrutinise what mayors do.

Can I make just two points about scrutiny, which will come up later in our deliberations? The best form of scrutiny is one that happens before the decision is made, not one that comments on a decision after it has been made. The best way in which to deliver that objective is through a committee system, because a committee system actually authorises decisions to be made and has the major advantage that the scrutiny is happening at the same time as a decision is made.

I have found it very disappointing in the Bill that quite so much is being said about the committee system and its perceived failures, most of which I do not recognise. It may be that when we get to further discussions in Committee and then on Report, further consideration can be given to those matters. I hope the Minister will be able to say that the Government do not downplay the importance of scrutiny, particularly when so many issues and so much public money is involved in the proposals to devolve power to mayors and commissioners. I beg to move.

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 191, and, in doing so, declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The amendment would provide for the establishment in every local area of a local public accounts committee to ensure the effective scrutiny and accountability across the whole range of public service spending and activity in that area, not just the actions of the strategic authority or the mayor. So why is an amendment like this necessary?

During the past 40 years we have seen in this country a radical fragmentation of our public services with the establishment of a myriad disconnected, sometimes single-purpose agencies. Sadly, these have too often worked in isolation, seeking to achieve their own specific targets energetically, but on occasions their efforts have conflicted or overlapped with their partners. They have too often worked in silos and, sadly, regulators have been very slow to recognise and challenge that. As a result, the public often struggle to access or even make sense of the disjointed services which this system has produced. In addition, resources are wasted because of the overlap and duplication, bureaucracy thrives, and there is inevitably a culture of competition rather than collaboration. This needs to change, but I do not believe that, as drafted, the Bill alone will achieve that level of change. If we are adequately to integrate public services in a locality, all public service providers and partners have to build co-operation into everything they do.

A later amendment in my name seeks to impose a duty on all local public partners to do just that. But alongside that kind of duty we also need to put in place local accountability—and not always accountability to the centre, which has been the model we have followed for so long. We need more local accountability to ensure that genuine co-operation does take place, so that services are delivered which are actually recognisable to ordinary local people and which meet their needs effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments relating to accountability and scrutiny, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is recovering.

Starting with Amendment 191, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, there is already an existing system of scrutiny that provides accountability to the public and local checks and balances and accountability to government, including a requirement for combined authorities and combined county authorities to establish an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. In addition, the English devolution accountability framework and the scrutiny protocol set out the processes and principles that mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow. Both documents are being reviewed to reflect the changes introduced through the integrated settlement and through this Bill. Where the most established mayoral strategic authorities benefit from integrated settlement, assurance is provided via an outcomes framework which interacts with the wider government system of accountability.

However, we recognise that there is scope to strengthen further the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities. That is why the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to exploring a local public accounts committee model. Listening to the noble Lord made me reflect on some work that I did in 2015 with Sir Richard Leese, who was then the leader of Manchester City Council, and Jules Pipe, who was then mayor of Hackney. That work was focused on devolution and turning the dial from acute responses to prevention.

We recommended that if there was more widespread devolution, there was a need to think about local public accounts committees. Although that feels like six months ago, it was 10 years ago. Maybe every idea has its time. Therefore, I accept the principle behind this amendment and assure the noble Lord that we intend to hold mayoral strategic authorities to a very high standard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was reflecting on the scrutiny of integrated settlements, for example, and allowing those who have the local knowledge of how things are working is crucial. When we were thinking about the possibility of a local public accounts committee, we saw it as being as powerful as the Public Accounts Committee here, being able to call witnesses from various bodies that are impacted on by the services and projects that are being delivered so that it can gain a much fuller picture of what is going on. This is a very different type of scrutiny—fundamentally different, as the noble Baroness said, to audit, which is a financial function. It is really important that we consider this fully. However, I ask that the Government are given time to complete the engagement that we need to do with the sector to design such a new approach, because it is important that we talk to the sector about this.

I hear the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made about the scrutiny of all levels of local government. He is of course right that both budgets and precept levels in town and parish councils are not insignificant in many areas, so we have to think about that. It is essential that any new accountability and scrutiny regime complements the existing system and the reformed audit framework in the future. Above all, it must be proportionate and supported by clear guidance and support for the sector, to make sure that we get these reforms right. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move his amendment.

Amendment 196B relates to local accounting officers. I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for this proposed new clause that would require established mayoral strategic authorities to create local accounting officers. His amendment would designate the head of paid service as the accountable officer responsible for local spending, value for money and scrutiny. Although I agree with the importance of strong accountability and value for money, all mayoral strategic authorities already operate within an existing system of accountability, and that accountability is split between the “golden triangle” of statutory officers: the chief executive, chief finance officer and monitoring officer. These officers are accountable to their board and required to comply with the best value duty.

Strengthened systems are already in place for areas that have integrated settlements. This includes the mayoral strategic authority chief executive being responsible for core accountability processes within their authority, including responsibility for local outcome delivery and value for money. However, we are continuing to explore the local accounting officer model. We recognise that accountability to Parliament for the use of taxpayer money, which the accounting officer system provides, is a fundamental principle and not something to be altered lightly.

As part of our work on testing a strengthened accounting officer model, the Government are engaging with mayoral strategic authorities and other government departments. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of that work with a primary legislative change to introduce local accounting officers at this point. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will feel able not to move his amendment.

On Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this proposed new clause would place a duty on the mayor of a combined county authority to establish a separate scrutiny committee for each commissioner they have appointed. As I have set out, mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow the existing principles and processes described in the English devolution framework. This includes requirements that all combined authorities, and combined county authorities, must establish an overview and scrutiny committee, which provides local checks and balances. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a very important issue about being able to undertake pre-scrutiny. Overview and scrutiny committees are very capable of putting in place pre-decision scrutiny if they wish to do so. Some local authorities have that already, so it is not prohibited.

Further, the Bill ensures that the overview and scrutiny committee will have the power to recommend termination of a commissioner’s appointment. I can respond properly now to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the voting majority. To correct what I said earlier, a two-thirds majority of non-mayoral members of the combined authority or the combined county authority is required to accept the recommendation. Commissioners are also accountable to the mayor, who can terminate their appointment.

As Clause 9 allows for the appointment of up to seven commissioners, this amendment would risk institutions having to establish as many as seven scrutiny committees in addition to the existing overview and scrutiny committee that is already accountable. This would create significant additional labour and cost pressures for combined county authorities. There is a technical difficulty in that it would also apply a lopsided accountability system, as the amendment makes no reference to these seven committees applying to combined, as opposed to combined county, authorities. While we recognise that there is scope further to strengthen the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities, we believe that this amendment would create unnecessary pressures on the existing system, and I therefore ask that it is not moved.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for a comprehensive reply to a comprehensive set of issues. It gives us pause for thought. I am glad that the Minister recognises the importance of pre-scrutiny. That is a fundamental issue, so if it can be better built into the Bill before it becomes an Act, that will be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 62 would require the publication of the commissioners’ allowances online. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government consider it unnecessary to include a clear requirement in the Bill for these allowances to be published. Is that not the bare minimum for transparency? Surely the Government are not going to suggest that there are material costs associated with this since senior council officers’ salary bands are already published, as are councillors’ allowances. Proactive publication in this area strikes me as a sensible and proportionate safeguard —one that would strengthen, rather than undermine, the credibility of the commissioner’s role. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have just one thing to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said. Last week, I mentioned the importance of guidance being published in advance of Report; it is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the Bill, given that so much is missing from it. I therefore repeat my support for the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that it would help us to have a better understanding of some of the detail that the Government are going to put into guidance before we get to the point of debating and voting on it on Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to providing allowances for combined county authority members with special responsibilities.

Amendments 62 and 236 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to issue guidance before Clause 10 comes into effect, and would require a combined county authority to publish an annual report on its webpage outlining the allowances that have been paid to members with special responsibilities. I welcome the commitment from the noble Baroness to ensuring transparency in local government—a matter of paramount importance to this Government.

As a former council leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will know, as I do, that allowances probably attract more debate and discussion, from both Members and the public, than much of the other policy that we debate. That is why we will issue statutory guidance on complying with the duty under Clause 10 to produce and publish reports. The guidance will allow the Secretary of State to set clear expectations—for example, regarding the frequency of such reports and where they are published—to support combined authorities and combined county authorities in this area. In the event that further clarification is needed, the power to issue guidance provides flexibility for the Government to update their position.

I would also add that, because this amendment applies to combined county authorities only, it would create a divergence in law between the requirements imposed on them versus combined authorities. That would be inconsistent; it would not be right to treat the two types of authority differently on that basis. My understanding is that this statutory guidance will be published on Royal Assent. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the Clause 12 stand part notice, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is intended to probe. We recognise that mayors and mayoral combined authorities will, in practice, need the ability to borrow to deliver infrastructure, regeneration and long-term investment. Borrowing can be a sensible and necessary tool. Our purpose today is not to deny that reality but to seek clarity from the Government about how this power will operate in practice and what safeguards will accompany it.

We would welcome further detail from the Minister on a number of points. First, what caps or controls do the Government envisage on mayoral borrowing? Will these mirror existing prudential borrowing frameworks for local authorities, or will a different regime apply? Secondly, what is the Government’s expectation of the purposes for which this borrowing will be undertaken? Are there limits envisaged on the types of projects or expenditure that may be funded through borrowing? Thirdly, who ultimately underwrites this borrowing? In the event of financial difficulty, where does the liability sit? Does it sit with the combined authority itself, with constituent councils or perhaps with central government?

Finally, what checks will be in place to ensure that borrowing decisions are subject to appropriate scrutiny and transparency, locally and nationally? Devolution must go hand-in-hand with accountability. Granting borrowing powers without clear safeguards risks storing up problems for the future—for local taxpayers and potentially for the Exchequer. I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance on these important points. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising some very crucial issues on the levels of borrowing powers. I add to that my concern—made even more so by the fact that constituent councils will not be able to scrutinise the work of the mayor or commissioners.

In that situation, I hope the Government will not be anticipating that local councils will then be responsible for any overspending by mayors and the combined authorities because, otherwise, there will be a demand on the council tax payer. So can the Minister confirm that overspends caused by poor-quality work by mayoral authorities will not end up with the council tax payer having to bail them out?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Clause 12 stand part notice, ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

All existing mayoral combined and combined county authorities have the power to borrow for all their functions. Unlike local authorities, the current process requires making a bespoke statutory instrument after an institution has been established. This process is highly inefficient. The Bill streamlines the process by giving the power to borrow to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities for purposes relevant to their functions. The power to borrow is still subject to safeguards. Clause 12 requires authorities to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before they exercise the power for the first time in respect of functions other than transport, policing, and fire and rescue.

I will cover some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about. First, in relation to agreeing a debt cap, in general the exercise of power will remain subject to consent from the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, before it can be used for the first time, as I said. That would follow any internal processes, such as a debt cap agreement. The only exception will be where the new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities inherit fire, police or transport functions. In this instance, the power to borrow can be exercised immediately for these functions to ensure that ongoing financial arrangements are not disrupted.

In terms of how borrowing is agreed, any borrowing by a mayoral strategic authority is agreed through the annual budget-setting process and is subject to approval by the combined and combined county authority, operating within existing legislative, financial and prudential controls. While the mayor proposes the budget, borrowing cannot be undertaken unilaterally. Under the Bill, most budgets will be approved by a simple majority, which must include the mayor.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the budget, like all other matters, will be subject to the overview and scrutiny process, so there can be scrutiny of the budget in the same way that you would expect in a local authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about underwriting. Like the rest of local government, strategic authorities must also operate within the prudential framework. This framework comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. It provides robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord does not press his clause stand part notice.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I am sorry if the noble Baroness regrets those, but the facts stand. A mayor who has done a rather good job in one part of the country is now going to be prevented from standing as a result of applying Labour’s rules for all the other parties. That is a statement of fact. I do not deny that Labour has the right to have its internal rules, but those rules should not be forced on all the other parties. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that way, but that is how we in the other political parties feel when another party’s internal rules are applied to everyone else. It is anti-democratic. As I say, I am sorry that she feels that way, but the feeling is equal on this side of the Committee. That should be placed on the record, too.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, these have been an interesting set of interventions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that it is important that party-political contributions are kept to an absolute minimum when we are debating a Bill.

There is a basic issue in this group. The public have a right to expect that elected individuals do not end up with two jobs: being a mayor and being an MP. In some circumstances, it might be possible for the electorate to knowingly vote for that. However, that would be most unlikely to be the case. There is a question as to where, geographically speaking, the mayor might be the MP; it might be within the mayoral authority and it might be elsewhere. Either way, there is a clear conflict of interest, because Parliament judges the allocation of funding, for example, to the mayoral authority.

I do not think that you can have one person doing two jobs. Amendments 76 and others in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would allow that, for whatever period, there could be an overlap of both mayor and MP retaining both offices. To be absolutely clear, we think that that is wrong. I say to the Minister that these matters are important and should not be for political parties to judge alone. It should instead be clearly understood that, when people have been elected to one of the posts, they should carry out the responsibilities that they have been given by the general public.

On Tuesday, I said that if, in a mayoral authority, there had been a large number of commissioners appointed by the mayor but then that mayor decided to become a Member of Parliament, he or she would leave the mayoralty and, as the Bill is currently drafted, all the commissioners would lose their jobs as a consequence. When politicians are elected to a job, they must see the job through and do it to the best of their ability, given that the public have expressed confidence in them doing so. They have an obligation to fulfil their contract with the electorate.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will add something to the wise words of my colleagues. To us, this is about the concentration of power in the hands of one person. The powers being given to new mayors are considerable and I understand them; to some extent, I agree with them—as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, of course, I would say that, wouldn’t I? I see the two roles as completely different: a role in national government is completely different from a local, regional role. There could be massive conflicts of interest, but the key thing is that this concentrates too much power. Conservative colleagues have talked about that, but then they are quite happy to let somebody do both jobs. To our mind, that is just not rational.

The key thing is that this creates more political opportunities for more people. It also encourages mayors. The key thing about a mayoralty is that the mayors can develop their own local, independent mandate, rather than being overshadowed by national party politics. They are very different and distinct and they could be in direct conflict with each other. That is why we absolutely believe in that separation of powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, that Amendment 93 is sensible and proportionate. If you are going to have an annual report, the modest additional reporting proposed in this amendment would, as she said, help us understand better the success of devolution.

I will speak to Amendments 94 and 197 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. It needs to be demonstrated clearly in the annual reporting whether the Secretary of State has been exercising powers under this Act without the consent of or contrary to decisions made by locally elected officials. It would be entirely reasonable and helpful, when we are asked to pass a Bill about devolution from Westminster, to know what the Secretary of State has actually done in the previous year.

On Amendment 197, we will touch on parish and town councils later, but there is a fundamental issue here. If we have a Bill called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the Government should be reviewing and promoting parish and town councils, maximising their geographical coverage and making an annual report to Parliament as to what has been done. The danger with this Bill is that so much power is being concentrated. I tried last week to get greater devolution from the strategic authorities to existing local government and then through to existing town and parish councils, but the Government were not amenable. I hope that further progress will have been made on that by Report.

There are two other amendments in my name. Amendment 252 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of local and community banking powers. I am grateful for the briefing I received from the Royal Holloway positive money group and its advice on this amendment. This is about the terribly important issue of how devolution drives growth in practice. One of the Government’s objectives is to drive growth, but how do you do that if the resources are not there? This amendment would be central to the success of the Bill, because it addresses a core structural barrier that currently undermines devolution: the centralised control of credit creation.

The Bill seeks to devolve political authority and fiscal responsibility, and it talks about community power, but I do not think that that will be fully realised without devolving financial capacity—that is, the creation of local, community and publicly owned banks. This amendment would ensure that devolved authorities are not responsible for growth outcomes when they lack the financial tools to influence those outcomes. Devolution means that powers have to accompany those devolved responsibilities. There are three aspects to devolution: devolution of powers, devolution of responsibilities and devolution of resources. But there is a problem for the devolved authorities in their ability to deliver local growth, resilient public finances and genuine community empowerment.

I am asking the Minister to do some further work and give more consideration to this. I will bring this back on Report, but I am not asking for the solution to be identified immediately. A range of issues need to be addressed and some are complex. I fear that, when this Bill is an Act, it will get into difficulty with its delivery—in generating growth and jobs. I hope that the Minister does not seek to rule out this amendment offhand.

My other amendment in this group is Amendment 253. I was tempted to degroup, but I decided that it is probably better to bring together all the amendments where I am asking for reviews, to raise these issues and ask the Government to think about them, because I will also bring back this amendment on Report.

There needs to be a review of regional and national public spending. Different parts of the United Kingdom have significantly different amounts of public expenditure. I quote from Table 9.1b of total UK identifiable expenditure on services, per head, from 2023 to 2024, which is the last year in which information is available. The information is from the Government’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2025. That shows that, if the average for nations and regions in the UK is 100, some are well above that and others are well below. London is at 115, when the average is 100. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all well in excess of 100.

There are some reasons for these differences that are unique to those places, which means that work has to be done to understand why that is. However, the Barnett formula is at the heart of it. That formula, designed by the late Lord Barnett and introduced in the late 1970s, is a very useful instrument for the Treasury to disburse money to the nations, but it hides the significant differences in public spending across the UK.

To that extent, I have tried before to get the Government adequately to explain why, when the average public expenditure is 100, the east Midlands is only 90—in other words, 10 percentage points below the average. The great danger of the Bill is that, when it becomes an Act, it will promote a blame culture. The mayors will blame the Government for not having enough resource, and the public will blame the mayors. The whole democratic system will be in some difficulty if it is not understood why some places get much higher levels of public spending than other areas.

All I am asking the Government is that they are aware of this matter and review it. It implies reviewing the Barnett formula, and I have previously moved Questions for Short Debate and proposals for that to happen in your Lordships’ House. I have not been alone in doing that. A number of years ago, there was a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that urged reform of the Barnett formula to one that has a needs assessment across the UK. I ask the Minister whether the Government might think about that.

I am going to bring this back on Report. I understand that it is primarily a matter for the Treasury, but somebody does have to explain all this, because otherwise the public are simply going to say, “As mayors compete with each other for the favours of the Treasury, whose fault is it that they are getting more money than us?”

I want devolution to succeed, but the Government have to understand this issue a bit better. How can we empower community banking? How can we invest for growth outside the existing structures? How can the Government make sure that, when they are spending public money, they are allocating it fairly across the United Kingdom? I hope that the Minister will give me some indication that the Government are prepared to look at this.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am sorry if I am speaking out of order; we are missing quite a few signatories. I will speak to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 252—about local and community banking powers—which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just addressed. The timing of this debate is interesting, because just this morning Santander announced that it is closing a further 44 branches after an earlier announcement that it would be closing 95 branches around the country. Lloyds is closing more than 100 branches by March. A total of 432 bank branches closed in 2025; this puts the figure of bank branches lost at some 7,000.

Large banks, whether based in London or globally, will say that everyone is going digital. What I find, however, when I travel to communities up and down the land, is that quite often the fact that they no longer have a bank or that their last bank is about to close is a major issue. If you speak to a small or even medium-sized enterprise and ask if they are getting financing from the banks, they just laugh at you. The kind of application you have to make includes filling in an enormous number of forms. You do not speak to a person, and the application churns through the computer; computer says no and that is the end of it. Historically, you would have a local bank manager who knew the local community and its businesspeople, and was able to support people whom they knew were worth the punt. The large banks are physically evacuating out of communities and are just not interested in anything except large, multinational companies and their like.

This is why, with regard to local and community banking powers, getting local banks set up is in the interests of local communities and absolutely something to be looked at as an option by Government. I note that, although I am not entirely praising it—I should declare that I am a customer—Nationwide, with its co-operative model, is staying in communities far more, but it still cannot do everything that communities need by any means. Amendment 252 is therefore terribly important.

I turn to Amendment 197’s duty to review parish and town councils. I declare my position as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. Despite the rhetoric around it, this Bill is taking local democracy far further from the people. In many places—as has been happening through more than a decade of austerity—parish and town councils have been picking up the slack where larger bodies have stepped away and not had the money to engage.

More than a dozen years ago I was in Leominster, and the list of services that the local town council had picked up there ran from keeping the public toilet open—I am sorry; I seem to have a theme today, but it was not my intention—to keeping the tourist information centre open to cutting the grass and looking after the green spaces. These tasks had been abandoned by the unitary authority and were therefore picked up by the town council. The problem is that Leominster is an historic town—there is a wonderful, medieval town hall to meet in—but it is often the more disadvantaged communities around the country that do not have parish and town councils. One example is the large new council estates. Those who need it most do not have that local representation. A review, therefore, would be welcome in examining the Government’s heading to take democracy away from the people and enabling us to see how we can restore it at grass-roots level. To me that is essential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for leading this group; I entirely agree with what he says. I hope that we may be able to achieve a further step forward on this when we get to Report. He said many things, but I shall just draw out one of them. In all these changes, we have to avoid decision-making becoming more remote from people. He has a solution, and my noble friend Lady Pinnock had one in a previous group, so I hope that the Government will be willing to explore this further. As I say, we will look at this issue again on Report.

In this group, I have Amendment 241C, which is a probing amendment. I would like the Government to comment on the general power of competence that is being given to English national parks authorities in Clause 73. My amendment would require those authorities to consult communities surrounded by or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact those communities. The need for this review is because the national parks have separate planning powers. Areas bordering or surrounded by a national park need to be given the reassurance that, where there may be an impact on them as a result of a national park’s decision, they have a right to be formally consulted on it. In the context of a new general power of competence, will the consultation actually happen? I think that it must happen, for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised about decision-making becoming remote.

Strategic authorities are going to be very large. Many existing local authorities are also very large. The more we have unitary councils, the more that trend will be increased. The right to be consulted matters more than it may have mattered hitherto. As a consequence of that, where a general power of competence is being given to a national park authority in Clause 73, that should be accompanied by a requirement to consult those communities surrounded or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact on those communities. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government are prepared to look at this issue further.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to give an alternative view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on Amendment 241C. First, though, I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam: I spent 10 and a half years representing Great Bentley in the European Parliament—not all of its residents, but the greater group in the area—and it was a great privilege to represent that part of Essex.

I pay tribute to the work of the North York Moors National Park Authority. Let me say a word about how dramatic its work has been, with the wildfires last summer and the potential prosect of further wildfires ahead. It has done a sterling job. Obviously, at one stage, it looked as though livelihoods and livestock might be imperilled and lost with the wildfire at Fylingdales, which was in my constituency for the last five years of my time in the other place; it came perilously close to many farms. I pay tribute to the work that the authority did.

I apologise that I did not realise that I should have spoken before the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in order to understand more about the background to what he is seeking to do. I would like just to place on the record that, to my certain knowledge, the powers that the North York Moors National Park Authority already has—as well as the powers under the Bill—are received very warmly. It is already working quite hard, I think, and devoting a large amount of time to consulting as widely as it possibly can. I am slightly concerned that Amendment 241C could introduce an extra burden that it would be very hard pressed to meet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I agree with so much that he said—but I shall speak to Amendment 196, which would introduce a duty on local public service partners such as NHS bodies, the police and fire authorities to co-operate with strategic authorities and principal councils. I am particularly concerned about inequalities. I was very proud to co-found and co-chair the Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership, which works closely with businesses, charities, higher education establishments and local councils, including in relation to inequality and health. Oxfordshire is now a Marmot place—and I know that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is considered to be a Marmot city region. I hope that new strategic authorities will follow.

As noble Lords are aware, health inequalities are pronounced within as well as between regions, with huge life expectancy gaps between and within local authorities, including those operating within the same strategic authority. For example, within the East Midlands Combined County Authority, the gap is 5.2 years. The gap is enormous within cities; we all know that in London the gap is between 17 and 19 years. But, shockingly, in counties such as Oxfordshire there is a life expectancy gap of at least 10 years. Addressing these health inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the power to shape economic growth, create healthy places and, consequently, reduce the inequalities.

The Bill already contains several important levers to do this, which is welcome, with the duty to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Clause 44; the requirement for strategic authorities to produce local growth plans in Clause 39 and Schedule 20; and the inclusion of health, well-being and public service reform in the areas of competence for commissioners. However, I believe that this amendment is necessary, because we know, and evidence demonstrates, that health improvement and a reduction in health inequalities requires joined-up policies and actions across public services.

My amendment would ensure reciprocal engagement in local decision-making, service planning and policy implementation, strengthening whole-area collaboration across public services. It would also be the catalyst for places to use the powers that they already have to build local partnerships. The duty would also embed in statute best practice around co-operation, which already exists at neighbourhood, local and regional level. It would set out clearer expectations on different parts of the system, such as integrated care boards and local authorities, to collaborate on improving health.

The amendment is light touch, practical and evidence-based, with the support of many organisations that work on health and reducing health inequalities. It would not add unnecessary bureaucracy or require new spending commitments, but it would make a profound difference to policy-making and action in areas of our country and in the new bodies that are about to be created. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the issues raised in this group are fundamental, and I support everything that has been said so far, broadly speaking. Our efforts to identify how the new structure will relate to all the other organisations delivering public services, and how they will all work together, demonstrates the importance of Committee. I hope that when the Minister replies there will be some positive movement on that.

I hope the Minister will not think me flippant when I have said what I am about to say. Amendments 98 and 99 are important in probing the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests. Many of the Bill’s pages—pages 23 to 34—are about mayoral powers to require local partners to attend meetings and other mayors to collaborate, and so on. I have a simple question for the Minister about local partners; as I say, I hope she will not think I am being flippant. The Bill says:

“The mayor for the area … may convene meetings with local partners to consider relevant local matters”.


I understand that, but can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor to consider relevant local matters?

I ask that question because, on previous days in Committee, the answers that we have had about devolution away from mayors to, say, constituent councils, have been that there is to be no power of scrutiny for a constituent council within a strategic authority. That is a very serious matter—I do not think it will work. My question is simple: can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor, or is this a one-way power whereby only the mayor can convene meetings with local partners? If it is, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will be willing to pursue the matter when we get to Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments on local partners’ co-operation with mayors. This is an important group of amendments. Without this type of local co-operation, devolution will not work, so I take it very seriously.

Amendment 98 would provide for the Mayor of London, instead of the Secretary of State, to define “local partners” for the purposes of Clause 21. Elsewhere in England, it would remain for the Secretary of State to define the meaning of “local partners” in regulations. Were this amendment to be made, it would create an immediate inconsistency between the powers of the Mayor of London and the approach taken elsewhere in England. Allowing the Mayor of London to specify local partners where other mayors could not would lead to a piecemeal and unclear definition of local partners, risking confusion at all levels. Defining “local partners” in regulations will allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny—I think that is important—will provide a single, coherent definition across England and will ensure that mayors’ power to convene can be clearly understood by both mayors and local partners.

Examples of the types of organisations the regulations may include are those that deliver public services on behalf of, or receive funding from, a mayoral strategic authority; are identifiable as key enablers in statutory strategies; or play a material role in helping a mayoral strategic authority perform its functions within its local area. We are not seeking to define “local partners” in isolation. We are interested in understanding from strategic authorities and their mayors the type of organisations and institutions that should fall under a definition of a “local partner”. We are doing some more work on that with our strategic authorities.

I turn to Amendment 99, which seeks to understand the requirement for local partners to respond to a notification from a mayor of a strategic authority to convene a meeting. Clause 21 provides mayors with a new power to notify local partners of their intention to convene a meeting on a local matter that relates to their areas of competence. It also places a corresponding requirement on any local partner to respond to such a notification. This power is designed to enable mayors to bring the right people around the table, so that partners can work together to tackle shared challenges, seize opportunities for their communities and deliver the best outcomes for local people. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, about data sharing was very relevant to this. It is often the lack of ability to share data across organisations that slows down these kinds of collaborative projects.

The requirement on local partners is proportionate and not unduly burdensome. It does not oblige partners to engage beyond acknowledging the notification, nor does it prescribe what steps a local partner must take following any meeting or how they must act. Rather, the requirement is simply to respond to a mayor’s notification. The intention is to promote constructive dialogue even where there may be a difference of view on the relevant local matter. Taken together with the other mayoral powers of competence in this Bill, Clause 21 will strengthen the role of strategic authority mayors, giving them the means to drive growth, foster collaboration and deliver improvements for their communities.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about whether public bodies can require the mayor to attend, the mayor’s role in convening will probably answer that point, but I will reflect on it. If the mayor had a duty to convene people to collaborate on issues, and another body requested a meeting to discuss something like that, it would not seem in the spirit of what is in this Bill for the mayor to decline that invitation. I will take that back and think about it a little more.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 196 and 237 from my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I assure noble Lords that the Government —and I—strongly support the spirit of the amendments: local public service partners and strategic authorities should collaborate to ensure quality, joined-up services for local people. Placing a new, wide-ranging statutory duty on local public service partners to attend meetings; provide information and assistance; and engage with strategic and local authorities in their local area may place an additional and unwarranted burden on these bodies. I, too, remember the Total Place initiative. One thing that got in the way of that was the dialogue between bodies, when they said, “We just do not have the capacity to provide that at the moment”. It caused some friction between some bodies.

As set out in the English devolution White Paper, it is the intention that mayors act as conveners on public service reform. The Bill provides them with the power to do this by granting them a power to convene local partners on their areas of competence, which include health, well-being and public service reform. The Bill places a corresponding duty on local partners to respond to a request by a mayor to meet. It is important to note that this does not place a duty on local partners to agree to particular policies of the mayor or to meet if they do not think that it is appropriate. We believe that this strikes the right balance between giving mayors the tools to drive collaboration, protecting the independence of local partners to act as they think fit and avoiding burdensome duties to which they must adhere.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendment 115 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. By requiring mayors to propose at least one road to be part of a key road network, this measure would ensure that all mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities can adopt a key route network. By establishing and agreeing these priority links across an area, authorities can work together to manage improvements and maintenance to make a difference to people’s lives. It is also important that combined authorities and combined county authorities have a consistent set of transport duties. This amendment would create an inconsistency where combined authorities had this duty but county combined authorities did not.

--- Later in debate ---

There is a package of measures here, across a range of areas, that would ensure that the Bill delivers for both social mobility and the Government’s opportunity mission. Of course, that feeds into economic growth as well, ensuring that we are making the most of all the talent that exists across the country and making sure that growth delivers for all. It is so important for societal cohesion and basic fairness that government continues to work to de-link people’s life chances from their background—either their place of birth or their family. There is a brilliant opportunity here for the Government to seize, ensuring that the Bill delivers for social mobility. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the cosignatories of this group of amendments. The points I will make will be very similar to those for the next group, which we will reach in a moment. The issue is important. I had not thought that immediately after Covid, the rate of those not in education, employment or training would rise. It has risen since Covid. There is something right at the heart of the way in which youth unemployment is addressed that is causing us not to solve that problem and give young people aged 16 to 24 the opportunities that they ought to have.

Looking at the areas of competence in the Bill that mayors will be engaged in, this one seems to be an acid test of whether devolution works. It is one thing to transfer powers from one person or body to another person or body, but it is a different matter when an objective is set, which is, simply stated, to reduce the level of youth unemployment and get more young people into education and long-term employment. The aim of the Government in driving devolution to the mayoral strategic authority system is, I think, to drive growth. From growth, you will have more jobs, and from more jobs you will have a lower level of those who are not in education, employment or training.

The clear ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and, when we get to the next group, of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is to drive social mobility through the enabling parts of the Bill. It is not just a question of moving transport powers from one body to another; it has to relate to helping young people get themselves from one place to another with the right transport systems and support for travelling to enable them to engage with education, training and employment.

There are several amendments in this group and the next one. We ought to take a step aside to look at how we can deliver the ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has set because if this fails and the level of those not in education, employment or training stay stable or gets worse, that would be a failure of devolution. If you were to ask me which is the most important test in the several days in Committee so far, I would say that it is driving a reduction in the number of those who are in not in education, employment or training. This is something that would make a material difference to the lives of many people.

I hope that the Minister will not reply by saying that the Government have everything under control because I fear they do not. If they had everything under control, the number of NEETs would have gone down, not up. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and, when we get to the next group, to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. These amendments are central and material to the aim and ambition of devolution.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Benches opposite for allowing me to speak. I was trying to sort out my timing on the Statement, and I messed up there, so I thank noble Lords for their understanding.

The amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I agree 100% with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that this is one of the most serious issues that we face. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for the time, care and seriousness with which he has addressed social mobility within the Bill. Place-based solutions to social mobility are essential, and devolution gives this Government a genuine opportunity to act in a way that national policy alone never can. It allows local authorities to design policies that are properly matched to their local labour market, their economic strengths and the needs of their communities. In doing so, it offers the prospect of moving beyond one-size-fits-all interventions towards approaches that genuinely expand opportunity and improve outcomes on the ground.

If the noble Lord will forgive me, and for the sake of brevity, I will focus on just a small number of these amendments. Noble Lords in the Committee will know that this area is close to my heart. I spent more than 32 years working with young people, helping them into employment and, more importantly, helping them to stay in employment. I promise noble Lords that I have seen what works and what does not.

I remember getting a young girl who never had any opportunities into the Unipart business in Oxford. We worked with her, and she got the job of booking travel for all the executives. She was so excited it was not true, and she turned up on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but on Friday she did not show up. We went round to her house. She came down in her PJs and I said, “What on earth are you up to?” She told us that she never went to school on Friday and that nobody ever talked to her about it, so she thought she would not come to work. We sent her upstairs to get dressed and took her to work. The next week, the same thing happened. Again, we went round to her house and sent her upstairs. On the third week, she turned up, and again on the fourth week and the fifth week. Sometimes it is not anything deeply interventional that works; it is just a matter of knocking on the door and saying, “Come on now, get yourself together”. There is no one size fits all; it is all about individuals. I have seen what can work, and I hope that, with this devolution Bill, we can make more things happen for people like that.

I will begin with Amendment 123, which would require strategic authorities in the delivery of their functions under the Act to work in partnership with local businesses and education providers, including further education providers, to prevent and reduce local youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is rising, and the figures are deeply concerning. In the most recent data available, 729,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed, which was an increase of 103,000 on the previous year. The youth unemployment rate stood at 15.9%, up from 14.4% the year before.

These figures are frankly scandalous. We could have a big debate about whose fault it is, but I would rather we did not do that. It is important that we agree how we are going to solve the problem and stop it happening in future. This trend cannot be reversed through centralised schemes designed in Whitehall with the political choices this Government have made. It requires local solutions and place-based approaches shaped by the realities of local labour markets. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to bring together employers, colleges and training providers to intervene early, which is critical, align provision with demand and need and prevent young people falling into long-term worklessness. This amendment would give them both the responsibility and the impetus to do so. I completely support it.

Amendment 124 would require strategic authorities to consult further education colleges when identifying where skills challenges are most acute within key sectors. I know I speak often about skills shortages, but I do so because the evidence is overwhelming. Official figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there are almost 1 million young people in the United Kingdom who are not in education, employment or training, and this is the highest figure for more than a decade. At the same time, employers across the country are struggling to recruit and, due to some of the changes that have been made by the Government, vacancies are dropping. It is a right car crash, however you look at it.

We face shortages in some vital occupations, including biological scientists, bricklayers, care workers, carpenters, graphic designers, laboratory and pharmaceutical technicians, and roofers—what a mixture. This mismatch is economically damaging and can be socially corrosive. Further education colleges sit at the heart of any solution. They understand local demand, local learners and local barriers. Failing to involve them systemically in skills planning is a structural weakness. This amendment would help ensure that skills policy is grounded in the reality of local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this group on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She apologises profusely because she has had to go into the Chamber as they are talking about possibly bringing forward dinner break business. As noble Lords have heard, this is an area close to her heart. These amendments reflect her considerable knowledge and expertise while inviting us to consider how we might improve the Bill from an adult skills, work and welfare perspective.

As we have heard already in Committee, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spent more than 32 years working to help young people into employment, and I am grateful for the support and insight that she is providing for this debate. I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend would probably have spoken for another hour on everything that she has gained from working for those 32 years in the area.

This is an area about which we feel strongly, yet, in our view, the Bill as it stands lacks the framework and conditions that are required to deliver a truly meaningful impact. As we said, unemployment is rising. That is not a party-political point—it is just a fact. At the same time, we face a persistent skills mismatch in many parts of our country. If we are serious about reversing this trend, we must work together to ensure that the Bill delivers real and lasting change. That is working together at the top but locally.

I begin with Amendment 122A, tabled by my noble friend. Beyond the legal entitlements set out in the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, strategic authorities will enjoy significant local discretion in how they exercise these functions and deploy the adult skills fund. We understand that allocations to strategic authorities will be made on a non-ring-fenced basis, with minimal conditions attached to that funding.

This amendment is deliberately simple and proportionate. It provides that any funding given to a strategic authority under the Act for adult skills, education or employment support must be used to achieve one of those two purposes—first, to support adult educational skills, and secondly, to help young adults into work, stay in work or progress in work. In doing so, it anchors the funding clearly to adult skills and employment outcomes rather than allowing resources to drift into loosely related priorities. At the same time, strategic authorities retain full discretion over programme design, commissioning and delivery. Nothing in this amendment constrains local innovation or responsiveness.

The amendment also sets out what counts as valid spending. This is a non-exhaustive list and includes adult education and training, retraining and upskilling, employment support and careers guidance, employer engagement and outreach to under-represented groups. This provides legal cover for modern preventive and locally tailored interventions.

Crucially, it also makes clear what this funding cannot be used for. It cannot be diverted into roads, highways or transport infrastructure. You often hear, “This will fund new jobs”, but they are not always long-term jobs. It cannot be used for unrelated capital projects, nor can it be absorbed into generic economic development activity that has no clear link to workforce participation. This is designed to prevent the sort of argument that employment outcomes have been improved simply by building a bypass.

Finally, the amendment would require authorities to publish statements explaining how the money has been spent and how it supports adult education and employment locally. This introduces public accountability, creates a clear paper trail for Parliament and applies gentle, but important, pressure on authorities to demonstrate outcomes. I hope noble Lords across the Committee will agree that this is a sensible, focused and necessary amendment that would materially strengthen the Bill in an area of growing national importance.

I will speak briefly to the new clause that would be introduced by Amendment 196EA. This clause would allow responsibility for delivering the youth guarantee to be devolved to strategic authorities, giving them the flexibility to tailor provision to local labour markets while preserving the youth guarantee as a national entitlement. I heard what the Minister said, but I think we will still be pushing this point. It should be underpinned by minimum standards and parliamentary oversight. I know that this Government are rightly proud of this programme, but, if they truly believe in the model, it should be delivered as close to local labour markets as possible. Local authorities are far better placed to understand employer demand, skills shortages and the specific barriers that young people face in their areas, and to align support with real jobs rather than abstract national assumptions.

The new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 196EB, along with Amendments 124A and 124B, follow the same theme. I will focus on the new clause, which in essence summarises the rationale for the expansion of Schedule 11 and is reflected in later amendments. Fundamentally, they all seek to achieve the same objective. This clause would give mayor-led strategic authorities the power, where they choose to request it, to design and run youth employment programmes or pilot schemes. It would enable mayors to work directly with employers, education providers and voluntary organisations to offer targeted support, such as training, apprenticeships, wage subsidies and work placements, for young people, particularly those at risk of long-term unemployment. The Secretary of State would be able to provide funding for this purpose, which must be used to support youth employment or labour market participation. The clause would also allow for time-limited pilots, evaluation and the sharing of learning, all subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.

During my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s time at Tomorrow’s People, she ran employability programmes that addressed the challenges of young people not in education, employment or training and delivered close to local labour markets. Simply put, they worked. They drove real impact on the ground by working with colleges, schools and local businesses. Devolution can provide targeted outreach, tailored support and genuinely high-impact interventions, which is precisely what these amendments seek to enable.

As I mentioned briefly on the previous group, the challenge of young people not in education, employment or training has rarely been so acute. In the most recent data available, 729,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed. As we have said before, that is an increase of 103,000 on the previous year. Of course, tackling this problem requires the right national economic policies. I accept that, but there is also so much that cannot be changed from the centre. In the meantime, mayors can act now. They can work directly with local businesses, design and run pilot schemes and tailor support in their areas for specific labour markets that they understand far better than Whitehall ever could. I hope the Minister will take these amendments seriously. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has just said that she hopes the Government will pay detailed attention to the amendments in this and the previous group, because the importance of this issue is so great that Governments need to act. We cannot go on with the rising number of young people who are unemployed. I support the amendments in this group, as I did those in the previous one.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very interesting group of amendments. I look forward to the responses of the Minister to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who made quite a number of important points, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.

I just want to say something in relation to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, including myself. I do not want to repeat what he has said—indeed, in debates on previous Bills we have had long discussions on the issue of chief planning officers—but I hope that the Minister will take this very seriously. Let me explain a further reason why I think Ministers need to do that.

There are several areas of competence in the Bill for mayors. Four of them require planning advice. One is transport and local infrastructure, a second is housing and strategic planning, a third is economic development and regeneration and a fourth is environment and climate change. Each of those will have either an elected member or a commissioner leading, as it were—I will not say “in charge”, because commissioners have to report to the mayor, and the strategic authority would be making the relevant decisions.

The point is that in any one person, to have the professional capacity in each of those four areas of competence that I have identified, you have to have professional expertise. I do not see in either the Bill or the Explanatory Notes exactly how that is going to be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an unanswerable case for there being a chief planning officer who brings all these things together within a local planning authority and within the strategic authority. No doubt we will come back to this on Report, but I hope that the Government understand its importance. If you are trying to drive growth, you have to have professional expertise in place to do it and I suggest that chief planning officers are one of those positions.

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having been here previously. I was not a Member of the House when the Bill first came to the House, so I could not speak on it then, but I would like to speak on it today. I will set out some context about my understanding of planning and where I come from. I was eight years as a planning lead in my local council, as the regeneration and planning cabinet member. I should also point out that I am an employee of the Local Government Association and I am still a councillor, so my remarks will be based on my own opinions and experience.

I will speak on Amendment 126, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for explaining her position on her amendment. I want to challenge that perception with my experience. I do not think this amendment is needed in actual practice. The points around democratic accountability and community involvement are based within the planning system already and the planning reforms that have come through. Good local plans should have involvement of the community and are democratically voted on in a full council chamber. Should an applicant come to a local council with a planning application and in good faith follow those policies, there should be some safeguards around making sure that those plans are upheld and seen through in development coming forward.

In my experience in London, in the eight years that I was planning lead, not one application needed to be called in or used by the Mayor of London to challenge what the local council had done, because we made sure that the developer or the applicant was able to follow the planning policies. So it is important to note that, in a good planning process, the local plan should be where the heavy lifting is done through community engagement and democratic accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I was involved in the London Olympics for 19 years, from day one. Our first meeting was at the Bromley by Bow Centre, with three of us, in 1999. These projects take a long time, and it was only after that first meeting that I dared to go and see the architect Richard Rogers at his house. When he heard our vision and thought about it, he decided to be part of the team as well, and one thing led to another.

It was a very long journey, and it did not begin as a development corporation. The ideas for what eventually became the legacy company grew up among a small group of leaders, including Sir Robin Wales, the Labour leader of Newham at that time, who focused, over many years, on the place, the history of the place and a vision for the future. It was a long journey.

When, eventually, we won the bid, lessons were learned and it did not begin as a development corporation. It became known as the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which was a social business—for those of us who remember it in detail—which wanted to make sure we had the right people around the table who could begin to drive the legacy programme and not do what had happened in so many Olympic projects around the world, many of which I went to see, which had no legacy and ended in wastelands.

As we gained competence, what began to happen is that politicians and the system began to realise that we needed to be given planning powers. It was only after a number of years, as we grew as a company in skills and had a clear vision, that we became the London Legacy Development Corporation. The wise thing at that time was that the directors were not changed and moved on, and we did not have the usual churn that goes on; we were encouraged to stay as a group of people to follow through on this development.

What are the lessons learned over that very long period of time around this development corporation process? Our first lesson was to have a clear vision that is deeply rooted in the history of the place and the people who live in the place. That is absolutely critical.

Secondly, bring together the right people with the right skills and ensure that you have the right business skills on the board. It is not about having boards—if I am honest—that are just council representatives; it is about the right individuals from the public sector, the business sector and the social sector who come together.

Thirdly, good leadership with the right business skills is absolutely essential.

Fourthly, a development corporation has to take the long view. It will pass through different Governments and different local councils. It is really important that continuity is seen as an essential element of any development corporation.

Fifthly, create a learning-by-doing culture focused on quality, not a tick-box culture.

Sixthly, create integrated environments wherever you operate, bring people together and resist silos.

Seventhly, focus on people and relationships, not just process.

Eighthly, government needs to get interested in the detail. This is my thought at the moment. There are real lessons out there, but development corporations across the country are not all good and all the same thing. Get interested in the detail and what works.

Finally, if you look out there at what is going on, you will find that some development corporations are far better than others, some have had some successes and some have failed to learn the lessons.

This amendment is important, and I certainly want to support it, but the detail on this and the practice really matter.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I support all three of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The contributions so far have been very helpful; I hope that the Minister will take due notice of them.

I particularly support the optimal use of land. Amendment 240 talks about placing

“a statutory duty on English local authorities and all forms of development corporation, to secure the optimal uses of their land, including when disposing of it, to achieve public policy objectives and requirements”.

This really matters. It is fundamental to achieving the housing growth objective that the Government have set themselves. I very much hope that the Minister will be very positive when she replies; if not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Best, wants to return to this issue on Report, he will have our support in so doing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised with these three amendments.

First, Amendment 133

“would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations”.

Noble Lords have already outlined why development corporations are a good idea, so I will not repeat that. The one thing I will say is that, in getting things done quickly, there may be some issues with the wording; there is still a role for local councils, too, and we want to make sure that they are not forgotten.

I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, how will the Bill directly strengthen the role of development corporations, both improving their effectiveness and ensuring that they are readily used to support strategic plan-making? Secondly, do the Government believe that the powers currently available to development corporations are sufficient to meet their ambitions on large-scale housing development and regeneration in mayoral areas? Finally, do the Government see development corporations as a central delivery vehicle for the future mayoral growth strategy? If so, why is that intent not reflected more clearly in the Bill?

If I understand them correctly, Amendments 240 and 242 are similar in effect, but one applies to public land and one to local authority land. They aim to secure the optimal use of public land,

“including when disposing of it”,

in pursuit of wider policy objectives. The intent behind these amendments is plainly sound. Numerous Governments have sought over the years to ensure that public land is used strategically, transparently and in a way that supports the long-term social and economic outcomes we all desire. The Government may have some issues with the drafting—in particular, taking into account whole council objectives, not just the specific objectives mentioned—but I hope that, in that spirit, they will reflect carefully on whether the Bill, as currently drafted, goes far enough to meet these ambitions, as well as whether there is scope for the legislation to do more to embed those principles in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just shared with us.

Earlier, I mentioned “learning by doing” cultures. What do they actually look like? We have been engaging in depth in east London for 42 years. We have pioneered a lot of the things that we now take for granted across the country in parts of the health service, including social prescribing. We have the long view. We spent time looking up the telescope, not down the telescope from government. When you engage in a local community in depth, you soon start to discover that health and wealth are absolutely connected—they are fundamental —yet the siloed systems of the state absolutely miss what all of this might mean and the opportunities that are there in practice.

The Bromley by Bow Centre, which I founded and of which I am now president, has pioneered wide-ranging approaches to these precise issues over the years. Today, we are responsible for 55,000 patients and we have built 97 businesses with local people. If they were here, our integrated health team would tell you that, on a vulnerable housing estate in the East End of London, getting a job has more of an impact on your health than anything that doctors can do in our health centre. All of them would tell noble Lords this. Yet, despite hosting 70 Government Ministers from different parties coming to see us over the past 30-odd years, when we share all this, they all say, “Yes, yes”, then go away. Nothing changes. In Bromley-by-Bow, we are still grappling with 62 different funding sources coming from the Treasury, all of which go down into different silos. We then spend a lot of money, with our staff, on putting things together around the same families. It is ludicrous. I share this with noble Lords: lessons are not being learned. In my view, the fundamental question that is being asked in this amendment is absolutely critical.

This Government are starting to talk about prevention and getting upstream. I agree with all of that but, if you talk to our GPs and our team—we have 2,000 visitors a year, from all over the country, looking at our work—they will tell you that the jury is out on whether this Government are serious about joining the dots around these issues. We will go not on what they say but on what they do. As far as we can see, at the moment there is little evidence that these dots are being joined up, but, if the Government get interested in practice, there is a great opportunity for this Administration and future Administrations coming down the line. This is not a party-political matter; it is a matter for us all and for the health of the nation.

In the 1990s, we realised, through practice actually, that the only way to gain scale with these kinds of issues is to start to partner with the private sector. We took these relationships seriously and today, both in east London and in a programme I lead nationally, we work with the private sector around place-making, and I declare my interests. The private sector is also concerned and interested in these questions. People in the private sector have children and families. Get to know them, dig under the carpet and create learning-by-doing cultures with them, and you will find opportunities to take these kinds of questions to scale. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I hope that we will move beyond amendments and yet more talk into practice and detail and get curious about what this actually looks like for local people.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his salutary warnings. It is very real when you have the experience of somebody in a particular local area who can say that the dots are not joined and that the funding streams are too many and are simply not joined together. There is a huge opportunity here if the Government can take it. This amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, seems to me to be central. I hope that the Minister is going to be helpful in her response. Local growth plans should take account of statutory health duties, and they should be brought together. There is a clear link between economic growth and health improvement. There should be that clear link. Health improvement has to be integral to growth plans. This seems to be unanswerable as a proposal, so I hope the Government will be in full listening mode.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, is important. It is helpful that she has proposed a way forward through statutory guidance. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. There is a serious danger that growth plans will lead to competition between economic growth and environmental growth responsibilities. I think the Government can help here by publishing guidance on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about the nuclear industry. I can think of other examples where there is a conflict between an environmental consideration and a growth consideration. Given the new world that we are about to enter with mayors and strategic authorities, clear guidance would be a big help in this area. I hope the Government will be in a positively responsive mood.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Freeman of Steventon, for tabling these amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 140 would ensure that local growth plans take into account statutory health duties and health inequalities strategies prepared by the strategic authorities. Councils have a crucial role to play and are often well placed to better understand and address local health issues, but I still bear the scars from trying to do this locally many years ago. It requires the NHS to devolve powers—and, as importantly, money—down. I tried. It was very positive to begin with —that is what they wanted us to do—but when push came to shove, acute hospitals always kept the money.

Until government can sort things out between the NHS and local authorities, that will not happen, which is a great shame. As we have heard, local authorities can create really safe environments that are more conducive to community well-being, promote healthy lifestyles and collaborate with other organisations to make really targeted interventions on the issues in their communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I wholly welcome the Bill, and I am delighted to hear Preston and Manchester being cited as examples of good practice, because, as the Committee knows, the north-west was my region. However, I rise to support the principle that local growth plans should include provision for cultural venues, especially live grass-roots venues.

If we look to music and the recent success that we have had at the Grammys, we see young women from disadvantaged backgrounds who came through the BRIT School, a free school, and worked in local live venues. If we look to the recent UK success at the BAFTAs and the Oscars, we see young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have been able to come through theatres and other live performance spaces, as the noble Earl said. We have, for instance, wonderful scripts, workshopped by local young people in local spaces, that then have huge success.

I particularly want to talk about youth theatre. People will be aware of the success of Liverpool’s Everyman Youth Theatre—I will stop talking about the north-west in a minute. I was born in Coventry. I have to say that youth theatre and youth education, which was provided in a joined-up way by the youth service at that point, gave me a pathway forward, and it gave a lot of my contemporaries an opportunity to have a way forward, as well as hope and participation, when a lot of our fathers were being made redundant from car factories in Coventry. I therefore hope that my noble friend will consider including in local growth plans the provision of live cultural venues and the development of local cultural plans.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the four amendments in this group should be supported in principle. We had a lengthy discussion on cultural and heritage issues last week during earlier Committee days considering the Bill.

Amendment 147, on cultural ecosystem plans, really matters. I support this amendment because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what, particularly the funding of local cultural assets and support.

--- Later in debate ---

These are important questions, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief because we ought to hear from the Minister on the range of questions that have been produced, and I do not want to simply restate them. I have always supported greater investment by local government pension schemes. I should declare an interest, since I have a very small local government pension from the days when councillors were able to be part of the scheme. I just make that absolutely clear, even though the sum I receive is really very small.

I have always wanted local government pension schemes to invest more in their areas to drive growth in their areas. It seems an entirely laudable objective, but it has to be consistent with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made clear in their explanatory statements, scheme managers have to remain independent and focused solely on the interests of scheme members. There are those two competing requirements.

I want to support the Government’s objectives here. This has to be the right thing to promote, although one has to be extremely careful. At this stage, that statement of principle from me is probably sufficient, and it would be useful to hear the Government’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendments 148, 149, 150 and 153. I will try to clarify the questions that she asked and, if I cannot, I am more than willing to write to her. Some of these pension aspects are very technical.

These amendments relate to the important requirement that strategic authorities work with the Local Government Pension Scheme funds in their area. This mirrors the duty to co-operate with strategic authorities placed on LGPS funds in the Pension Schemes Bill. The aim is to help strategic authorities to identify local projects that are appropriate for pensions investment and drive growth.

I recognise the noble Baroness’s intention, in tabling Amendment 148, to seek to broaden the provisions to include other employers participating in the scheme. The clause requires the strategic authority itself, rather than its constituent authorities, to co-operate with the relevant pension fund. In my view, this is the correct approach. Strategic authorities are responsible for driving local growth; as such, they should be aware of the interests of housing associations, admitted bodies and other local employers. An additional requirement for multiple other organisations to collaborate with the LGPS would place an unnecessary burden on those employers.

I turn to Amendments 149 and 153. I recognise the intentions to preserve the independence of LGPS-administering authorities and to reduce the burden of regulation on their functions. I assure noble Lords that the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duties of local pension funds in any way. The decision on whether or not to invest in a particular asset will be made by the asset pool, not the fund. This will help protect the fund against potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that all investments are made in the interests of the fund. Supporting guidance will be clear that investments should only ever be made where that investment helps the investing pension fund to meet pension liabilities.

The Government want to see funds and asset pools working closely with combined authorities, including corporate joint committees in Wales, in order to identify and develop appropriate investment opportunities so that the investment might of the Local Government Pension Scheme can drive local growth. I share the view of the noble Baroness that this requirement must be workable. For this reason, the high-level requirement does not put a restrictive framework on exactly how strategic authorities must work with the scheme. It will be up to strategic authorities to establish a system that is workable for them. Further, I point your Lordships to the existing guidance for strategic authorities on the development of local growth plans, which supports strategic authorities in establishing a productive relationship with investors.

I turn now to Amendment 150. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for asking important questions regarding a requirement for funds to participate in an asset pool. Asset pooling is the cornerstone of the Government’s investment reforms for the LGPS, bringing significant benefits of scale and expertise. As I have said, the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duty of local pension funds in any way. The responsibility to set an investment strategy—the key driver of investment returns—will remain with funds, ensuring that they retain local accountability and decision-making and that they can drive performance. The duty in this clause is complementary to the duty that will be placed on LGPS funds through regulations made under the Pension Schemes Bill. It will work effectively only if the concept of participation is defined in the same way in both pieces of legislation. That is why the Government are tabling amendments to this clause to reflect changes that have been made to the Pension Schemes Bill.

A question was asked about pooling. Integrated models in which strategic advice and investment management are both delivered by the same fiduciary manager are commonly used in private sector schemes and internationally. These models can deliver greater value for money and economies of scale. Asset pool companies will be required to have robust policies and procedures to identify and manage conflicts of interest. In contrast to external advisers, asset pools owned solely by LGPS AAs are expected to provide services in their interest. They do not stand to gain financially from the partner fund taking their advice or from providing poor-quality advice. I will look again at the noble Baroness’s speech in Hansard to make sure that we have covered all her questions and so that she has what we are doing in writing.

I turn now to government Amendments 151, 152, 154, 155, 156 and 157. These minor and technical amendments correct the definition of participating in an asset pool company. They will accommodate a pool company structure where the pool is owned by a holding company, thereby allowing an existing pool—the Local Pensions Partnership—to be included in the definition. This is not a change in policy but a correction.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am talking about the functions within the competence.

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

through an annual review system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

introduced last year to improve their design and implementation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

which would strengthen

“democratic accountability within devolved areas”.

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

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

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic authorities and their ability to repay the debts incurred. I thank the Minister for her correspondence on powers to borrow after this was debated in Committee. As the previous group focused on precepts, we felt it worth discussing powers to borrow in isolation.

In Committee, we asked one key question: who, in effect, is the guarantor in the event that an authority cannot pay back its borrowing? I appreciate the Minister’s clarification that constituent councils will not be held liable for debts incurred by the authority. However, this is an important area that requires thorough oversight, which is why we tabled Amendment 80 to require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by the strategic authorities and their ability to repay debts incurred. Surely one of the aims of the Government’s plans is to put local government on a stable and sustainable financial footing.

To be clear, we do not object to the ability of authorities to borrow money, but we do think that the Secretary of State and, crucially, Parliament should be aware of the facts. This report would be published, copies would be placed before both Houses of Parliament annually, and it would include an assessment of the ability of specific authorities to meet the debts incurred. This would give Parliament oversight of how much debt has been incurred by specific authorities across the country, as well as their ability to repay that debt. The information could then inform future debates and decision-making about the health of local government finances, and it would no doubt be of use to Secretaries of State themselves. I hope the Government will give this amendment their consideration.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on this matter, which I have raised on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House because I have never been clear about who will actually pick up an overspend when one exists. So this partly about the ability to repay debts incurred and partly about who is actually responsible. In other words, are council tax payers of the constituent authorities liable to help to repay debt?

My understanding is that the scrutiny function can now stop this happening in the first place. In other words, one of my concerns about the failure of the scrutiny system has been that it would not be certain that a scrutiny committee would prevent bad financial investment decisions. But what the Government have done by introducing further amendments makes it possible for the overview and scrutiny function to work effectively in that respect.

So I hope the Minister will clarify those matters. I am worried about who is liable for debt and about who is able to authorise substantial expenditure without certainty that a debt can be repaid. But, in the end, will the scrutiny function the Government have now introduced actually prevent the problems the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has identified?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for this amendment, requiring the Secretary of State to report on strategic authorities’ exercise of powers to borrow money. I recognise that this is a well-intentioned and well-reasoned amendment, but I do not believe the provision is necessary. Like the rest of local government, combined authorities and combined county authorities must operate within the prudential framework. This comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. The framework already provides robust oversight and accountability. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that pre-scrutiny of key decisions by local accounts committees will also help.

In addition, this amendment contradicts the Bill’s aim of furthering devolution and increasing financial autonomy for these authorities, because it would shift reporting requirements up to central government. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is burdensome and duplicative, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

Amendment 85 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

Amendment 5 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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