English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The local audit system is broken. There is consensus about that across the House and within this Committee. It is fragmented and has significant capacity and capability challenges. The problems in local government reporting and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of Government accounts for the past two years. This provides no assurance to Parliament, and puts public accountability and trust in the system at risk.

The Government are leading the most transformative programme of audit reform in over a decade. Clause 61 will enable the Local Audit Office, a new statutory and independent body, to be established by autumn 2026. The LAO will have an oversight, regulatory and appointing role in the local audit sector. It will cover a wide range of public sector bodies responsible for delivering essential services and managing public funds, as well as oversight of aspects of the NHS audit system.

The LAO will be instrumental in overhauling the local audit system and will play a crucial role in ensuring that reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers and support economic growth. The LAO will be vital to rebuilding transparency, accountability and public trust in local government, and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities.

Schedule 28 sets out the core elements of the LAO’s constitution and governance to enable this new organisation to be established. Part 1 establishes the requirements for the board, as proper constitution of the LAO is critical to establishing its authority, ensuring operational readiness and enabling it to deliver its objectives. Part 1 also covers other provisions that are integral to the successful set-up and operating function of the LAO.

Part 2 of the schedule allows the Secretary of State to put schemes in place to legally and properly transfer employees who are currently performing functions that the LAO will be responsible for after it is established.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Sir John. I am asking for a genuine point of clarification from the Minister. The Library briefing says:

“If an MP were appointed”

to one of these boards,

“they would be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons”.

Why have the Government chosen to do that? There is no motivation behind my question; this is just for clarification.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

That is a very niche question. I will have to write back to the hon. Member to clarify.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not expect the Minister to know the answer this morning, but if she could write to me before the end of our sittings this week, I would be grateful. The reason I ask the question is that these are local audit offices for local authorities. The Secretary of State is appointing these boards, and there is obviously political oversight of those appointments, but it would seem sensible to have the expertise of someone representing the area. If this is a devolution Bill, appointing MPs would seem to be perfectly fine, so I am not sure why the Government are disqualifying them. If she could come back to me on that point, I would be most grateful.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am happy to write to clarify that key point.

Everything that we are doing through these new clauses and this reform package is in order to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, fair and operates so that we can build trust and accountability within public bodies at the local level. Committee members will appreciate the importance of providing certainty to the people who have worked to maintain the local audit over the years, which is why we are putting in place these two provisions.

New clause 9 will provide the Secretary of State with a new power to require the LAO to conduct a review of local bodies’ financial reporting and audit arrangements. The LAO will have the power, through contract management and quality oversight, to monitor timeliness in the sector, and will have levers to hold firm account where audits are late. Those statutory reviews will address the accountability gap by providing a way to understand whether individual local bodies have adequately supported the audit process. We believe that those reviews are vital to restoring public accountability, providing assurance at each stage of the audit process and rebuilding our early warning system. They are an integral part of a much bigger reform that we think is both necessary and long overdue. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Both the last Government and this Government have invested huge amounts in building the infrastructure. In the end, Governments have to make a judgment about where we put our funding and finances. We know that is difficult for particular communities, but we think there is sufficient infrastructure and sufficient people with expertise in neighbourhood planning. We will continue to work with them on how they innovate to provide a service for particular parishes.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is forcing me to labour the point that, because of the absolute mess that the Conservatives left us with after years of austerity, we are having to make tough judgments about what we can fund and invest in. It is not where we want to be, but that is the reality we have to confront. We had to make choices in the spending review; we are investing more in affordable housing, and in supporting our communities with homelessness. We think that those choices were right, and ultimately we had to make a judgment about prioritisation. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that it can innovate and continue supporting neighbourhoods.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way on that point, as she referred to me?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I have finished, and I have sat down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

No, I do not; we should keep the current system in place. I believe that, even though we are essentially going from three to two tiers, we are not actually going to one tier in this country, because mayors are being created as well. There is a direct link between the mayor and the local people, and there is a direct link between these new councils and local people. Again, I do not think the answer to simplifying the electoral system and making representation easier is to create more councillors from different parties in a ward. That is expensive and lacks democratic legitimacy, and I think the current system is perfectly acceptable. We are always going to be on the losing side on this one. Smaller parties often want to change the system to ensure that their parties have more victories and more legitimacy in democratic chambers. The Conservative party has a long and proud history of opposing proportional representation.

I remind the Liberal Democrats that they have tried and tested a change in the electoral system, and when they went to the country seeking it, they lost. Therefore, people have been asked whether they want to change the voting system in a national election. I think that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole would find that if there were referendums—we know that the Government are against referendums in the Bill—many people across this country would choose not to change the voting system in local government too. The current local government electoral system works, and it suits its purpose. People know who their councillors are; they are linked to them and know that they often represent an area that they deeply care for and are passionate about—even Liberal Democrat ones in Eastleigh. We oppose the new clause, and will vote against it if it is pressed to a vote.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for the lengthy and robust debate on this issue. We all recognise that there is a need to continue evolving, improving and strengthening our democracy, but we do not believe that the new clause and the electoral reform proposal are the right answer. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local councils in England. We believe that first past the post is a clear way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters, and, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, provides a direct link and relationship between the member of the legislature or council and the local constituency. That model works well where we have collective decision making and collective systems of governance—that is quite distinct.

We had a debate on the changes that we are proposing for mayors and police and crime commissioners—the supplementary vote system—where there is a single executive position. We think that strengthening the democratic link in that way is appropriate and right in that context. We think that through the Bill we will have the right mechanism for the right type of representation, as presented through the mayor and the police and crime commissioner on the one hand, and councillors and MPs, which operate within a collective governance model through Parliament or councils. I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the new clause—I am not sure that she will, but I will put the request.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am sorry to tempt the Committee with the prospect of a nice pint in the Strangers Bar, but I will not speak to this new clause for very long. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). We have spent the afternoon talking about unique circumstances elsewhere in the country, but there are unique circumstances on the Isle of Wight, because of the nature of its geography.

Before I say any more on that, Dame Siobhain, may I, as one of the shadow Ministers, thank you and the other Chairs for your chairing, because this is probably the last time that I will speak in this Bill Committee? I also thank the Minister and the Government Whip, who has been so courteous during our negotiations through the usual channels; hopefully, she will do us some more favours going forward.

Even though we are not in government, I also thank the officials, because I have seen the churn of officials coming in and going out of the Committee Room in the last couple of weeks. Without them, politics would not be able to function, so I thank them for their work on the Bill. We mostly disagree with the Bill, but they are doing a great job for all of us.

The Isle of Wight is geographically unique, because it is only really accessible by boat, including ferries. Over the last 20 years or so, the two main ferry companies for the Isle of Wight, Red Funnel and Wightlink, have been passed between and traded by private equity groups. Just last week, Red Funnel changed hands in what was believed to be a distressed sale, with banks being owed tens of millions of pounds.

The people of the Isle of Wight absolutely rely on access to the mainland, and the island relies on mainland access to it, in order to supply it and to ensure that the people of that great place are well and are looked after. Under the pricing model of the last 20 years, however, peak car return fares have skyrocketed to as much as £400 a car, just for crossing a five-mile stretch of water. Timetables have diminished, so what was once a 30-minute service is now hourly or worse, and under-investment by Red Funnel’s owners means that its car ferry fleet is so old that it entered service before the maritime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), was born. Breakdowns are increasingly frequent, with some parts now so obsolete that boats are having to be withdrawn from service.

The Isle of Wight ferry service is a lifeline. There is no other way for the island’s 140,000 residents to cross the five-mile stretch of water to get on and off the island, including for key activities such as work, health appointments, education, visiting sick relatives, or being visited by relatives on whom they rely.

In the last debate on new clause 44, the Minister said that she believed that transport management structures should be run on a county basis. We agree with her; the efficiencies of scale mean that the mayor of Hampshire and the Solent should be able to run transport locally. The Government have a record of policies whereby we are seeing greater Government and regional involvement in the commissioning and running of our transport services, particularly through the bus Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I would argue that ferries should not be treated differently, especially when they are the sole mode of transport that people must rely on.

When my hon. Friend met the previous maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), however, the Government showed a distinct lack of action in this regard. My hon. Friend was promised that there would be a number of meetings—there have been meetings with the previous Minister—and that a body would be convened to discuss the matter, but that simply has not happened.

My hon. Friend therefore tabled new clause 49, which would give mayors the authority to regulate ferry services. It would apply not only to the Isle of Wight but to any regional structure that has ferries acting within its geographical boundaries. The functions exercisable by the mayor would include

“making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services”.

Labour Members should look at me with encouragement—perhaps I have had a conversion to the centre-left of British politics—because the new clause would also provide for the regulation of fares and a fare cap. I think that is acceptable in a situation where a single provider is flagrantly breaching the good faith of the people of the Isle of Wight.

I know that the Minister will resist this new clause—that does not surprise me; she has a job to do, as do I—but there is clearly a problem. I live just up the road from the Isle of Wight and the prices are crazy. The people living on the island rely on those ferries—they are used to supply medical services, to supply businesses and shops, and for family situations on the Isle of Wight—so the Government must step up.

The new clause makes a reasonable suggestion to the Government to give a mayor the power to control transport services within their region. I am delighted that the Conservative candidate for mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, Donna Jones, has said that she is actively pushing the Government for those regulatory powers. We support her in that so that she can come down very hard on the ferry services that are taking advantage of people who live on the Isle of Wight.

If the Government genuinely believe in devolution and in the control of transport—we have seen over the last 14 months that they believe in mayors being able to commission and manage transport services—that should include all transport services. I commend the new clause to the Committee, and hope that the Minister will give some encouraging words to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and to me. I have not spoken to my hon. Friend about this, and I am sure he will want to move the new clause on Report, but I wish to press it to a Division in Committee.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me start by saying that we absolutely recognise the issue that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and hon. Members representing the Isle of Wight have raised. That is why the Department for Transport has engaged with MPs and stakeholders on the Isle of Wight to identify their local solutions to the concerns that we understand and appreciate need to be addressed.

That engagement has included a ministerial roundtable on this issue and a commitment to create a cross-Solent group. An independent chair has been appointed to take that group forward. We will continue to engage with partners locally to address the genuine issues that have been raised about the ferry service in the area. The power of a democratically elected mayor is that they can make this a core issue and use the levers that they have and the seat that they will have at the table with Government to keep making the case and delivering for their community.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for those encouraging words. She is absolutely correct, and I hope she does not see this intervention as unfair, but can she use her good offices to speed that group along? When the then maritime Minister visited the Isle of Wight in April, he said that a DFT working group would be created, but that has not happened—there has been no meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) have been involved in that working group on a cross-party basis but it has not met yet. Could the Minister use her good offices to push for that meeting?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will write to my counterparts in the DFT. The commitment to create the group came in recognition of a problem. We are committed to working with local stakeholders and Members representing the area to respond to that, so I am happy to write to my DFT colleagues to chivvy that along.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has gone further than I was expecting her to. I think it is now up to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East to table the new clause again on Report, alongside, if necessary, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Pending conversations with my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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.”—(Vikki Slade.)

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Good morning, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, and to see everybody on the Committee on this very sunny Thursday morning. I know everybody is delighted to be here, and I welcome the Minister too.

The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authorities to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority. Amendment 309 would create additional boundaries for regulations that may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor. In essence, we believe that amendments 307 to 309—we will come to amendment 308 in the next grouping—would address the issue that single foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall currently cannot access the highest level of devolution, because the Bill only allows for combined or county combined authorities with a mayor to exercise the functions that the Government are putting forward.

Amendment 307 promotes fairness and flexibility by allowing foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall to benefit from the same level of democratic leadership as combined authorities. That would empower local areas to choose a directly elected mayor if they wish, strengthening accountability and enabling them to access greater devolved powers, which the Minister has outlined as a key priority for the Bill.

Amendment 309 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer functions to a strategic authority’s mayor, and would ensure that devolved powers can be effectively localised and exercised by accountable leadership. The amendment would complement amendments 307 and 308, by giving mayors the tools they need to deliver on local priorities, ensuring that devolution works in practice, not just in principle.

I will move amendment 308 at a later stage, but together, our amendments would effectively let foundation strategic authorities have mayors and the associated powers of delegation and function transfer, putting them on par with mayoral CAs and CCAs, and I encourage the Government to support them.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Let me take amendment 307 first. To be clear, the single foundation strategic authority will not have a mayor. That is not the intent of the provision or of the Bill and it is not in the Government’s plans. Invariably, however, we want to be sure that at every level we are devolving power. Certain powers will be devolved to single foundation strategic authorities, such as Cornwall, in order to enable it to respond to some of its issues. We are also clear that certain powers will be reserved to mayors, because a level of democratic accountability is critical to the exercise of such powers. That is the distinction that we have made throughout the design of the policy and it is built into the Bill.

Amendment 309 is out of the step with the Bill’s objective of streamlining the process for conferring and modifying the functions of strategic authorities and mayors. The Bill already puts in place sufficient guardrails when functions are transferred to mayors. When making functions exercisable by the mayor, it is already the case that constituent authorities will be consulted before such a change. Requiring the consent of those authorities will create an unnecessary barrier to enabling mayors to take on functions and to get on with the job delivery, which is what we need of them.

Finally, many mayors can already appoint political advisers—another piece of amendment 309—as agreed through the establishment of statutory instruments. The Bill will also allow mayors to appoint commissioners to support them in the exercise of their functions. That is the right balance to be struck to ensure that the mayor has what he or she needs to do the job that their constituents or voters require of them. With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope that the Minister understands our motivation for tabling the amendment. We are not trying to score a political point, but to strengthen the Bill. I am reassured that the Minister has given us some reassurance that she sees that every kind of authority should be devolved and that the powers should be aligned with those. We may come back to this on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 308, in schedule 23, page 237, line 30, at end insert—

“Functions moving from mayors to deputy mayors and strategic authority members

5A (1) Regulations may provide for the mayor of a strategic authority to allow any function of the mayor to be exercised by—

(a) the deputy mayor,

(b) a member of the relevant strategic authority,

(c) a committee members of the strategic authority appointed by the mayor.

(2) Regulations may create requirements for the committee in sub-paragraph (1)(c) including—

(a) requirements about the membership of the committee,

(b) requirements about the appointment of a chair of the committee,

(c) requirements about the process by which the mayor may appoint members to the committee,

(d) requirement about the committee’s voting procedures,

(e) requirements about information which must be disclosed by the strategic authority to the committee.”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority, or a committee of a members of the relevant strategic authority.

This amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an extension to my earlier amendments 307 and 309, as I said. In essence, it would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate the exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority or a committee of members of the relevant strategic authority. Allowing mayors of strategic authorities to delegate functions would ensure consistency with existing mayoral models, making government more effective and responsive. The amendment would provide practical flexibility so that mayors can share responsibilities appropriately and ensure that local decisions are made at the right level.

I expect the Minister to resist the amendment, but I look for some reassurance on whether we can ensure that the Bill brings some standardisation, an efficient transfer of functions and efficient exercise of the functions proposed. I am interested to hear her thoughts, but at this stage we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, depending on what the Minister comes back with.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Again, I understand the intent behind the amendment. I would say that mayors are already able to delegate the majority of their functions to deputy mayors and to members of constituent authorities. In the evidence session, for example, Councillor Bev Craig from Manchester was responsible for the economic development portfolio in Greater Manchester. Such functions are already in place. In part in recognition of the fact that local councillors, in particular leaders and cabinet members, have busy paid jobs, we want to increase the mayor’s pool of support, which is why we are creating the ability for the mayor to appoint and to delegate functions to the commissioners. That will give the mayors options. We are not specifying how the mayor should do it, and ultimately each mayor will figure out what works for their area and the mix between deputy mayors, commissioners and lead members, but this provision will increase the pool and the options available to them.

[Paul Holmes]

We are content with that answer, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Third schedule to the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The schedule is introduced by clause 50. I have already spoken about why the clause should stand part of the Bill. As I explained previously, the schedule is essential to providing Government with the powers to add new functions to the framework. That will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors have the powers they need to deliver for their local people, which is what all this is about. I commend the schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 23 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 51

Health service functions: application of existing limitations on devolution

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This Government want to ensure we have a national health service that is fit for the future, and we are doing huge amounts to repair the damage to the national health service done by the Conservative Government. That is a core function of what we are doing. It is therefore right that certain core functions, such as the NHS constitution or university clinical training, remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This clause retains the existing limits on the devolution of health functions in England. Protections against devolving health functions are not new—they have been in place since the Government began the process of devolving functions to combined authorities—and the Bill maintains them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I was going to stay quiet, but unfortunately for the Minister I was inspired by her speech, so I hate to disappoint the Government Whip by speaking very briefly. The Minister, quite rightly—it is her job—outlined that she wants to rectify some of the supposed damage done to the national health service over 14 years, but I gently remind her that waiting lists are increasing and that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking at possible strike action while putting forward a reorganisation that he cannot afford.

I look to the Minister for some reassurance regarding whether wider health policy, such as that reorganisation and some of the local functions of integrated care boards, which we know are changing, may affect the provisions in the clause. Could there be some effect on the ground that may create delay or necessitate some changes to the clause in the longer term?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Obviously, the NHS is going through huge reform. We are working closely with the team in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that reforms sit alongside our plans for devolution. A big part of what we are trying to do through our health reforms is to provide community-based healthcare, and there is a big opportunity for local and regional government to work alongside the NHS to deliver integrated services that work for our communities and are user-led. We are making sure that every stage of the reforms, including the changes to the ICBs, is done in lockstep with what we are trying to do across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Incidental etc provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We understand the overarching aims of this clause, and the debate does not necessarily have to revolve around whether or not it should happen, but we tabled this probing amendment because we understand that the legislation is essentially applying TUPE regulations regardless of whether they legally apply. We want to challenge that and probe why, if TUPE regulations need not legally apply in cases of transfer, the Government have insisted that TUPE regulations have to go into this regardless. Can the Minister answer that key question?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

TUPE regulations are there to ensure that staff are not dismissed for the sole reason that functions are being transferred from one public body to another. We believe that they are fundamental to protecting staff, which we want to make sure happens throughout this process.

In line with the Cabinet Office guidance, this clause tries to ensure that the regulations apply when we have public bodies moving to strategic authorities. The amendment, as drafted, risks creating uncertainty for staff and disrupting the smooth transfer of functions.

TUPE regulations are there for a reason—to protect the workers that are fundamental and critical to delivering any public institution. When we are going through the process of creating these strategic authorities, it is important that we embed those TUPE regulations. That is why I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for her full and direct answer, and I understand it. I take it she accepts that TUPE is being put into this clause regardless of whether there is a legal necessity for it to apply. Has she had any correspondence or lobbying from the trade union movement to make sure that it is included?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

To answer that question directly: no, although it helps that I am a new Minister. The clause is in step with long-standing Government practice. It mirrors provisions that have been made in previous legislation by the previous Conservative Government, including in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It is standard practice and it is done by all parties. It is there because we need to protect staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I feel very reassured that the Government are following the excellent judgment of the last Conservative Government. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 221, in clause 53, page 58, line 16, at end insert—

“(8A) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make regulations under clause 53 subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Prohibition of secondary legislation removing functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Strategic authorities will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government could easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is sovereign, and the Government will always be able to table primary legislation to redesign how functions are delivered. However, the Bill makes sure that Governments will have to make that argument in Committee and on Report, as we are doing now. It must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. We want this to be locked in because we fundamentally believe that this is how to deliver for communities across the country. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this or any future Government to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation, so that they can be exercised again by central Government.

I commend clause 54 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

This is a difficult one for us. I am not saying that the Minister is trying to bind the hands of future Governments, but it does feel like the Government are trying to make this increasingly difficult. We would argue that any elected Government have a mandate to make legislative changes as they see fit. I wonder whether this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Of course, we accept the need for parliamentary scrutiny, but an elected Government should be able to use any mechanism they want to use. I ask the Minister once again to consider whether she thinks this is really necessary. A Government who might want to remove some of the functions would have a democratic mandate to do so, and arguably very good reasons for doing so when future structures need to change. I would like to challenge her on whether she thinks this is absolutely necessary, which may depend on our forcing a vote on this issue.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. My view is that devolution is a fundamental shift in power and a rewiring of how we govern the country. At the heart of the devolution process are a lot of democratic processes, where people vote for a mayor on the basis of what they say they will deliver for their community. To make a fundamental change, it is absolutely right that a future Government must get the consent of Parliament to rewrite it. That is the premise on which we think about the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and devolution, and it is what we have done in the context of Scotland and Wales. These are fundamental shifts in power, and it is right that there has to be a full democratic process within Parliament to reverse them.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government. I come back to the fundamental point that this is not about reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake; it is about creating better-functioning unitary councils that are more sustainable and better able to deliver the high-quality services that their residents want and fundamentally deserve.

Schedule 24 enables the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise. We are committed to working in partnership with local areas. Therefore, this will be used only where areas have failed to make progress following an invitation. It also includes new merging provisions to enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change would be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. That aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.

With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed in the Bill to ensure these reforms work in harmony. The first mechanism is the ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority. This is a straightforward and common-sense provision. When local government reorganisation takes place in an area covered by a combined county authority, we need a streamlined way to convert the authority into a combined authority.

The second mechanism is the ability to abolish a combined authority or combined county authority if local government reorganisation renders that authority obsolete. This mechanism would be used only in very limited circumstances: if a new unitary authority covers or includes the whole area of an existing combined authority or combined county authority. Any local government reorganisation proposal requiring the use of this abolition mechanism will need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as per the Government’s reorganisation criteria. That ensures these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.

I commend clause 55 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

Clause 55 essentially goes to the heart of the Bill. As we argued when we voted in the House against local government reorganisation, the thing in this Bill that most people out there—our voters—will notice, aside from the devolution aspects and the creation of mayors, is the bread-and-butter transactional services that people see on the ground. That will be the biggest impact the change will have on their daily lives.

We oppose clause 55 because we believe the Government have no democratic mandate to deliver local government reform. It was not in their manifesto, they did not ask the British people to vote for them on the basis of local government reform, and we fundamentally have—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth looks shocked at my proposition, but if he can refer me to where this was in the Labour party’s manifesto, I will happily withdraw that point. I suspect he cannot, because it was not there. That is a key aspect of why we oppose the clause.

The other reason why we oppose the clause is because there is no overwhelming evidence showing that services or local government would be more efficient with larger organisational structures and a larger population being encapsulated into unitary authorities. I am a big fan of unitary authorities—I declare an interest in that I am a former lead member of one, and I was very happy to be so—but we have to accept that the nature of devolution means that a standardised model is not adequate for everywhere in the country. In some areas, it may not be what is best or wanted by local people. That comes back to the democratic deficit we believe the Government have in announcing these LGR proposals.

I know the Minister is relatively new in post, so she will not have had as much communication with local authority leaders as her predecessor did—that does not reflect on her or her ability; it is just the nature of her period in post. But, in previous sittings, she outlined and indicated to this Committee that there is overwhelming excitement from many local authority leaders who welcome LGR and the new mayors proposed by the Government. She will also be aware that this has caused a huge amount of disruption to local people and the working of local authorities, at a difficult time for their operational capacity and capability, with reduced budgets. This is not needed.

For example, there are now three proposals to Government in my area. One is from the 12 district councils, which absolutely do not want to be abolished. There is unified agreement on that, except from Gosport borough council, which has opposed everything completely. There is a county council recommendation, lauded previously by the Minister, which is not supported by MPs who represent the area. And there is another proposal that is contested. One of my Hampshire colleagues has just entered the room, and he takes the same view as me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. There were unique circumstances where everything was going bankrupt, so strict action had to be taken. This Government are proposing, unilaterally and without any consultation with those who do not want it to go ahead, to change local government structures across the whole of the United Kingdom without democratic legitimacy.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Does the hon. Member recognise the state of local government—the absolute mess and the financial vulnerability of local authorities—that his party left us with? Unique circumstances, absolutely. We are having to fix the mess we inherited. We absolutely want local government to be successful and to thrive, but it is on its knees after 15 years of austerity. That is why we are having to take the action we are taking.

[Paul Holmes]

If the Minister is seriously suggesting that a complete and wholesale reorganisation across the whole United Kingdom is the one answer to making sure that local government can operate on a sustainable footing, I do not buy that at all. There are many things that this Government could do to make local government much more efficient and to deliver for people. First is an uplift in funding.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are doing that.

[Paul Holmes]

Well, the Minister should speak to the many council leaders across the country who do not agree that it is enough.

If the Minister is seriously saying that abolishing 90% of elected councillors in rural areas across this country will somehow be the miracle cure for local government, and that is what is driving these measures, then I am sorry but this Government need to go back to the drawing board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister says that there is no gun being held to local authority leaders’ heads. Can she therefore outline, in a clear way, what would happen to a county or district authority that said that it did not want local government reorganisation and refused to engage? They would be forced to reorganise, would they not?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

They have been invited. There is a backstop power, but we do not think we will need to use it because the conversation now playing out across local government is that, yes, this is hard, but everyone recognises that the status quo—standing still—is not feasible or sustainable.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way one more time. She is being very generous, especially as I know that I have spoken for a while. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that Government Back Benchers are so delighted with my speaking.

I ask the Minister again, because she has not committed to this in clear language: if a county council leader or a number of district councils refused to engage with the Government’s process on local government reorganisation, they would be forced to reorganise, would they not?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

That is not where we want to be. That is not where we think we will end up. We have invited places and, to the credit of local government, everyone recognises that change is required. What is now happening is that places are making decisions about the best proposal to deliver the outcomes that they want for their constituents. This process has been hard—of course it has—but, throughout it, every single local authority has understood that the status quo will not deliver for their residents. That is the thing that is driving the impetus for change.

I will say a few words on the 500,000 population figure because Opposition Members have mentioned it. That is not a hard and fast number. We have said that it is a benchmark. If we think about other authorities that have gone through the process of local government reorganisation over the past 20 years—the likes of Somerset or Cornwall—500,000 is the sort of number that they have gone for, and we have seen that their reorganisations have delivered improvements in services and in the way that they operate. Places can go below or above that number. Ultimately, it is for places to figure out the best configuration of their locality to deliver for their residents. We have been clear and consistent about that point.

I want to address the specifics on London. We are open to a conversation with any part of the country that wants to talk about reorganisation. London, with its boroughs, obviously has a different configuration locked in legislation. It is distinct from our two-tier areas, which is why we are not focusing on it. But we are very open to a conversation about London, where we tend to have big authorities that are delivering some of these integrated services anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me say three things in response. First, there is already flexibility in the creation of boundaries and geographies for unitaries to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that they work for the communities they need to serve.

We are clear that, on the other side of local government reorganisation, councils must be the right size to deliver the high-quality services that residents deserve and need. Judgment on proposals will be driven by that fundamental question. Splitting up existing unitaries, further fragmenting and disaggregating services, does not feel like it would be in the interests of the residents concerned in delivering better and more efficient services, or value for money for taxpayers and those residents.

Clearly, we must have a reform process that fundamentally delivers those outcomes. There is now a process to do that. We will look at the various proposals and, ultimately, the test is: will the proposal deliver local government that is fit for purpose and deliver for our communities? Voters across the country want that and respect it.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for what she said. I absolutely knew what she was going to say—that comes as no surprise to us in the Opposition—but this is about what we discussed before. She said that it would not necessarily be to the advantage of local people were we to allow the splitting of unitary authorities, but she is missing the fact that some people want that. I think that the non-uniform approach to local government works. I still believe that this is a community empowerment and devolution Bill. One size fits all across the UK is not the way that the Government should be going. I will withdraw the amendment, but I have no doubt of further amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Local government reorganisation is already possible through existing legislation and does not require a referendum. In the last 20 years, we have precedents of local government reorganisation, and a referendum has never been part of that. Adding a referendum on to the process is disproportionate and will slow it down. We need to go through this process for all the reasons that we have talked about in the debate.

To be clear, however, before any local government reorganisation proposal is implemented, all affected authorities must be consulted. Residents can submit their views during those consultations, and authorities will engage with their residents through the proposal development process that is going on at the moment.

Furthermore, all implementation orders for new unitary authorities must pass through Parliament’s affirmative resolution procedure. That allows elected Members to have their say on proposals based on the feedback that they are getting from their constituents. All these provisions are proportionate, right and consistent with what we have done in the past. Therefore, this additional measure is disproportionate and unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I will respond briefly. The Minister is entitled to say that she does not want to accept the amendment, but I ask her to look not at the logistical and legal arguments of the legislation, but at what is right and what is wrong in the practice of implementing local government reorganisation. As I say, we are all democrats—we are all elected to serve here—so she should not fear asking the people whether they endorse the local government reform that she is currently implementing without the consent of the public or many local authority leaders. We will not press these amendments to a vote, but notwithstanding what I have said before about other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, we will table amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clause 56 stand part.

New clause 24—Impact of local government reorganisation—

“(1) Whenever the Secretary of State has made any order or regulations in pursuance of provision inserted or amended by Schedule 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must, at the end of a period of two years beginning on the day of the making of the order or regulations, issue a report.

(2) Each report required by subsection (1) must include, but shall not be limited to, details of the following, as far as they arise from any reorganisation resulting from the order or regulations—

(a) the cost of the reorganisation;

(b) the impact on service delivery, including the quality of social care provision and quality of SEND provision;

(c) the impact on development, including the number of homes delivered against local targets;

(d) the performance of individual commissioners;

(e) the sustainability of the finances of the newly created authority;

(f) the extent to which Council Tax has increased and the extent to which any mayoral precept has increased; and

(g) satisfaction of local residents with the standard of services provided by the authority established or changed by the reorganisation.”—(David Simmonds.)

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 55 introduces schedule 24 and I have already spoken in detail about it.

On clause 56, we must avoid a situation in which a predecessor council—one soon to be replaced by a new unitary council—could delay devolution by withholding consent to the establishment of a new strategic authority. Where a new unitary council is keen to progress devolution during the transitional period, the requirement for the predecessor councils to give consent will be disapplied.

The Bill will ensure that consent is given by the new unitaries, which will form the constituent councils of the new strategic authority. Consent should come only from those with a stake in the future strategic authority. This clause ensures access to devolved powers as quickly as possible, where the elected representatives of all shadow unitary authorities are in agreement. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

Well, there we have it: the mask has slipped—

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It hasn’t!

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister says it has not, but I will convince her that it has. All morning we on the Opposition side have been talking about the fact that the Government are forcing this to happen without consent. The mask has slipped because this clause disapplies the ability of a currently existing council to refuse consent for the creation of new authorities.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

On a point of clarification, it is consent to the creation of a new strategic authority, so this is the tier above.

[Paul Holmes]

Fine. I thank the Minister for her intervention, but the point I am about to make still applies: the people who currently serve have a stake. The people who send those people to serve have a stake. The way in which this clause is being put forward shows again that the Government are forcing change on a number of organisations and predecessor authorities that currently exist and serve their local people—so the mask has slipped. We have been saying all day that this is a proposal and local government reform that is not in the manifesto and is being forced on local authority leaders who do not want it.

The Minister said last week that she had had lots of enthusiastic conversations about people who want to go forward with devolution. I put it to her again that many local authority members do not, and the only reason they are going forward with it is because she is going to force them to do it anyway. Now that those local authorities might want to refuse to give consent to the creation of strategic authorities—something that should be within their gift anyway—she is disapplying their right to say that they do not want them. The Government are invoking a top-down reorganisation and not listening to the views of local leaders or of the people they are elected to serve.

I say to the Minister once again on this clause: throughout the Bill, she has advocated for it being a bottom-up reorganisation, but this is the sledgehammer of central Government refusing local people the voice that they should have. The mask has slipped and the Minister has just admitted that it is a centrally imposed thing, which many people do not want. The clause should be removed from the legislation, and we will oppose it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is important to disaggregate two processes, although I appreciate the challenge because we are doing them concurrently: there is a local government reorganisation process and a devolution process. To clarify, I am the Minister for Devolution, so when I refer to the enthusiasm in my conversations with local government leaders, that was on devolution, where it absolutely is felt. It is right for devolution that the authorities that will form the constituent authorities and ultimately have a stake in the future direction of the strategic authority are the driving force behind it.

It would be wrong if one single authority that was about to be shifted in the context of local government reorganisation were able to scupper, delay or veto the creation of that strategic authority when there is consent and support for it. This is completely rational if we allow that there are two processes. This part of the Bill is about the creation of strategic authorities and about who ultimately has the ability to drive them and consent to them. It should be those constituent authorities that will form part of the strategic authority to come.

[Paul Holmes]

Forgive me, Ms Vaz; as the Committee can see, I got rather carried away and I forgot to speak to new clause 24 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Briefly, the new clause should be included in the legislation, because all in the House believe in transparency. In the process, subsection (1) of the new clause would require an impact assessment of the local government reorganisation to be published. Each report would be required to include things such as the cost of a reorganisation, something that the Minister has advocated will deliver more efficient services and will not be onerous.

A report will allow us to see not only whether that is true post the creation of the authority, but the impact on service delivery and development, as well as the number of homes delivered—we have seen mayors who are not able to deliver the number of homes required of them—and an assessment of the performance of individual commissioners. It would provide a clear link for the people who live in those areas where the reorganisation is to go ahead. We believe that would not be onerous on the new authorities and that new clause 24 would bring the right balance between transparency and accountability, so we ask the Minister to accept it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am sympathetic to new clause 24, but there is no need for the Secretary of State to publish a report after the implementation of every single reorganisation proposal. Ultimately, local authorities are responsible for their own financial performance and the delivery of their local services, and they are accountable to their local electorate. As many currently do, local authorities may report on their performance each year to their electorate. That is the appropriate place for the responsibility to lie.

The Government already have mechanisms to monitor the performance of local authorities and to ensure that our councils are fit, legal and decent. As part of the process of reforming local government, we recently launched our local government outcomes framework, providing outcome-based accountability for councils. I think that there are enough mechanisms, including those that are baked into what councils need to do for their local electorate and our overall performance review and assessment process. In essence, those will deliver the intent of new clause 24.

[Paul Holmes]

I genuinely hate to detain the Committee—I do not just say that out of politeness—but I believe that we should press new clause 24 to a Division, when we come to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

As you would expect, Ms Vaz, I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s words. I suspect that if we took the motivation of this part of the Bill and told Labour Members that they could not put out any of their “Labour in touch” communications, or whatever they call them, they would be shouting from the barriers that they could not communicate with residents who are digitally challenged or not engaged in digital communications.

It is important that there are varied and diverse ways for our punters, if I can call them that, and our voters to find information and to engage in the process. I do not understand why the Minister is proposing to actively harm our local independent newspaper sector in a Bill that has admirable intentions and will radically change the face of local government, in some cases for the better, but in the majority of cases for the worse when it comes to accountability. We all see that press is becoming much more large scale and a lot less local through TV and media restructuring. I do not understand why the Government would put in such a retrograde step for independent local newspapers.

We support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. When the Committee comes to new clause 55, we will push it to a vote. I am not sure whether we are voting on the consequential amendments to new clause 55 today, but if we are, we will push those to a vote too.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I agree completely that we need varied forms of communication to engage with our residents and that local media play a vital role. We will continue to do everything we can to protect that part of our ecosystem, because it is fundamental to our democracy.

Let me be clear about what we are doing in the clause: we are shifting the focus from prescribing how information is published to ensuring that the public are effectively informed. The Bill will give councils the flexibility to publish notices of any governance change in whatever manner they consider is most appropriate for the local circumstances, because they know their residents better than we do.

In some respects, it is bizarre that we were ever prescribing exactly what councils should do, so now we are saying it is up to councils. Ultimately, it is in their interest to reach the very residents we care about, because they are their voters and residents too. To be clear: nothing in this provision stops a council from including local print newspapers, which will continue to play an important role. We are simply enabling councillors in the 21st century to think about the range of media that makes sense for the constituents, voters and residents they need to reach.

It is important to put this debate into perspective. As we have said, 80% of councils already have the leader and cabinet model. We are talking about the 20% of councils that do not that would go through some sort of process. This provision is talking just about that small proportion of councils. It is right that we give maximum flexibility to councils to make the right choice about how they communicate.

In the context of a pretty small, practical measure relating to the specifics of the decision to shift away from the committee system, the official Opposition’s proposal on consultation is completely disproportionate and overblown. We absolutely recognise the importance of local media. We recognised the need for an overall review, which is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently undertaking a review of local media and putting in place a local media strategy—to address the very issues that the hon. Members have raised. We agree that we need to do the job of making sure local media can survive and thrive in the 21st century. I hope that the amendment is not pressed.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will speak to clause 59 and schedule 26 now, and I will then respond to hon. Members on their amendments.

The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. Given the large population that each regional mayor and police and crime commissioner represents, far exceeding that of Members of Parliament, the Government believe they should have a broad base of support among the electorate. We believe that a supplementary voting system, a preferential voting system, will achieve that and is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. The supplementary voting system will help to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose their first-choice and second-choice candidates, and it will require the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for begrudgingly giving way. She has just outlined that she believes a winning candidate should win a majority of the vote. We entirely agree with her, which is why we support first past the post. Why does she not seem to think that the supplementary vote should also be used to elect MPs, who are single executive politicians but do not necessarily always receive a majority of the vote?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I would argue that it is up to us as politicians and candidates in the election to advertise the position and generate excitement among the electorate, so that people vote for them. It was still 41%, I think, in the election that the hon. Lady cited; it was below half the total electorate, so this is not a panacea for improving electoral participation.

Also, I know that the hon. Lady was advocating for SV, but the Liberal Democrats have always been vehement in their approach to AV, despite the fact that they lost the national referendum that they managed to get on the AV voting system. [Hon. Members: “You gave it to them.”] We gave it to them because that is coalition, but they lost and we won, so I am quite happy with the outcome. They lost a test on the national system.

AV was used in mayoral elections and PCC elections when these positions were created, and turnouts were demonstrably low and very low in some cases—12% to 18%. They are now massively higher. Okay, they are not high enough, but they are higher now because they have become a constant and well-established institution in our voting system. That is not because of the voting system. It is because the system has been allowed to bed in and people have the choice of whether to elect a PCC or mayor or not. That is one of the bedrocks of our political systems today.

I thought I was triggered on the amendment where I saw the words “citizens’ panels”, but now I am even more triggered; we have a long history of speaking about citizens’ panels and citizens’ assemblies. As I said at the beginning, there is a clear need for local people to have a straightforward system that does what it says on the tin. The Conservative party will always believe that first past the post is the system that does that. Other parties want to gerrymander a system to try to suit their own preferred political outcomes.

The Minister said that directly elected people need to have the widest possible mandate and number of people voting for them. Her Prime Minister secured 32% of the vote in a national election and won a majority of the size that he did. [Interruption.] It is not a reason to support another system at all. I do not think that the Minister can advocate for a different voting system in one case, but then—the Government’s position is confused on voting systems—accept that a 32% vote share got well over 60% of the seats on a turnout, I think, in the high 60s. That is not exactly representative, either. The Government need to have a solid position on all kinds of elections, not just ones that suit their potential candidates.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me address amendments 312 to 314 first. I am happy and pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is keen on the supplementary vote system that we want to implement. The challenge to her amendment was summed up by the hon. Member herself in the final part of her speech. We are moving at pace because we want to drive through these reforms. We want to drive through the rewiring of the state and the devolution of power. However, we do not expect the Bill to come into force in time to restore the supplementary vote system for the elections in May 2026, as much as I would love us to.

Once the Bill is enacted, we will need to bring forward secondary legislation to implement the measures updating the conduct rules for these polls. Also, returning officers will need to prepare for polls under the new voting system and we need to ensure that there is sufficient time. Therefore, with all the will in the world, with the full gusto of the Government on what we are trying to do, we do not think we will be able to hit that timetable. But for subsequent elections, the new system should be in place.

On new clause 7 and the alternative vote system, I say two things. First, I again gently remind Liberal Democrat Members that there was a referendum on AV and 67.9% of voters rejected it at the time, so it is not clear that there is a groundswell of desire for that voting system. And critically, from our perspective, it is slower, more expensive to run and more burdensome. Therefore, we think that the system that we are proposing—supplementary votes—is the right and appropriate system and I ask hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

In the absence of Mr Simmonds, I call Mr Holmes.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I will do my best not to disappoint you, Sir John, or the Minister or Government Back Benchers. I welcome the Minister to her place and hope that she feels refreshed after last night’s late sitting; we will try to make this as easy as possible.

In relation to schedules 12 and 13, this is a standard procedure used by the Mayor of London. We see this as a perfectly sensible proposal that unifies the regulations with those existing in London. I will just say this to the Minister, if I can without disappointing her. On proposed new section 61DCA, the Minister outlined that the Secretary of State could direct or issue an order, should local authorities not agree to a mayoral development order. I understand that details will come out in secondary legislation, which is perfectly acceptable, but could she outline to the Committee the balance of power? As I think the Minister respectfully acknowledges, we have been consistently worried that, if this is supposed to be a true devolution Bill, giving power to the Secretary of State to order or issue kind of breaks the spirit of that devolution.

Could the Minister give the Committee some reassurance that the views and objections of local authorities would be taken into proper consideration? What would that balance of power be, should the Secretary of State have to use that order? We do, however, see this as a perfectly reasonable schedule, and will not seek to divide the Committee on it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for supporting the measure. In the event that there is not consensus between a constituent authority and the mayoral strategic authority, it would go up to the Secretary of State in the way that planning applications do currently. The Planning Inspectorate will review it based on its planning merits, in the light of issues and objections that have been raised locally, and the full suite of evidence. It is consistent with the current process for planning applications that are called in. We think this will essentially standardise what we do for individual local authorities currently.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 12 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 33

Power to charge community infrastructure levy

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak to amendment 289, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, on behalf of the official Opposition. I will also briefly speak to new clause 1. The hon. Lady has just very expertly outlined why the Government should accept it, and the official Opposition agree with her. She is absolutely correct that CIL, although a very good thing, is—not always intentionally, but sometimes negligently—being used in inappropriate ways. Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) mentioned a case in his constituency with his local authority, where somebody was being charged £70,000. That is clearly unacceptable.

Any measure that could improve the regulation and guidance to local authorities, not necessarily to restrict them but to give them clarity—it would also slightly pull on the tail of their coat, so they do not act irresponsibly to people who are responsibly improving their homes—is a good thing. We will therefore be supporting new clause 1 if the hon. Lady chooses to press that to a vote. It clearly does not place an undue burden on the Secretary of State, and it would mean that the system would become more streamlined and transparent. It would give protection to people who are doing the right thing and ensuring that they are following the rules, but the rules are clearly being interpreted in different ways.

Amendment 289, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would ensure that the mayors charging CIL report on the effect that this has on housing development. Similarly to new clause 1, we do not think that that would place an undue burden on the legislation or on the necessary parties because, where the community infrastructure levy is being used at the moment, there clearly is a lack of transparency on what it is delivering for local people. The amendment will improve the transparency that mayors and local authorities would be bringing to the table.

CIL is meant to improve infrastructure and make sure that housing is delivered. We have seen across the country places where existing mayors are not necessarily delivering on their housing commitment, particularly in London. We argue that this amendment would bring transparency because a mayor has to account for how they are using CIL and the effect that that would have on housing development in a city region that they control. We think that is a perfectly reasonable amendment.

For that reason, we will press amendment 289 to a vote, and if the hon. Lady the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole chooses to press new clause 1 to a vote, we will certainly support that today.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will start by addressing some of the questions that were raised, and then move to amendment 289 and new clause 1. There is a key question of how to ensure that the mayoral strategic CIL does not undercut local CILs. The mayor will have to have regard to local CILs that are already being issued, to ensure that there is a balance. The CIL proposal will need to be done in the context of viability assessments, so the mayor will need to think about what is happening at the parish, town and local authority levels in terms of CIL before a strategic CIL is put in place. It is also worth noting that the charging schedule will be subject to statutory consultation. Again, that is another provision to ensure that the right balance is being struck.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked what the CIL will be used for. That will be set out in regulations, but we are clear, up front, that it will be for vital infrastructure that can unlock growth and economic development. Therefore, there will be broader permissiveness within that, but we will set that out in further regulations.

On amendment 289, while I fully support the need for transparency in the use of developer contributions to ensure accountability, the amendment is unnecessary because it duplicates existing regulatory requirements. All contribution-receiving authorities are already required to publish an infrastructure funding statement each year. This annual statement must include details on the amount of CIL collected and spent, and information on infrastructure projects funded, or intended to be funded, by CIL.

The CIL regulations are already very prescriptive about what must be included within an infrastructure funding statement. Introducing further reporting obligations is not necessary and potentially risks confusing things and increasing the administrative burdens on strategic authorities.

Finally, we have an additional safeguarding provision: the Planning Act 2008 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing reporting requirements, or create new requirements, if it is determined that existing arrangements are not necessary. We think that we already have sufficient provisions within existing legislation, which means that amendment 289 is not required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I cannot comment on the motivations of the Minister, who I believe is an hon. Lady of utmost integrity, but I suspect that the Government want to amend the Bill on their own terms. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and I both speak for Opposition parties, but we would not make hay if the Minister chose to accept these new clauses. The Government have a position, stated on the Floor of the House of Commons, that CIL is not working for people who tried to follow the rules but are being persecuted and in many cases prosecuted by local authorities, through the wrong charging mechanisms being applied. The Minister outlined the mitigation and the appeal infrastructure that people can currently use, but they are not working either. New clause 1—an admirable new clause—and new clause 28 would make it very clear that people in that situation cannot be charged the CIL.

The Minister is in charge. She has the power to accept the new clauses and improve the legislation to change the lives of people who face injustice every day in the current system. I absolutely accept that the last Government did not do it, but she has a simple choice today: accept these new clauses, change the situation, and make sure that people do not have to go through what these people have been going through. I encourage her to accept these new clauses in the spirit of co-operation and tripartisanship—[Interruption.] Quadripartisanship! We would genuinely support her in doing that.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

First, I thank hon. Members for tabling these amendments and for raising the issue. I assure the Committee that we know there is a problem here. We are alive to the cases that have arisen, which demonstrate that the CIL, as it should apply, is not working in practice. Although exemptions exist, they are not being applied in the way that they ought to be.

We are giving careful consideration to this matter as part of our commitment to develop a far clearer and more effective contribution system. As I said, I completely appreciate that the intention behind the amendments is to protect a segment of the market that we want to protect; it ought to exempted. I can clearly confirm that we are looking seriously at this matter and we will revert to it at a later stage, so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments to allow the Government time to consider it properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 34 introduces schedule 15, which contains provisions to enable strategic authorities outside London to undertake their housing and strategic planning competences. These standardise the extension of powers relating to the acquisition and use of land currently held by Homes England and local authorities to strategic authorities outside London.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has outlined the clause and set out the responsibilities and changes she wants to make in a very reasonable manner. This seems a perfectly sensible solution; it encourages more transparency and accountability in some of the actions that Homes England undertakes. People in my constituency feel that some of the money allocated to development through the current channels of scrutiny and planning is not necessarily in lockstep with what they want for their local areas. As I have said throughout, a devolution Bill should mean true devolution, so I think these responsibilities coming under the remit of the new authorities is a good thing. I welcome this addition to the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15

Acquisition and development of land

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 15, page 173, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;

(aa) in subsection (2), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;”

This would alter the amendment of section 9(2) so that the function there would not be conferred on the GLA (only on strategic authorities outside London).

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for promoting me to Minister; I cannot wait for that to happen one day. I suspect that I will have more grey hair, and less hair. He is correct, and I am on the record as having spoken about this: the Building Safety Regulator is a barrier to building. I know that this is slightly out of scope, but I have offered to work with Ministers on a genuine cross-party basis to try to remove some of the burdens on the Building Safety Regulator, which I think has purview over too much that is not material to the delivery of housing.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but in terms of the current powers, the mayor is not delivering, and the Government are not delivering on their promise of 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State yesterday said that his job would be on the line if he did not deliver the 1.5 million homes. I suspect that we will see a sacking in the not-too-distant future, because everybody in this country who is an expert in housing—there was a documentary on it just this week—says that the Government will not achieve their stated aim of building that number of homes.

The clause in itself is not a panacea that will unlock huge housing growth in our cities. The Minister should be careful not to overpromise and underdeliver, as her mayors consistently do across the country. However, we know that this is a unification and simplification of the system. We will not divide the Committee on the clause. This is a perfectly sensible solution, but let us not pretend that it is a sledgehammer that will crack a nut, and cause the Government to achieve their aims across the country.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It would be remiss of me not to address some of the issues in London. We recognise that we have a housing challenge in London and across the country. I suggest that the hon. Member show a little more humility, because the consequences are the legacy of the Conservative party. He did not mention that the Conservatives in government slashed housing targets across the country, which throttled development; or that they crashed the economy and caused mortgages to rise, which had an impact on demand. He did not mention their record on inflation, which increased construction costs.

Anyone who knows housing knows that there is a lag, so the impacts of the Conservative party’s failure—[Interruption.] The hon. Member solicited this by attacking our brilliant mayor. The Conservatives’ failures are feeding through, and we are now trying to accelerate progress. That is why record investment of £39 billion is going into social housing, and it is why we are seeing housing targets across the country. We are doing our part to get the country building again. Ultimately, we will be the ones to solve the housing crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We really should not accept this party political broadcast. One million homes were built over the lifetime of the previous Parliament. Can the Minister explain to the Committee why housing delivery is at an all-time low? Why is it that experts in the housing sector, including the Home Builders Federation, say that the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised simply cannot be delivered, and the Chancellor’s own figures show that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered? That is a failure on the promise that she made, is it not?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

If we look at a graph, we see that housing starts plummeted in 2023. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to remind the Committee who was in power at that time—it was the Conservative party. We are trying to accelerate housing development, and we have a 1.5 million target that we are committed to delivering. That is not to underestimate the incredible difficulty, but we believe that homes are a requirement and a necessity. We have a homelessness crisis and a temporary accommodation crisis, so we have to get to grips with this. That is why we are doing the job of accelerating housing development. The amendments, and giving strategic authorities the powers that will enable them to play a role, are critical to that endeavour.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clause grants mayors of strategic authorities outside London the power to create mayoral development corporations. They are another tool for mayors to enable regional regeneration and economic development. Stripping away these provisions would limit regional ambition. The clause gives effect to schedule 17, allowing mayoral development corporations to spearhead land acquisition, planning and infrastructure projects. This will help to foster jobs, unlock growth, drive infrastructure development and attract investment into our regions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17

Mayoral development corporations

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 290, in schedule 17, page 193, line 2, at end insert—

“7A After section 202, insert—

‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land

Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”

I rise to speak to the amendment, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Although we welcome mayoral development corporations, since this Government came to office an environment has been created, if Members will forgive the pun, where it is easier to build in rural areas but harder to develop our urban centres. As we mentioned in a debate last week, the Government’s planning and building conditions are making it harder to densify urban centres. We have discussed the housing targets in rural and urban areas, and now mayoral development corporations are being created. That is perfectly acceptable, but we do not think it protects the green belt across this great green and pleasant land, and it will essentially allow mayors to build on greenfield land without the necessary checks and balances.

The amendment is simple. We tabled it because we want to make it much easier to build in areas of existing development where there is scope for densification, and we want to protect green belt and greenfield land by restricting building on it where many people to whom the mayor is accountable simply do not want that to happen. The amendment would not rule out such development completely, but it would make the MDC more streamlined and disciplined about unlocking areas where infrastructure exists and it is easier to build, rather than using green fields, where we believe development is more difficult and takes longer.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I understand the intent behind the amendment. Mayoral development corporations are already subject to the national planning policy framework, which reflects the brownfield-first approach that the hon. Member has talked about, encourages densification where it makes sense and includes strong protections for greenfield land. We think the provisions already exist, because any mayoral development corporation must have regard to the national planning policy framework.

We believe it is important to give mayoral development corporations flexibility, however, because there will be instances, in the case of urban extensions or new towns, when the decision needs to be made to build on greenfield land. We think that the amendment would disproportionately restrict mayoral development corporations and place on them additional restrictions that do not apply to other bodies. Ultimately, it would reduce mayoral development corporations’ flexibility, slow down delivery and add unnecessary constraints on decision making. For that reason, we do not support it, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand where the Minister is coming from, and I am inclined not to press the amendment to a Division but to treat it as probing. She is aware that I have long advocated for, and pushed her and the Government on, the incentivisation of densification. In our debate on amendment 304 last week, I think she reasonably accepted that a densification strategy was needed. She has come back to the NPPF today, but that is simply not working. We tabled amendment 304 and this amendment to solidify the position. We think that that is a perfectly reasonable approach to the guidance and regulations.

I hope for some reassurance from the Minister that she and the Government will look at further action regarding that incentivisation. If I get that reassurance, I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am happy to provide reassurance in writing.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Strategic authorities, as we have said consistently in discussing the Bill, are a key driving force for local growth. To lead growth for its area, the authority must understand its local economy. That is why this clause will provide combined or combined county authorities with a duty to assess the economic conditions of their areas.

Local councils will continue to play a critical role in formulating the strategic authority’s understanding of the local economy. Combined and combined county authorities will be required to consult and work with the councils in their area when building their assessment of economic conditions. This requirement will ensure that the economic strategy for an area combines a strategic, regional assessment of opportunities with a ground-up understanding of local economies. The duty has been long held by strategic authorities without issue and empowers them to develop a holistic understanding of their local economies.

[Paul Holmes]

Briefly, could the Minister elaborate on some of the consultation mechanisms that the strategic authority would use with the authorities that currently have the power? We completely understand why she has introduced this, but throughout proceedings in Committee, we and the other Opposition parties have expressed concern about the erosion of existing authorities’ responsibilities with the centralisation that is going on. Will the Minister elaborate on how much weight the new authority will give local authorities’ considerations?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very clear that although we want a strategic assessment of the economic opportunities and risk in an area, and a local growth plan that crosses that area, it must be informed by constituent authorities. The way it is working in practice—we hope the legislation enables this—is that constituent authorities bring into the conversation their understanding, insights, analysis and key priorities for the area, and a collective decision is made. Ultimately, I come back to the point I have made consistently: the mayor’s capacity to be effective and deliver is only as strong as their relations and collaboration with constituent authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clause 38

Local growth plans

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The way that people want their economy to go is to have growth, and for them to be able to pay their bills, feed their families and have good jobs. I say to the hon. Lady that any mayor who does not put those things in their manifesto is not worth electing. An election is the point at which the mayor should be held accountable. Any mayor who says that they would not want to make their local economic situation better and improve the lives of their citizens should not be elected. The current legislation that we have enables people perfectly reasonable input into the journey that a mayor might take over their mayoral term.

I believe that over the course of the last few Governments, the House of Commons has made great strides in protecting the environment and in making sure that mayors and public authorities, as well as private businesses, are responsible in how they treat their people, but also grow with the environmental and other protections that are necessary. While I understand the hon. Lady’s argument and I genuinely have a great deal of respect for her, the unintended consequences of the new clause and the new schedule will be to restrict growth, and to restrict the power of the mayor to have a responsible attitude to enabling growth on an even basis within the system that we currently have.

The hon. Lady’s proposals would be restrictive, but they would also take us back. A mayor should be unrestricted in their ability to deliver the growth and prosperity for the people they serve. I do not believe that the new clause and new schedule would do that. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not pushing those to a vote, but if she did, we would not be able to support it, and we would vote against it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clause and new schedule. Let me put on record that I completely agree with the goals of an inclusive economy; they are right, and we have a lot of sympathy for that. This Government are clear that we have to get the economy to work better for people, and I am obliged to remind everyone that over the last 14 years that was not the case.

Ultimately, mayors must have a democratic mandate, and the mark of success will be not just economic growth, but the economy impacting on people’s living standards, jobs and wages—bread and butter, tangible things. We think that the aims that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve are already locked into the Bill. If we achieve growth only on a graph and people do not feel it, our residents, voters and electorate will ensure that we pay the price. Therefore, that democratic lock is already baked into the Bill.

It is also worth saying that local growth plans, as set out in the Bill and as conceived, are a manifesto commitment for this Government, and the existing, established regional mayors have already developed their plans, with many starting to publish them already. By focusing on challenges around housing, transport, skills, employment and innovation, those plans will set the framework for unlocking the growth potential of those areas. As I said, growth only matters if it has a tangible impact on people. The strategic authorities that we are working with absolutely understand that and are trying to drive through measures that will deliver it.

We have already agreed growth priorities with 12 mayors. Those priorities are underpinned by a robust evidence base and a shared understanding of the biggest cross-cutting challenges and opportunities for economic development in those areas. Inclusivity, people and the impact on communities are absolutely central to that. The Government want to see more jobs, more money in people’s pockets, higher wages and investment that touches each and every one of our communities. One of the things we think mayors can do, when we devolve, is to ensure that they rewire their local economics in a way that gives people a greater stake.

Through co-operative ways of organising things, as in Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester, we are seeing new models that put people and communities front and centre to ensure that the growth and development that happens fundamentally benefits people. I believe that we have already baked in the intent behind the hon. Lady’s new clause and new schedule within the very design of this policy, but, more importantly, the power of democracy will drive and unlock it: if mayors and this Government do not deliver for people in our communities, we have the ballot box by which people can show their discontent. I think the hon. Lady has already said that she is not pressing the new clause and new schedule to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree, because local parish councillors are experts in the areas that they represent—sometimes more so than district councillors or county councillors, because it is a smaller area. I think that the amendments from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon are perfectly acceptable—I hope that the Minister agrees—and that she is trying to rectify an unintended consequence of the legislation. In many areas, it tries to streamline some of those aspirations, but in this area it is cutting its nose off to spite its face. We will support the amendments, and I hope the Minister will also support them and come back to us on how she imagines that she will strengthen her ability to consult town and parish councils.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

First, let me thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who has been a consistent champion and advocate of town and parish councils throughout the Bill Committee. Let me put it on record again that town and parish councils play an important role in their communities. That is a role that we understand, that we appreciate and that we want to support. We have been clear that the—

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for being a consistent champion of town and parish councils throughout our proceedings. We also recognise the important role they play in their communities, which is understood and should not be understated.

We have been clear that local growth plans should reflect the diverse needs and views of a range of local and regional stakeholders. Not only is this already possible, but it is actively encouraged. We have set out in the Bill that, when drafting their local growth plans, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities must have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State. That guidance can already set out who the authority might consult, as well as the information to be included in the plan.

We think that specifying a minimum level of engagement for town and parish councils is disproportionate and over-prescriptive. For too long, central Government have dictated what local areas should do, who they should talk to and how they should do it, and we are calling time on that. This is about empowering mayoral strategic authorities to reach out to the key stakeholders that they know and understand best to drive the changes they want in their place. For that reason, I do not believe this cluster of amendments is necessary.

I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I would not usually speak at this stage, but as the Minister did not outline why she does not believe that the Government should prescribe who mayors and mayoral development corporations should be talking to, will she say why, in earlier clauses, she prescribed that organisations such as trade unions should sit around the table? Town and parish councils that are delivering services on the ground are now being asked to deliver more services because of some of the provisions she has included in the Bill. Why does she not think it is necessary to issue guidance forcing mayors or MDCs to talk to them when they are delivering?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I know I am, Dame Siobhain. I cut my teeth against you in Mitcham and Morden in 2015, and I was required to be of strong stuff to try to beat you.

I do not believe that the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire is correct. What I am saying is that the Minister and the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. On various things, they are prescribing who mayors should talk to, who should be included in a strategy and who should sit around the table. But when it comes to organisations that are delivering services on the ground, and district councils that are to be abolished are transferring assets down to town and parish councils, the Minister says there is no need to prescribe that mayors need to talk to them. In many cases—including in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who so eloquently spoke to this amendment—these town and parish councils are increasing the number of services they provide, and they are taking on sections of land and businesses that are integral to the development of local growth plans. I say very gently, if the Minister wanted to completely devolve power to mayors, that would be absolutely fine with us, but let us not have a patchwork quilt approach by which she is absolutely prescribing who and to which stakeholders mayors should talk in other areas of the legislation, but she does not feel it necessary to include town and parish councils in this part. That is a shame.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Forgive me, I apologise to the Committee if I misspoke. I meant that the hon. Member for Banbury spoke against an amendment that would have guaranteed that mayors would have to speak to town and parish councils.

To return to amendment 359, the way that mayoral authorities are formulated means that mayors will represent diverse areas. As I said to the Minister, we want them to be able to succeed and we want to make sure that their growth plans actually work. In an earlier debate, I tried to adequately back up the Minister’s aim for mayors to deliver that and to make people in their area more prosperous. Businesses being created and economic growth should absolutely be the top priorities of the Government and the mayors that they are creating, and we fully endorse that message. I would argue, however, that mayors cannot do that if there is not guidance—or at least something in the legislation—that requires them to look at our coastal and rural communities and some of the unique challenges that the mayors will be able to face.

I will use the example of Hampshire and the Solent again. I have a friend who will probably end up being the Labour candidate for Hampshire and the Solent. She would make a very good mayor, but she has a history of representing and leading a council in an urban centre in an industrial city like Southampton—that is her expertise. She did it very well; she took over from the Conservative administration that I was part of. What she cannot do, and what she does not have strong experience in, is represent the coastal communities that go down the Solent and the farming communities outside.

The amendment would require rural and coastal communities and areas to be enshrined in the legislation. I do not think that Government Back Benchers, or the Minister, should be scared of that, because it would codify a solid strategic view for the local mayor to follow. I welcome the amendment, and we will support it if the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon presses it to a vote.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I know that Opposition Members—indeed, Members on both sides of the Committee—are all too aware of the unique needs and challenges that rural, remote and coastal communities face. I want to reassure them that local growth plans provide a framework for growth for all parts of their regions. That is exactly why we are requiring local growth plans to set out an economic overview of their whole area. Whether it is urban centres, or rural or farming parts of the entire strategic authority area, a proper assessment needs to be conducted. Yes, there is no requirement to specifically reference rural, remote or coastal areas, but there is equally no requirement to specify urban or suburban areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am sure the hon. Member uses surveys when he communicates with his constituents. When he sends them out, I am sure he is not worried about overburdening his constituents in their lives, whether they want to respond or not. The same principle applies. There are many perfectly good programmes that could be used now to send out a consultation to people who are already programmed into a mailing list. If they want to respond, they can, and if they do not, good on them—that means that they are perfectly happy with what is going on.

I do not understand the constant fear about consulting town and parish councils. That is particularly the case—I say this with all due respect and with realism about the situation out there in the country—given the stated aims of the Government and the situation in local government, where, without a manifesto promise, districts and county councils are being abolished and there is a rush to transfer assets to town and parish councils. They are taking on mainstream responsibilities because of what the Bill will do. Whether we are talking about local growth plans or attracting visitors, many will miss out on having a visitor strategy that is worth the paper it is written on.

We are now discussing several authorities that already have the responsibilities. This legislation was drafted at a point from which we have moved on, and it puts unintended consequences before local authorities. I ask the Minister, in the spirit of constructive debate, to go away and properly look at how town and parish councils can be consulted. They are doing a lot more than the Minister or the Government Back Benchers who have spoken this afternoon realise.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for that lengthy and robust debate. I will start with clause 40, and then I will pick up on the amendments. I remind the Committee that the purpose of clause 40 is to promote tourism and cultural activities, which we think are critical to boosting regional economies. These provisions enable authorities to encourage visitors and provide facilities such as conference centres, driving job creation and investment. Authorities can add value by forging a regional brand, and by attracting business and visitors, they can make the most of their multifaceted areas and the strengths of each local authority area. That is key to creating thriving hubs for visitors and residents.

Amendment 358 and new clause 41 touch on something that has been a constant theme throughout the debate. I understand the aims behind the provisions, and I understand opposition parties’ desire to have regard to town and parish councils. I come back to the fact that we have agreed that town and parish councils have an important role. They are important local partners, and we expect authorities to work with them where appropriate.

However, we do not believe that it is proportionate or right to put that in the Bill as a legal requirement. We trust authorities to decide how best to engage with their local partners, including town and parish councils, based on what is right and appropriate for their areas. Requiring formal consultation and reporting could, as my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth have so eloquently said, create unnecessary administrative pressure, burden and resources at a time when we want these strategic authorities to be focused on delivery. Of course we want to encourage collaboration, but not to prescribe it. Engagement should be flexible. It should not be dictated by central Government or indeed this Committee; it should be left to mayors and strategic authorities who know their patch and their partners best.

I recognise the type of levy that new clause 41 would introduce, and I recognise that it is supported by local authorities and mayors. The Government keep all tax policy under review, and any changes to tax policy will be announced at a fiscal event in the normal way. I do not believe that the Chancellor would be very pleased with me if I were to make tax policy now in this great Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

These functions are essential to the effective operation of strategic authorities. We are now standardising these functions across all existing and future authorities. These powers are core functions that any local government body needs. Standardising them across strategic authorities will create consistent foundations for them to build on and thrive from. Without these functions, we risk significantly debilitating new institutions before they have a chance.

[Paul Holmes]

To bring some agreement to the Committee, the Opposition absolutely understand, as we did earlier about standardisation, such recommendations to give powers to CAs and CCAs. We are perfectly in agreement with that and we thank the Minister for bringing the issue to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20

Miscellaneous local authority functions

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 197, in schedule 20, page 205, line 6, leave out—

“, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.

This removes the reference to combined authorities and combined county authorities inserted into section 113(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 as these bodies are already included in the definition of “local authority” under section 146A(1) of that Act.

This is a minor and technical amendment to prevent duplication in legislation.

Amendment 197 agreed to.

Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43

Health improvement and health inequalities duty

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We cannot expect the Government to get it right all the time with minor things, and these seem like sensible changes to smooth the legislation. We therefore have no problem with this group of amendments.

Amendment 198 agreed to.

Amendments made: 199, in clause 44, page 46, line 36, leave out—

“mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA”

and insert “combined authority”.

This would correct an inconsistency.

Amendment 202, in clause 44, page 47, line 8, leave out from “there” to the end of line 11 and insert—

“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 77.

Amendment 200, in clause 44, page 47, line 34, leave out “mayoral”.

This would correct an inconsistency.

Amendment 201, in clause 44, page 48, line 8, leave out “mayoral”.

This would correct an inconsistency.

Amendment 203, in clause 44, page 48, line 19, leave out from “there” to the end of line 22 and insert—

“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 80.

Amendment 204, in clause 44, page 48, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/112),

(b) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023 (S.I. 2023/1432), and

(c) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 1 to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024 (S.I. 2024/414),”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would remove the unnecessary word “after” from paragraphs (a) to (c), insert references to the relevant Schedules to the Orders, and correct the citation of the South Yorkshire Order.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clause sets out the criteria for transfer by default of police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor of a strategic authority, where the mayoralty matches the geography of the police force area and a transfer date has been set. Making mayors responsible for policing governance offers a more joined-up approach to preventing crime and driving local economic improvements. It will enhance mayors’ broader ability to bring about local change by bringing together responsibility for policing and crime with mayors’ wider remit for economic development, skills and infrastructure. This delivers the ambition set out in the English devolution White Paper.

Mayors who have police and crime commissioner functions will be required to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime. That will ensure that the mayor has sufficient capacity to discharge their functions, while ensuring there is dedicated oversight of policing on a day-to-day basis. The clause provides for a mayor to exercise police and crime commissioner functions for either a single police force, or more than one force when the boundaries of those forces align with the mayoral area when taken together.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome this section of the legislation. I congratulate the Minister, the Government and officials on ensuring in legislation a smooth process for transfer of responsibilities, and on including a target date. The people served by the mayors—that is, our constituents—will want to understand very simply what new powers and responsibilities are being handed to the mayor. This is a sensible solution.

We also welcome the creation of the deputy mayor for police and crime. Given the responsibilities outlined in other sections of the Bill, the mayor will quite rightly have many and multifaceted responsibilities. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to provide in statute for a deputy mayor specifically to cover the police and crime powers of the mayoralty. That will ensure that policing and crime is looked at as a top priority for the residents they serve. We welcome this sensible section of the legislation, and will not seek to oppose it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 16th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will respond to my hon. Friend’s question, and then I will address the amendments. It absolutely does apply to anchor organisations—the key people we would expect to have around the table for particular issues. We expect it to be private sector, although I think the power of direction might be a bit weaker for the mayor in that context. In order to advance an issue, it will be for the mayor to be clear about the partners that they need around the table, both private and public, and to bring them around the table. The experience of mayors has been that most of this is done voluntarily, because most partners in a place want to work together to deliver the outcome for their people. This provides an additional tool that the mayor can draw on in instances where, for whatever reason, partners are not automatically willing to come around the table.

Turning to the amendments, first, I want to flag that as drafted, they are focused on the Mayor of London. We believe they introduce an inconsistency between the powers of the Mayor of London and his counterparts elsewhere in England. They also run contrary to a central aim of the Bill, which is to standardise and simplify the legislative framework for devolution across England, including London. Clause 21 includes a power for the mayor to convene meetings with local partners on relevant local matters, and amendment 295 seeks to remove the corresponding requirement on local partners to respond. The power is designed to enable a mayor to bring the right people around the table; it is not an enforceable call-in power. That is not what we are proposing here; rather, it is aimed at empowering a mayor to work with local partners to drive delivery and better outcomes for their communities. Members will see that the requirement on local partners is proportionate and not overly burdensome. It does not obligate partners to engage or collaborate, but it requires them to respond to requests from a mayor. We hope that that triggers a process where most parties will be willing to engage or move forward.

Amendment 294 would allow the Mayor of London to specify local partners where other mayors should not, which would lead to a piecemeal and unclear definition of local partners, risking confusion at all level. Defining local partners in regulation allows for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and will provide a single, coherent definition across England that can be understood by both mayors and local partners.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I understand what she is saying, but we have seen a contradiction from the Government on Second Reading as well as in Committee. Is the meaning that they want to go a full devolution power and have mayors in power to make decisions for their local people? I think it is accepted that, across different geographical areas, there will be different local partners, so why are the Government being so prescriptive and removing the role of the mayor to govern their own corresponding responsibilities?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The regulation, when drafted, will be permissive, because we recognise that it will be different in different places. Through the regulation, we are trying to ensure that it is proportionate. We are also trying to make sure that the scope is drawn as broadly as possible in a way that makes sense for the mayor. I come back to the point that this is not a compulsion to be around the table; it is to trigger a process that means that if a public utility is required around the table, they have to engage. Even if the engagement is to say no which we would hope it would not be, it forces a process of engagement. We think that gives the mayor an additional tool to get the right people around the table to drive the change they want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Business organisations, whether small businesses, the Confederation of British Industry or chambers of commerce, will inevitably be around the table when a mayor worth their salt is making economic decisions and driving forward strategic partnerships.

The Government believe that as part of that partnership between workers, businesses and civic leaders, it is right that trade unions are firmly around the table. They give voice and expression not only to their individual members but to key concerns for workers across the piece. We do not resile from that; we think it is critical.

[Paul Holmes]

Correct me if I am wrong—it may be very rare, but sometimes I am—but earlier, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire asked the Minister for assurance regarding the ability of a mayor to engage with businesses to further economic regeneration across the country. Why has the Minister decided to legislate for mayors to consult with trade unions, but not—to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—with private business, which represents vastly more economic output and employers than the trade unions do? Why is she doing that?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I have finished my remarks.

[Paul Holmes]

I want to make some brief remarks agreeing with my hon. Friend. I have negotiated with trade unions and I have a huge amount of respect for them. When I was cabinet member for children’s services and learning at Southampton city council, a hugely unionised organisation, I was responsible for negotiating some of the pay contracts for our really important staff. I had a very productive relationship with my trade union representatives and held them in great respect, as my hon. Friend did his when he was deputy leader at a local authority.

We are not anti-trade union, but we do not believe that there should be political favouritism for organised labour, where private business is essentially left out. Why does the Minister believe that organised labour, who, I must say, have intrinsic links with the Labour party movement, should have that prestigious and privileged seat at the table with the elected mayor? The Minister has resisted legislating for a mayor to have a duty to ensure that private business is included around that table; she is leaving that to the direction and the whim of the mayor elected at the time. Why can she not take that same attitude towards organised labour and the union movement?

Finally, I would say that this is very closely bordering on abuse of the political system. We on this side of the House firmly believe that. [Interruption.] Government Members can chunter as much as they want, but I ask them again: when they go around their constituencies and speak to private businesses that have been drastically affected by the decisions of this Government, will they say to those businesses, “It is absolutely fine that, when you get a mayor, you will not be legislatively consulted, but the unionised, organised labour workforce will be guaranteed a prestigious seat at that table”? That is a clear blurring of the lines on what a mayor should be doing. That is why we in the Opposition are opposed to that legislative proposition. As I have said clearly, Conservatives—including any Conservative Government and my hon. Friends and I here today—are not anti-trade union, but the measure gives legislative access on a dangerous scale, and that is why we will be opposing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is welcome to intervene if she wants to.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I do not want to drag out this debate any further, but I think the hon. Gentleman is over-egging this. This is a duty to collaborate; it is not about decision making. Any mayor worth their salt will collaborate with key businesses in their local area if they want to drive economic outcomes. We have also been clear that we will put in place regulations outlining the set of partners, including local partners.

I hope the Opposition understand that it is not always second nature for mayors to decide that they want to collaborate with trade unions. [Interruption.] Well, our view is that they should, because we think it is important that workers are part of that collaboration and work as part of that partnership.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is absolutely correct when she says that a mayor should, if they are worth their salt, discuss and collaborate with business. I entirely agree with her on that, but she has not ensured that that is enshrined in legislation. What she has enshrined in legislation is that organised labour and the trade unions should be around that table. If she really believed in equal access for everybody who contributes to economic output in our regions, she would include private business on the face of the Bill.

As I say, this is a dangerous precedent to set; it is favouritism. It is privileged access to the mayor for organised labour, and I think that is a bad thing. If the Minister wanted to give organised labour parity with private business, which delivers economic growth across this country, she would have our support, but she certainly does not have our support for the privileged position that she is putting our trade union movement in.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear that if a mayor is serious about driving economic outcomes in a way that works for their community, they must collaborate with a set of partners. That 100% includes private business, and will include anchor organisations, but it should also include trade unions. The duty to collaborate will be broadly set. We will lay out the set of partners in regulation, but that will be dictated by the feedback that we get from mayors. I therefore ask that amendment 296 be withdrawn.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 16th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s broader point. There is absolutely a piece for us to think about regarding energy infrastructure. Having served as Minister for energy consumers, thinking about how we drive warm homes and the interaction with the grid, there is clearly a big piece of work that needs to be done there, and a role for strategic authorities to play in thinking about that planning in an integrated way.

The frameworks that amendment 252 refers to are nascent and likely to be quite high level, but the principle is that as strategic planning authorities think about their spatial energy plan they should think about both how they effectively use the land and the energy and transport infrastructure that is in place.

I agree with the intent behind amendment 304. I refer hon. Members to the national planning policy framework, which rightly places greater emphasis on the use of previously developed land, and we want to see mayoral development orders used to support urban regeneration. On those points, we are completely aligned. However, we should not over-constrain mayors. We want legislative flexibility to allow a mayor to use a range of land types across their area. Where an urban extension or a new town is the appropriate thing, we do not want to bind the hands of mayoral strategic authorities and stop them being able to use the right land for the right development.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is right to say that the NPPF outlines previously developed land, but it does not include density, so it is not necessarily relevant to this amendment. We seek an incentivisation of densification: does she agree with that policy basis?

[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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I completely disagree. I have been having conversations, for example, with our strategic combined authorities that are going through the process. The difference between this Government and the last is that we have created a clear sense of the powers and the economic opportunities that areas can take forward. Take, for example, our current devolution priority area. I am the new Minister, and I am having the first set of conversations with them. Every single one is excited and enthusiastic about the prospect. At the moment, the demand for devolution deals is outstripping our ability to respond, because we have attached to them clear powers, access to funding and the ability to drive the change that we want to see in those areas. So I completely reject the premise that places are being driven to do this.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

There is a risk here that we are conflating what is actually happening on the ground. The Minister is absolutely right, and no one can argue that this Government have not been clear about the structures that they want to put forward. However, to say that there is a demand from local authorities requesting devolution is stretching it a bit, because it is quite clear out there—particularly in my area, in Hampshire and the Solent—that this Government have said to them, “You have to do this; otherwise we are going to force it on you.” That is not locally led, is it?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I spoke to the leaders of Hampshire and the Solent just last week, and they were unanimously enthusiastic about what was being proposed, because they could see the opportunity. I am pleased that it is being voted on, and ultimately it is for places to come forward. What we have said to them is, “If you go through this journey, there are powers that you can draw down that will allow you to drive change in your areas.” The strategic authorities, combined authorities and constituent authorities can see the economic prospect. They see what is happening in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and the west midlands, and they want that for their residents. That is absolutely right, and what we are doing is enabling and supporting that.

Let me talk about the backstop power provided here. We do not expect to use it, which is why it does not come into force at Royal Assent; it is there if we need to draw on it. The only reason it is there—because we think the demand and the momentum created by devolution will do the job for us—is in the instance where there are blockages. That means when constituent authorities that want to move forward are being resisted by a particular authority, we give ourselves the ability to intervene. The reason we are doing that is because we do not want any residents to be left out. We do not want areas to be devolution deserts, not being able to benefit from the economic opportunities and prospects provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is absolutely right that we say that, in order to drive economic success in particular areas, there are powers that relate to economic drivers and levers that we want, and there is an investment fund that can be deployed at that functional level. I will not resile from that; it is absolutely the right thing to do. We are clear with places that we think a strategic authority operating at a functional geography is the way to unlock their economic potential, and we are building powers alongside that. Places that want to take it up absolutely can. At the moment they are queuing up to do so, and I am incredibly happy about that.

I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for Hamble Valley for not getting on in support of his area, which is enthusiastic for this and moving forward. Ultimately, there is momentum around devolution because the benefits of it are being seen already. It is not theoretical; it is not on paper. We are seeing it in our areas, and I want it for every part of the country, not just the ones that have gone through the journey.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister should be very careful about attributing motives to myself that are not there. I am very supportive of the fact that Hampshire and the Solent and will have a mayor. Hopefully, it will be a Conservative mayor, as that will drive the economy going forward. I want to press the point that we can see how divisive this is in the fact that three different versions of local government reform are being proposed. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were told, in this Government policy, that if they did not go ahead and embrace devolution, it would be forced on them in a way they may not like. That is not locally led; it is compulsion, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I do not have those figures, but we can write to the hon. Member with them. However, the principle remains that the power is there. It is within the gift of constituent authorities; it is not being imposed by Government. If there is a name change that the combined authority wants to take forward, it can take it forward. We have seen that in Liverpool and South Yorkshire. There is no constraint from us. It is a determination for, and with the consent of, the constituent authorities. It is within the gift of Hampshire and the Solent to make that change.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister says that it is not the Government who are making sure that it happens. I accept that. However, having been in her position for only a short time—that is not her fault, as the fickle finger of fate has rested it on her shoulders—she may not know that the negotiation process that has taken place among the local authorities in Hampshire has not been smooth. There has been an overarching view that the county council, which has rushed towards accepting this devolution notwithstanding the impacts of the Government’s decision to push it forward, has not worked collaboratively. There is a wish for devolution, but in the minutiae it has been a very county council-dominated process.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne says, the reason that there has not been a huge uptake in response to the consultation is the flawed nature of the decision-making process. I ask the Minister not to rest on the consultation responses, because as my hon. Friend says, a number of people on the Isle of Wight simply did not bother to respond. It is not about the make-up of a geographical devolution settlement; it is about a name. I ask her to listen to the elected representatives on the Isle of Wight who serve in this House, who have asked for it, and to consider it again.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I am not sure that I can beat the excellent oratory of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, but I want to add some context in my own style on why this clause is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion has adequately and expertly addressed why there may be need for overlap in different local situations. She is absolutely correct to say that there have been instances where that overlap has been dealt with in an orderly manner and has been sorted within the usual confines of the democratic mechanisms we currently have.

All the way through the Bill, which I think has admirable aims, the Minister and the Government have said, “Let local people decide.” Now, local people presumably have elected those mayors or those MPs who now might want to be a mayor; I declare an interest here, as this clause will stop me running for the Hampshire and the Solent mayoralty. I will not cry in front of the Minister, but it will mean that my hon. Friends here would have to listen to some of my more mundane speeches for the next three or four years.

Local people have elected their MPs and they should have the right to determine whether those MPs are the people they want to be the mayors. The hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), served as a mayor from 2018 to 2022. At no point did anybody on the Labour side of the House say that he was not good enough to do both jobs at the same time. Ken Livingstone was a mayor and a Member of Parliament from 2000 to 2001. I do not think anybody who was on the Labour side of the House at the time—I grant that many of the Members on that side of the Committee Room were not in the House at the time—was saying that he could not do two jobs at the same time.

This clause just seems very restrictive. If an election is going ahead and a city or region says, “Actually, we do not want you to be our mayor—we want you to remain an MP”, that person will not win the election. The Minister has said many times today that, on elections and democracy, local people should have their say. I find it strange that we seem to be taking quite a restrictive measure on who can and cannot stand in a democratic event, decided democratically by local people, for candidates who, presumably, are local too. I have some concern that this is overreach.

I also think that MPs are generally sensible—I do not want to create breaking news here, but they are generally sensible and, as the Minister said in the context of mayors setting council tax precepts, they are also not immune to the moods and feelings of the local people that they serve. If a local MP wants to stand for election as mayor, they have the right to say that to their constituents. If they get a massive kickback from their constituents, they either will not win the mayoralty or they will not stand.

Local MPs should have the right to make that decision. Local people in that constituency or that region should have the right to say that they do not want that person; or that they might want that person, and allow that person to stand down from Parliament at a time of their choosing, if they are allowed to stand for the mayoralty, and resist the cost of a sudden burst of by-elections to this House. Let local people decide. Let local politicians be local. If they are not wanted, they will not be voted in.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for their comments, and I have some sympathy with the arguments made. However, in a world where we are giving greater powers to mayors, which is the process we are going through with this devolution Bill, the idea that someone can exercise those functions to the best of their ability alongside the very important role we all do as MPs is a stretch. It is right for residents and constituents that we say, “If you are elected as a mayor, you ought to be doing that job full time.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are trying to create empowered mayors with huge responsibility over transport, housing, infrastructure and skills. That is a full-time job—bigger even, candidly, than that of an individual Minister. It is absolutely right that they should, if elected to do that job, be doing that job. Hon. Members have made important points about how we get the transition right in order not to have disruption. I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the history of local and national government and the precedent that Ministers used to resign their seats. We will reflect on that and think about how we get the transition right.

[Paul Holmes]

My intervention will be very brief. I am slightly burnt by my experience on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, where the Minister constantly said that they would reflect, and we never heard back from them until after the Committee had finished. May I seek assurance from the Minister—she does not need to give an answer today—that, on the point of the immediacy of the vacation of the office, she will come back to us in writing to give us the steer of her reflections and what actions she will take in regard to these concerns, if any? Will she commit to doing that before the Committee rises?

[The Chair]

I can see the Minister is nodding already.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Q I have a quick follow-up question, particularly to Councillor Hicks: would it be fair to say that the policy on the local government reorganisation is a soft target, certainly, but it was portrayed as a hard target to local authority leaders at the time?

Matthew Hicks: We certainly felt in the beginning that Suffolk, with a population of 750,000, was right in the middle of the range and would be an ideal candidate for one unitary.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Q I have a question for Councillors Bentley and Hicks first on unitarisation, and then, if I may, a question to Councillor Craig on strategic authorities. Obviously you are going through the process of working hard with colleagues to put together a proposal for unitarisation. I am really interested in your perspectives and insights about how you—because we are putting it in the hands of local areas to do the heavy lifting—and we get that right. Critically, we are not doing this for fun; we are doing it because we fundamentally believe it will drive better services and better outcomes. I am interested in your perspectives, from your individual areas, about the sorts of impact that you think we can deliver if we get this right.

Kevin Bentley: Thank you, and welcome to your new role; I am sure we will be seeing a lot of each other the coming months, Minister.

In Essex, there are 15 councils. If you want to look at councils of any shape or size, come to Essex; we pretty much have them all, and a lot of them, as well. And while there are four different business cases coming from Essex—and you would expect that, as it is a huge county in terms of population and people have differing views—each has been done thoughtfully and carefully. The overriding message is that the 15 councils are made up of all political parties and none, and there is common cause. No one has fallen out. There is no argument. There is no row going on at all. We meet regularly in something we call the Essex leaders and chief execs meeting—I am talking about Essex here; I will talk about the LGA in just a second—and certainly our experience is of collaboration.

We may have different views from the Government for them to consider, but the understanding that we need to do things differently is really there. That goes for all political parties. We understand that the current system cannot carry on, because it will just run out of money if we are not careful. We are already seeing that.

The one thing to say is that everyone across the sector should be allowed to have their view and decide what is right for their area. When I started as a leader, the one question that I continually asked myself, and still do today, is, “What does this mean for the public and does it improve their lives?” Unless you can answer that question affirmatively, you should stop. So far, for me the answer has been yes—yes, we can do it better than we currently do it—and I think colleagues are in the same position.

It is also important that our colleagues in local government across the country consult not only with each other but with the public to ask whether we can do this better. If they believe we cannot, okay, but I think they will find that we can. The most important thing is to not lose sight of why we are doing it. It is for the public and the people of this country, not for politicians and councils.

Matthew Hicks: I would echo that. For us, it is about building on the experience of others who have been through this. We have been out to places such as Cumbria to ask for advice on what they learned and what works well. We have learned how others delivered on business cases or struggled to deliver on some of the items they included.

Ultimately, for us, this is about a new and more positive relationship between local government and our residents and businesses; it is about doing things differently. With the two cases in Suffolk, ultimately, everyone has the interests of our residents at heart. The big issue is how you analyse the data that people are using, and the forecasting. That is where we are seeing the major variants, but the delivery and what we want to deliver are not too different.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Q If I can pick up on the point about scrutiny and accountability, there are two parts to my question. Some evidence has been raised in these sessions about the connection between people and communities and the mayors who serve them. We have had a decade and a half of this experiment, so I am interested in your views on whether the claim of a democratic deficit—which I do not buy—is about something genuine in the experience we have seen.

Secondly, we need to ensure strong scrutiny and accountability for any institution. We heard in the last session about some of the challenges with local government accountability and scrutiny. I am interested in your views on what we need to do to strengthen that and the provisions in the Bill to build on that.

Zoë Billingham: First, to your point on the democratic engagement of mayors, I do think, and I stand by the evidence that suggests this, that the more powers that mayors get, the more they are able to demonstrate to the public how they can tailor and do things differently in their places, according to what the public want. That is essential for the responsiveness of democracy; therefore, I also think that votes at 16 and the return to a supplementary vote are helpful additional aspects to this Bill, in terms of demonstrating that the Government are serious about broadening engagement with mayoral combined authorities.

I would also pick up the proposal in the Bill for neighbour area committees. Something along those lines is essential. We know that, as currently drafted, the Bill is proposing full unitarisation of local authorities to a 500,000 population level, which is far larger than we see in local government in our European counterparts, for example. There is a question about how those unitaries engage with those communities, not on an ad hoc basis, but as an ongoing community conversation. I wonder whether, for instance, the neighbourhood area committees could be predominantly made up of community representatives and young people, so that they do not replicate the district level that the Bill proposes to abolish, but instead create an ongoing, democratic renewal at that local level.

Secondly, to pick up your point on scrutiny, this is essential. If you speak to local leaders, mayors included, they are absolutely game for it. It is not something that central Government are imposing; it is an essential part of both enabling the further devolution of power and resources, and ensuring that the current model is not undermined because there is not enough scrutiny in place for what is already there. I totally support the proposal for a local public accounts committee—we have built on that idea ourselves at IPPR North, looking at mayoral accounts committees, which bring together overview and scrutiny, and local public accounts committees.

We think that those committees need to represent place leadership; this is no longer narrow lines of inquiry about certain budgetary lines or solely about audit. It must be much broader. This is about place-based leadership, not only by the mayor and the mayoral cabinet, but by other public leaders locally who could be brought in front of such committees. We think that is a really important thing to go hand in hand with the future of devolution.

Professor Denham: May I pick up and develop a couple of those points? There is no doubt that the Bill has a danger of an upwards movement of power: things are being moved from local authorities to strategic authorities and mayors have more autonomy. I understand why that is being done, but the Bill needs to build in a healthy counterpoint to that. I, too, would go beyond the neighbourhood governance proposal, which sounds a bit narrow and a bit prescriptive, as though the same model will work everywhere.

Sir David and I proposed what we called community empowerment plans, and we proposed them even when we did not know there was going to be local government reorganisation. The strategic authorities should have a legal duty to set out how they will engage with local people across the whole range of activity—I should have declared an interest, in that I am the honorary president of the Hampshire Association of Local Councils—

[Paul Holmes]

Hear, hear!

Professor Denham: So I am familiar with town and parish councils, and there are some very good ones, including in Mr Holmes’s constituency. But they are not uniform everywhere within the area, so a single prescriptive approach is unlikely to work.

There has also been, in the last 10 or 15 years, a transformation in our understanding of deliberative, participative engagement with local communities by many local authorities. We need both the strategic authorities and the unitary authorities to set out, in a document that should be challengeable, how they propose to do that. I think that would be useful.

Secondly—I will embarrass her—Zoë has written the best policy paper on local public accounts committees, so I will not say any more about that, except that I agree with Gareth Davies in an earlier panel: the challenge here is not local council audit, but the whole of public spending across a mayoral area. I was delighted to see the new Secretary of State backing the concept of total place, which is something I was involved in as a Minister 15 years ago; but, if that is going to work, you cannot combine that with upwards accountability to departmental accounting officers.

Local authority scrutiny has very good people, but it is not up to the job. You have to create a new local institution, the local public accounts committee and, picking up on what Mayor Houchen said earlier, make the chief executive within the area the local accounting officer. So you have a complete audit model at local level that is not then channelled upwards through departmental accounting officers. I think that is what we need to work towards. Those two things would not only empower local people, but ensure that you have local scrutiny of what is being spent and what is being done with their money.