English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 24, page 246, line 27, after “government” insert —

“having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to—

(a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to—

(i) economic zones,

(ii) physical geography,

(iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and

(b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.”

This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations.

In an earlier sitting, the Committee discussed amendment 25, which would have required the Secretary of State, when preparing a proposal for a new combined authority—something we oppose—to follow such a proposal with a statement explaining how it would affect the physical geography, community identity and the boundaries of other public services. Amendment 5 focuses on the need, when we look at local government reorganisation into a single tier of local government or unitary council, to bring communities together by preserving or creating a sense of space.

It is our view that, when merging tiers of local government to create a new unitary council, as part of the strategic authority process, particular regard should be given to the size of the area covered by the new authority, which we have obviously debated in depth, as well as the merger’s impact on community identity, heritage, cohesion and pride. After the passionate intervention of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about the need to focus on the socioeconomic requirements of the geographical landscape and the connection of communities within his constituency, perhaps he will support the amendment.

Obviously, from a central Government perspective, we accept that reorganising an area may improve clarity, but it is crucial that the Bill delivers clear devolution benefits for communities. To do so, areas merged or otherwise must remain responsive to their communities, and they must continue to engage with those communities by carrying forward a shared identity or a sense of place in some form. It goes to what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said this morning about unifying communities in his area and reinforcing a sense of place. That is why the population figure of 500,000 must be just a benchmark—it must be flexible—and I know the Minister has already confirmed that.

We have already spoken about the existing boundaries of public service provision, including integrated care boards, local NHS areas and police and crime commissioner areas. To reiterate, however the reorganisation takes place, it must be responsive to the particularities of the area, not purely directive. It is that direction from Government that we oppose, and the amendment would mandate that, when deciding mergers, the Secretary of State considers these very important local characteristics that other Committee members have raised.

There is an intrinsic logic to the way in which those public service areas evolved to intersect and connect, and chopping them up just for the sake of numbers, without due regard to all these characteristics, is taking a significant risk with our public service delivery. For example, to narrow it down to one specific question, will our local NHS trusts and ICBs be brought along with plans to merge levels of local government, so that the staff in both the health services and the new unitary authority can keep effective working relationships and continue to provide high-quality services and care for their local populations? In conclusion, we think the amendment is important, especially in relation to the merger of authorities to form single-tier unitary councils, and we are minded to press it to a vote.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I rise in support of amendment 5, spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. This is where the Government should have started. The amendment seeks to put place at the very heart of local government reorganisation, which the Government have missed. In coming up with the arbitrary target of half a million people or thereabouts, they have not thought about place and how communities connect with shared identities.

I have spoken in Committee before about Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire has a number of significant towns, all of relatively the same size and population, but there is very little interconnectivity between the towns, particularly on rail and road. Not many people move between those towns, and I fear the consequences of an arbitrary target of around half a million. I appreciate what the Minister has said about the flexibility of that target, but even setting a target of 300,000 people is not looking at what best serves communities; it is sitting in Whitehall, coming up with a figure, and saying, “This is what we want to push top-down throughout the country. This is what we need to do,” rather than saying to places, “We want to reorganise you. Please come up with appropriate examples of how you might best do that within your communities.” That is what the amendment speaks to.

We really need to think about place. If we want these new councils to be successful, they must have buy-in from local communities. Local communities must have a shared sense of identity and a shared sense of vision. We cannot lump places together that have hardly any connectivity—places that people do not travel between—because we would be setting up those councils to fail, and to have competing priorities for the towns they want and do not want to invest in. The amendment is logical, and it is disappointing that the Government did not start off in this place and give more flexibility to the top-down reorganisation they are forcing on large parts of England. If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon wishes to push the amendment to a vote, the official Opposition shall support it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment behind the amendment, but we are already building in provisions to reflect the issues that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has raised.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already provides that a direction for local government reorganisation can be issued only if the Secretary of State deems the proposal to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Having regard, therefore, to size, geography, public services and local identity is fundamentally embedded in the decision-making process. That is demonstrated by the statutory guidance and criteria shared with areas currently preparing for reorganisation. The hon. Lady is right to highlight those factors that matter for the sense of place, and therefore the boundaries of councils, and we think that the statutory guidance and safeguards fundamentally lock them into the process that we are going into.

On whether this process is top down or bottom up, let us look at it: we have invited places to go through a process of reform, and those places are now having conversations among themselves to come up with proposals. Those are not Government proposals; they are proposals from local areas. We are already allowing conversations to be had about what makes sense for those areas and how we take into account the specifics of identity and other issues in those proposals. Whatever proposal is chosen must be consulted on before it is implemented, which, again, is an opportunity for local people to have a conversation, and to have some say and voice in the process.

Although I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, we have legal provisions and, critically, have set out a process that fundamentally addresses the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I would like to press the amendment to a vote, because it is important to mandate that the Secretary of State consider these criteria. They will have many proposals from the same area, so these criteria would give guidance on how we can keep the cohesion of communities that hon. Members have discussed before.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I implore the hon. Member to listen to the rest of my speech and further points I shall make on other amendments. In Sheffield, at the same time, the council resolved unanimously that

“Sheffield benefits from fairer, more representative governance arrangements, and that people expect the Councillors they elect to have a vote on the decisions that affect them”.

Bristol also has a committee system, and Bristol Green councillors have told me how their cross-party committees have had a series of task and finish groups, where policy is developed with the input of councillors from all parties. They say that, while everyone does not always agree, this process allows for much more rounded development of policy ahead of implementation, not just scrutiny afterwards or divisive call-ins. There is rich debate, with more voices taking part in it.

Those councillors also say that the committee system also allows for back benchers to have more influence and input, with a positive effective on equalities as well, so that more councillors with a variety of different characteristics have space to input, and that, in turn, has a positive effect on policy development. New councillors also have more of a chance to develop their skills and interests than under a cabinet model, where only a handful of councillors have proper influence and are hand-picked by the leader or mayor in many cases. Sheffield councillors also say:

“The critical budget-setting process has worked better in Sheffield since the committee system was introduced, avoiding last minute wrangling and hasty deals between the parties. This is because the detail of the budget process is worked through each Committee in the months leading up to the budget, so all councillors are involved. This contrasts with the last budget brought under our Cabinet system where the budget proposal was voted down as the council meeting descended into chaos.”

I also urge the Committee to note that none of the councils that have issued section 114 notices in recent years have been run under a committee system. Worcestershire city council has had a committee system since 2017, implemented after a council motion that was proposed by Conservatives and seconded by Greens. Councillors there tell me that they see scrutiny within the committee system working really well to improve policy before any decisions are made, and it has improved cross-party working relationships and helped to build consensus.

The council has also been independently praised for its collaborative approach, and was commended in the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge in April, which said:

“The peer team found evidence of good governance across the organisation. The peer team found there was positive Member collaboration across political groups which makes the most of the opportunities in this type of governance and there was comprehensive coverage of council business at Policy Committees”.

I can speak on cabinet governance from my previous experience as a councillor in a Labour council, as it is currently the choice of the Labour administration in Brighton and Hove, where my constituency sits. Cabinets can obviously be quicker to act through a rapid decision-making process, but that has risks too. For good reason, the saying is not “Measure once, cut once”. I have noticed a disturbing trend of scrutiny committee time being squeezed by leaders and cabinets, with some councils having just one broad scrutiny committee—I did not experience that and I honestly cannot even imagine it working in agenda terms.

A single scrutiny committee has, by definition, only a limited time to examine a wide range of upcoming decisions in any detail, and surely has no space on the agenda for the kind of through pre-decision scrutiny or issue-based evidence gathering to generate ideas or feedback on services that good scrutiny committees also do, and which I have seen. There are further risks; along with maintaining first past the post, the leader and cabinet model preferred by the Government is a recipe for seeing purely one-party decision making in more places, overriding all opposition voices when key decisions have to be made. One-party states are not more efficient or effective.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the heart of the issue is actually choice? In this brave new world of unitary councils, local councils should have the ability to choose and shape their own future governance model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I want to support the hon. Lady. The national Government should not force structures of local governance on local councils. We saw written evidence from Councillor Martin Smith, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Sheffield city council, showing how the committee system has made the governance of the city council more transparent. Abolishing the committee system in Sheffield and Bristol, and in other areas where local people wanted a change from the leader and cabinet system, would go against the will of the people in those areas. For that reason, if the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion were to press amendments 326 and 327 to a vote, I would support them.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for talking us through some of the specifics, particularly in the context of Sheffield. My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) have been very effective in explaining the specifics of Sheffield to the Government, including the history of how the council got there and how the democratic process has played out. We are very mindful of that, and we will reflect on that and on the question of legacy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 250, in schedule 25, page 254, leave out lines 3 to 12.

This amendment retains the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 251, in schedule 25, page 254, line 6, at end insert—

“(aa) after subsection (2)(b), insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), at least one of the newspapers must—

(a) have paid-for of free distribution in the relevant local area, and

(b) be published at regular intervals.””

This amendment ensures that at least one of the newspapers in which a public notice is printed is a local newspaper.

New clause 55—Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000—

(a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and

(b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority).

(2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters—

(a) the economic viability of local newspapers,

(b) access to information for local authority residents, and

(c) local democracy and accountability.

(3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”

Amendment 405, in clause 78, page 78, line 3, leave out “1 to 6” and insert—

“1 to 5, 6(1), 6(2)(b) and 6(4)”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 406.

Amendment 406, in clause 78, page 78, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) Paragraphs 6(2)(a) and 6(3) of Schedule 25 come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, but such regulations cannot be made until the Government has responded to the consultation provided for by virtue of section [Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals].”

This amendment is consequential on N55 and would prevent subparagraphs 6(2(a) and 6(3) of Schedule 25 coming into force until the consultation provided for in NC55 has been carried out and responded to.

Amendment 407, in clause 78, page 78, line 17, at end insert—

“(11) Regulations under subsection (4A) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 406 and would require such regulations to be subject to Parliamentary approval.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Amendments 250 and 251 would protect the right of local residents to be properly informed about decisions that affect them by retaining the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.

Amendment 251 would ensure that the newspaper in which notices are printed is truly local, relevant and published at regular intervals. The legal requirement to print notices in local newspapers must remain to protect transparency and local accountability. That is the baseline. Printed notices are still one of the main ways in which residents, including hundreds of my constituents, find out about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and other council decisions. We cannot restrict the dissemination of important public notices that directly affect the lives of residents just to the online world and social media.

In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon not everyone is online, and we have discussed the challenges for rural and isolated communities to even have broadband or wi-fi connectivity. I told the Minister that this week I had students who had to go to cafés in town to revise for their GCSEs, because they could not get a signal in their homes. Older rural residents are often digitally excluded, and many struggle with internet access.

In those areas lucky enough to still have them, local newspapers have a very important role to play in holding local government to account. On top of publishing statutory notices, they report on local democracy and help to keep communities informed and engaged. The amendments will also help local journalism, which relies in part on statutory advertising income, to survive.

Amendment 251 is important because it adds a definition to make it clear that at least one of the newspapers used must actually be local, published regularly and distributed, whether paid-for or free, in the local area.

The amendments will guarantee that public notices reach the people affected, and reinforce the principle that information should be accessible, inclusive, local, useful and timely. A person who is not online will not know that, for example, the road between their house and their GP will be closed on a day they have to attend an appointment. There will be unintended consequences. Together, the amendments keep community engagement open to everyone, not just those who have broadband connectivity. I was very surprised to see the removal of public notices in print newspapers in the Bill.

[Paul Holmes]

I am delighted to speak to amendments 250 and 251, and to new clause 55 and amendments 405 to 407, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I am sure that pleases everybody— I remind the hon. Member for Banbury that I have been seated for quite a while now, and I do not want him to miss out on my dulcet tones.

This is slightly complicated, but I will not spend too long on it. New clause 55 will require a consultation on the publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals. Amendments 405 to 407 would essentially act as a block to the regulations set out in the Bill until the proposal is consulted on and an assessment undertaken of the consultation responses on

“the economic viability of local newspapers…access to information for local authority residents, and…local democracy and accountability…. The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”

We believe that it is crucial to consult on the different aspects and different geographical situations of our local newspapers. Local newspapers are essentially the beating heart of various sections of our society who are not online and who rely on or may be interested in such information. It is not a novel thing for people to be interested in what is going on in their local area. As we have seen, with the reduction in regional TV broadcast news and the restructuring of our national broadcaster and other local news providers on television and radio, local newspapers can be the only channel for local people to see what is going on in their local authority area.

I am sure that many people on this Committee have been lobbied by various trade bodies and organisations on behalf of local newspapers. With the advance of digital technology and the internet, the circulation of physical copies of local newspapers is declining. When I was a councillor in 2008, the amazing and historic Daily Echo, which covers Hampshire and Portsmouth news, had a circulation of around 200,000 hard copies sold; it has fallen to around 40,000 now. Local newspapers rely heavily on the income stream from statutory notices and local government notices; it is a lifeline for local newspapers.

Such notices allow people to read about what is going on with their planning applications and some of the changes that local authorities are putting forward. In my local authority, as in local authorities across the country, these statutory notices and planning notices sometimes act as a safeguard when—I hate to say this— a local authority does not act on its statutory duty to alert relevant people to a planning application or a statutory notice. I would hate to guess how many times we have had an email from a constituent that says, “I didn’t know that this planning application was going to go ahead, and I’ve missed the consultation and can’t do anything about it,” either because the postman did not deliver the letter, or the local authority did not deliver to everybody in a restricted cul-de-sac some information about a block of flats going up next door. If they miss that information, they lose their chance to be consulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. We have not debated new clause 4, but since the selection and grouping of amendments is always provisional and at the discretion of the Chair, there will instead be a chance to debate it at a future sitting of the Committee. This is, effectively, a conscious decoupling of the new clause from the group.

Clause 58

Local authorities: effective neighbourhood governance

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 58, page 60, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) It is a duty of a local authority to specify the description of a neighbourhood area that will apply within the local authority’s area for the purposes of subsection (1).”

This amendment assigns the power to define “neighbourhood area” to the affected local authority.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 61, in clause 58, page 60, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure local authorities receive adequate funding to implement the “appropriate arrangements” in subsection (1) which relate to neighbourhood planning functions.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to deliver neighbourhood planning functions.

Amendment 13, in clause 58, page 60, line 29, at end insert—

“(4A) But regulations may not—

(a) alter—

(i) any function exercised by, or

(ii) any power available by or under any Act of Parliament to,

a parish or town council, or

(b) make provision for the abolition of any parish or town council.”

This amendment would ensure that the Bill’s provision for effective neighbourhood governance does not alter any functions performed by a parish or town council or lead to the abolition of a parish or town council.

Amendment 15, in clause 58, page 60, line 29, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under this section may not include power for the Secretary of State to specify the description of any neighbourhood area.”

This amendment precludes the Secretary of State from exercising any power to define a neighbourhood area.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I will address these amendments as two separate groups. Amendments 14 and 15 are simple and, in combination, would ensure that the definition of a “neighbourhood area”, which is important in this clause, is decided by the effective local authority and not by the Secretary of State. In these amendments we are again trying to devolve powers to grassroots governance. For the sake of clarity, we drafted amendments 14 and 15 to grant that neighbourhood areas are defined in accordance with local perspectives, rather than with the view from Westminster.

Amendment 13 complements those changes. Within the locally agreed and defined neighbourhood area, the authority would be required to make appropriate arrangements to secure effective governance. This amendment specifies that those arrangements must not alter any function performed by a town or parish council, or result in the abolition of a town or parish council. As I have explained previously, it is really important to keep town and parish councils. The amendment would give important protections for our smallest and first tier of local governance. The Committee has already debated how town and parish councils perform a crucial role in effective governance and in providing services. They are to adopt many more services as well. We talked about them being consulted, and this amendment is about making sure that they do not get abolished in the definition of a “neighbourhood area” and “neighbourhood governance”.

The Liberal Democrats continue to be surprised by the lack of protection for, or even reference to, town and parish councils in the Bill. This is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to protect those tiers of governance, and put on record her support for hyper-local government, as we consider devolution more broadly.

Amendment 61 has a different purpose. Throughout the Committee debate, hon. Members have spoken about the need for authorities to be able to access support of all kinds, including financial and advisory support, while delivering local planning functions. The amendment is relevant in the light of the Government’s decision earlier this year to remove funding for localism and neighbourhood planning, which was an excellent initiative that put planning and growth plans in the hands of local people. That initiative saw more than 1,000 neighbourhood plans approved at referendum, and was a key way of securing other local involvement in planning proposals and decisions, giving the local community the power to shape their own future in development. Neighbourhood plans were also very much linked to local housing needs, such as locally how much social housing is needed in a village or town, so they were really important.

Removing funding from neighbourhood planning seems to run contrary to this Government’s aims of devolution and community-engaged house building. I urge the Minister to reinstate some form of funding. I would like to hear reassurances from her, especially in relation to the protection of town and parish council governance, which I set out in amendment 13.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The key thing to say in response to this group of amendment is that provisions in the Bill are not about central Government imposing a model of neighbourhood governance without the flexibility or consideration of local places and their requirements; they are about setting a standard for smarter, more responsive decision making for our communities and, critically, ensuring that there are no black spots or gaps across the country, so that every community has the ability to shape, and have a voice, say and power in the decisions that impact their neighbourhoods.

We are not designing the regulations in isolation; we are working closely with local government and the community sector—including the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the We’re Right Here campaign—to make sure that the provisions in this part of the Bill reflect how we get effective good community governance.

On amendment 13, throughout the debates in this Committee I have said consistently that we absolutely recognise the important role that town and parish councils play in our democracy and our community life. There is no intention to abolish parish and town councils in the Bill. It is not about duplicating them—in fact, I have consistently said that where we are building neighbourhood governance, we should rightly build on the civic institutions that are there anyway, to ensure that we have both depth and proper coverage across the country. The regulation-making powers in the clause therefore cannot be used to make regulations that amend primary legislation, which protects town and parish councils already, and there is no intent to do that.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the Minister for her reassurance, but would she put what she has said about the protection of town and parish councils in writing to us?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am happy to put that in writing, but I will state again that there is already primary legislation in place that protects town and parish councils and means they cannot be abolished. There is nothing in the clause that undermines that. I will absolutely put that in writing. Again, the intention of the clause is to recognise that town and parish councils exist in some parts of the country, but not others. We want every community across the country to have effective neighbourhood governance structures, so that people can have power, agency and a voice to shape their locality and their direct neighbourhood.

Finally, on amendment 61, again, I agree that we should protect the important functions of neighbourhood planning. That is why my Department has already committed to ensuring that local planning authorities continue to be appropriately funded for their neighbourhood planning functions, including for plan examinations and referendums. Funding for those costs is provided through a claims-based system. We will make an announcement on the claims for this financial year in due course. As I said, there is nothing in the clause that undermines effective neighbourhood planning; it is quite the contrary. We think there is an opportunity, as we strengthen neighbourhood governance structures across the country, for that to enhance and build on the work that has been done through neighbourhood planning. I ask that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon withdraw the amendments.

[Manuela Perteghella]

In the light of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

MPs going to Parliament to work as part of a collective is very different from a single individual who needs democratic accountability to drive decisions. Those are two very different models, which is why we think the single transferable vote makes sense in the context of mayors and police and crime commissioners but the first-past-the-post system that we currently have for MPs is right for collective decision making.

Finally, mayors and police and crime commissioners are currently elected via first past the post, which we think is the wrong approach. We think that shifting to this new system will provide greater consensus for the electorate.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I will speak to new clause 7. I commend the Government for their decision to do away with the first-past-the-post system for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. As has been said, the decision to move mayoral elections to first past the post was a complete disaster, and this improvement will ensure better local voter representation. The Mayor of the West of England, for example, was elected with only 25% of the vote. Supplementary voting is a significant improvement, but the Liberal Democrats believe we should introduce the alternative vote system as a further advance on that.

We all want to see genuinely representative local elections to ensure that local people know that every vote counts, and so that the councils they elect are truly representative. Where the supplementary vote system allows people to vote for their first and second choices, the alternative vote system allows for a more comprehensive ranking by each voter. For example, under first past the post, a candidate with no majority backing can still win because of vote splitting. We believe that an alternative vote system will increase engagement and deliver fairer outcomes. Our new clause has the support of the Electoral Reform Society, which strongly recommends that it is incorporated into the legislation. I await the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Many Members will have pubs or community centres in their constituencies that are at risk of loss or closure, despite being the heart of their community and playing a crucial role in local lives. Too many valued community spaces are being lost because communities do not have the powers they need to protect them. That has a massive impact on the vibrancy and identity of local areas. Clause 60 and the associated schedule 27 will put control back into the hands of communities, giving them real power to take ownership of cherished local assets and protect them for future community use.

The clause will strengthen the existing assets of community value scheme in England, which since its introduction in 2012 has seen only 15 in every 1,000 listed assets come into community ownership, and create a new, far more effective and far more powerful, community right to buy. This will give communities a right of first refusal on the purchase of valued community assets. It will give an extended 12-month period to raise funding to purchase the asset, as we recognise that the current six months is not long enough. It will also introduce an independent valuation process to ensure a fair price for everyone.

We know that village shops and bank branches are a lifeline to our communities. The clause will therefore extend the definition of an asset of community value to include those with an economic value and assets of historical importance, so that communities can protect and make use of them.

Finally, the clause will address the historically low uptake of sporting assets under the current regime by establishing a new sporting asset of community value designation. Sports grounds across England will be automatically and indefinitely designated as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that these cherished facilities, vital to our communities, are protected for generations to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 27

Assets of community value

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 349, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out lines 1 to 8.

This amendment would remove the provision for assets of community value to be removed from the list of assets of community value after five years.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 350, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out from “value” in line 10 to “the” in line 11.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 349.

Amendment 351, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out lines 13 to 15.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 349.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Amendments 349 to 351 concern the rules around assets of community value. The designation of a building such as a pub, community shop or village hall, or even a piece of land like a community orchard, as an asset of community value allows local people to protect the places that play an important role in their community. They are often linked to wellbeing and social cohesion. The intent behind the original legislation was to give communities a real say on places that matter deeply to them, particularly when they are at risk of being sold or redeveloped.

There is, however, a flaw in the current system. Under existing law, once an asset is listed on the register by a local authority, it automatically drops off the register after five years. This creates a huge burden not only on the local community, including local community groups and parish and town councils—as they have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to resubmit the application to the local authority—but on the local authority itself, as the application has to go through its legal department and be scrutinised once again. In the time it takes for that to happen, a cherished community asset might be sold off.

Like sporting assets of community value, these important buildings and sites must remain on the list of community assets. Amendment 349 would remove the automatic five-year expiry for assets of community value for all buildings and places on that list. It would mean that, once an asset is listed as being of community value, it will stay on the register indefinitely, unless there is a clear reason for it to be removed.

The amendment would shift the burden from communities to maintain protection for something that is still vital to local life. I had an experience in my constituency where one of the village pubs, which had been put on the register of assets of community value, dropped off the list during covid. Obviously, we were all preoccupied with the pandemic, and we only realised later that it was not protected any more.

Amendments 350 and 351 are consequential to amendment 349. In a way, these amendments would also take away the burden on local authorities that have to assess the application once again. This change matters because reapplying is not a simple process; it takes time, organisation and paperwork, and it is handled by volunteers who may have limited capacity and resources. Removing the time limit for all assets of community value would mean that we provide continuity of protection and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for both communities and local councils. It would also recognise that community value does not just disappear after a few years. A local pub or post office that was vital to a community in 2019 is still vital in 2025.

In our view, these amendments sit entirely within the spirit of the Bill by giving communities more tools to strengthen local decision making, and not limiting them with arbitrary timeframes. I urge the Minister and the Committee to cut the red tape and strengthen local power, and I ask her to consider reviewing the time limit.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. We absolutely want to ensure strong protections for assets of community value, and the five-year listing period recognises the need of the community in that period of time. We also recognise that the need and desire of the community may change over time. Something that is an asset of community value in year one might not be an asset of community value in year six or seven. This allows a review process to happen.

We are also trying to balance the protections that we absolutely want to give to communities with those of the asset owners, and to ensure it is proportionate. We think that five years is a fair balance between both parties. I am also mindful of the risk that if we designate assets of community value permanently, local authorities may be incentivised to take tougher judgments on requests from communities to list assets of community value. On balance, when we think about the incentives to create more assets of community value, protections that we need to give to communities and protections for the asset owners, five years feels like the right amount of time to allow the system to operate in a way that is fair for all parties. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her amendment.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Would the Minister consider looking at extending that five years to give a bit more time to the community to—

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister has already spoken. You are just winding up.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Okay. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 27, page 265, line 41, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

This amendment would require environmental interests to be considered as a criterion for establishing a local authority’s area as land of community value.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 35, in schedule 27, page 266, line 4, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.

Amendment 36, in schedule 27, page 266, line 12, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.

Amendment 37, in schedule 27, page 266, line 18, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.

[Manuela Perteghella]

These amendments are interlinked. First, I would like to speak in support of the Bill’s provisions to protect assets of community value under the new sporting category. Those are important, and we are all delighted to see them in the Bill. These are key community hubs, including for our grassroots sports clubs and particularly for our young people. They play a fundamental role in building local pride, building engagement and developing young people’s skills. I thank the Government for these welcome provisions.

In that context, the Bill’s exclusion of environmental assets of community value seems stark. Social, economic and environmental impacts are often grouped together in legislation, and yet although sporting assets have been added to the group of possible categories for an asset of community value, environmental assets have not. The environmental impact is absent. We can only assume that exclusion is a protection against environmental considerations being used as a mechanism to prevent development. Perhaps the Minister can explain that in her response. This seems needlessly reductive, because the positives outweigh the negatives, and the negatives can be mitigated if there is a concern.

There is widespread support for these amendments. We worked on them with Locality and the Community Land Trust Network, in conversation with them I heard about sites all across the country that could be protected. I am sure that Members can think of many examples in their constituencies. Given the value of environmental conservation—the value of nature for its own sake, as well as its benefits for public health and mental health—we ask the Minister to consider including provision for considering environmental impact in assets of community value. It would be of huge value to my constituents to be able to ensure that measures are in place to protect the environmental value of, for example, Meon Vale woods, which they fought to save and which has become a local nature reserve. Depending on the Minister’s response, I will press amendment 34 and consequential amendments 35 to 37 to a vote.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The Government absolutely want to ensure that the community right to buy can be used to protect a wide range of assets. That already includes a wide range of environmental assets where communities can demonstrate an existing historical, social or economic purpose, including allotments, woodlands, parks and other green spaces. We know that many of those can already be found on local lists of assets of community value.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 60

Ayes: 2

---

Green Party: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 9

---

Labour: 9

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 373, in schedule 27, page 266, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) it is land of on which there are buildings of historical significance.”

This amendment would expand the criteria for a local authority classifying land as of community value to include land on which there are buildings of historical significance.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 40, in schedule 27, page 267, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) Where a local authority is responsible for assessing whether land in its area is a sporting asset of community value, the Secretary of State must ensure the authority receives adequate funding to make the assessment.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to assess whether land in their area is a sporting asset of community value.

Amendment 374, in schedule 27, page 276, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) If there is no preferred community buyer, the Secretary of State must ensure the relevant local authority receives financial support to buy the land of community value.”

Amendment 42, in schedule 27, page 279, line 17, at end insert—

“(2A) The relevant local authority must as far as reasonably practicable support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase land of community value.”

This amendment would require local authorities to provide support for the preferred community buyer in agreeing and meeting an offer to buy land of community value.

Amendment 41, in schedule 27, page 280, line 28, at end insert—

“(9A) The Secretary of State must ensure local authorities are adequately funded to meet the expenses of a valuation under this section.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to meet the expense of land valuations in their area.

Amendment 249, in schedule 27, page 283, line 8, at end insert—

“(f) matters relating to requirements about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.

New clause 51—Community ownership fund—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—

(a) voluntary and community organisation, or

(b) parish or town council,

to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Amendments 40 to 42 and 249 seek to improve how the assets of community value system works in practice. Amendment 40 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to carry out assessments of whether land is a sporting asset of community value. Amendment 41 makes the same point on valuations, and amendment 42 would require local authorities, as far as reasonably practicable, to support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase of land of community value. Finally, amendment 249 would ensure that community value does not stop mattering once a planning application is lodged by allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring the planners and His Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate to give special consideration to land of community value when making decisions.

Amendment 40, which would make sure that local councils are properly funded when assessing whether land is a sporting asset of community value, is vital in identifying and assessing sporting assets. It must not be a simple tick-box exercise, because evidence has to be gathered and local groups have to be consulted, and competing claims between landowners and residents often have to be resolved.

This can be done only with time, specialist knowledge, consultants and often site visits, all of which cost money. As we know all too well, and as the Minister has reminded us today, many councils are already stretched thin. Without additional funding, there is a very real risk that this new protection for sporting assets will be inconsistent or, at worst, non-existent.

For the same reasons, amendment 41 would require adequate central funding for land valuations. If councils cannot afford them, communities face delay and uncertainty and opportunities are lost. Adequate central funding would make the process faster, fairer and more consistent across the country. With this financial support in place, more communities will be able to come together to make a bid for their grassroots sports clubs and other important cultural assets in their communities.

Amendment 42 goes to the heart of community empowerment, requiring councils as far as is reasonably possible to support the preferred community buyer by guiding them through the process and helping them to gain access to expert advice and funding. Right now communities have the right to bid, but they are left on their own; this amendment would turn that right into success.

Amendment 249 would ensure that community value is not ignored in the planning system. At present, even a listed community site can be granted planning permission for demolition or redevelopment; it is my understanding that there is nothing in regulations to ensure that consideration is given to the fact that a particular site is on a list of assets of community value. This amendment would require planning authorities to give special consideration to the community value of such land before approving development. It would not block development, but would ensure that community value is considered and that the community’s voice is properly heard. It is a modest improvement.

Without these improvements to the legislation, the right to protect community assets risks being just words on paper. When it becomes a genuine tool for local and community empowerment, which is the welcome title of this important Bill, it will live up to the spirit of devolution that we all want to deliver.

I turn now to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Amendment 373 would include historically significant buildings as community assets, while amendment 374 would support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer; if no community group comes forward, the local authority can step in.

Amendment 373 would expand the legal definition of what can be classed as an asset of community value to include land or property with buildings of historical significance. We all have those in our constituencies: even if their current use is not community based, they are still part of our built heritage, and they shape our sense of place, so they are really important. While the current asset of community value system focuses mainly on social use, some historically important sites might not fit neatly into that community use test, even if they are locally important and of historical significance.

Historical buildings are obviously important in their own right, of course, which is why we have the listed building system, but they also connect people to the story of their place and past industries—the movements that shaped their community. When those buildings disappear, communities lose part of their collective memory and character, and once they are gone, they cannot be replaced. That is really important.

More than that, though, historical buildings are community assets in waiting. Many historical sites, such as disused chapels, mills, railway stations, schools and places that are part of our industrial heritage can be restored into vibrant hubs, cafés, arts venues and co-working spaces. They can have a community-based use, and protecting them buys time for communities to develop and put forward a viable plan to the authorities, rather than watching the bulldozers move in. With imagination, we can help these historical buildings to become community hubs.

Amendment 374 is designed to support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer, by requiring the Secretary of State to provide financial support to the local authority to purchase the land itself. This is an essential amendment, because not every community will have the resources or capacity to raise the funds, especially in disadvantaged communities; even if they want desperately to save it, there is no recourse. No community anywhere in England should lose its assets simply because local people cannot afford to buy it or act fast enough. The amendment would mean that councils could step in temporarily, for example holding the assets in trust or leasing it back to the community once funding or a long-term plan is secured.

I will move on to new clause 51 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). The clause would create a statutory community ownership fund, which the Secretary of State must set up within six months of the Bill becoming law. Under this new clause, strategic authorities could apply for up to £2 million to support community groups or parish and town councils in buying assets of community value that are at risk of being lost; having been on the list for five years, they can be dropped without the community knowing.

The regulations to create and run the fund would follow the negative procedure, meaning Parliament could annul them, but not amend them. The new clause would give the community real financial teeth, turning the right to bid into a right to buy, giving the tools so that the community can act. Communities, as hon. Members will know from experience, often identify assets worth saving, but they lack the up-front capital to act. A permanent statutory fund would give councils and community organisations the power and financial support to ensure that assets of community value stay and are preserved for community use. By placing it on to a statutory footing, the clause will make community ownership funding a permanent part of local government support for community empowerment, and not just a pilot scheme.

[Sean Woodcock]

Briefly, I want to put on the record how much I value the protection of sporting assets. I have already mentioned Chipping Norton in my constituency, and how the football club there lost its land to a rather unscrupulous developer the best part of a decade ago and ever since has not been able to play in the town itself; it has to play almost 10 miles away. The protections are very close to my heart and I very much support them.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon talked about pubs. I have numerous pubs in my constituency with active campaigns—the Fox Inn and the Bell Inn, for example—where the community is very active and keen to take on the pub to save it so that it is not lost to the community.

I rise to speak, however, because sometimes pubs close down and, with the best will in the world, are unable to reopen, despite the efforts of the community and people nearby. There is a real danger of unintended consequences if the amendment puts in too much protection and removes the flexibility that is necessary to allow historical buildings to survive.

I offer an example from my constituency, where massive efforts were put in to retain a particular pub. The brewers who owned it put it out to all sorts of people. Unfortunately, the amount of money required to bring it back up to standard made it totally unviable, not only for other brewers or people wanting to take it on, but for the community. The pub was in a historical village, and the real danger is that we wrap it up so much in protection and regulations that, in trying to save the pub, we will lose the historical building. If the landlord is not able to do anything with it, it can fall to rack and ruin, and even with the best will in the world we can end up losing that historical building. That pub ended up becoming a house; granted, it is no longer a pub or a community asset, but the building is retained and is no longer a dilapidated ruin in the middle of a village.

Although the amendment comes from a really good place, I cannot support it. I support the Government making it easier for communities to get involved, giving them more time and granting them more powers to take on historical pubs that are important parts of the community, but there is a real danger that the amendment could have an unintended consequence: a historical building being lost purely because it is so wrapped in regulation and protection that nobody is able to do anything with it. I would therefore vote against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will try to work through all the amendments. Let me start with amendment 373. I appreciate the commitment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to protecting historical assets. The Government are proud to support communities to celebrate heritage buildings and assets, and there are already protections in place for them to do that. Historical buildings that are valued by local communities, but do not meet the criteria to be nationally listed, can be listed by local authorities as non-designated heritage assets. That protects them through the national planning policy framework, so the protection is already there.

On amendment 40, I reassure the Committee that we already have established processes in place to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to deliver new policies, and this is no exception. The new burdens doctrine requires that all new responsibilities placed on local authorities are properly assessed and fully funded by the relevant Department. We are assessing the cost of the process for local authorities and will provide new burdens funding accordingly.

On amendment 41, I can confirm that we are assessing the costs of independent valuation to local authorities. Where the owner and community buyer cannot agree a purchase price for an asset through negotiation, the local authority must appoint an independent valuer. We will provide new burdens funding to meet those costs accordingly, once assessments have been finalised and tested with local government. I hope that that provides some assurance.

On amendment 374, we know that some community groups may not come forward as they do not have the capability or capacity to put together a bid for an asset. The intention of the 12-month sale period is to give communities time to organise and to raise the funding required. We will continue to work with community organisations to ensure that they have the support to do so. Requiring local authorities to step in to purchase assets where there is no community buyer would put too much of a burden on local authorities, and we could end up with local authorities taking over and having to run theatres and pubs. Although those assets might have value for the community, that does not feel appropriate for a local authority.

We think we have the balance right and that this measure is proportionate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said eloquently, however much we might want a particular asset to stay in its original form, sometimes that may not be viable. We do not want buildings becoming dilapidated when they could be retained in a different way.

On amendment 42, we are already putting requirements on local authorities to enable and facilitate this process. For example, they must arrange that joint meeting between the asset owner and the community buyer at the start of the process and enable that process of negotiation and, as I have said, local authorities again need to step in to provide the independent valuer if negotiations fail. We think that is the right role for the local authority, not least because it has to be an arbiter in the process.

However, we want there to be enough capability across all our communities, irrespective of the level of social capital, to be able to take on these powers. There is a range of community organisations with the expertise and experience to provide this kind of support to communities, such as Plunkett, Power to Change and Locality, and we are working with those organisations on the additional support that they can provide to communities across the country.

Amendment 249 would restrict what an asset owner can do with their property once listed. We think that it is ultimately up to local planning authorities to consider planning applications in accordance with their development plans and other material considerations. That could include the listing of an asset of community value. The weight afforded to material considerations in making the decision will be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we think it is right that that is left to the local planning authority.

Critically, the national planning policy framework already includes important safeguards to protect against the unnecessary loss of social, recreational and cultural facilities that serve an important value for the community. We think that the balance between what already exists in the planning system and the protections that we are providing through the community right to buy is right and appropriate.

Finally, on new clause 51, let me be clear: this Government are absolutely committed to empowering our communities. We are giving communities everywhere the power to take ownership. Our pride in place programme, which the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about, is providing £5 billion over 10 years to support 244 places, to enable and support them to take on such community assets of value.

We will continue to review this area, because we are committed to communities having a stake in and ownership of their assets, and we are committed to doing our part as a Government to enable them to do that. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her many amendments.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I will not press the amendments to a vote, although my hon. Friends might table them again on Report, but I will press new clause 51 to a vote later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 236, in schedule 27, page 275, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—

“(b) the relevant local authority has determined that the preferred community buyer does not meet the progress requirements after any of the review periods (see section 86U), or”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

I have fundamental disagreements with Eastleigh borough council. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon knows that I speak regularly about how her party’s political priorities differ from those of my party, but the council is directly accountable to people in suitable structures and in a very efficient way. The creation of a local authority of up to 700,000 people does not necessarily mean that there will be more efficient services delivered across the country, and particularly not in Hampshire.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, Stratford-on-Avon district council will be abolished. I worked as a district councillor there, and I know how close district councillors are to their communities. They know their area best, and all that expertise and knowledge will be wiped out. Residents are really worried. For example, they do not want councillors in the north of Warwickshire to take decisions that will affect them in the south. There is a worry among our communities about—

[The Chair]

Order. May I point out that this is not a speech but an intervention?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Sorry, Chair. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the resulting democratic deficit sets a dangerous precedent?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. As I have said before, she has the best interests of Stratford-on-Avon at heart. From her experience in local government, she knows the expertise held by district councillors who know the areas they serve.

In my local area, two new unitary authorities are proposed —one that looks eastward and one that looks westward. What happens to the semi-rural areas of my constituency, now having new unitary councils headquartered in Southampton and Portsmouth? Those unique connections that district councils have, which suit their smaller areas, will not be served as well by a larger unitary authority. That view is endorsed by the District Councils’ Network, which suggested in its briefing note that focusing on authority scale and population size during local government reorganisation would not lead to optimal outcomes. It stated:

“it will be tempting to pursue approaches to LGR that make it as easy as possible to implement—focusing only on scale and minimising disruption.”

The Government say they want to deliver growth and get the public finances in good order, but there are no concrete suggestions for how their proposals will save money. Just going bigger and larger, and having one tier across the whole UK, does not necessarily mean that services will be better. As I have said consistently, many district, town and parish councils do not want this to happen. Many Members across the House may say, “That is the vested interest of elected people who are going to be got rid of,” but that is not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am grateful for your indulgence on this, Dame Siobhain, because I know that we have had a very long debate on the substantive clause to which it relates. I want briefly to speak to amendments 48 to 51. Most of the amendments are consequential on or directly related to amendment 50, and they are all in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). My hon. Friend thinks that this is a simple amendment that goes to the heart of what we were just discussing: the driving force behind devolution should be local situations and the local wants and needs of local people, rather than the standardised, central, top-down approach to local government reorganisation that this Government are advocating and forcing on local authority leaders across the country.

Amendment 50 would allow the Secretary of State to invite or direct—the emphasis is on “invite”—an authority to split into more than one single-tier authority. This applies to many of the situations across the UK where there are a number of district councils or county councils that do not want to engage with the Minister’s local government reform, but are being forced to do so, as we discussed in the last segment of this Bill Committee. Local people or a local authority leader could decide to enter into a form of local government reorganisation, but do so in the way that suits them best. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, in tabling this amendment, would have been referring to the situation around Bradford. Many people in the surrounding areas and in his constituency have indicated to him that they do not wish to be part of a local authority including Bradford. There is nothing wrong with Bradford—I have been there and it is a wonderful city—but there are two different and distinct types of geographical area within the single area proposed by the Government.

The same could be said of my local government situation. Many Members across the House know the distinct nature of Hampshire and the differences in approach to life between the people of Portsmouth and the people of Southampton. They would not necessarily want to be in the same local authority as each other—that is not the circumstance at the moment—but district councils in the proposed reorganisation simply do not want to engage because they want to stand alone to form a single-tier authority, perhaps with some of their partners. One proposal, which would not have met the Government standard test, was for a single-tier authority between Fareham, Gosport and Havant. They should be allowed to do that, but they are not, because of the top-down nature of the reorganisation.

[Manuela Perteghella]

In Warwickshire, too, four of five district and borough councils proposed a South Warwickshire—they wanted two unitary councils, rather than one huge, single unitary. That put them in collision with the county council proposal that was just voted through. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need flexibility and the proposals should not be directed by the Secretary of State?

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady in that we need responsibility, bearing in mind that amendment 51 would give the Secretary of State the power in this case to enforce that flexibility. A problem in the proposed local government reorganisation is that it focuses overly on the role and consent of county authorities, but the voice of district councils has not been listened to in this approach, as I outlined earlier when quoting Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, who was leader of the District Councils’ Network.

I know what the Minister will say to our amendments, and I respect her position in doing so, but the Conservative party believes that devolution can mean so much to so many if done with the bottom-up approach that the Minister insists is hers. We want some words of encouragement that she may look—although I know she will not—to reduce the restrictions on a single tier for larger geographical areas. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, as it is a probing one. However, I have it on the good authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley that he will table similar amendments on Report. We will listen to the Minister’s response with great enthusiasm.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

To clarify, the Bill does not specify any particular organisation that should be consulted. It says that we will set that out in guidance. That guidance will be driven by a whole host of consultation with strategic authorities and their partners around the range of organisations and bodies we think is necessary. The Conservative amendment specifically picked on trade unions and specifically said we should exclude them. That is what we were pushing back against, so we are completely consistent in this.

In this case, again, there will be guidance that will talk about a range of local stakeholders, but we think it is wrong to prescribe on the face of the Bill that there should be a minimum requirement in order to engage with town and parish councils. That is too onerous and is disproportionate. We should allow the mayor and the strategic authority to know their stakeholders and the people with whom they need to have a conversation, to make sure that they have consensus and the support to drive forward their local growth plan.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 44

Ayes: 5

Noes: 10

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 359, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—

“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”

This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 360, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral CCA must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”

This amendment is related to Amendment 359.

[Manuela Perteghella]

These amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and they focus on ensuring that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered in the Bill. At present, the Bill largely focuses on urban centres and large population areas. There is a bit about rural areas, but not about the differences between these often isolated geographical areas, and there is little specific recognition of rural or geographically isolated communities, despite their unique challenges and contributions to the economy.

Both amendments would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits for those areas. In that way, we would ensure that the growth strategies are inclusive, balanced and relevant to the communities within the combined authority area. Combined authority areas can be very different—there could be a very populous urban cluster of unitary councils, and there could also be rural councils, which have completely different needs.

The amendments are fair to rural communities and advantageous to urban areas, because we know that when our rural areas thrive, so does the whole country. There are opportunities across our nation as a whole. Rural and coastal areas need focused attention—for example, supporting infrastructure such as transport networks, energy infrastructure and digital connectivity. There are families in my constituency who do not get any broadband connectivity, and their children have to go to cafés in towns to revise for GCSEs. Not having that connectivity also makes it very difficult for businesses to thrive, so we face unique challenges.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Is there evidence that existing mayors—such as the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough or the Mayor of North Tyneside—are not considering rural communities in their work, which would suggest that we need the amendments?

[Manuela Perteghella]

That goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was saying. We should not rely on the kindness of mayors to care about the whole of their communities; we need to ensure that local growth plans—which is what the amendments are about—include the needs of coastal, rural and isolated communities such as mine, where we do not have buses to take elderly residents to the nearest hospital. It is important that we make provision for local growth plans to consider the needs of rural, coastal and remote communities.

Obviously, rural areas are not homogeneous. We know that they have different industries—for example, agriculture and the visitor economy—and the demographics are different. Lots of people come to my constituency to retire, for example, which tells us about the health provision that we need our area. We want those needs to be reflected in the provisions on local growth plans in the Bill. A one-size-fits-all approach will lead to not only rural deprivation but missed opportunities for our nation as a whole.

In conclusion, the amendments are about equity, opportunity and smart growth. Rural, remote and coastal communities must not be left behind. Ignoring them would be a missed opportunity for the sustainable and inclusive growth that would power the whole region. Amendments 359 and 360 would ensure that all mayoral authorities plan meaningfully and strategically for every part of their area. For that reason, I will push amendment 359 to a vote.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome amendment 359, moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. She outlined a number of issues that she faces in her rural constituency—the land of Shakespeare—where many people retire. I also represent a constituency that Shakespeare regularly visited. He stayed with the Earl of Southampton in the village of Titchfield, where his creative juices flowed.

We are going through exactly the same issues, in that both our areas are diverse in their make-up and population. If I take the proposed mayoral authority that is being created for Hampshire and the Solent, that region consists of two large working-class cities on the south coast, which probably look like old industrial northern working-class cities, in what is otherwise quite an affluent area. As well as those cities of Southampton and Portsmouth, we have many affluent and also deprived coastal communities, and the farming communities in Hampshire.

Without undermining the candidates of all political parties who will be standing—I will talk about Hampshire in this case, because it adequately illustrates the problems of the current legislation—it is perfectly reasonable to assume that because the future mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, like many others, is being asked to represent 2.2 million people, those diverse areas and what the mayor needs to look at in the growth plan need to be codified.

--- Later in debate ---

Ultimately, the Government do not presume that they understand the needs and opportunities of particular strategic authority areas better than the democratically elected mayor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, that mayor is representative, and will be voted in and out by voters within their area, so if they neglect a rural or coastal part of their constituent area, that will be to their detriment. We think it is important to create the flexibility so that the mayors who know better can specify, because otherwise we end up in a world where we are specifying all the areas and it becomes completely meaningless.

[Manuela Perteghella]

For such an important Bill, I do not think that we should wait four years—my community will be left behind by then. I do not want to wait for the ballot box; I want to give the mayor the tools to have inclusive local growth plans that take areas into consideration. That means they will be empowered to lobby the Government for transport networks or broadband connectivity in isolated areas and coastal communities, which are also, by the way, vulnerable to storms and flooding because of climate change, so they have very different needs.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I hear the passion and commitment of the hon. Lady clearly. Certainly my experience of strategic authorities and mayors who cover a combination of areas—including rural areas—is that they are mindful and clear about it; they want to have a conversation about transport connectivity and digital connectivity, and about how we drive economic growth and prosperity within our farming communities.

There is no evidence to suggest that local growth plans as defined in the Bill do not enable places to drive that. That is certainly not the experience that we are seeing at the moment. I understand the concern that a lot of our mayors have been in more urban areas, but in the north-east and increasingly with the mayors who are coming through our priority programme, they are clear about the importance of their rural communities and the fact that they will need certain powers and functions to drive that.

Although I completely understand the intent and legitimate concern behind the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I think they are too prescriptive, and it is right that we create the flexibility for mayors to understand their patch across the piece and then respond effectively in their local growth plan. I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment 359—although I think she said she will press it to a vote.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I would like to press amendment 359 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the Minister for that assurance. I simply want the opportunity not to be denied. Town and parish councils often say, “Well, we are not allowed to access that,” but there may be an opportunity here, and to exclude them would be a shame. Perhaps use of “may” would give that opportunity for grant funding. I would welcome a tiny amendment at some point in the future. It is something to reflect on.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Encouragement of visitors and promotion of visitors

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 358, in clause 40, page 40, line 31, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area.

(1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include—

(a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and

(b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1).

(1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes—

(a) form of engagement used;

(b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and

(c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1).

(1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’”

This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 41—Visitor levies—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area.

(2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”

[Manuela Perteghella]

Amendment 358 would require a strategic authority to engage with town and parish councils when using its powers to encourage tourism. Tourism is a vital part of the economy for many local areas, supporting jobs, local businesses and community services. The Bill allows strategic authorities to exercise powers to encourage visitors, but with no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in the process, as we explained before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper]

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. If she likes

“piña coladas, and gettin’ caught in the rain”,

may I suggest that she looks no further than the Piña Colada festival in Northwich, which is delivered by Northwich town council and adds £500,000 to the local economy? I completely agree with her about the contribution that town and parish councils can make with stuff like this, but she would place a duty on the mayor that they “must” consult, and not all parishes are the same. Will she comment on that?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I said strategic authority—this is at the strategic authority level. Parish and town councils are different, of course, and so they have different needs. Some areas depend on the visitor economy. My town council is represented in arts and culture and in the tourism strategies for the town.

[Vikki Slade]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now quite common for a town council to run the tourist information centre? The only two places in my constituency that have a tourist information centre are Wareham and Wimborne. Often, the tourist information centre might be in a museum that is run independently, but it is not the local authority that runs it any more; it is the town council.

[Manuela Perteghella]

In the case of unitaries, yes. The district council in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon is still in charge of the visitor information centre, but that will probably go to the town council when our district council is abolished.

[Sean Woodcock]

The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way many times on all her amendments. I understand the spirit in which she has tabled them—to make sure that parish and town councils are acknowledged for their work—but one of my concerns about this amendment, as with many of her others, is the amount of work that it would put not just on the strategic authority, but potentially on the parish and town councils. They will be given a blitz of things and asked to respond to them, but many will not have the capacity to do so. Does she not accept that that is a potential challenge to this being done properly?

[Manuela Perteghella]

As I said, we need to ensure that the strategic authority has the tools to consult town and parish councils. In an area such as mine, which is to go through reorganisation and devolution, we do not know what will happen to many smaller parish councils.

[Andrew Cooper]

My problem with the hon. Lady’s argument is that her amendment states:

“Engagement…must include…consulting town and parish councils”—

not “can include”, but “must include”. Of 300 parish councils, some might be home to only 150 people and some to 20,000 people, so they are completely different. I do not think that “must include” is appropriate.

[Manuela Perteghella]

The onus would be on the strategic authority to consult, not on the parish or town council to respond. The argument that there are 300 parish or town councils, so we will not bother to ensure that their voices are heard, really disappoints me. The amendment would require strategic authorities to consult town and parish councils when developing

“tourism strategies, policies and investment priorities”.

The amendment also asks the Secretary of State to issue guidance on minimum standards of engagement. Again, we must give the strategic authority the tools to engage with town and parish councils, which, I remind the Committee, are going to take on a lot of assets and services when district councils are abolished.

Overall, the amendment is about giving local communities representation in tourism planning. That is important, because town and parish councils know the attractions, infrastructure needs and growth opportunities of their areas best. If a theme park is proposed, the town or parish council will know exactly whether, for example, a bypass is needed. Engaging with them will ensure that tourism plans are grounded in the reality of each community. I repeat that the onus to engage should be on the strategic authority.

The amendment would also ensure inclusive planning. We talked this morning about inclusivity. Small towns, villages and rural areas are often overlooked in broader strategies, but they are vital to our economy. By considering them, we support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. The authorities would also have to report on how councils are engaged and what input they have provided. That would promote sustainable tourism, because the authority, by consulting on the views of parishioners through parish and town councils, would be able to balance visitor growth with the needs of residents. That is very important for areas such as my constituency. In short, the amendment would empower local communities, strengthen democracy and make tourism strategies more effective and inclusive.

New clause 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), would require the Secretary of State to review the idea of giving local authorities the power to introduce visitor levies in their areas. This is an important power for strategic authorities. Towns and cities across the country are proud of the role that they play in supporting the visitor economy, both domestic and international, but the system needs to be made fairer through a recognition of the costs, as well as the benefits, of such a high degree of tourism. The new clause would compel the Government to conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies.

Scotland introduced the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which gives councils direct powers to apply tourist taxes. Wales followed suit with the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025, and now Manchester and Liverpool have introduced a voluntary levy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole has introduced a levy.

[Vikki Slade]

On that point, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council did attempt to introduce an accommodation levy. Unfortunately it failed on a technicality, but it may well come back. The amendment asks for a review into a visitor levy, but what is important is that, if one is implemented, it does not end up going back to the Treasury. There would be no benefit to a local community whatsoever if money collected from a visitor paying £2 a night to stay in a hotel ends up going back to Government, when it is the local economy that is damaged and the local economy that can benefit—

[The Chair]

Order. That was a very long intervention.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank my hon. Friend for the example from her council. As she said, it is important that the levy is ringfenced for the strategic authority to reinvest in the local area, so that it could provide, for example, additional regional funding streams for arts and culture and for residents themselves. I hope that the Government will at least commit to conducting a review into visitor levies, so that we can safeguard our hugely valuable tourism industry.

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak to amendment 358, in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and to new clause 41. I do not want to reiterate what I said previously, Dame Siobhain—your face indicates that that would not be looked upon advantageously—but I think that the sustained efforts of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to have the rights and responsibilities of town and parish councils recognised is admirable. I believe that it needs to be repeated to the Minister, and it is now coming from two Opposition parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

There are already mechanisms to enable places to introduce overnight stay levies through the accommodation business improvement district model, as the hon. Lady mentioned. With that, and allowing that this good Committee is not the Chancellor, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the amendment.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I will not press new clause 41 to a vote, but I would like to do so with amendment 358, which concerns consultation with parish and town councils on tourism strategy.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I would like to speak to amendments 253 and 254. These are simple amendments, but they can make a meaningful impact and save lives. We want to add nitrogen dioxide levels and general air quality as a factor that combined authorities and combined county authorities must consider in their work to reduce health inequalities. That would ensure that environmental health risks were treated as core determinants of health, not as an afterthought.

We have heard a moving speech by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. We know that nitrogen dioxide pollution and poor general air quality are major contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and they disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Including air quality as a health determinant would protect the most vulnerable. As we have heard, poor air quality causes thousands of premature deaths every year and leaves many others with chronic illnesses, but these are preventable. We also know that pollution hits deprived communities and those near busy roads or industrial estates the hardest, yet without action, their voices will be ignored. By explicitly including air quality, we can create healthier communities, which will translate into fewer hospital visits and a better quality of life for everyone.

By explicitly including air quality in the duty of combined county authorities and combined authorities to reduce health inequalities, amendments 253 and 254 would ensure that environmental factors are considered alongside social and economic ones. They also would encourage authorities to make evidence-based decisions across transport and planning, and also about the siting of heavy industry in an area, so we would like to hear the Minister’s views and assurances on these important issues.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank both hon. Members for their heartfelt contributions to the debate. Let me put it on record that we absolutely recognise that air quality is one of the greatest environmental threats to our health and that its impacts are not felt equally in our society. Action by local authorities is absolutely pivotal in improving air quality locally. The Environment Act 1995 already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to work directly with local authorities on air quality action plans for their areas. Local air quality management statutory policy guidance also sets out ways of joint working with public health professionals to ensure that plans reduce health risks and disparities in affected communities to which local authorities must have regard.

Equally, we recognise the importance of environmental factors beyond air quality to people’s health. The scope of the general health determinants in the Bill has intentionally been crafted broadly. Some examples are given, but it is not our intention to set out a definitive list, as we think that would be too constraining. Combined authorities and combined county authorities remain the experts in their local areas. They will understand how air quality or environmental issues are impacting on their local communities, and they are best placed to decide how to consider general health determinants to deliver for their communities.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Vikki Slade]

Although it may come back at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 352, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—

“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils in the local authority area about the plan.”

This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils in the area about a mayoral combined authority’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 353, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—

“(2A) A mayoral combined authority must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.

(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—

(a) sharing draft proposals,

(b) sharing evidence gathered to prepare the proposal, and

(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”

This amendment would require mayoral combined authorities to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.

Amendment 354, in schedule 19, page 201, line 4, at end insert—

“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 107L(2B).”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral combined authorities’ local growth plans.

Amendment 355, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils about the plan.”

This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils about a mayoral CCA’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.

Amendment 356, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) A mayoral CCA must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.

(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—

(a) sharing draft proposals,

(b) sharing information gathered to prepare the proposal, and

(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”

This amendment would require mayoral CCAs to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.

Amendment 357, in schedule 19, page 202, line 37, at end insert—

“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 32A(2B).”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral CCAs’ local growth plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

Local growth plans are rightly a key part of the devolution agenda, because the plans guide inward investment and set priorities for economic growth, as we have discussed, as well as development and regeneration in combined authority areas. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the importance of inclusive economic and growth plans. Inclusivity is necessary. Consultation and engagement are necessary. Currently, however, there is no statutory requirement for mayoral combined authorities to formally record or engage with town and parish councils in the creation of these plans. These amendments aim to address that gap, increasing local accountability and inclusivity.

Amendments 352 and 355 would require any mayoral authority making a local growth plan to include the views of local town and parish council. Amendments 353 and 356 would go further, requiring active engagement with those councils by, for example, sharing draft proposals and the evidence behind the proposals for local growth plans, and giving councils a real opportunity to provide feedback before local growth plans are made. By requiring consultation at a parish level and genuine involvement in devolution decisions, and by valuing local voices, these provisions resist the top-down approach.

In my constituency we have brilliant parish and town councils. When the district councils are abolished and a new unitary council is made, it is likely that towns and parishes will be asked if they wish to take on more services and assets, including possible development sites.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

We are about to embark on a devolution deal for Cheshire and Warrington. The county of Cheshire alone has more than 330 civil parishes. Is the hon. Lady not concerned about the burden that would be placed on a mayor? Her amendment would require the views of all those parishes to be set out, so requiring the mayor in statute to report on that seems like a big ask.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I am hearing a lot from the Labour Benches about there being 800 or 350 parish councils, so we cannot engage with them, but there are different ways to engage, such as online consultations or parish fora to which representatives and clerks can be invited. That the mayor cannot engage because there are so many parish councils is not a factor; I am sure that the mayor will be able to.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I do not think it was suggested that the mayor could or should not engage; the question is about putting mandatory engagement in the Bill. Does she accept that is very different from what she has just stated?

[Manuela Perteghella]

No, I do not accept that. We are saying that there have to be minimum standards for engagement. In fact, amendment 354, reinforced by amendment 357, would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance on minimum standards for engagement. It would then be up to the mayor, but at least the engagement with our first tier of local government would be meaningful and consistent across all mayoral combined authorities.

Setting minimum standards for engagement would provide a baseline for consultation across all mayoral authorities, but that consultation can be in different formats. Let us not forget that two-tier local authorities with county councils often have lots of parish councils and they already consult them on local plans, for example, so there are ways to do it. It is not that the leader of the county has to meet all 200 parish councils individually.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady has made an excellent case, as she has done throughout the Bill Committee, for our excellent town and parish councils, which serve my constituency well. Does she agree that many district councils, in anticipation of being abolished, are already transferring assets—some of which are crucial to local growth and local planning—to parish councils, which are adequately taking them on? If the Bill goes through, however, those parish councils will have no consultation even though they have already taken on some assets that are crucial to the local growth that we are talking about.

[Manuela Perteghella]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If a district council is to be abolished, parish and town councils are asked to take on assets or sites that could be development sites, so they become stakeholders in the local growth plans. They will be the landowners, so not to engage with the parish and town councils that take on those assets will be damaging in the long term.

Our amendments raise the quality and legitimacy of decisions by reflecting broader community input and inclusivity. They would, again, prevent a top-down approach. Crucially, they would set consistent standards nationwide, so that engagement is not left to the whim of individual authorities or mayors. I will press amendment 353 to a vote, because the changes are about the principle of genuine devolution and about giving real power to local communities, not concentrating it on the mayors. The amendment is essential to make the promise real, so I will press it to a vote.

[Paul Holmes]

In the brief time that I have, I want to back the hon. Lady’s excellent points. Throughout the Bill Committee so far, town and parish councils, which deliver so much for our constituents and are being asked to do more in the future, have been wilfully neglected. They are vital to the economic growth that the Minister rightly says needs to be delivered in our local areas, but the structures currently being proposed do not include them, as the hon. Lady has outlined and as I outlined in my intervention.

Assets are already being transferred in my constituency. Our country parks are currently looking at being transferred from our district council, Eastleigh borough council—I have many disagreements with it, but it is doing the right thing in this case—to our town and parish councils. In country parks specifically, there are business opportunities for raising revenue, development opportunities, and nature protection opportunities that town and parish councils simply will not be able to intervene on or to consult on with the new mayors.

[Manuela Perteghella]

On country parks and forestry, charities that plant forests are providing apprenticeships because the number of our forest rangers has declined. After hearing about the post-16 education and skills strategy yesterday, it is really important to provide these apprenticeships and jobs in rural areas so that our young people can continue to thrive.

[Paul Holmes]

Is there a clearer example than that of how this issue could contribute to the local growth plans that we are discussing?

The legislation is being drafted at a time when the operational environment is changing. The Minister needs to accept that, as the hon. Lady outlined, because of the proposals, there has been a major asset transfer to our town and parish councils that means they have become quite fundamental and large-scale landowners. Some of that development opportunity—that opportunity to look strategically at where growth needs to come into our local communities—is, crucially, allocated to some of our town and parish councils, but the legislation completely and wilfully removes them from any consultation exercise with a mayor.

I think that this is a pragmatic Government, and that the legislation was drafted before they realised that the consequences of some of the proposed measures were that district councils, because of the funding situation, had started to move some of those assets. The Minister needs to realise that the operational environment has fundamentally changed because, as I have said, it is crucial that town and parish councils are included in relation to land holdings as well as some of the operational responsibilities that they now have. Otherwise, the proposed local growth plans will not deliver on the key aspiration that has been outlined.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Vikki Slade]

Before I speak to amendments 246 and 348, I just want to reflect on the Minister’s comment about the ability of local authorities to enforce things such as yellow boxes, and the requirement to still obtain that consent from the Secretary of State. At Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, we were granted the rights to do that, but the council was incredibly limited in the specific locations in which it was able to apply for that right. There were a number of places that felt their yellow box junctions were ignored.

In my own ward of Broadstone, one such yellow box at the entrance to a parking area regularly caused extensive delays. For local people, if we could change one thing for them, it would be, “Get that damn yellow box enforced!” However, it was not seen as strategic enough for the local authority to apply for the permissions. Enforcement is therefore reliant on police officers, who are not going to stand there and patrol those sorts of things. I would therefore be interested to hear whether the Minister would be willing to devolve that power more truly, rather than retaining it at the centre.

Amendment 246 is a simple one that seeks to retain the decision making of those new civil enforcement powers to the elected persons, whether that be the elected mayor or an elected member of the authority. Elsewhere in the Bill, there are elements that are not allowed to be devolved to a commissioner. The amendment is about ensuring that these decisions are not devolved to a commissioner but are made by the elected person, as they will have that direct impact.

Amendment 348, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have also put our names to, seeks not to change the law on pavement parking— as we have discussed in the Chamber on a number of occasions—but to harmonise the rules so that the existing law on obstruction of the pavement, which requires the police to enforce, can also be enforced by civil authorities.

We regularly have situations in which civil enforcement officers—traffic wardens to you and I, Ms Vaz—have to walk past a car or van, often a delivery van, parked on a pavement, blocking guide dogs and people with mobility scooters from getting past. There is nothing they can do. I know that colleagues in this room will constantly be emailed by people asking, “What are you going to do about it?” All we can do is say, “Call the police.” We may be getting more police officers, but I personally do not want to see my police officers having to spend their time ticketing.

[Manuela Perteghella]

My constituents are also quite confused about which public service to call. We have to explain, “If it is about parking restrictions, you have to call the county council; if it is about dangerous parking, you have to call the police.” But how do you define “dangerous parking”? Sometimes the police will then point people back to the council. We would really appreciate clarification—or harmonisation, actually—of civil enforcement on highways matters.

[Vikki Slade]

This is very much about clarification. We know that a decision will be made, apparently very soon. I believe “very soon” was used in a Westminster Hall debate only a couple of weeks ago—I am new at this, but I think that that might mean sometime in this Session, perhaps—and we will get the outcome of the consultation on general pavement parking. Our amendment 348 is about obstruction, which is an existing offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 32 expands existing Mayor of London powers in relation to mayoral development orders and directions to all mayors of strategic authorities. It will allow the mayor to be consulted on and to direct the refusal of certain planning applications, and it makes consequential changes to other legislation. We will discuss the effects of the schedules that the clause introduces in greater detail later. For now, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12

Development orders

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 12, page 162, leave out sub-paragraph (5).

This amendment would remove provision for the Secretary of State to have the power to approve a Mayoral Development Order where a Local Planning Authority has not approved it by the end of the period.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 59, in schedule 12, page 164, line 1, leave out subparagraphs (9) and (10).

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 58.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I will speak mainly to amendment 58, because amendment 59 is consequential on amendment 58, which seeks to decentralise even further planning decisions from Whitehall. It would remove the power of the Secretary of State to step in and approve a mayoral development order when the local planning authority has not given its approval within the set timeframe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The Government agree that we need to streamline and simplify the planning process, making it much quicker and smoother. I will again put on the record that the previous Government had 14 years to do that, but they absolutely, categorically, failed to do so. We are now getting on with it, and my colleagues in the Department have taken the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through the House. Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches should not want to be talking about their record, because they should be ashamed of it.

On the key point about adding another level of complexity, I point hon. Members to the fact that the measure applies only to strategic sites. The planning system will operate as usual, with local planning authorities having the key remit to drive things forward. This provision is for strategically significant sites, partly because of their scale or because they are critical to the strategic development plan.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 252, in schedule 12, page 163, line 19 at end insert—

“(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert—

‘(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure—

(a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and

(b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area’.”

This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert—

“61DCB Density requirement

(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—

(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,

(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or

(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.

(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation

(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”

This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.

[Manuela Perteghella]

The amendment would require mayors to ensure that planning approvals are consistent with the strategic spatial energy plan and the land use framework for their area. I want to tell the Minister that this is a friendly and collaborative amendment. We want development to be coherent with energy policy and land use. That is important, especially in rural areas that are off grid, or in areas vulnerable to flooding or with protected landscapes, for example. Without the amendment, decisions about housing, infrastructure and new settlements can be made without proper reference to energy needs, grid capacity, or wider environmental and land use priorities. In our view, that would be a great mistake. We have the chance to improve the Bill here.

The strategic spatial energy plan and the local area energy plans set out how an area intends to meet its energy demands and, most importantly, to decarbonise its supply and deliver the infrastructure needed for the transition that we all want to see to net zero. The land use framework also provides a strategic view of how land is allocated to balance the needs of housing, agriculture—in my constituency—and businesses. Education and skills are also important, including adult education, as are transport and so on.

By requiring mayors to check that development applications are consistent with the strategic frameworks and any strategic visions, the amendment would ensure that short-term decisions are made with a strategic mindset and a long-term vision, taking into consideration our national commitments to sustainable growth, sustainable energy, net zero targets and local priorities in a given area, which could be the visitor economy, agriculture, business and so on.

Like the other amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, the amendment would strengthen local voices in decision making. Our local energy plans and land use frameworks are documents and visions that are made by consulting local people. The frameworks have been developed through public consultation and partnership with local councils, businesses, residents and, as I have mentioned before, town and parish councils. Those efforts should be recognised and embedded in the Bill.

The amendment is pragmatic and constructive. It would not remove any powers from mayors, but only ensure that those powers are used in a way that respects local frameworks and national targets, and supports the needs and interests of our communities.

[David Simmonds]

I shall speak to amendment 304, which stands in my name. I would like to think that it is one of those amendments that the Government will adopt, if they are wise, because it would do something practical towards the delivery of a higher level of housing through the Bill.

Despite the provision of very large amounts of capital funding by the previous Government, the Mayor of London has been a case study in the failure to deliver. There will be complex reasons in the wider market why it has been a challenge, but the previous Government delivered just shy of a net additional 1 million new homes over the life of the previous Parliament, in line with the target. Since then, house building has collapsed. Partly that seems to be because operators in the market—big developers and house building companies—are looking at the Bill and seeing opportunities to increase the potential value of their sites by arbitraging between all the different layers of bureaucracy, rather than delivering homes.

However, many of our constituents look at areas that have good PTAL—public transport access levels—scores, and so an ability to access effective public transport, as offering a high degree of opportunity. The Opposition’s view is that we should prioritise sites like that, which in some cases are quite close to securing planning consent, because of their ability to densify our urban centres. In London and other big cities, such as Manchester, where we had our recent party conference, we see examples of this approach delivering large amounts of additional housing in city centre areas. It contributes to growth, to housing delivery and to the economy of those local areas.

For all those reasons, the amendment is positive, so I hope that the Government will accept that it would add significant value to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national planning policy framework, which tries to encourage and incentivise the use of previously developed land, and to make sure that within our urban centres we are building out as much as we can. That is an issue for the NPPF and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It would not be right, in the context of mayors specifically, to constrain them and say, “You can only use one land type.” We must allow the flexibility but use national planning policy to encourage urban regeneration and urban densification.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I will not press the amendment, but I would like a reassurance from the Minister on the frameworks. Although they are nascent and in their embryonic state, they are really important. By the time the Bill becomes law, we will be consulting on these frameworks and applying them. Will the Minister write to tell us how this issue will be resolved? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment proposed: 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert—

“61DCB Density requirement

(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—

(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,

(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or

(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.

(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation

(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”—(David Simmonds.)

This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 21 will ensure that mayors have the means to drive effective engagement across the communities to generate economic prosperity. We have already talked about local partners playing a vital role in this process, and in helping mayors to address shared challenges and seize opportunities, but to be very clear—I stress this again—the clause does not oblige local partners to support matters they oppose. Rather, it creates a duty to respond to a mayor’s request to meet or engage on an issue, facilitating constructive dialogue even where there may be disagreement.

Mayors have a powerful local voice—we know that; we see it across the country where there are mayors—but that soft power does not always allow them to drive forward change. The clause strengthens a mayor’s existing soft power and encourages collaboration with local partners, so they can drive growth in and deliver improvement to their communities.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. New clause 42 would make it a legal duty for mayors to hold regular meetings with local councils in their area; with service providers such as the NHS, police or transport bodies; and with town and parish councils. The power to convene would become a mandatory duty to convene. In particular, parish and town councils are included on the list of bodies that local mayors are required to convene meetings with.

I used to be a parish councillor, so I know the important role that these rural councils play and the many services that they deliver. They also stepped up socially during the covid pandemic, including setting up food-share schemes and referring people to food banks if they lost their job. Town councils are also important. For example, a town council in my constituency has been fostering important community projects. One of the initiatives is working with local businesses to make Alcester a neurodivergent-friendly town—a town for all.

These councils are invaluable partners for combined authorities and mayors in the shires. Engaging with such bodies means that the combined authority and the mayor have direct insight into local issues. Put simply, the new clause would ensure that mayors regularly bring together local authorities and public services to co-ordinate on shared priorities and improve co-operation across the region.

In rural areas such as my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, parish and town councils, as we have already discussed, are the first tier of local government. Mayors should include these important councils as partners and consult them on a range of issues. We must create a regular, structured forum for dialogue between all the key players in local government and public services.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

To clarify, the suggestion in the new clause is that town and parish councils will meet the mayor once every 12 months. My constituency, which has 80 parish councils, would be part of a Thames valley mayoralty—let us call it that—that would have even more constituencies. How many days of not meeting parish councils will there be for the mayor?

[Manuela Perteghella]

These councils need to have a voice at the table of decision makers. The hon. Member has also been a parish councillor, if I remember properly from our last debate, so he knows how important they are as stakeholders in their local communities. There is a way of making this convening duty less cumbersome on the mayor. To be fair, though, if someone stands to be the mayor of 1.2 million people, they have a responsibility towards all of their communities.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not want the hon. Lady to look so disheartened, because I am about to agree with her. She looked horrified that I was intervening on her.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we share a concern about town and parish councils being consulted. However, does she not think that the new clause is slightly over-egging the pudding? If a mayor was worth their weight in gold, or accountable to their constituents, it would be in their own interest—in the interest of them staying in their job—to meet those people anyway. I wonder whether she thinks that the new clause may be too prescriptive.

Regarding the plan to have meetings once every 12 months, that would be perfectly achievable by meeting all the town and parish councils on the same day. To answer the hon. Member for Banbury, there would be 364 days when mayors would be able to meet other people.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I do not think we are seeing that at the moment. We are not seeing it with metro mayors or combined authorities, so that is why we would like to see a mandatory duty to convene.

Mayors wield significant powers over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, and it is imperative that local councils and community representatives are included in conversations about how such powers are used. New clause 42 would also promote joined-up public service delivery, because regular meetings with all stakeholders, including the first tier of councils and local services, will eventually result in better co-ordination on cross-cutting issues, which could be regional.

The measure would also—I will say this again and again—strengthen accountability and transparency in this new, exciting, revolutionary programme. Residents should be able to see that their local leaders are meeting openly and regularly, working together on the priorities that matter most to their communities. The new clause would ensure that. Fundamentally, the point of devolution is to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected by those decisions.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart—my huge apologies for arriving late to proceedings.

I want principally to talk about new clause 19, in my name, which sets out a duty on mayors to establish a citizens assembly. It would place on the mayor of a strategic authority a duty to convene, within the first year of their election and at least once annually after that, a citizens assembly consisting of local people. There would be an additional non-legally binding duty to take account of the recommendations of the citizens assembly. The new clause defines the term “citizens assembly”, and its account of the method of selection and the need to be representative of the local community are taken from descriptions of citizens assemblies that have already been commissioned by Parliament, including on climate change.

A lot needs to be done to the Bill to help it live up to its title. There is a real need for this kind of empowerment.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have done this through the constituent members of the combined authority, so that before an appointment can be made, the full combined authority will need to agree to that appointment. We think that provides sufficient safeguards and the ability to scrutinise; however, the point about how we ensure ongoing scrutiny of the work being done and the performance by more than the mayor and the combined authority is a fair point, and we will take it away.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

The commissioners are not accountable to the public; they are accountable to the mayor, who will of course be elected. The Minister talks about scrutiny, but what about holding them to account on public standards? What kind of framework is there to ensure trust in these commissioners?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

All holders of public office have to adhere to public standards; that is as true for national Government as it is for regional and local government. We expect those standards to apply, and the safeguards we are putting in place by enabling the mayor to terminate based on performance or poor conduct will ensure that they are upheld.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Commissioners

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

To answer the specific question, yes, in-year balancing will apply. The purpose of the precepting function is to allow the mayor to invest in key things that will drive the economic prosperity of the area and the core functions that we have set out in the Bill. It would be a very brave mayor who chose to raise the precept not to deliver on that. In the end, they are democratically elected, and it will be for their residents and constituents to show them the consequences of that at the ballot box.

Amendment 77 agreed to.

Amendments made: 78, in clause 11, page 15, line 15, at end insert—

“(b) in subsection (5)(b), after ‘functions,’ insert ‘or the other functions of the authority (other than any PCC functions that are exercisable by the mayor), or both’.”

This enables the Secretary of State to require the mayor of a combined authority to prepare an annual budget in relation to the authority’s functions, excluding any mayoral PCC functions, either separately to or in combination with the budget relating to the mayor’s general functions.

Amendment 79, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—

“(b) in subsection (2), omit ‘in respect of mayoral functions’.”

This provides that the issuing of precepts under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in respect of expenditure relating to the functions of a mayoral CCA is a function exercisable by the mayor acting on behalf of the CCA.

Amendment 80, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—

“(b) in subsection (4)(a), for the words from ‘consists’ to the end of that paragraph substitute ‘includes a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,’.”

This provides for flexibility where the mayor of a mayoral CCA has PCC functions as to how the components of the CCA’s council tax calculation which relate to the CCA’s other functions (both mayoral and non-mayoral) are to be set out.

Amendment 81, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, at end insert—

“(b) in subsection (5)(b), after ‘functions,’ insert ‘or the other functions of the CCA (other than any PCC functions that are exercisable by the mayor), or both’.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This enables the Secretary of State to require the mayor of a CCA to prepare an annual budget in relation to the CCA functions, excluding any mayoral PCC functions, either separately to or in combination with the budget relating to the mayor’s general functions.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Power to borrow

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 12, page 16, line 24, at end insert—

“(9AA) A combined authority or CCA must provide a report to the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing the reasons for which they are seeking consent to exercise the power conferred by section 1.”

This amendment would require the combined authority or CCA to lay a report before Parliament detailing the reasons for which they are seeking the Secretary of State’s consent for exercise of the powers conferred by section 1 on mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 83

Clause stand part.

[Manuela Perteghella]

The amendment would require any combined authority seeking new devolved powers to lay a formal report before Parliament, explaining why it is seeking those powers and how it intends to use them. It is of absolute importance that any devolution of powers is set within a framework of transparency and visibility on the reasoning, evidence base or expected outcomes for local people. The amendment would bring the process out of the shadows and make it open, transparent and accountable to the people whom local authorities are meant to serve.

The powers devolved under the Bill are significant. They constitute major transfers of authority over transport, housing, strategic planning, education and skills, health and more. Such decisions must be backed by clear reasoning and, above all, a public mandate. The devolution of powers should be clearly justified and democratically accountable, and must not be imposed on communities or done for political convenience. Local residents must understand why an authority is seeking certain powers and what benefits they can expect them to deliver. MPs and peers—our Parliament—must be given the opportunity to assess whether devolution requests are handled consistently and fairly across regions. I therefore urge the Minister to consider our amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way at what I think was the end of her speech. I just wondered whether she or her party had done any analysis of the extra cost that her amendment would put on mayoral authorities. I feel that the Liberal Democrats in Committee are having their cake and eating it—they have said that they want absolute devolution to local people, but now they want accountability to this Parliament on how the devolved mayor spends their money. We have no extra or special democratic right to do that, rather than the mayors who are being proposed. Has she looked at the cost that her proposal might put on the mayors?

[Manuela Perteghella]

We have not looked at the costs, but we need to understand that the Bill devolves significant powers, possibly to one person. My local authority is a three-tier one at the moment, and we are very happy with that, but now the district councils will be abolished and possibly the county council, and we will have to be part of a unitary authority and then a strategic authority. It is important that we as MPs are here to stand up for our communities and residents. We need to ensure that anyone who gains more powers comes to them through Parliament.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady and her party seem to be proposing that every single potential devolution should come before this House for scrutiny. That would take up a considerable amount of the time of the House, as well as incur the costs picked up on by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. Is her amendment just about kicking devolution into the long grass, rather than being serious?

[Manuela Perteghella]

No, the amendment is not kicking anything into the long grass. We have to get the Bill—this devolution—right. It is all about accountability, as I said when we were discussing the commissioners. This is a big change. Some of the Committee will already have unitary authorities and I will talk later about devolved Administrations, but for my constituency, that will be new. We need to get it right. Going back to the cost, that will be smaller compared with the cost of what could go wrong.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will speak to clause stand part and amendment 83 before responding directly to amendment 20. On the clause, all existing mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities have powers to borrow for all their functions. That allows them to invest in economically productive infrastructure. Unlike for local authorities, the existing process for confirming the power to borrow money on mayoral combined and mayoral combined county authorities is by making a bespoke statutory instrument after an institution has been established. To confirm such powers by bespoke statutory instrument is highly inefficient and slow. The clause streamlines the process by giving the power to borrow to mayoral combined authorities and county authorities for purposes relevant to all their functions. It preserves existing safeguards by requiring them 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 commend the clause to the Committee.

Government amendment 83 is minor and technical. It simply clarifies that the reference to section 12 coming into force relates to clause 12 of the Bill. Amendment 20 would require a combined authority or combined county authority to produce a report, to be laid before the House by the Secretary of State, detailing the reasons for which they are seeking consent to exercise borrowing powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and Opposition Members have pointed out, this would be an onerous, costly and time-consuming process. The amendment is well-intentioned, but we do not think it necessary.

Like the rest of local government, combined authorities and combined county authorities must operate within the prudential framework, which comprises statutory duties and codes that are intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. The framework already provides robust mechanisms of oversight and accountability. In addition, the exercise of borrowing powers by mayoral combined authorities and county authorities to date has not raised issues. Amendment 20 also contradicts the Bill’s aim of furthering devolution and increasing financial autonomy for these authorities. For this reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I have.

[Manuela Perteghella]

As I said, the amendment would give Parliament the opportunity to assess whether devolution requests are handled with consistency and fairness across the regions, because at the moment they are not. I therefore wish to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now come to amendment 361 in the name of Manuela Perteghella. Do you wish to press this to a vote?

[Manuela Perteghella]

No, I do not.

[The Chair]

That is fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 363, in clause 19, page 22, line 32, at end insert—

“(f) progress with the implementation of the strategy provided for in section [Duty to publish and implement a Forward Devolution Strategy].”.

This amendment is consequential on NC46.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 46—Duty to publish and implement a Forward Devolution Strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a forward devolution strategy (“the strategy”).

(2) The purpose of the strategy is to set out the proposed timeline for the establishment of new strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities, in areas of England that are not currently within the area of an established mayoral strategic authority.

(3) The timeline set out in the strategy must include a period within which the Secretary of State intends to issue invitations or directions for proposals for the establishment or expansion of such new strategic authorities for those identified areas.

(4) Any annual report required under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) must include a statement on the progress made in implementing the strategy, including information on any revision of or replacement for the strategy.

(5) Before preparing, publishing, or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the mayors for the areas of established mayoral strategic authorities; and

(b) the constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities.”

This new clause would introduce a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution.

[Manuela Perteghella]

The amendment and new clause 46 are about giving devolution in England a clear direction and fair footing, and replacing uncertainty with a proper plan and accountability. It will create a clear road map for devolution.

The Bill already includes a requirement for an annual devolution report to be published, but there are currently no plans to include any forward-looking strategy. Why is a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution important and necessary? The local authorities that were left out of the devolution priority programme are facing a cliff edge in terms of funding streams that are now being redirected to mayoral strategic authorities.

Right now, devolution is happening, but unevenly. Cumbria, Cheshire, Warrington, Greater Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Sussex and Brighton are all in the devolution priority programme, putting them on a fast track towards improved transport opportunities, housing and economic growth. Regions such as Kent and Wessex, which were left out of the devolution priority programme, are left not only without the benefits of funding and the regional voice of an elected mayor, should they want one, but without the knowledge of when they can expect those things. The amendment would require the Government to report annually to Parliament on progress made. This transparency will prevent future Ministers from delaying or cherry-picking which regions get devolution next.

The amendments, which require a forward devolution strategy to be published, are therefore important to give councils like those in my area, which are at the beginning of their devolution journey, reassurance that plans are being progressed for devolution in their areas if they are not in tier 1. It is important that councils know not only their current financial situation, but how and when finance and governance are likely to change. The amendment would give local authorities certainty as councils could plan ahead, invest and prepare for new responsibilities. As I said earlier in the debate, devolution must be equitable and consistent, not a patchwork of deals and negotiations.

[David Simmonds]

The Opposition have sympathy with the points the hon. Member made. We can rarely have too much transparency, but we are conscious that these new bodies and devolution arrangements will be subject to a degree of political oversight. There will be manifestos, on which the public will have a vote. There will be the element of scrutiny, which we have not heard enough about yet but which we would like to think will be built into the new arrangements for these authorities. There will also be a regular process of elections, which will determine who provides the necessary level of leadership. Layered over that, there will be both the political priorities of the devolved authority and those things that are more part of the administrative function. Local authorities have historically had council plans and forward plans that set out decision making, all of which are part of this arrangement. Although the points have been well made, the Opposition are therefore not convinced that what the amendment would add is sufficient to justify its inclusion in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deidre Costigan.)

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds]

We know there will be quite a degree of debate on this in due course. We sympathise with the objectives of the amendment, and we all share the concern that local people should be the ones who initiate change in the structures that govern their local areas, not the Secretary of State or the man in Whitehall who knows best. Therefore we have sympathy with the objective, and we shall return to that debate later on with some of the amendments around the structures.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Amendments 4, 28 and 29 would make English devolution genuinely local by ensuring that local consent and public consultation come first. Amendment 4 would change clause 3 so that local authorities must apply to the Secretary of State themselves to become a single foundation strategic authority, rather than Whitehall imposing devolution on local councils. Amendments 28 and 29 would remove the parts of schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor in an existing combined authority area, and for the establishment of a combined county authority, without public consultation.

One of the greatest criticisms of the Bill is that it proposes a top-down, Whitehall-led devolution, which is not really devolution at all. In my county of Warwickshire, the choice of which strategic authority we create, form or join must come from local elected representatives who are closer to their communities and understand better the needs of our constituents. Such an important shaping of future governance must have grassroots support and should not end up being imposed by central Government, especially if we want to decentralise powers to tackle socioeconomic inequalities, address regional disparities and promote real autonomy.

Without the amendment, local people will lose the right to decide their own governance arrangements. Whitehall will be able to impose devolved powers, force mayoral models on to areas that have not asked for them, and redraw local governance boundaries behind closed doors. Community involvement and local consent are essential to ensure transparency and accountability in devolution decision making.

Amendment 4 reaches the heart of the issue at hand. It would ensure that devolution is locally led, not imposed. It would ensure that a council that wishes to become a single foundation strategic authority must initiate the process itself, rather than wait for the Secretary of State to decree it. If devolution is to have legitimacy, it must be built on local consent, local ambition and local accountability. Without that, we risk the Bill becoming an exercise in central control and a top-down approach dressed up as devolution. We would like to push amendment 4 to a vote.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Both the policy intent and the practice with places going through the devolution process are locally led. The impetus is coming from local leaders and local authorities that are working with their communities to drive the process.

On amendment 4, the Government have been clear that we will consider non-mayoral devolution arrangements for single local authorities on an exceptional basis where certain criteria are met. Designation is not intended as the end point; it is a stepping stone towards deeper devolution, which is what we hope will be the journey for all parts of the country. It is therefore most appropriate for the process to be initiated by the Secretary of State rather than the local authority. However, to be clear, the Secretary of State will not be able to designate a council as a foundation strategic authority unless the council itself consents to that designation. That is a robust safeguard that will protect the interests of the single local authority concerned. I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government. I am pleased that those criteria are already embedded in the Bill when conferring functions on a single foundation strategic authority.

Amendment 28 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s proposed power to direct for there to be a mayor for an existing combined authority without local consent. The Government have been clear about the benefits of mayoral devolution; we are seeing it across the country. For example, South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority brought the Supertram network back into public control after 27 years, and there are already drops in fare evasion, increases in usage, ticketing apps and improved clearing. Greater Manchester authority has taken control of its bus service, resulting in increased punctuality and ridership and cheaper fares. The North East combined authority has secured a £450 million development for one of the largest film studios in Europe, with the potential to create over 8,000 jobs.

We know the impact of this devolution model. We are seeing it across the country and we want to see it in more areas. We are clear that mayors with skin in the game are best placed to drive forward growth, reform public services and deliver the change that their communities want. Every resident in England should be able to benefit from deeper mayoral devolution in their area.

--- Later in debate ---

The Opposition do not feel able to support these proposals. We recognise that the Government have made some funding available, but we need to acknowledge that the way that is playing out at a local level is very much, “Here’s some one-off cash from Government. There won’t be anything coming in the future to help our ongoing financial situation, so let’s use it now while we can grab it.” We all sympathise with our local leaders for embracing that because it is the only game in town and there is the backstop of power of compulsion. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that some funding has been provided, and will therefore abstain on the amendments.

[Manuela Perteghella]

It is pointless to establish a strategic authority without appropriate financial support. Without support to build structurally, hire staff, co-ordinate partners and begin delivering on their devolved powers, new combined and strategic authorities risk becoming bodies with responsibilities but no real capacity to act. As the Minister will know, local authorities have been starved of funding by consecutive Governments. We need to ensure that these new unitaries—these new beginnings—have the best start in life, and that begins with fair funding so that devolution can be effective.

Amendment 39 is complemented by amendment 361, which would require the Government’s annual devolution report to include details of funding given to support new strategic authorities. Each year, when the Government report to Parliament on devolution, they would be required to explain how and why money has been spent to help to establish new devolved authorities.

As it stands, the Bill risks becoming a Trojan horse for centralisation, concentrating power in Whitehall rather than genuinely devolving it to local communities as promised. Amendment 361 would support true, locally led devolution by ensuring financial transparency and holding Ministers accountable for supporting local government reform. That is why we intend to divide the Committee on amendment 39, which is essential to ensure that new combined authorities and new strategic unitaries can operate effectively from the outset and deliver the powers and services they are intended to provide. Without adequate funding, the whole exercise of devolving powers and establishing new authorities will be meaningless.

For too long, my constituents, like so many across the country, have faced the consequences of under-resourced local authorities, with promises to their families and communities left unfulfilled. Our amendments would provide the vital financial support that this new era of local government requires, enabling us to deliver on the ambitions of devolution and achieve real, tangible results.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for highlighting the deep cuts that were imposed on local authorities during a decade and a half of Conservative government, which fundamentally weakened our civic infrastructure. We should never forget that. We absolutely appreciate that, as a result, local government is operating in a difficult context. I welcome the intent behind the amendments: it will be important for strategic authorities to ensure that they have the capacity funding so that they are established.

Amendment 38 concerns single foundation authorities. We do not anticipate that there will be transition costs for such authorities. When a unitary or county council is designated as a single foundation strategic authority, it will retain its existing voting and governance arrangements. The designation will sit alongside its status as a local authority. In other words, there will be no transition involved, so transitional funding is unnecessary.

We recognise that the mayoral strategic authorities that we are creating will need funding to support the transition and build capacity. All Members across the House want to see strong, capable authorities in their area, with the tools and capacity to deliver for their local communities. That is why in the English devolution White Paper we committed to provide new strategic authorities with capacity funding to kick-start their organisation. I am pleased to confirm that all areas on our devolution priority programme will receive £1 million in mayoral capacity funding this year to help establish new institutions, once the legislation has been laid before Parliament. They will also receive capacity funding in future years, so that they are ready and prepared to deliver the benefits that we believe devolution will unlock. As the Government are committed to providing funding for establishment expenses through the mechanism of mayoral capacity funding, we do not believe that amendment 39 is necessary, but we recognise the intent behind it, which is why are we are taking action.

Amendment 361 would require the Government to report on funding allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities. I am pleased to say that that is already established practice. Clause 19 amends the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 to ensure that all funding devolved to strategic authorities is reported. That will include any funds to support their establishment. Again, therefore, we agree with the intent behind the amendment but we do not believe that it is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 83, line 3, at end insert—

“(6A) After preparing a proposal the Secretary of State must publish a statement demonstrating how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public services in the area would be affected by the proposal.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement about how the physical geography, community identity, and the boundaries of other public service structures in the area would be affected by the proposal for a new combined authority.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 305, in schedule 1, page 83, line 32, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section that has the effect of placing Cornwall in a combined authority with any other authority.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order establishing a combined authority which would include Cornwall and any other area east of the Tamar in the same combined authority.

Amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 84, line 13, at end insert—

“(9A) If the order establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”

Amendment 306, in schedule 1, page 86, line 18, at end insert—

“(5A) Neither the added local government area nor the existing area of a combined authority in the order includes Cornwall.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from adding a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if either area includes Cornwall.

Amendment 44, in schedule 1, page 86, line 32, at end insert—

“(7A) If the proposal establishes a combined authority which contains the Isle of Wight, the authority’s name must include ‘the Isle of Wight.’”

[Manuela Perteghella]

This Government’s plans for devolution involve folding existing local government structures into larger combined authorities. From a central Government perspective, the benefits are clear. Each region has a single point of contact, accountability and new structures through which to work. However, devolution should deliver benefits in both directions and be truly community-led.

If proposals are prepared by the Secretary of State and the Department rather than being locally-led, we believe that a basic requirement should be that each new authority is appropriately sized, and that physical geography and cultural identities within the authority—especially community identities—are looked at. We need to look at the boundaries of other public service structures in the area that could be affected by the new combined authority, such as fire and rescue services, police forces and integrated care boards. In my area, we have local government reorganisation and the ICBs are being reorganised as part of NHS England reform or abolition, so both are changing at the same time. In geographical local areas, we have not just NHS commissioners but other NHS services, such as local NHS trusts.

Looking beyond size—I hope that the Government are flexible about size, because of all the other important considerations with any new authority—authorities should be shaped carefully to reflect economic zones, as well as physical geography. Crucially, there must be careful thought about how the proposals will align with public services. I have already talked about the organisation of ICBs, but there are also, for example, existing transport hubs and established boundaries for fire and rescue services.

A less tangible but no less important requirement is respect for distinct community identities. For example, my area is in the county of Warwickshire. South Warwickshire is very rural, with hundreds of parish and town councils, while north Warwickshire has different economic areas and is more populous and urban. Proximal areas may not be well-suited partners in new combined authorities, so what kind of flexibility will there be to think about services and the shared history of local communities so that such areas do not have a false cohesion?

We would like regional and sub-regional cultures to be taken into consideration, because those are what brings communities together. This goes back to the role of parish and town councils as the first tier of government: they know their communities best, which is why they should have a say in any consultation. They know their boundaries; they know which bus services should be improved so that residents can go to hospital and so on.

Practically, we are asking the Government to consider all these areas, boundaries and services, because if combined authorities backfire, governance structures could fail and might not deliver at all for areas that are already struggling. Requiring the Secretary of State to make a statement accompanying each proposal for a new combined authority, covering its impact on the shared areas that I have mentioned, would improve the quality of combined authority proposals.

[David Simmonds]

The Opposition have listened attentively to the points made by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley may speak later to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, but they both relate to the need to recognise in local government structures the heritage of the parts of England that are affected.

From all the evidence that we have heard, and from many Members’ contributions, we know just how important it is that people feel that the name of their local authority area—that most basic of things—has a connection to them. On top of that are layers of geographical and economic considerations, as well as the trouble of learning it, all of which have an impact. That is why we and others are so keen to support measures to ensure that historical names are not lost in any of the Government’s proposed devolution measures, and that that heritage is fully recognised in any structures that follow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

We remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure housing estates from unfair charges of the type that the hon. Lady described. We will consult this year on implementing the 2024 Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the 1.75 million homes that are subject to those charges. We are committed to bringing those measures into force as quickly as possible.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Thousands of my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon now live in so-called fleecehold developments, often with a lack of transparency in how service charges are set and a lack of maintenance of public open spaces, including drainage infrastructure. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that any leasehold reform will including tackling fleecehold and that the reforms will be applied retrospectively?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we will tackle the injustice of fleecehold as part of the ambitious changes that we intend to make to the leasehold system, with a view to bringing it to an end in this Parliament. The consumer protection provisions in the 2024 Act, which I have already mentioned, will ensure that homeowners who pay an estate management charge will have better access to the information that they need to challenge the reasonableness of charges at the first-tier tribunal. There are other powers as part of those protections and, as I have said, we will consult on them shortly and bring them into force as quickly as possible thereafter.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Q What examples can the panel provide of effective relationships between retailers, hospitality businesses and local government? Can you also let us know whether those relationships work better at a local level, or can they be managed and led regionally?

Andrew Goodacre: I am really lucky in the role that I do. I get to visit places around the country. I have become involved with initiatives. Recently, there was an initiative from Visa, which sponsored the “Let’s Celebrate Towns” awards. I was judge for one section of the awards, which was about high streets that had been regenerated. Local areas had to put themselves forward, and we considered elements of the regeneration—partly digital, and partly how they have integrated transformation into their world and understood their target market. I have visited three of those places since in the last two months.

In fact, last month, I was in a place called Oakengates in Shropshire, near Telford. I visited Enniskillen in Northern Ireland, and I visited New Malden, a suburb in south London. Those are three different areas—three different socioeconomic places with different background foundations. What they all have in common is local pride, local involvement and local people making decisions. Not all of them are councillors or politicians, or sit on a local authority. New Malden was about a focus group looking at ways they could improve their status, being between Wimbledon and Richmond—often the forgotten part. They have created a fantastic cultural experience, because they have a large Korean population that is integrated very well into it.

If you go to Oakengates, it has a very simple local high street. It has a huge retail park near it, but it works well. The local council and local people work well with the local authority, and they receive funding. It has free car parking as a policy—no wonder there is a 94% occupancy rate on the high street against an average of 86%. Enniskillen has a business improvement district, which is funded by rate payers, although it is slightly different in Northern Ireland. Again, local people are proud of their high street. When I walked up and down, I saw only one empty unit.

It is about local people with pride in their area who really understand what they are trying to achieve. Each one has a different mission. New Malden wants to become a food centre and a tourist attraction in that respect. Enniskillen wants to build on the fact that it is the only island town in Northern Ireland and is worth visiting; it has so many fantastic local features. Oakengates wants to be a local place for local people, and not forgotten about despite the huge retail park next to it.

I see plenty examples of local people, if they are given a chance and the right involvement and engagement, being able to make the right decisions for their areas, because they really understand what they need. Sometimes they need help and guidance, and it is not always perfect. I am sure that if I really thought about it, I could think of some bad examples, but just recently I have had the privilege of seeing three where it works.

Allen Simpson: Great examples. I mentioned Folkestone as an example of somewhere that has regenerated incredibly strongly. That is, to some degree, non-replicable because one thing that has driven Folkestone’s success is a wealthy local man who has ploughed a lot of his personal wealth into regenerating his community—largely, from what I can see, for social purposes. Bootle is an interesting case study of a specific national Government grant being used locally to drive high street regeneration, with the intention of bringing in other sorts of business behind it. That has been quite successful. There is another example up in Aberdeen around the dock area, where a mixture of local businesses and—I think I am right in saying—council grants have reduced the cost of access.

A universal trend seems to be peppercorn renting, to the extent that an ex-industrial, brownfield site will be brought online. This was true in Peckham when the cocktail bar, Frank’s, opened above the Peckhamplex. I was young at the time, so it was 15 or 20 years ago. Low rents have two benefits. First, they allow businesses to take a risk on opening in an area where it is unclear whether there is live spend available to them. Secondly, those opportunities are open to local people. That is an important point, because the wealth generated tends to be returned to the community in quite a powerful way. I come back to the point that if you can get that right—and there are lots of examples of where it has been less successful—you get other sorts of economic activity crowding in. If it goes well, you have to manage questions of gentrification and how you keep the character of the local area, but that is a second-order concern for a lot of areas.

[The Chair]

Can I just ask you to keep your answers fairly short? We have two very important questioners coming up. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Q The previous panel addressed some of the complexities of the local government finance landscape, with the different accounts and so on. I am interested in your perspective as someone from the audit sector that receives many of these contracts, first on the challenges involved in skilling up the sector with the necessary knowledge and training. I am also interested in your perspective on the standardisation question. I think we all understand that audit is sometimes more of an art than a science—sometimes the other way round. How do you end up with something where everybody understands what is expected of them, in the context of a high degree of transparency that often is not really there in the commercial sector? How do decisions to deviate from that standard impact on the wider perception of the state of that organisation?

Mark Stocks: Local government accounts are complex. These are highly complex sorts of businesses, if I can use that phrase, that deal with any number of services. What we see now are local finance teams who are stretched, to be candid. There has been a lack of investment in them over the years. Gareth talked about trainees going from the Audit Commission into local government, but that does not happen now. There is a bunch of people who are around 50, who may be disappearing in the short term, so we have to sort out the strength of local government finance teams. As I said, we also need to sort out the complexity of the accounts.

In terms of the standards, all local government accounts are under international financial reporting standards, and that will not change. That is a Treasury requirement. How that is interpreted and what is important in those accounts is open to judgment. The emphasis from the LAO on whether it is more important for us to audit income or to audit property will make a difference to what local auditors do. I would always argue that it is more important to audit income.

It is very difficult to standardise anything that we do, because local government is not standardised. I can take you from a district authority that spends £60 million, most of which is housing benefit, to an authority that spends £4 billion and has significant regeneration schemes and companies. The skillsets that you need and the ability to standardise is very difficult. You have to have the right skills to do the work.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Q Do you anticipate any issues in the working relationships between the new Local Audit Office and the local authorities it will audit?

Mark Stocks: The Local Audit Office cannot look like the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission took a particular tack in terms of what it did and the level of scrutiny that it put on local government. If the Local Audit Office follows suit, which this Bill does not allow it to, I am sure there will be problems. But the way the Local Audit Office is configured in the Bill is to make local audit stronger. As long as the Local Audit Office sticks to that, I do not think there will be too much of a problem.

[The Chair]

Order. I will suspend the Committee for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Bullet points would be great.

Richard Hebditch: This is not a good way to start an answer, but it is a massive challenge, and I very much recognise that. One of the things is around democratic legitimacy. As Naomi was saying, it is not about entirely removing local planning authorities’ say in how they deal with applications. It is important to ensure there is a community voice in the development of local plans as well. There is a challenge, as previously mentioned, if local government reorganisation is going on at the same time.

It is also about having a level of democratic accountability within the strategic layer. I mentioned the lack of structures for these new strategic authorities beyond the indirectly elected constituent authorities. The previous panel was discussing ideas that might improve engagement. There are risks in relying on elections every four years as the entire democratic legitimacy, particularly in a time when you have five parties all quite close together in polling, and you are seeing that in local authority elections at the moment.

There are risks in relying on that to justify your decisions without necessarily having a structure for what happens in the gap between those four years to ensure democratic voice and community engagement. It is not necessarily for the Bill, but maybe there is something around ensuring that there are adequate reviews of how this will operate, drawing on the ideas that the previous panel was discussing. We also now have the national covenant between civil society and national Government, so it is about whether we can look at similar things at a strategic layer and at a local layer.

Naomi Luhde-Thompson: Let me add just one example. I do not know whether anyone knows about the Salt Cross area action plan. It is West Oxfordshire district council: 2,000 homes on a greenfield site, and they want it to be zero carbon. It is going to have business on it and affordable housing. The community is really supportive, because that development is bringing things for them. The only problem is that those developing it want to strip out some of the things about zero carbon, for example, so there is a conflict there. I think that is all about—this is a whole different conversation—land values and land value capture, and how you get the public benefit out of development.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Q At the moment, we have a lot of expertise at district council level as the local planning authority. My own district council, Stratford-on-Avon district council, is now shaping the South Warwickshire local plan, so it has experience in plan making, planning policy and so on. With the demise of district councils, how can we be reassured that this expertise will be represented at the strategic authority level? Do you think that specific training should be introduced to support decision makers to make effective judgments on planning?

Richard Hebditch: The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has the requirements on training for councillors when they make decisions. That is something we have welcomed, at that level. I think this goes back to the point on resourcing as well. The funding that has gone in to pay for planners to help develop at the SDS level is welcome. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill changes on being able to retain fee income from planning, and to vary fee income, are also welcome.

There is still an ongoing issue, and there are particular issues that the Royal Town Planning Institute has raised around apprenticeships and being able to have new entrants into planning. Changes in the rules around apprenticeships might threaten that input for planners.

Naomi Luhde-Thompson: We should be applying the subsidiarity principle. We should be making the decision at the closest level at which it is relevant to make that decision.