English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

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.