English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices.

Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution.

As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there.

As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform.

Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale.

Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards.

That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services.

Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today.

We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced.

I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment.

Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments.

Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done.

If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to Government new clause 44 and new schedule 2. These provisions give powers to the Mayor of London to establish a pilot to set up a strategic licensing policy statement, which would cover sections 4 and 5 of the Licensing Act 2003. In summary, that is the sale by retail of alcohol, a licence for the “provision of regulated entertainment” under schedule 1 of the 2003 Act, and

“The provision of late night refreshment licences”—

within the meaning of schedule 2 of the 2003 Act.

I am proud to represent a borough that has some of the best licensed premises in the country. In Shoreditch, Dalston and elsewhere, we have some of the best restaurants in the world. I visited Counter 71 in Shoreditch a little while ago, and they told me how they had hit social media in Japan, which had led to a lot of visitors. If the Minister ever wants to do any outreach on licensing, she is welcome to come to my borough, where she will get the best of the best. But there are also people who chance it and try it on, so it is important that we have licensing rules that local authorities can enforce properly—and that they have the money to do so.

In Hackney, the hospitality industry is a growth area, boosting the economy in the way that the Chancellor wants to see. It is also facing pressures, as all Members will know from their own constituencies. There is a well-worn route on licensing in Hackney that is well understood. We need to support the licensing process, and ensure that there are fees available to cover the costs, while also supporting businesses and ensuring that they can do this with relative ease when they play by the rules—and if they do not play by the rules, ensure that enforcement kicks in.

It is important to lie this Bill alongside the joint industry and Government taskforce, which reported to the Department for Business and Trade on, I think, 6 November. That taskforce and its report plays into some of the proposals that are outlined in the Bill. Some of the concerns that we have in Hackney—I know other inner-London MPs share some of these—are around the potential impacts on pavement licences, which are important to support businesses that want to grow.

In covid, when there was a proposal to rapidly increase pavement licences—later solidified by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—we learnt that there could be real issues without the proper involvement of the community, police and licensing authorities. In that case, it was a rushed process—28 days—to change the rules in the Highways Act 1980 to allow licences to the same level as were provided for internal spaces. It was an unholy alliance of inner-London MPs that managed to eventually get that ameliorated in the Lords. That legislation was done at pace during covid; we have more time to think about it now. But new clause 22 and new schedule 2 have both been tabled at quite late notice.

The length of licences is also an issue, because if licences are allowed to run on too long it can be very complicated to rescind them—it can take 12 months. Although a licence that needs a regular fee, which can be rolled over relatively easily, is a cost on the business, overall, it can be a low fee if the business behaves well. There are measures that many boroughs have introduced to ensure that those that play by the rules are treated fairly.

Although not directly related to the Bill, fees could be part of the wider debate on licensing. Some fees are very low. Temporary events notices, for example, are still £21 each; that would be £37 if they had been uprated. That is still low—barely an hour of an officer’s time. There are examples in Hackney of some licensed premises regularly putting in for temporary events notices.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am inclined to the view that there are two separate issues here. He will have heard my earlier comments about statements being made to this House first and how deeply regrettable it is when statements are made to the media ahead of being announced to the House. However, with specific reference to the Minister’s comments yesterday, I believe they would far better be addressed as a point of debate. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to raise that later on in this afternoon’s debate.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Today I will continue to highlight our concerns on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Labour Government spend a great deal of time telling the country that they are putting power back into the hands of communities and say they are on the side of local leaders and delivering locally led renewal, but when we examine the powers that the Bill actually grants, it is clear very quickly that they risk doing the opposite.

Through this Bill, power is being snatched upwards and away from local voices. It strengthens combined authorities and concentrates power with a statutory authority mayor at the expense of constituent, unitary, parish and town councils. It enables key planning decisions to bypass local authorities and gives Ministers sweeping powers to redraw governance arrangements without genuine local engagement. Local leaders, parish councillors and residents see that, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly see that.

If we are to empower our communities, as this Government promise, this legislation needs to be improved. That is what we seek to do with the amendments we bring forward today, just as we did yesterday. Let me begin with our primary measure, new clause 17. The Government really cannot keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that they want locally led delivery while creating legislation that puts responsibilities on councils without giving them money or support to do the job. That just does not add up. The truth is that without even considering devolution, councils are currently not funded properly. Every single one, regardless of political leadership, is under unprecedented strain, and many are on the brink of effective bankruptcy. Some have declared section 114 notices, and others are warning that they may not last the financial year. Even more are raiding reserves, cutting services to the bone and desperately firefighting rising demand in social care, temporary accommodation and children’s services.

Instead of addressing this crisis with the urgent, national level of investment for which local government was calling out for years under the Conservatives and now this Government, the Government seem committed to perpetuating this problem, albeit now with a different approach of giving to one council by taking from another. We see that clearly in the rather inaptly named fair funding review, which does not increase funding from central Government, but simply redistributes an already insufficient pot. It is a winless exercise dressed up as equality.

Council leaders from across the political spectrum are all deeply worried that this Bill is a continuation of that same approach. It asks councils to do more, take on more and deliver more, all without serious new funding models, and nowhere is that clearer than in west Surrey. This Government have imposed a new local governance model that local leaders have warned will be financially unstable and structurally incoherent. Instead of listening to local authority leaders and residents, the Government pressed ahead with a structure that groups multiple councils facing extreme financial pressure—the legacy of current and former Conservative Administrations—leaving the new West Surrey council with roughly five times the debt of neighbouring East Surrey council.

What is the Government’s answer to the question of how West Surrey council is to manage its significant debt and financial instability? Their answer is that West Surrey should pool its budgets, sell its assets and harmonise council tax. They may as well have suggested tackling the debt with hopes and prayers. We simply cannot redistribute a crisis. We cannot create a strong structure on foundations that are already breaking under debt, demand and chronic underfunding, and that is exactly why our new clause 17 is so vital. If we ignore local leaders and refuse to fund local government properly, we do not empower councils; we set them up to fail. I call on MPs from across this House to back new clause 17 and back our local councils.

Funding alone is not enough; devolution relies on democratic legitimacy. That brings me to new clause 35, which would safeguard the integrity of local democracy by ensuring that residents could hold their leaders to account at the ballot box. Our new clause would ensure that when Government restructure local governance, shift power or redraw boundaries, they must explicitly consider the impact on local elections.

In Surrey this year, as in many places, we have seen clearly what happens when elections are cancelled or postponed. The failing Conservative Administration has been allowed to remain in office not because residents have endorsed them, but because the Government and the local Conservative leadership came together to deny residents their chance to remove them. Based on local by-election results, it is clear that the Administration would have been removed, had the elections taken place in May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We have a lot of speakers this afternoon. If Members make long interventions, we will simply not get through everybody.

[Zöe Franklin]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause.

We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex?

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which returns us to the theme that we need to allow local communities a say in their own destinies. I will leave it to my wonderful colleagues in local government to continue that thought.

We Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the many gaps that we see in the Bill, and they are what our new clauses attempt to plug. Every single one is designed to strengthen the democratic, localist, community-led principles that Ministers say they support. With our new clauses, this English devolution Bill might finally seem to provide the devolution that the Government keep promising us. I urge Members across the House to support these vital amendments, and to give local democracy the respect, the voice and the power that it deserves.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 83, which stands in my name. I thank colleagues for their support for the new clause. I also sincerely thank the Minister and her team for their consistent engagement with me on this landmark piece of legislation—a Bill that will be game-changing for my constituents.

Before I speak to my new clause, which would forge a fairer, safer and better regulated private hire vehicle sector, I want to express my full support for the steps that the Government are taking by introducing national minimum standards. We need to rebuild confidence in a system that so many view as broken. This is about giving local leaders power to decide which drivers operate in their areas, and, most crucially, it is about the safety and wellbeing of passengers and drivers.

Let me deal first with the problem we face. Many Members will have heard from constituents who have raised legitimate concerns that the taxis or private hire vehicles that they see operating in their local areas are actually licensed hundreds of miles away. That is because since 2015 operators have been permitted to contract bookings to another vehicle that could be licensed in a different area. It has coincided with the meteoric rise of national operators such as Uber and Bolt, which are permitted to be licensed in multiple areas. The stark absence of any regulation has led to certain local authorities becoming, as the GMB union has put it,

“a licence factory…creaking at the seams”.

No example underscores that more vividly than the activities of City of Wolverhampton Council. In the first five months of last year alone, the council granted more than 8,500 new taxi licences, which is 30 times more than any other licensing authority in the midlands. This has a real and tangible impact across the whole country. Indeed, in Greater Manchester nearly half of all private hire vehicles are now licensed by local authorities outside its 10 councils, and the city region’s “out of area” figure of more than 12,000 has risen sharply from just under 7,000 in 2023. In my own borough of Rochdale, about 40% of private hire vehicles and taxis are licensed out of area.

This is not just an issue of public perception; it is also about safety and enforcement. For as long as the status quo persists and scores of vehicles are operating out of area, far from the authority that licensed them in the first instance, there will remain a deficit in terms of accountability when incidents take place.

Let me add a caveat by saying, unequivocally, that the vast majority of drivers are law-abiding people. They are integral to our economy and to our society as a whole, and I have been delighted to engage with a great number of them since being elected to this place. However, situations arise in which enforcement becomes necessary, and at present licensing authorities such as my own are unable to take action because of the proliferation of out-of-area operation.